content
stringlengths 1
15.9M
|
|---|
\section*{\refname}}{}{}{}
\usepackage[margin=1.0in,hmarginratio=1:1,top=32mm,columnsep=15pt]{geometry}
\usepackage{color}
\definecolor{dark-gray}{gray}{0.1}
\usepackage{times}
\usepackage{microtype}
\usepackage[english]{babel}
\usepackage[hang, font={footnotesize}, labelfont={bf,up}, textfont={sf,up}]{caption}
\usepackage{booktabs}
\usepackage{mwe}
\usepackage{enumitem}
\setlist[itemize]{noitemsep}
\usepackage{abstract}
\renewcommand{\abstracttextfont}{\normalfont}
\AtBeginDocument{\renewcommand{\abstractname}{}}
\usepackage{titlesec}
\renewcommand\thesection{\Roman{section}.}
\renewcommand\thesubsection{\thesection\Alph{subsection}.}
\renewcommand\thesubsubsection{\thesubsection\arabic{subsubsection}.}
\titleformat{\section}[block]{\normalfont\sffamily\bfseries}{\thesection}{1em}{\MakeUppercase}{}
\titleformat{\subsection}[block]{\normalfont\sffamily\bfseries}{\thesubsection}{1em}{}{}
\titleformat{\subsubsection}[block]{\normalfont\sffamily\bfseries}{\thesubsubsection}{1em}{}{}
\titlespacing*{\section}{0.0em}{1em}{0.25em}
\titlespacing*{\subsection}{0.0em}{1em}{0.25em}
\usepackage{indentfirst}
\usepackage{fancyhdr}
\pagestyle{fancy}
\fancyhf{}
\lhead{\color{dark-gray}\textit{}}
\rhead{ {\it Submitted to ANS/NT (2021). LA-UR-21-20901} }
\renewcommand{\headrulewidth}{0pt}
\renewcommand{\footrulewidth}{0pt}
\fancypagestyle{plain}{
\fancyhf{}
\lhead{\color{dark-gray}\textit{}}
\rhead{ {\it Submitted to ANS/NT (2021). LA-UR-21-20901} }
}
\renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\textit{\alph{footnote}}}
\usepackage{titling}
\usepackage{hyperref}
\hypersetup{
backref=true,
pagebackref=true,
hyperindex=true,
colorlinks=true,
breaklinks=true,
urlcolor= black,
linkcolor=blue,
bookmarks=true,
bookmarksopen=false,
filecolor=black,
citecolor=blue
}
\pretitle{\begin{center}\large\bfseries}
\posttitle{\end{center}}
\title{\vspace{-0.3in} \sffamily{Criticality Experiments with Fast 25 and 49 Metal and Hydride Systems During the Manhattan Project} }
\author{%
\normalsize Jesson Hutchinson\thanks{corresponding author: <EMAIL>}, Jennifer Alwin, Alexander McSpaden, William Myers, Michael Rising, and Rene Sanchez \\[-0.5ex]
\normalsize Los Alamos National Laboratory \\[-0.5ex]
\normalsize Los Alamos, NM 87545
}
\date{ }
\renewcommand{\maketitlehookd}{%
\begin{abstract}
\vspace*{-0.5in}
\noindent {\normalfont\textbf{Abstract}\textemdash}
\noindent
Criticality experiments with $^{235}$U (metal and hydride) and $^{239}$Pu (metal) were performed during the Manhattan Project. Results from these experiments provided necessary information for the success of the Manhattan Project. These experiments have been previously described in compilations made after the Manhattan Project~\cite{HisExp_1,HisExp_2,HisExp_3}, but those works are either lacking in technical details or are not publicly available. This work aims to provide detailed information while showcasing the enduring impact of these experiments 75 years after they were performed. Furthermore, we use modern computational methods embodied in the MCNP6 code and ENDF data to analyze and interpret these historic measurements. The world's first four criticality accidents are also discussed, as lessons learned from these helped shape the field of criticality experiments.
\end{abstract}
}
\begin{document}
\maketitle
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:Intro}
When the Los Alamos laboratory was formed in April 1943, Fermi had already achieved a critical configuration in CP-1~\cite{HisExp_4}, but many questions remained related to criticality. As stated by Robert Serber in the Los Alamos Primer~\cite{HisExp_5}, “these values of critical masses are still quite uncertain, particularly those for 49\footnote{During the Manhattan Project, a notation in which the last integer of the Z number and A number are combined to refer to a nuclide. For example 25, 28, and 49 refer to $^{235}$U, $^{238}$U, and $^{239}$Pu respectively. This notation is retained throughout this work. $^{240}$Pu was called both 40 and 410, but this work will refer to it only as 40.}. To improve our estimates requires a better knowledge of the properties of bomb materials and tamper: neutron multiplication number, elastic and inelastic cross-sections, overall experiments on tamper materials. Finally, however, when materials are available, the critical masses will have to be determined by actual test.” These types of measurements were then performed during 1944 and 1945, as described below and in our companion paper on the Water Boiler and Dragon~\cite{HisExp_6}. The results of these criticality experiments were so important that Oppenheimer stated to “notify him at once if any serious change in the estimated critical mass should be indicated by the experiments”~\cite{HisExp_9}.
The focus of this work is on two specific experiments: one using metal $^{235}$U and $^{239}$Pu in spherical geometry and one utilizing cubes of $^{235}$U in hydride form. These were the first experiments performed in the world with large (\textgreater100 g) quantities of pure nuclear material. This material did not start arriving until late 1944 and experiments were performed as new material kept arriving in Los Alamos. Many of these experiments were subcritical, as there was not enough material available yet to obtain criticality. Both experiments included bare (no reflector) measurements as well as measurements with various reflectors. All of the bare experiments, however, were subcritical and no bare critical assemblies were constructed until 1951 for 25~\cite{HisExp_10,HisExp_11}, and 1954 for 49~\cite{HisExp_12,HisExp_13}. These experiments helped answer key questions necessary for the Manhattan Project to be successful.
This paper includes information on the background and theory associated with criticality experiments, early nuclear data experiments, and a description of the metal and hydride criticality experiments. Information of early criticality accidents is also presented. Lessons learned from these accidents are as important as the experiments themselves, since they resulted in the establishment of a critical experiment capability. Last, the continued impact of these experiments and accidents is discussed. References in this work include many source documents that may not be easily accessible by the public.
\section{Background and Theory}
\label{sec:Background}
During the Manhattan Project, multiplication ($M$) was defined as
\begin{equation}
M=1+\frac{N_f}{N_0}(\nu-1-\alpha)
\label{eq:M}
\end{equation}
where $N_f$ is the number of fissions produced by $N_0$ source neutrons, $\nu$ is the number of neutrons produced per fission, and $\alpha$ is the ratio of capture to fission~\cite{HisExp_14,HisExp_15}. Note that today this is often referred to as “total multiplication” and relates to the effective multiplication factor via
\begin{equation}
M=\frac{1}{1-k_{eff}}
\label{eq:keff}
\end{equation}
Fermi established the approach-to-critical method used at CP-1. As they were building CP-1, Fermi and others were taking measurements of the neutron density in center of the pile with indium foils. The activity of these foils was measured and recorded as a function of the number of natural uranium layers as they were building CP-1. The inverse of the geometry corrected activity of the indium foils was plotted as a function of natural uranium layers. The plot clearly predicted the layer (amount of natural uranium) at which CP-1 was going to go critical~\cite{HisExp_4}. A similar method is used to this day for assembling fissile material, such as the experiments performed at the National Criticality Experiments Research Center (NCERC) in Nevada~\cite{NCERChayes2016ANTPC}. For this method, relative multiplication is approximated by measuring count rates of two systems, often using external detectors, via
\begin{equation}
\frac{C}{C_0}=\frac{\epsilon S M \Omega}{\epsilon_0 S_0 M_0 \Omega_0}
\label{eq:approach}
\end{equation}
where $C$ is the detector count rate, $S$ is the source emission rate, $\Omega$ is the detector solid angle, and $\epsilon$ is the detector intrinsic efficiency. Here the 0 subscript refers refers to an initial configuration, and the multiplication is relative to the initial configuration as shown in the equation. This initial configuration may be a system with no material (other than a source), which will have $M=1$. Ideally, for properly designed experiments, the following terms will not change as the configuration changes (through addition of fuel or reflector material for example): $S$, $\Omega$, and $\epsilon$. If those terms are constant, then Equation~\ref{eq:approach} reduces to
\begin{equation}
\frac{C}{C_0}=\frac{\epsilon S M \Omega}{\epsilon_0 S_0 M_0 \Omega_0}=\frac{M}{M_0}=M
\label{eq:approach_simple}
\end{equation}
and the multiplication can be estimated. If the multiplication of two configurations are measured (often one of the configurations may have no fissionable material and therefore $M = 1$), then the reciprocal of the multiplication ($1/M$) can be plotted and the critical configuration (often critical mass, but it could be critical radius or reflector thickness) can be estimated.
Once the critical mass was determined, it was often convenient to estimate the equivalent mass for different densities and enrichments. During the Manhattan Project, the following empirical estimates were given~\cite{HisExp_16,HisExp_17}:
\begin{equation}
critical~mass \sim \rho^{-1.4} C^{-1.8}
\label{eq:crit_mass_correction}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
critical~radius \sim \rho^{-0.8} C^{-0.6}
\label{eq:crit_radius_correction}
\end{equation}
where $\rho$ is the density and $C$ is the enrichment. It is unclear why the exponent for $\rho$ is $-$1.4 and not $-$2; today (and for at least the last 40 years), it is common knowledge that critical mass varies inversely with the square of the density. That being said, much less information was available, as these were the first measurements ever performed of this type. This is investigated in Section~\ref{sec:spheres}. Additional corrections were also made to account for other parameters (such as geometry effects or reflector density).
The two experiments described in this work occurred in 1944 and 1945 and evolved as more material was made available. These experiments took place after the Water Boiler~\cite{HisExp_6} had started up (since that experiment required less nuclear material). These experiments utilized much of the same equipment and personnel as the Water Boiler experiments.
A large amount of coordination was needed to achieve these criticality experiments. Due to the importance and the complexity of this coordination, Oppenheimer and the technical board generally advised on the prioritization and scheduling of these experiments (which took place during meetings in Oppenheimer’s office, often at night)\footnote{See “Minutes of Technical and Scheduling Conference” meeting notes by Samuel Allison from 1944-1945.}. Coordination was required in regards to receipt of material from various sites, metallurgy, design of experiments, execution of experiments, measurement equipment, and theoretical calculations (in addition to other considerations). Often a prioritized list of experiments was established, and sometimes not all the experiments were performed, as other uses of the same nuclear material were deemed to be of higher priority.
\section{Nuclear Data}
\label{sec:ND}
At the start of the Manhattan Project, the collective knowledge of nuclear data was limited. As an example, the number of neutrons produced per fission ($\nu$) was unknown for fission in 49 and for fast fission in 25~\cite{HisExp_2,HisExp_5,HisExp_18}. It was understood from the beginning of the Manhattan Project that understanding of the properties of fission and radiation interaction in matter was required for success. These measurements started in 1943 and were often compared to hand calculations. Many of the measurements were compared to measurements taking place at other laboratories, such as the Metallurgical Laboratory in Chicago. The majority of these measurements were conducted with small quantities of material (often milligram samples), and the estimates would be refined based on the material used and the techniques used for data analysis. It was very important to have repeatable measurements as the nuclear data was so uncertain and new at that time.
The number of neutrons produced per fission ($\nu$) was of extreme importance (and remains important to this day) as it will affect criticality more than any other nuclear data parameter. Many measurements of $\nu$ were performed during the Manhattan Project. A subset of these include measurements of 23~\cite{HisExp_19}, 25~\cite{HisExp_20}, 40 spontaneous fission~\cite{HisExp_21}, and 49~\cite{HisExp_19,HisExp_20,HisExp_22,HisExp_23}. Often 25 was (and still is) used as a standard for relative comparisons. Figure~\ref{Fig_F1_nu40_nu25} shows various measurements of $\nu_{49}/\nu_{25}$ performed during the Manhattan Project~\cite{HisExp_22,HisExp_23,HisExp_24,HisExp_25,HisExp_26,HisExp_27,HisExp_28} and compares them against ENDF/B-VIII.0~\cite{ENDF8}, the latest US nuclear data library release. It can be seen that the last four data points in Figure~\ref{Fig_F1_nu40_nu25} are in good agreement with the current ENDF/B-VIII.0 data.
\begin{figure*}[htb!]
\centering\includegraphics{figures/nu49vs25.jpg}
\caption{Ratio of the number of neutrons emitted from fission ($\nu$) in 49 to 25. Data points were all measured during the Manhattan Project. The shaded region is 1.19–1.20, the ratio from ENDF/B-VIII.0~\cite{ENDF8} (assuming 1–2 MeV incident neutron energy).}
\label{Fig_F1_nu40_nu25}
\end{figure*}
Fission cross-sections were (and still are) also of great importance. During the Manhattan Project, the personnel knew of resonances and were able to estimate some of them~\cite{HisExp_20}. It was known that some resonances could not be resolved at that time~\cite{HisExp_29}. The majority of the fission cross-section measurements were on induced fission in 25~\cite{HisExp_14,HisExp_20,HisExp_21,HisExp_28,HisExp_31,HisExp_32,HisExp_33,HisExp_34,HisExp_35,HisExp_36,HisExp_37,HisExp_38,HisExp_43}. In addition, measurements were performed for 23~\cite{HisExp_19,HisExp_21}, 28~\cite{HisExp_14,HisExp_20,HisExp_32,HisExp_36,HisExp_39}, 37~\cite{HisExp_32,HisExp_39}, and 49~\cite{HisExp_28,HisExp_31,HisExp_32} fission. 25 was again used as a standard, and the ratio of induced fission in 49 to 25 was often reported~\cite{HisExp_20,HisExp_23,HisExp_41}.
Other reaction cross-sections investigated included capture and scattering. Capture was investigated for many elements, including gold~\cite{HisExp_25,HisExp_43,HisExp_44,HisExp_45,HisExp_46} (which is a standard to this day), 25, and 28~\cite{HisExp_33,HisExp_47,HisExp_48}. One parameter often reported is $\alpha$, which is the ratio of capture to fission. This was measured for 25~\cite{HisExp_49} and 49~\cite{HisExp_28}. Similarly, scattering was measured for 25~\cite{HisExp_33,HisExp_50,HisExp_51} and 28~\cite{HisExp_52}, among other nuclides and elements.
Before material was available to investigate criticality, semi-integral measurements were already estimating the effectiveness of different reflector materials~\cite{HisExp_36}. The materials that were the most effective at reflecting neutrons were studied often (theory was developed to understand this effectiveness)~\cite{HisExp_53}. These included Tuballoy (Tu, natural uranium)~\cite{HisExp_33,HisExp_35,HisExp_45,HisExp_54,HisExp_55,HisExp_56}, beryllium (Be)~\cite{HisExp_57}, tungsten (W)~\cite{HisExp_33,HisExp_35,HisExp_45,HisExp_54,HisExp_55,HisExp_56}, tantalum (Ta)~\cite{HisExp_33,HisExp_45,HisExp_54,HisExp_56}, and lead (Pb)~\cite{HisExp_33,HisExp_35,HisExp_45,HisExp_54,HisExp_55,HisExp_56}. Many of these measurements were types of transmission measurements, which are commonly performed to this day.
Spontaneous fission measurements, led by Emilio Segrè, were also performed throughout the Manhattan Project. The most notable measurements were of 40, which confirmed suspicions by Seaborg, Fermi, and others that 40 spontaneous fission was very high~\cite{HisExp_3,HisExp_18,HisExp_59}. These results were the main driver for the reorganization of Los Alamos in 1944~\cite{HisExp_3,HisExp_18,HisExp_59}. In addition to the 40 measurements, additional measurements were performed on 25~\cite{HisExp_31,HisExp_60}, 28~\cite{HisExp_43,HisExp_60}, 48~\cite{HisExp_21}, and 49~\cite{HisExp_35,HisExp_36,HisExp_45}. Comparison between 49 produced in Berkeley (likely 99+\% 49) and Clinton Engineer Works (which would have higher 40 content) is what led to the initial suspicion that 40 spontaneous fission may be very high~\cite{HisExp_35,HisExp_36}. One important note is that these were precision measurements, as any measurements on nuclides that have low spontaneous fission emission require both very long count times and very low, well-characterized background. Additional information on nuclear data from the Manhattan Project is given in a different work in this same issue~\cite{HisExp_74}.
\section{25 and 49 metal spherical experiments}
\label{sec:spheres}
Measurements were performed to estimate the multiplication of 25 and 49 metal spheres. The 25 was in the form of $\beta$-stage (72–81\% enrichment 25)~\cite{HisExp_16} material. These measurements continuously took place from late-1944 until mid-1945 and were performed by R division (led by Robert Wilson).
As additional metal was made available, new measurements were performed, as shown in Table~\ref{Tab:1_sphere_history}. These parts were referred to by their outer diameter (OD), which is also retained here. The initial 25 material had a 0.314 inch ID and 1.5 inch OD, which had a mass of 525 grams. As seen in Table~\ref{Tab:1_sphere_history}, more material was used up to an OD of 4.5 inches, which had a corresponding mass of 14–15 kg (not reported, but calculated using reported dimensions and a density of 18.4 g/cm$^3$). A 5.0 inch OD metal sphere was planned (which would have been the last 25 metal sphere)~\cite{HisExp_9,HisExp_61}. This material was originally scheduled to be available on March 15$\textendash$20, 1945. Due to the 4.5 inch OD results as well as the urgent overall schedule of the Manhattan Project, it was decided that it was not necessary to make the 5.0 inch OD sphere~\cite{HisExp_62}. Some of these hemispheres nested together as shown in Figure~\ref{Fig_F2_sphere_setup}.
\begin{table*}[htb!]
\caption{Material used in 25 and 49 metal sphere experiments.}
\centering{}%
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
\hline
Date of Report & Material Type and OD (inches) & Reflectors\tabularnewline
\hline
\hline
10/1/1944~\cite{HisExp_33} & 25: 1.5" & None\tabularnewline
\hline
11/1/1944~\cite{HisExp_63} & 25: 1.5", 2" & None\tabularnewline
\hline
12/18/1944~\cite{HisExp_67} & 25: 1.5", 2" & None\tabularnewline
\hline
12/20/1944~\cite{HisExp_60} & 25: 1.5", 2", 2.5" & None\tabularnewline
\hline
3/1/1945~\cite{HisExp_21} & 25: 3.5" & None, Tu, WC\tabularnewline
\hline
4/11/1945~\cite{HisExp_14} & 25: 1.5", 2", 2.5". 49: 0.9" & None\tabularnewline
\hline
4/14/1945~\cite{HisExp_61} & 25: 1.5", 2", 2.5", 3.5", 4.5" & None, Tu, WC\tabularnewline
\hline
10/6/1945~\cite{HisExp_16} & 25: 3.5", 4.5" & Tu, WC, WC+Fe\tabularnewline
\hline
10/30/1945~\cite{HisExp_17} & 25: 3.5", 4.5" & Tu, WC\tabularnewline
\hline
\end{tabular}\label{Tab:1_sphere_history}
\end{table*}
\begin{figure*}[htb!]
\centering\includegraphics[width=6in]{figures/25and49spheres.png}
\caption{Setup of the fission chamber measurements (which inferred system multiplication) for the 25 metal sphere experiment reflected by Tu with the Water Boiler as the neutron source (from~\cite{HisExp_16}).}
\label{Fig_F2_sphere_setup}
\end{figure*}
Tuballoy and tungsten carbide (WC) reflection were provided by some experiments. The Tu consisted of two large hemishells with 7.0625 inch ID and 18.125 inch OD (approximately 900 kg); smaller hemishells were used to mate these reflectors to the 3.5 inch or 4.5 inch OD 25 spheres as shown in Figure~\ref{Fig_F2_sphere_setup}. The WC reflectors were constructed from 2.125 x 2.125 x 4.25 inch blocks. It is assumed that these blocks were arranged to form a pseudo-sphere.
When performing criticality experiments with HEU and pure 49, it is necessary to have a source of neutrons in order to obtain statistically significant results in reasonable measurement times. Various neutron sources were used for these experiments. Mock fission sources which utilized a mixture of Po (an $\alpha$ emitter) with either B~\cite{HisExp_64}, BF$_3$~\cite{HisExp_65}, NaBF$_4$~\cite{HisExp_66}, or a mixture of NaBF$_4$ and BeF$_2$~\cite{HisExp_19,HisExp_66} were used~\cite{HisExp_14,HisExp_33,HisExp_60,HisExp_61,HisExp_63}. The mock fission sources improved during the Manhattan Project, and different target materials were chosen to provide a better match of the prompt fission neutron spectrum. Instead of mock fission sources, some experiments utilized the Water Boiler~\cite{HisExp_16,HisExp_17,HisExp_60}. For these experiments, the Water Boiler was operated up to 4.5~kW~\cite{HisExp_17} and a graphite column was utilized with a cadmium (Cd) cone to ensure that only direct neutrons (those that have not undergone scattering) from fission in the Water Boiler reached the spheres, as shown in purple in Figure~\ref{Fig_F2_sphere_setup}.
The criticality experiments on the metal spheres were measured using multiple means. Several experiments used the long counter~\cite{HisExp_14,HisExp_33,HisExp_61,HisExp_63}, which would be external to the spheres. The long counter was designed to have uniform efficiency over a large range of neutron energies and had BF$_3$ inside paraffin~\cite{HisExp_68,HisExP_69}. Other experiments utilized 25 and 28 fission chambers~\cite{HisExp_16,HisExp_60,HisExp_67} and cellophane foils~\cite{HisExp_17} inside the spheres. Geiger-Müller counters were used to measure fission fragments from the cellophane foils. Generally, the long counter was used for the experiments with the mock fission source, and the fission chambers and foils were utilized for the Water Boiler experiments.
Results from the bare experiments are given in Figure~\ref{Fig_F3_sphereM_bare} and for the reflected experiments in Figure~\ref{Fig_F4_sphereM_ref}. The measured results were obtained using Equation~\ref{eq:approach_simple}; since the initial count was generally taken without any material present (just a source), the "$M$" given in the equation is an estimate of the absolute multiplication. The bare results are compared with calculated results (from the same references), but no calculated results were provided for the reflected configurations. It can be seen in these figures that there was a fairly wide range of results. However, it should be noted that even today, when at low multiplication, the uncertainties are often quite large. The uncertainties shown in Figure~\ref{Fig_F3_sphereM_bare} only include statistical uncertainties, and it is known that these measurements would have much larger systematic uncertainties, which were not estimated. Given that multiple detection systems and analysis methods were used, the spread in results shown is not surprising. The calculated results were determined using neutron diffusion theory~\cite{HisExp_15,HisExp_70}.
\begin{figure*}[htb!]
\centering\includegraphics[width=5in]{figures/sphereM_sim.jpg}
\caption{Multiplication (measured and calculated) for the bare 25 sphere experiments. Results are from~\cite{HisExp_14,HisExp_21,HisExp_60,HisExp_61,HisExp_63,HisExp_67} (all reported during the Manhattan Project).}
\label{Fig_F3_sphereM_bare}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[htb!]
\centering\includegraphics[width=5in]{figures/sphereMref_sim.jpg}
\caption{Multiplication (measured) for the bare and reflected 25 sphere experiments. Results are from~\cite{HisExp_16,HisExp_17,HisExp_21,HisExp_61} (all reported during the Manhattan Project).}
\label{Fig_F4_sphereM_ref}
\end{figure*}
Figures~\ref{Fig_F2_sphere_setup} and~\ref{Fig_F3_sphereM_bare} include results using MCNP6.2\textregistered\footnote{MCNP\textregistered ~and Monte Carlo N-Particle\textregistered ~are registered trademarks owned by Triad National Security, LLC, manager and operator of Los Alamos National Laboratory. Any third party use of such registered marks should be properly attributed to Triad National Security, LLC, including the use of the designation as appropriate. For the purposes of visual clarity, the registered trademark symbol is assumed for all references to MCNP within the remainder of this paper.} with ENDF/B-VIII.0 data. These include both criticality eigenvalue (KCODE) and fixed source simulation results. It can be seen that the comparison to measurements is not particularly close. That being said, it should be stressed that the documentation on these experiments is not adequate to create a detailed model. So there certainly could be a bias in the models due to this lack of documentation.
Many corrections or extrapolations were applied to the results. These included corrections for the small central cavity (to allow for fission chambers or foils)~\cite{HisExp_71}, corrections to higher (nominal) densities using Equation~\ref{eq:crit_mass_correction}~\cite{HisExp_16}, corrections to higher enrichment using Equation~\ref{eq:crit_mass_correction}~\cite{HisExp_16}, reflector thickness~\cite{HisExp_16}, and reflector impurities~\cite{HisExp_72}.
Ironically, no bare critical mass estimates were given in the references, even though the measurements can be (and were) used to estimate the bare critical mass. Here we will describe how to perform this estimate with the original data. In order to estimate the bare critical mass, the inverse of the multiplication values in Figure~\ref{Fig_F3_sphereM_bare} were first used to infer a critical mass with the density and enrichment associated with the measured HEU. Then Equation~\ref{eq:crit_mass_correction} was used to estimate the critical mass of pure 25 at nominal density (19 g/cm$^3$). Note that no correction was made for the small central hole; this, however, would have a very small effect on the results (especially those that use larger hemishells). It should also be noted that some of the references are inconsistent in regards to enrichment and density of the 25 spheres; this is particularly important for enrichment, as the critical mass changes about 1 kg per 1\% change in enrichment. The exponent values in Equation~\ref{eq:crit_mass_correction} are different from those used “today”: $-$2 (not $-$1.4) is used for density correction~\cite{HisExp_76} and $-$1.71 (not $-$1.8) was given in the 1950s after more material was available~\cite{HisExp_73}. In the end, these differences in corrections do not matter very much, as shown in Figure~\ref{Fig_F5_crit_mass_and_rad}, which shows the bare 25 critical mass estimates. The critical radius is found using the same data with Equation~\ref{eq:crit_radius_correction} to correct for an ideal sphere of 25 and is shown on the right y-axis.
\begin{figure*}[htb!]
\centering\includegraphics[width=5.2in]{figures/crit_mass+rad.jpg}
\caption{Critical mass and radius estimates for bare 25 (100\% enrichment). These estimates utilize multiplication results from references~\cite{HisExp_14,HisExp_60,HisExp_61,HisExp_63}.}
\label{Fig_F5_crit_mass_and_rad}
\end{figure*}
In order to confirm that the density exponent should indeed be $-$2, a series of MCNP simulations were performed as shown in Figure~\ref{Fig_N1_crit_mass_vs_density}. First the enrichment information of the 1.5 inch OD sphere was used, along with a chosen density, and the radius was varied to find a critical mass. In addition, each of the 25 sphere models (1.5, 2.5, 3.5, and 4.5 inch OD) was used (keeping the geometry constant this time), and the density was varied (shown in blue). This resulted in an exponent of $-$1.979, thus confirming the expected result of $-$2 (not $-$1.4).
\begin{figure*}[htb!]
\centering\includegraphics[width=6in]{figures/CMvsDens.png}
\caption{MCNP simulations of critical mass versus density using the 25 metal sphere specifications.}
\label{Fig_N1_crit_mass_vs_density}
\end{figure*}
It can be seen in Figure~\ref{Fig_F5_crit_mass_and_rad} that the critical mass estimates using these data vary widely. This is not surprising, however, given the spread in the results in multiplication shown in Figure~\ref{Fig_F3_sphereM_bare}. Since the predicted critical is related to the slope of inverse multiplication, a large spread in multiplication will result in a large spread of critical mass. It is known, however, that as the multiplication increases, the accuracy of the critical prediction improves. For this reason, the results in Figure~\ref{Fig_F5_crit_mass_and_rad} were plotted as a function of the largest hemishells used for the critical mass estimate. So the points on the right side of the graph are expected to be more accurate (and have less spread) than the points on the left side. It can be seen that this is indeed the case when compared against today’s ENDF/B-VIII.0 result of 46.36 kg~\cite{ENDF8}. Enough information to provide accurate uncertainty estimates is not available (especially in regards to enrichment). Using the two data points on the far right of Figure~\ref{Fig_F5_crit_mass_and_rad}, we would give a best estimate of the critical mass from these experiments as 50.8 $\pm$ 2.5 kg. These critical mass estimates should also be compared against calculations of 25 critical mass, given in this issue~\cite{HisExp_74}.
The same approach can also be applied to the Lady Godiva experiment performed at Los Alamos in the 1950s~\cite{HisExp_10}. Unlike the deeply subcritical spherical experiments discussed in this section, Lady Godiva was a bare sphere of HEU that was critical. The Lady Godiva experiment had a mass of 52.42 kg, a density of 18.74 g/cm$^3$, and an enrichment of 93.71 wt.\% 25~\cite{HisExp_75}. Using these specifications with Equation 5, we calculate a critical mass of 45.7 kg (using the exponent values in Equation 5). Using the newer exponent values ($-$2 for density and $-$1.71 for enrichment as described above), we calculate a similar value of 45.6 kg. Both of these are very close to the ENDF/B-VIII.0 result of 46.36 kg, which should not be surprising since ENDF data has typically been calibrated to accurately match the Lady Godiva results.
The measurements given in Figure~\ref{Fig_F4_sphereM_ref} were used in Reference~\cite{HisExp_17} to estimate the critical mass for 25 reflected by WC and Tu: these estimates were 13.8 kg and 15.8 kg, respectively. Commonly reported values for these~\cite{HisExp_76} include 16.0 kg for WC and 16.1 kg for Tu. Using MCNP6.2 with ENDF/B-VIII.0 gives 14.96 kg for the critical mass of 100\% 25 at 19 g/cm$^3$ surrounded by infinite WC at 15 g/cm$^3$.
Due to the high toxicity of 49, it was desirable to reduce the number of refabrications and the number of individual pieces~\cite{HisExp_1}. A 49 sphere with 0.9 inch OD was available around March$\textendash$April 1945. Information on fabrication of this 49 is given in a different work in this issue~\cite{HisExp_77}. This resulted in a reported multiplication of 1.197 $\pm$ 0.004. This measurement is significant, as it is the first recorded measurement of multiplication in 49. Prior to this, only small quantities of 49 were available. The exact mass of the sphere is unknown, but it was likely around 100 g.
The metal experiments were utilized to estimate the quantity $\nu-1-\alpha$. This resulted in 25 values shown in Table~\ref{Tab:2_nu-1-alpha}, which also compares them to modern results. Only two results for 49 were given during the Manhattan Project, which were 2.14 $\pm$ 0.1614 and 2.02~\cite{HisExp_1,HisExp_78}; these compare well to a value calculated from modern nuclear data of approximately 2.08 $\pm$ 0.10~\cite{HisExp_42}.
\begin{table}[htb!]
\caption{Material used in 25 and 49 metal sphere experiments.}
\centering{}%
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|}
\hline
$\nu-1-\alpha$ & Reference\tabularnewline
\hline
\hline
1.25 $\pm$ 0.01 & LAMS-163\tabularnewline
\hline
1.13 $\pm$ 0.01 & LAMS-163\tabularnewline
\hline
1.44 $\pm$ 0.02 & LAMS-163\tabularnewline
\hline
1.21 $\pm$ 0.04 & LAMS-163\tabularnewline
\hline
1.08 $\pm$ 0.008 & LAMS-175\tabularnewline
\hline
1.51 $\pm$ 0.05 & LAMS-227\tabularnewline
\hline
1.52 $\pm$ 0.08 & LAMS-227\tabularnewline
\hline
1.51 & LA-140 A\tabularnewline
\hline
1.57 $\pm$ 0.03 & LA-140 A\tabularnewline
\hline
1.54 & LA-464\tabularnewline
\hline
1.52 & LA-1033\tabularnewline
\hline
1.54 $\pm$ 0.08 & LA-1033\tabularnewline
\hline
1.67 & LA-1033\tabularnewline
\hline
1.59 $\pm$ 0.08 & LA-1033\tabularnewline
\hline
1.52 $\pm$ 0.09 & ENDF/B-VIII.0\tabularnewline
\hline
\end{tabular}\label{Tab:2_nu-1-alpha}
\end{table}
\section{Hydride assembly}
\label{sec:hydride}
Criticality experiments with solid uranium hydride were performed in 1944–1945 by group G-1 (led by Otto Frisch underneath division leader Robert Bacher). The use of uranium hydride was logical to the fact that less material would be required due to moderation created by the presence of hydrogen.
The fissile material consisted of UH$_3$ and Styrex (CH$_{1.75}$) in the form of 0.5 inch or 1.0 inch cubes. Initially, enough material was not available to be critical with UH$_{10}$ using a BeO reflector. For this reason, initial experiments had a higher hydrogen content (UH$_{80}$, then UH$_{40}$, UH$_{25}$, UH$_{15}$, until it was possible to go critical with UH$_{10}$). In September 1944, 0.25 kg could be produced in one day but by December this increased to 0.5$\textendash$1 kg~\cite{HisExp_80}. The information presented in this section largely comes from a single report, which was not documented until after the Manhattan Project~\cite{HisExp_81}. The material was reflected by either BeO, Fe, WC, Pb, or Tu. Bare measurements (without a reflector) were also performed.
There were three types of assemblies used in the hydride experiment. The first was the BeO experiment, shown in Figure~\ref{Fig_F6_hydrideBeO}, which consisted of BeO bricks stacked on a stationary reflector in a pseudo-sphere. The lower BeO bricks were on a movable platform. The fuel (and part of the BeO reflector) were in a steel tray that was inserted from the side. While other experiments (such as CP-1 and the Water Boiler) preceded this experiment, this is the first assembly that bears resemblance to the critical assembly machines used today. The operating process and safety functions are very similar to those used in today’s vertical lift assemblies (such as the Comet~\cite{HisExp_82} and Planet~\cite{HisExp_83} assemblies at NCERC). Some of the BeO experiments did not utilize this assembly and were built by hand with no safety features.
\begin{figure*}[htb!]
\centering\includegraphics{figures/hydride.png}
\caption{Hydride experiment assembly for BeO experiments~\cite{HisExp_80}.}
\label{Fig_F6_hydrideBeO}
\end{figure*}
The second type of experiments used spherical Tu, Fe, and Pb reflection (with mating pieces to match the cube geometry). Unlike the BeO experiment, no material was inserted from the side. Here, the lower hemispherical reflector and hydride material were raised pneumatically into the upper hemispherical reflector. The Fe-reflected system is shown in Figure~\ref{Fig_F7_hydrideFe}. For the Tu, Fe, and Pb-reflected experiment, the system was not critical as a sphere. In order to obtain criticality, additional UH$_{10}$ cubes (and reflector blocks) were placed in between the two hemispheres, resulting in an elliptical system. When using the Pb reflector, not enough material was available, and criticality was never obtained.
\begin{figure*}[htb!]
\centering\includegraphics[width=4in]{figures/hydride_Fe_labeled.png}
\caption{Hydride experiment assembly for the Fe, Tu, and Pb experiments (Fe reflector shown)~\cite{HisExp_80}.}
\label{Fig_F7_hydrideFe}
\end{figure*}
Critical mass estimates were performed using a $1/M$ approach-to-critical, as shown in Table~\ref{Tab:3_hydride_PC}. All experiments were operated with personnel present in the room, as these experiments preceded the Daghlian and Slotin criticality accidents, which changed the way that critical experiments are performed~\cite{HisExp_84,HisExp_85,HisExp_86}. The experiments that utilized an assembly, however, would SCRAM if the neutron population in the external BF$_3$ detectors (shown in Figure~\ref{Fig_F7_hydrideFe}) exceeded a set threshold. Table~\ref{Tab:3_hydride_PC} includes comparison to simulations with MCNP6.2 with ENDF/B-VII.1 cross-sections.
\begin{table*}[bth!]
\caption{Hydride predicted critical results.}
\centering{}%
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
Reflector & Predicted critical (number of cubes) & Predicted critical mass (kg) & Simulated critical mass (kg)\tabularnewline
\hline
BeO & 920 & 5.91 $\pm$ 0.09 & 6.5\tabularnewline
\hline
WC & 1770 & 12.62 $\pm$ 0.2 & 12.8\tabularnewline
\hline
Tu & 1610 & 11.9 $\pm$ 0.2 & 10.6\tabularnewline
\hline
Fe & 1900 & 14.2 $\pm$ 0.3 & 14.6\tabularnewline
\hline
Pb & 2120 & 15.8 $\pm$ 0.3 & -\tabularnewline
\hline
Bare & 3240–4250 & 24.2–31.8 & 33.8\tabularnewline
\hline
\end{tabular}\label{Tab:3_hydride_PC}
\end{table*}
Measurements were performed with Mn, Au, and W foils for the BeO- and WC-reflected experiments. These measurements provide spatial information of the neutron flux. A comparison of the measured and simulated (using MCNP6.2) foil activity is shown in Figures~\ref{Fig_F8_hydrideAu}-\ref{Fig_F10_hydrideW}. It can be seen that the Au foil results compare better than the Mn or W results. It is not clear if the poor comparison between measurement and simulations is due to large experiment uncertainties, a measurement bias, or a misunderstanding in the model geometry due to poor documentation. Similar measurements were performed by measuring the UH$_{10}$ parts themselves with a Geiger-Müller counter after going supercritical and ensuring that significant fissions had occurred to yield accurate statistics. These utilized UH$_{10}$ with dimensions of 0.125 x 0.5 x 0.5 inches or 0.25 x 0.5 x 0.5 inches; having smaller components allowed for greater spatial resolution. These experiments were also performed using BeO reflection with Cd in between the core and reflector regions. These results showed the importance of thermal neutron reflection from the BeO, and there was a large amount of thermal fission occurring at the edge of the core.
\begin{figure}[htb!]
\centering\includegraphics[width=3in]{figures/UH10-Au.png}
\caption{Au foil results for hydride experiment with BeO reflector.}
\label{Fig_F8_hydrideAu}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb!]
\centering\includegraphics[width=3in]{figures/UH10-Mn.png}
\caption{Mn foil results for hydride experiment with BeO reflector.}
\label{Fig_F9_hydrideMn}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb!]
\centering\includegraphics[width=3in]{figures/UH10-W.png}
\caption{W foil results for hydride experiment with BeO reflector.}
\label{Fig_F10_hydrideW}
\end{figure}
Rossi-$\alpha$ measurements~\cite{HisExp_87}, which provide the prompt neutron decay constant of the system, were also performed. These are neutron noise measurements that were first used during the Manhattan Project on the Water Boiler, and it was thus a very new measurement method when the hydride experiments were performed. This method utilizes knowledge that multiple neutrons are generally created at the exact same time from a single fission event. This resulted in neutron lifetime estimates of 5.5~$\mu$s and 1.3~$\mu$s for the BeO and WC experiments, respectively.
\section{Criticality accidents}
\label{sec:accidents}
The section will describe the world's first four criticality accidents, which occurred in Los Alamos in 1945 and 1946. Note that a criticality accident is any condition in which a supercritical state is achieved at a time when it is not intended. It is possible to have criticality accidents in which no personnel nor nuclear material nor equipment are harmed, although some criticality accidents result in loss of life (including some of the accidents described here). In many ways, the accidents described here had as much of an impact as the experiments themselves, as they established how criticality experiments should be safely performed. We still implement lessons learned from these accidents to this day.
\textbf{Accident 1}: The world's first criticality accident occurred with the Dragon~\cite{HisExp_6} assembly on February 11, 1945~\cite{HisExp_84}. Dragon used uranium hydride cubes, like those described in Section~\ref{sec:hydride}. A typical Dragon burst had a yield on the order of $10^{11}$ fissions. This could be modified by changing the starting neutron rate prior to the burst. If consecutive bursts were performed, the yield would continue to get larger. During the final burst, $6\cdot10^{15}$ fissions were produced. This resulted in the uranium hydride cubes rising in temperature so much that blistering and swelling occurred. The system expanded by about $1/8$ of an inch~\cite{HisExp_84,HisExp_1_40}. Given that no personnel were injured, and that the term "criticality accident" did not exist then, this was not considered a criticality accident at the time. The original report on Dragon does describe this final burst in detail, but does not refer to it as a criticality accident~\cite{HisExp_1_40}. It is noted that this incident does not necessarily meet the definition of a criticality accident given that the experimenters did intend to exceed superprompt critical. That being said, given that the yield was larger than expected and the fact that there was some noticeable material changes, this is commonly accepted today as a criticality accident and is included in the compilation of criticality accidents~\cite{HisExp_84}.
\textbf{Accident 2}: The second criticality accident occurred four months later, on June 6, 1945 (the one year anniversary of D Day). Here 35.4~kg of HEU metal (average 79.2\% 25) was built in a pseudosphere~\cite{HisExp_84,Accidents45to55}. This was in a polyethylene box which was put in a tank that was filled with water. The system went supercritical before the tank was fully filled. Subsequent inspection showed that the polyethylene box was not watertight. It was calculated that $3\textendash4\cdot10^{16}$ fissions occurred and the temperature in the metal may have rose by as much as 200$^\circ$C. There was no SCRAM system, and the configuration became subcritical due to the falling water level and the boiling of the water inside the polyethylene box (in addition to the reactivity loss of thermal expansion). There was non-lethal radiation exposure, and the material was used again for experiments three days later\cite{HisExp_84,Accidents45to55}. This event was also not considered to be a criticality accident at the time.
\begin{figure}[htb!]
\centering\includegraphics[width=3in]{figures/Daghlian.png}
\caption{Pu sphere with WC reflection. This picture was taken as part of documentation related to the criticality accident on August 21, 1945 in which Harold Daghlian was killed~\cite{HisExp_84}.}
\label{Fig_F11_Daghlian}
\end{figure}
\textbf{Accident 3}: This accident involves a 6.2~kg sphere of $\delta$-phase Pu (with a density of 15.7~g/cm$^3$) reflected by WC~\cite{HisExp_84}. This can be considered an extension of the sphere measurements described in Section~\ref{sec:spheres}, which also included WC reflection. On August 21, 1945 Harold Daghlian was assembling this experiment (re-creation shown in Figure~\ref{Fig_F4_sphereM_ref}). He was working alone (although there was a guard 12 feet away)~\cite{Accidents45to55} late at night. He was going to add a WC brick to the assembly, but when he saw from the neutron counters that this would likely result in a supercritical system he withdrew his hand. The brick slipped out of his hand and fell onto the system, resulting in a superprompt critical configuration. He quickly pushed the brick off and unstacked the assembly. This accident resulted in $10^{16}$ fissions and a fatal dose of 510 rem (from which Harold Daghlian died 28 days later)\cite{HisExp_84}. While this was actually the third criticality accident, it was documented as the first accident at the time.
\textbf{Accident 4}: This accident involves the same core of Pu as the Daghlian accident. Louis Slotin (who became group leader of critical assemblies in late 1945)\cite{HisExp_1_49} was performing a demonstration. The configuration included the Pu core reflected by Be. In this accident, half of the upper Be hemisphere was touching the lower hemisphere while the edge 180$^\circ$ away was resting on a screwdriver. In this now famous criticality accident (which has been re-created in popular culture such as the 1989 "Fat Man and Little Boy" movie), the top hemisphere slipped, and the upper Be hemisphere contacted the lower hemisphere resulting in a supercritical configuration. Slotin quickly removed the upper hemisphere, but $3\cdot10^{15}$ fissions had already occurred. Slotin received over 1000~rem and died 9 days later\cite{HisExp_84,HisExp_1_50}.
It should be noted that by today's standards, some might consider these four accidents "sloppy work" or think that the experimenters were not being careful or (worse yet) did not understand what they were doing. One must not, however, think about these isolated incidents without considering the larger context. It should be stressed that during 1945 thousands of troops were dying each day in the war, which resulted in immense time pressure. In addition, these experiments were essentially uncharted territory; these configurations are complex systems with 3D geometries and multiple materials, therefore criticality could not be estimated accurately at that time.
After the Slotin accident, the critical experiments capability was established at Pajarito Site (later called the Pajarito Laboratory and the Los Alamos Critical Experiments Facility). This established the protocol for conducting remote critical experiments\cite{HisExp_1_56,HisExp_1_57}. Some of the listed requirements include:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Experiments will be conducted remotely unless it can be made critical only if several accidents, both independent and improbable occur simultaneously (known today as the "double contingency principle").
\item The neutron population will be monitored and the speed of the assembly should be limited such that here is time for human response.
\item The critical condition will be predicted from subcritical configurations (approach-to-critical methodology).
\item Each assembly should have two independent safety devices that will disassemble the reactor sufficiently to stop the chain reaction.
\item Experiments will be performed using written operating procedures.
\end{enumerate}
\section{Conclusions and continued impact}
\label{sec:conclusion}
Results of two experiments conducted during the Manhattan Project were discussed. The 25 and 49 experiments included the first subcritical experiments ever performed on kilogram quantities of metal nuclear material. They also provided the first multiplication results for bare and reflected 25 metal. The experiments described here helped establish criticality experiment operations. Critical experiments are extremely useful for nuclear data validation to this day; in fact, many of the early Los Alamos experiments from the 1950s (which grew out of these experiments) are some of the primary experiments used for validation of 25 and 49 nuclear data~\cite{HisExp_42}.
These two experiments have continued impact on both Radiation Test Object (RTO) and critical assembly operations. The theories developed in conjunction with these experiments are used to this day. The approach-to-critical methodology used in these experiments (and previously at CP-1 and the Water Boiler) are still used today to estimate critical masses~\cite{HisExp_88}. Similarly, fission chamber and activation foils are used currently with critical experiments to provide nuclear data validation~\cite{HisExp_89}. The Rossi-$\alpha$ method is also still used to provide timing information on nuclear material systems~\cite{HisExp_90,HisExp_91}.
RTOs are configurations assembled primarily for radiation detection testing and validation. The 25 and 49 metal spherical experiments are essentially the first RTOs ever built. Today, hundreds of RTO operations are performed each year at NCERC~\cite{HisExp_92}. These RTOs also often involve spherical configurations with 25~\cite{HisExp_93,HisExp_94,HisExp_95} and 49~\cite{HisExp_96,HisExp_97,HisExp_98,HisExp_99,HisExp_100}. Modern experiments still have goals to provide measured results for improvements in nuclear data (such as the $\nu-1-\alpha$ results in Table~\ref{Tab:2_nu-1-alpha}).
While the hydride work was ultimately stopped due to higher than expected critical masses and slow-neutron lifetime~\cite{HisExp_80}, this experiment included the first critical assembly machine that is similar to those used to this day. At NCERC there are four critical assembly machines that are routinely used for critical experiments, and two of them~\cite{HisExp_81,HisExp_82} are very similar to the hydride assemblies. While the hydride BeO assembly involves lifting reflector materials from the bottom and fuel with reflectors from the side, the current vertical lift machines generally only lift fuel and/or reflectors (and/or moderators) from the bottom (similar to the Tu, Fe, and Pb hydride experiments). The hydride experiments were performed with people in the same room, which would never be done today due to lessons learned from criticality accidents, but they did contain a SCRAM system (similar to those currently used). These experiments were not only important in the development of the Manhattan Project but have continued impact to this day.
The lessons learned from the four criticality accidents given in Section~\ref{sec:accidents} resulted in a protocol to perform critical experiments. These lessons learned were incorporated in the ANS-1 ("conduct of critical experiments") standard~\cite{ANS1}. The accidents described in this work are used for training of critical assembly operators to this day, at facilities such as NCERC. It should be noted that after this protocol described in Section~\ref{sec:accidents} was established, only one other experimental criticality accident resulted in fatalities has occurred in the US. Lessons learned from these early experiments and criticality accidents were also passed on to the metallurgists and chemists. These applied to the handling and fabrication of nuclear material and formed the basis of the field now known as criticality safety. These lessons learned are applied in nuclear facilities across the world.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
\label{sec:acknowledgements}
This work was supported by the US Department of Energy through the Los Alamos National Laboratory. Los Alamos National Laboratory is operated by Triad National Security, LLC, for the National Nuclear Security Administration of the US Department of Energy under Contract No. 89233218CNA000001.
Thanks to Daniel Alcazar, Alan Carr, and Mark Chadwick for help in finding historical documents and Richard Malenfant for discussions on historical experiments.
\vspace{0.25in}
\noindent\rule{0.35\textwidth}{.4pt}
\bibliographystyle{style/ans_js}
\small |
\section{Introduction}
\subsection{Intersection cohomology} Intersection cohomology $\mathrm{IH}^{\cdot}(X, \mathbb{Q})$ and the BBDG Decomposition Theorem \cite{BBD} are important tools in the study of the topology of algebraic varieties. They have many applications in representation theory, see \cite{L}, or more recently in construction of representation of $\mathcal{W}$-algebras due to Braverman--Finkelberg--Nakajima \cite{BFN} and in the study of (Kontsevich--Soibelman) Cohomological Hall algebras \cite{COHA}, \cite{DM}.
It is an important problem to define a K-theoretic version of intersection cohomology and it is expected that such a theory will have applications in representation theory.
More generally, one can try to construct categorifications of intersection cohomology.
\subsection{Noncommutative resolutions}\label{nonres}
A natural place to look for such categorifications is inside noncommutative resolutions (NCRs) of $X$. There are more NCRs than usual resolution of singularities.
A conjecture of Bondal--Orlov \cite[Section 5]{BO} says that there exists a \textit{minimal} NCR, i.e. a category admissible inside any other NCR of $X$.
We look for natural candidates of minimal NCRs $\mathbb{D}$ of good moduli spaces $X$ of Artin stacks $\mathcal{X}$. Inspired by the Decomposition Theorem, we expect the periodic cyclic homology $\text{HP}_{\cdot}\left(\mathbb{D}\right)$ to have $\bigoplus_{i\in\mathbb{Z}}\mathrm{IH}^{\cdot+2i}(X, \mathbb{C})$ as a direct summand. We then try to construct noncommutative motives $\mathbb{D}^{\text{nc}}$ inside $\mathbb{D}$ whose periodic cyclic homology is $\bigoplus_{i\in\mathbb{Z}}\mathrm{IH}^{\cdot+2i}(X, \mathbb{C})$
\subsection{NCRs for good moduli spaces}\label{assum}
We make three possible assumptions on a stack $\mathcal{X}$:
\textbf{A.} $\mathcal{X}$ is an algebraic stack locally of finite type over $\mathbb{C}$ with a good moduli space $\pi:\mathcal{X}\to X$ (as defined by Alper \cite{A}) such that $\pi$ has affine diagonal.
\textbf{B.} In addition to the above, assume that $\dim\,X=\dim\,\mathcal{X}$.
\textbf{C.} In addition to the above, assume that $\pi$ is generically an isomorphism.
\smallskip
Let $\mathcal{X}$ a smooth stack which satisfies Assumption A and let $p\in X(\mathbb{C})$. By work of Alper--Hall--Rydh \cite[Theorem 1.2]{AHR},
there exists a smooth affine scheme $A$ with an action of a reductive group $G$ such that the following diagram is cartesian
\begin{equation}\label{d}
\begin{tikzcd}
\mathcal{X} \arrow[d, "\pi"'] & A/G \arrow[l, swap, "e"] \arrow[d]\\
X & A\sslash G, \arrow[l, swap, "e"]
\end{tikzcd}
\end{equation}
and $e$ is an \'etale map which contains $p$ in its image. The NCRs we are using are a global version of the NCRs constructed by \v{S}penko--Van den Bergh \cite{SvdB} for quotients $V/G$ for $V$ a representation of $G$.
\begin{thm}\label{thm1}
Let $\mathcal{X}$ be a symmetric stack satisfying Assumption B with good moduli space $X$.
Then there exists a subcategory $\mathbb{D}(\mathcal{X})$ admissible in $D^b(\mathcal{X})$ which is an NCR of $X$. Its complement is generated by complexes supported on attracting stacks/ $\Theta$-stacks of $\mathcal{X}$.
\end{thm}
Assume that $\mathcal{X}=V/G$ where $V$ is a symmetric $G$-representation, i.e. the weights $\beta$ and $-\beta$ of $G$ have the same multiplicity in $V$.
Let $M$ be the weight lattice of $G$, let $M_{\mathbb{R}}=M\otimes\mathbb{R}$, and let $W$ be the Weyl group of $G$.
For $\lambda: \mathbb{C}^*\to G$ a cocharacter, define
\[n_{\lambda}:=\langle \lambda, \det\mathbb{L}_{\mathcal{X}}^{\lambda>0}\rangle,\]
where $\mathbb{L}_{\mathcal{X}}$ is the cotangent complex of $\mathcal{X}$.
Let $\delta\in M_{\mathbb{R}}^W$. The NCR constructed by \v{S}penko--Van den Bergh \cite{SvdB} is as follows: $\mathbb{D}_\delta(\mathcal{X})$ is the full subcategory of $D^b(\mathcal{X})$ generated by complexes $\mathcal{F}$ such that for any cocharacter $\lambda:\mathbb{C}^*\to G$:
\begin{equation}\label{bounds}
-\frac{n_{\lambda}}{2}+\langle \lambda, \delta\rangle\leq \langle \lambda, \mathcal{F}|_0\rangle \leq \frac{n_{\lambda}}{2}+\langle \lambda, \delta\rangle.
\end{equation}
Next, let $\mathcal{X}$ be as in Assumption B. Recall the description \eqref{d} for a point $p\in X$. Locally analytically near a point $x\in\mathcal{X}(\mathbb{C})$, the stack $\mathcal{X}$ is isomorphic to an open analyic subset of $N/G$, where $G$ is the stabilizer of $x$ and $N$ is its normal bundle in $\mathcal{X}$. We assume that all such representations are symmetric, and call stacks $\mathcal{X}$ with this property \textit{symmetric}. Note that symmetric stacks are smooth.
Let $\ell\in \text{Pic}(\mathcal{X})_{\mathbb{R}}$. For a morphism $\lambda:B\mathbb{C}^*\to \mathcal{X}$ with image in $\mathcal{X}(\mathbb{C})$, define
\[n_{\lambda}:=\text{wt}\,\lambda^*(\text{det}\,\mathbb{L}_{\mathcal{X}}^{\lambda>0}).\]
The category $\mathbb{D}_\ell(\mathcal{X})$ is the full subcategory of $D^b(\mathcal{X})$ such that for any map $\lambda:B\mathbb{C}^*\to \mathcal{X}$ with image in $\mathcal{X}(\mathbb{C})$, we have
\[-\frac{n_{\lambda}}{2}+\text{wt}\, \lambda^*\ell \leq \text{wt}\,\lambda^*(\mathcal{F}) \leq \frac{n_{\lambda}}{2}+\text{wt}\, \lambda^*\ell.\]
To show $\mathbb{D}_\ell(\mathcal{X})$ is a smooth and proper category over $X$, we show in Subsection \ref{ncr2} that $\mathbb{D}_\ell(\mathcal{X})$ is admissible inside the Kirwan resolution of $\mathcal{X}$, a DM stack constructed by Edidin--Rydh \cite{ER} which recovers the Kirwan resolution in the local case \cite{Ki}. The analogous result for quotients $Y/G$ was proved by \v{S}penko--Van den Bergh \cite{SvdB3}. Our approach is different from theirs and uses the variation of GIT techniques from \cite{BFK}, \cite{HL}, \cite{HL2}. In order for $\pi^*: D^b(X)\to D^b(\mathcal{X})$ to have image in $\mathbb{D}_\ell(\mathcal{X})$, we choose $\ell$ to be trivial and drop it from the notation of $\mathbb{D}(\mathcal{X})$.
\subsection{Intersection cohomology of symmetric good moduli spaces}
Let $\mathcal{X}$ be a symmetric stack satisfying Assumption B from Subsection \ref{assum}. Define \begin{equation}\label{cohh}
\textbf{B}:=\text{image}\,\left(\bigoplus_{\mathcal{S}} \mathrm{H}^\cdot(\mathcal{Z})\xrightarrow{p_*q^*} \mathrm{H}^\cdot(\mathcal{X})\right),
\end{equation}
over all attracting stacks $\mathcal{S}$ (different from $\mathcal{X})$ with fixed stack and associated maps $\mathcal{Z}\xleftarrow{q}\mathcal{S}\xrightarrow{p}\mathcal{X}$ and the singular cohomology is with $\mathbb{Q}$ coefficients. We denote by $\textbf{P}^{\leq 0}\mathrm{H}^\cdot(\mathcal{X})$ the zeroth piece of the perverse filtration on $\mathrm{H}^\cdot(\mathcal{X})$ induced by the map $\pi:\mathcal{X}\to X$. Observe that if $\mathcal{X}$ satisfies Assumption C, then $\textbf{P}^{\leq 0}\mathrm{H}^\cdot(\mathcal{X})\cong\mathrm{IH}^\cdot(X)$.
In Section \ref{comp}, we show that:
\begin{thm}\label{thm12}
For $\mathcal{X}$ a symmetric stack satisfying Assumption B, there is a decomposition
\[\mathrm{H}^\cdot(\mathcal{X})=\textbf{P}^{\leq 0}\mathrm{H}^\cdot(\mathcal{X})\oplus\textbf{B}.\]
\end{thm}
The above result follows from a version of the BBDG Decomposition Theorem for stacks, see Proposition \ref{bbdg}. The exceptional loci are covered by the attracting stacks, and by the symmetric assumption on $\mathcal{X}$, the images of classes from attracting stacks are in positive perverse degree.
\subsection{Noncommutative motives for symmetric good moduli spaces}\label{abcd} Let $\mathcal{X}$ be a symmetric stack satisfying Assumption B from Subsection \ref{assum}.
In Section \ref{intKtheory} we define a noncommutative motive with rational coefficients $\mathbb{D}^{\text{nc}}(\mathcal{X})=(\mathbb{D}(\mathcal{X}), e)$ where $e$ is an idempotent in $\mathrm{K}_0\left(\text{rep}\left(\mathbb{D}(\mathcal{X}), \mathbb{D}(\mathcal{X})\right)\right)_\mathbb{Q}$, see Subsection \ref{ncmotives} for a brief discussion of noncommutative motives.
Define
\[\textbf{B}\mathrm{K}_\cdot(\mathcal{X}):=\text{image}\,\left(\bigoplus_{\mathcal{S}} \mathrm{K}_\cdot(\mathcal{Z})\xrightarrow{p_*q^*} \mathrm{K}_\cdot(\mathcal{X})\right),\]
where the sum is an in \eqref{cohh} and $\mathrm{K}_\cdot$ is rational K-theory.
In Section \ref{cat}, we show an analogue on Theorem \ref{thm12} in K-theory:
\begin{thm}\label{thm13}
For $\mathcal{X}$ a symmetric stack satisfying Assumption B, there is a decompositions
\[\mathrm{K}_\cdot(\mathcal{X})=\mathrm{K}_\cdot(\mathbb{D}^{\text{nc}}(\mathcal{X}))\oplus\textbf{B}\mathrm{K}_\cdot(\mathcal{X}).\]
\end{thm}
The category $\mathbb{D}(\mathcal{X})$ contains, in general, complexes on attracting stacks, but it may be indecomposable as a triangulated category. For $\lambda :B\mathbb{C}^*\to \mathcal{X}$ with associated fixed stack $\mathcal{Z}$, let $\mathbb{D}(\mathcal{Z})_b$ be the subcategory of $\mathbb{D}(\mathcal{Z})$ of complexes on which $\lambda$ acts with weight $b=\frac{n_{\lambda}}{2}$.
The motive $\mathbb{D}^{\text{nc}}(\mathcal{X})$ is a complement of the images \[m_\lambda:=p_*q^*: \mathbb{D}(\mathcal{Z})_b\rightarrow \mathbb{D}(\mathcal{X})\] from fixed substacks $\mathcal{Z}$. By a result of Thomason \cite[Corollary 2.17]{Th}, one can compute rational K-theory using an \'etale cover, so it suffices to check the statement in the local case $\mathcal{X}=A/G$, where $A$ is a smooth affine scheme.
The main tool in understanding these images for different fixed substacks is a product-coproduct type compability that we briefly explain. Let $\lambda$ and $\mu$ be two dominant cocharacters, let $\textbf{S}$ be a set of cocharacters $\nu$ refining $\mu$ and $\lambda$, see Subsection \ref{S}. Then the following diagram commutes:
\begin{equation*}
\begin{tikzcd}
\mathrm{K}_\cdot\left(\mathbb{D}(\mathcal{X}^\lambda)_b\right)\arrow[d, "\bigoplus_{\textbf{S}} \Delta^\lambda_\nu"']\arrow[r, "m_\lambda"]& \mathrm{K}_\cdot(\mathbb{D}(\mathcal{X}))\arrow[d, "\Delta_\mu"]\\
\bigoplus_{\textbf{S}} \mathrm{K}_\cdot\left(\mathbb{D}(\mathcal{X}^\nu)_b\right) \arrow[r, "\bigoplus_{\textbf{S}} \widetilde{m^\mu_{\nu}}"] & \mathrm{K}_\cdot\left(\mathbb{D}(\mathcal{X}^\mu)_b\right).
\end{tikzcd}
\end{equation*}
Here, $\Delta$ are restriction maps and $\widetilde{m}$ denotes a twist of the multiplication. We check that the diagram commutes by a direct computation using shuffle formulas for $m$ and $\Delta$.
\subsection{Intersection K-theory}
Let $\mathcal{X}$ be a symmetric stack satisfying Assumption C and let $X$ be its good moduli space. Then $\textbf{P}^{\leq 0}\mathrm{H}^\cdot(\mathcal{X})\cong\mathrm{IH}^\cdot(X)$. Given Theorems \ref{thm12} and \ref{thm13}, we propose to call $\mathrm{K}_\cdot(\mathbb{D}^{\text{nc}}(\mathcal{X}))=:\mathrm{IK}_\cdot(X)$ \textit{the intersection K-theory of} $X$.
There is a Chern character map
\[\text{ch}: \mathrm{IK}_\cdot(X)\to \mathrm{IH}^\cdot(X).\]
Further, from the construction of $\mathrm{IK}_\cdot(X)$, we obtain a natural surjection
\[\mathrm{K}_\cdot(\mathcal{X})\twoheadrightarrow \mathrm{IK}_\cdot(X).\]
The analogous statement in cohomology was proved by Kirwan \cite{Ki2}.
Further, in Subsection \ref{Kirwa}, we show that if the Kirwan resolution is a scheme, then
\[\mathrm{HP}_i\left(\mathbb{D}^{\text{nc}}(\mathcal{X})\right)\cong \bigoplus_{j\in\mathbb{Z}} \mathrm{IH}^{i+2j}(X,\mathbb{C}).\]
We use the construction of K-theory of quiver varieties to prove a version of a Poincaré-Birkhoff-Witt Theorem for K-theoretic Hall algebras of quivers with potential \cite[Theorem 1.2]{P2}. For example, for a quiver $Q$, the K-theoretic Hall algebra $\text{KHA}(Q,0)$ for zero potential is generated by spaces which are twisted versions of $\mathrm{IK}_\cdot(X(d))$, where $X(d)$ is the coarse space of representation of $Q$ of dimension $d$.
\subsection{Previous work on intersection K-theory.}\label{previouswork}
There are other approaches of defining intersection K-theory in particular cases. Cautis \cite{C}, Cautis--Kamnitzer \cite{CK} have an approach for categorification of intersection sheaves for certain subvarieties of the affine Grassmannian
For varieties with a cellular stratification, Eberhardt proposed a definition in \cite{E}.
A related problem is defining intersection Chow groups. Corti--Hanamura \cite{CH1}, \cite{CH2} proposed two approaches towards intersection Chow groups for general varieties $X$, one which proves a version of the decomposition theorem under some conjectures.
In \cite{P2}, we propose a definition of intersection (graded) $\text{gr}^\cdot \mathrm{K}$-theory of any singular variety $X$ which is a summand of $\text{gr}^\cdot \mathrm{K}_\cdot(Y)$ for any resolution of singularities $Y\to X$; the associated graded is taken with respect to the codimension filtration, so its zeroth level is a version of intersection Chow groups.
De Cataldo--Migliorini \cite{dCM} proposed a definition of intersection Chow motive for singularities with a semismall resolution.
\subsection{Future directions}
The definitions of $\mathbb{D}^{\text{nc}}(\mathcal{X})$ and $\mathrm{IK}_\cdot(X)$ are for symmetric stacks $\mathcal{X}$. It is worth trying to find analogues of these constructions beyond symmetric stacks. One idea is to look for symmetric substacks $\mathcal{X}'\subset \mathcal{X}$ whose complement is a union of $\Theta$-strata and thus have good moduli spaces $X'$. It is true that $\mathrm{IH}^\cdot(X)$ is a direct summand of $\mathrm{IH}^\cdot(X')$, but we do not know how to characterize the difference between them.
The discussion in Subsection \ref{nonres} serves as motivation for our work, but we do not make progress towards the Bondal--Orlov conjecture.
In general, $\mathbb{D}(\mathcal{X})$ and $\mathbb{D}^{\text{nc}}(\mathcal{X})$ are different. However, in the cases in which they are equal, for example for quotients $V/T$ where $T$ is a torus and $V$ is a $T$-representation,
it is natural to guess that $\mathbb{D}(V/T)$ is minimal in the sense of Bondal--Orlov.
The category $\mathbb{D}(V/T)$ is indecomposable \cite[Appendix A]{SvdB2}, so it should be minimal if the Bondal--Orlov conjecture is true for this particular class of singularities.
We plan to return to these questions in future work.
\subsection{Acknowledgements} I thank Davesh Maulik for numerous conversations related to the present paper.
I thank the Institute of Advanced Studies for support during the preparation of the paper. This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. DMS-1926686.
\section{Preliminaries}\label{prel}
\subsection{Conventions and notations}\label{conven}
All spaces considered are over $\mathbb{C}$. All schemes considered are of finite type over $\mathbb{C}$. All points considered are $\mathbb{C}$-points unless otherwise stated.
For $A$ a scheme with an action of a reductive group $G$, we denote the quotient stack by $A\slash G$ and its coarse space by $A\sslash G$.
For $X$ a scheme or stack, denote by $\text{QCoh}\,(X)$ the category of (unbounded) complexes of quasicoherent sheaves on $X$, by
$D^b\text{Coh}\,(X)$ its subcategory of compact objects, i.e.
the derived category of bounded complexes of coherent sheaves, and by $\text{Perf}\,(X)$ the subcategory of $D^b\text{Coh}\,(X)$ of perfect complexes.
The functors used in the paper are derived; we sometimes drop $R$ or $L$ from notation, for example we write $f_*$ instead of $Rf_*$. Denote by $D_{\text{shvs}}(X)$ the category of complexes of constructible sheaves on a space $X$.
For $G$ a reductive group, fix a maximal torus and a Borel subgroup $T\subset B\subset G$.
We denote by $M$ the character lattice, by $N$ the cocharacter lattice, by $W$ the Weyl group, by $M_\mathbb{R}:=M\otimes_\mathbb{Z}\mathbb{R}$, and by \[\langle\,,\,\rangle:N\times M\to \mathbb{Z}\] the natural pairing; it induces a pairing between $N$ and $M_\mathbb{R}$. We assume that the weights in the Lie algebra of $B$ are negative roots. In particular, $B$ induces a choice of a dominant chamber $M_\mathbb{R}^+\subset M_\mathbb{R}$. Denote by $\rho$ half the sum of positive roots of $G$. For $\chi$ a dominant weight of $G$, denote by $\Gamma(\chi)$ the irreducible representation of $G$ of highest weight $\chi$.
By abuse of notation, for $V$ a representation of $G$, write
\[\langle \lambda, V\rangle:=\langle \lambda, \det V\rangle=
\Big\langle \lambda, \sum_{\beta\text{ wt of }V}\beta\Big\rangle.\]
We denote by $w\cdot \chi$ the usual $W$-action and by $w*\chi=w(\chi+\rho)-\rho$ the shifted $W$-action. We denote by $\mathfrak{g}$ the Lie algebra of $G$.
For a stack $\mathcal{X}$, we denote by $\mathrm{H}^\cdot(\mathcal{X})$ the singular cohomology with $\mathbb{Q}$ coefficients and by $\mathrm{K}_\cdot(\mathcal{X})$ the rational K-theory of $\mathcal{X}$
\subsection{Semi-orthogonal decompositions and noncommutative resolutions}
In this Subsection, we recall some basic notions related to derived categories. References for this material are \cite{K1}, \cite{K3}.
\subsubsection{}\label{adjoint}
Let $\mathcal{T}$ be a triangulated category, and let $\mathcal{A}_1,\cdots, \mathcal{A}_n\subset \mathcal{T}$ be triangulated subcategories. We say that there is a \textit{semi-orthogonal decomposition}
\[\mathcal{T}=\langle \mathcal{A}_1,\cdots, \mathcal{A}_n \rangle\] if the following two conditions are satisfied:
(i) $\text{Hom}(A_i, A_j)=0$ for all $A_i\in\mathcal{A}_i, A_j\in\mathcal{A}_j$ and $1\leq j<i\leq n$.
(ii) the smallest triangulated subcategory of $\mathcal{T}$ containing all $\mathcal{A}_i$s is $\mathcal{T}$.
\subsubsection{}\label{rightfunctor}
Let $\mathcal{T}$ be a triangulated category, and let $\mathcal{A}$ be a subcategory. $\mathcal{A}$ is called \textit{right admissible} in $\mathcal{T}$ if there exists a semi-orthogonal decomposition $\mathcal{T}=\langle-, \mathcal{A}\rangle$. Equivalently, the inclusion functor $\mathcal{A}\hookrightarrow \mathcal{T}$ has a right adjoint.
\subsubsection{}
In this paper, we say that a triangulated category $\mathcal{D}$ is \textit{smooth} if it is admissible inside $D^b(Y)$ for a smooth DM stack $Y$. We say that $\mathcal{D}$ is \textit{proper} over a given variety $S$ if it is admissible in $D^b(T)$ for $T$ a proper DM stack over $S$.
\subsubsection{}
Let $X$ be a variety. We say that a smooth and proper over $X$ triangulated category $\mathcal{D}$ is a \textit{noncommutative resolution of singularities (NCR)} if there exists an adjoint pair of functors
\begin{align*}
F&: \mathcal{D}\to D^b(X),\\
G&: \text{Perf}\,(X)\to \mathcal{D}
\end{align*} such that $FG=\text{id}_{\text{Perf}(X)}$.
The definition is slightly more general than the definition in \cite[Definition 3.1 and the paragraph after it]{K3}.
\textbf{Example.} Let $X$ be a variety with rational singularities and let $f:Y\to X$ be a resolution of singularities. Then $D^b(Y)$ is an NCR of $X$ where the corresponding functors are $f_*:D^b(Y)\to D^b(X)$ and $f^*:\text{Perf}\,(X)\to D^b(Y)$.
\subsection{Good moduli spaces}\label{goodmoduli}
\subsubsection{} Let $\mathcal{X}$ be a stack. An algebraic space $X$ with a morphism $\pi:\mathcal{X}\to X$ is called a \textit{good moduli space} if
(i) $\pi_*: \text{QCoh}\,(\mathcal{X})\to\text{QCoh}\,(X)$ is exact,
(ii) the induced morphism $\mathcal{O}_X\to \pi_*\mathcal{O}_\mathcal{X}$ is an isomorphism.
\\
\textbf{Examples.} \begin{enumerate}\item
For $A$ an affine variety and $G$ a reductive group acting linearly on $A$, \[\pi:A/G\to A\sslash G=\text{Spec}\left(\mathcal{O}_A^G\right)\] is a good moduli space.
\item
Let $Y$ be a smooth projective variety, let $\beta\in H^\cdot (Y)$, and let $\mathcal{L}$ be an ample line bundle on $Y$. The moduli stack $\mathfrak{M}^{\text{ss}}_{\beta}$ of $\mathcal{L}$-Gieseker semistable sheaves with Chern character $\beta$ has a good moduli space $M^{\text{ss}}_{\beta}$.
\end{enumerate}
For properties and further examples of good moduli space, see Alper \cite{A}. We assume that $X$ is a scheme in this paper. The following is \cite[Theorem $4.12$, Theorem $1.2$]{AHR}:
\begin{thm}\label{ahr}
Let $\mathcal{X}$ be a stack satisfying Assumption A. Let $x\in \mathcal{X}(\mathbb{C})$ with stabilizer group $G_x$ and normal bundle $N_x$. Then there exists an affine scheme $A$ with a linearizable action of $G_x$, a point $a\in A(\mathbb{C})$ with stabilizer group $G_x$, and \'etale maps $e$ and $f$ such that the following squares are cartesian:
\begin{equation}\label{d1}
\begin{tikzcd}
(N_x/G_x, 0) \arrow[d] & (A/G_x, a) \arrow[r, "e"] \arrow[l, swap, "f"] \arrow[d]& (\mathcal{X},x) \arrow[d] \\
N_x\sslash G_x &A\sslash G_x \arrow[l, swap, "f"]
\arrow[r, "e"]& X.
\end{tikzcd}
\end{equation}
\end{thm}
We will be using the following corollary:
\begin{cor}\label{ahr2}
Let $\pi: \mathcal{X}\to X$ be a stack satisfying Assumption A. Let $p\in X(\mathbb{C})$. There exists a quotient stack $p: \mathcal{Y}:=V/G\to Y:=V\sslash G$ with $G$ a reductive group, $V$ a $G$-representation, and analytic open sets $p\in U\subset X$ and $0\in \mathcal{U}\subset Y$ such that the diagram
\begin{equation}\label{d2}
\begin{tikzcd}
\pi^{-1}(U) \arrow[d, "\pi"'] & p^{-1}(\mathcal{U}) \arrow[l, swap, "\sim"] \arrow[d, "p"]\\
U & \mathcal{U}. \arrow[l, swap, "\sim"]
\end{tikzcd}
\end{equation}
commutes. In particular, the diagram \begin{equation}\label{d3}
\begin{tikzcd}
\widehat{\mathcal{X}_p} \arrow[d, "\pi"'] & \widehat{\mathcal{Y}_0} \arrow[l, swap, "\sim"] \arrow[d, "p"]\\
\widehat{X_p} & \widehat{Y_0}, \arrow[l, swap, "\sim"]
\end{tikzcd}
\end{equation}
where $\widehat{\mathcal{X}_p}$ is the formal completion of $\mathcal{X}$ along $\pi^{-1}(p)$, $\widehat{X_p}$ is formal completion of $X$ at $p$ etc.
\end{cor}
\subsection{Theta-stratifications}
References for this Section are \cite[Section 1]{HL}, \cite[Section 2.1]{HL2}, \cite{AHLH}.
\subsubsection{}\label{theta} Let $\mathcal{X}$ be an algebraic stack of finite type over $\mathbb{C}$. Let $\Theta=\mathbb{A}^1/\mathbb{G}_m$. The stacks $\underline{\text{Map}}(B\mathbb{G}_m,\mathcal{X})$ and
$\underline{\text{Map}}(\Theta,\mathcal{X})$ are algebraic stacks with natural (evaluation) maps to $\mathcal{X}$. Their connected components are called \textit{fixed stacks} and $\Theta$\textit{-stacks} or \textit{attracting stacks}, respectively.
There is also a natural map \[\underline{\text{Map}}(\Theta,\mathcal{X})\to \underline{\text{Map}}(B\mathbb{G}_m,\mathcal{X}).\]
A $\Theta$-stack $\mathcal{S}$ has an associated fixed stack $\mathcal{Z}$, and fits in a diagram
\begin{equation*}
\begin{tikzcd}
\mathcal{S}\arrow[d,"q"] \arrow[r,"p"]& \mathcal{X}\\
\mathcal{Z}&
\end{tikzcd}
\end{equation*}
where $p$ is proper and $q$ is an affine bundle map. If $p$ is an immersion, we say that $\mathcal{S}$ is a $\Theta$\textit{-stratum}.
When $\mathcal{X}=V/G$ for $V$ an representation a reductive group $G$, the fixed and $\Theta$-stacks are of the form
\begin{equation}\label{d4}
\begin{tikzcd}
V^{\lambda\geq 0}\slash G^{\lambda\geq 0}\arrow[d,"q"] \arrow[r,"p"]& V\slash G\\
V^\lambda\slash G^\lambda&
\end{tikzcd}
\end{equation}
where $\lambda:\mathbb{C}^*\to G$ is a cocharacter, $G^\lambda$ is the Levi group associated to $\lambda$, $G^{\lambda\geq 0}$ is the parabolic group associated to $\lambda$, $V^\lambda\subset V$ is the $\lambda$-fixed locus and $V^{\lambda\geq 0}\subset V$ is the $\lambda$-attracting locus. Such a $\Theta$-stack is a $\Theta$-stratum if the map $p$ is a closed immersion, so if it is a Kempf--Ness locus in the terminology of \cite[Section 2.1]{HL2}.
\subsection{Noncommutative motives}\label{ncmotives}
We briefly explain the definition of noncommutative motives. A general reference is \cite{T}.
Denote by $\textbf{dgcat}$ the category of (small) dg categories over $\mathbb{C}$. It has a Quillen model structure whose weak equivalences are derived Morita equivalences. Denote by $\textbf{Hmo}$ the corresponding homotopy category.
The universal category through which all additive invariants factor (examples include cyclic homology, K-theory, and related constructions) is a smaller (additive) category $\textbf{Hmo}_0$ with objects dg categories and morphisms \[\text{Hom}_{\textbf{Hmo}_0}(\mathcal{A}, \mathcal{B})=\mathrm{K}_0\left(\text{rep}(\mathcal{A}, \mathcal{B})\right)\]
where $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{B}$ are dg categories and $\text{rep}(\mathcal{A}, \mathcal{B})\subset D^b(\mathcal{A}^{\text{op}}\otimes\mathcal{B})$ is the full subcategory of bimodules $X$ such that $X(a,-)\in \text{Perf}\,(\mathcal{B})$ for any object $a\in\mathcal{A}$. Consider the functor $\mathcal{U}: \textbf{dgcat}\to \textbf{Hmo}_0$.
We consider the category $\textbf{Hmo}_{0;\mathbb{Q}}^{\natural}$, the idempotent completion of the $\mathbb{Q}$-linearization of
$\textbf{Hmo}_0$. We call its elements (by a slight abuse) noncommutative motives; the original definition considers the subcategory of $\textbf{Hmo}_{0;\mathbb{Q}}^{\natural}$ generated by proper and smooth dg categories, but in our case we need to allow proper and smooth categories over (not necessarily proper) $X$.
\subsection{A preliminary result}
The following type of result in used by \v{S}penko--Van den Bergh in their construction of NCRs.
Let $A$ be a smooth affine variety with an action of a reductive group $G$ and let $\mathcal{X}=A/G$. For a locally free sheaf $\mathcal{F}$ on $\mathcal{X}$, its stalk at the origin is a representation $\Gamma$ of $G$. We call $\Gamma$ \textit{the associated representation of} $\mathcal{F}$.
We state the following result for future reference, the proof is same as \cite[Section 3.2]{HLS} and it uses an explicit K\"{o}szul resolution for pushforward along the map $A^{\lambda\geq 0}/G^{\lambda\geq 0}\hookrightarrow A/G^{\lambda\geq 0}$ and the Borel-Bott-Weil Theorem for the map $A/G^{\lambda\geq 0}\to A/G$.
\begin{prop}\label{bbw}
Let $\lambda$ be a cocharacter of $G$ and consider the diagram of attracting loci
\[A^\lambda/G^\lambda\xleftarrow{q}
A^{\lambda\geq 0}/G^{\lambda\geq 0}\xrightarrow{p} A/G.\]
Let $\mathcal{F}$ be a locally free sheaf on $A^\lambda/G^\lambda$ with associated representation $\Gamma(\chi)$ where $\chi$ is a dominant weight of $G$.
Then there is a complex
\[\left(\bigoplus_{I}\mathcal{F}_I[|I|-\ell(w)], d\right)\to p_*q^*\mathcal{F},\]
where the terms of the complex correspond to subsets $I\subset \{\beta|\,\langle \lambda, \beta\rangle<0\}$, $\mathcal{F}_I$ is a locally free sheaf with associated representation \[\Gamma\left((\chi-\sigma_I)^+\right),\] where
$\sigma_I=\sum_{\beta\in I} \beta$,
$(\chi-\sigma_I)^+$ is the dominant Weyl-shifted conjugate of $\chi-\sigma_I$ if it exists, and zero otherwise,
and
$w$ is the element of the Weyl group such that $w*(\chi-\sigma_I)$ is dominant or zero of length $\ell(w)$.
\end{prop}
\section{Noncommutative resolutions of quotient singularities}\label{ncr}
In this Section, we prove Theorem \ref{thm1}. The definition of the categories $\mathbb{D}_\ell(\mathcal{X})$ are for symmetric stacks satisfying Assumption A. In order to obtain NCRs, we need to assume that $\mathcal{X}$ satisfies Assumption C.
Recall the construction of category $\mathbb{D}(\mathcal{X})$ and the strategy of proof discussed in Subsection \ref{assum}.
\medskip
\subsection{Local case}
Let $\mathcal{X}=V/G$ where $V$ is a symmetric $G$-representation. Denote by $X=V\sslash G$ and by $p:\mathcal{X}\to X$. We will use the notations from Subsection \ref{conven}.
For a cocharacter $\lambda:\mathbb{C}^*\to G$, recall the diagram of attracting loci \eqref{d3} and define
\[n_{\lambda}:=\langle \lambda, V^{\lambda>0}\rangle-\langle \lambda, \mathfrak{g}^{\lambda>0}\rangle=\langle \lambda, \det\mathbb{L}_{p}\rangle=\langle \lambda, \det\mathbb{L}_{\mathcal{X}}^{\lambda>0}\rangle.\]
Let $\delta\in M_{\mathbb{R}}^W$, and
let $\mathbb{D}_\delta(\mathcal{X})$ be the full subcategory of $D^b(\mathcal{X})$ generated by complexes $\mathcal{F}$ such that for any cocharacter $\lambda:\mathbb{C}^*\to G$:
\[-\frac{n_{\lambda}}{2}+\langle \lambda, \delta\rangle\leq \langle \lambda, \mathcal{F}|_0\rangle \leq \frac{n_{\lambda}}{2}+\langle \lambda, \delta\rangle.\]
Let $\mathbb{W}\subset M_\mathbb{R}$ be the polytope
\begin{equation}\label{defW}
\mathbb{W}:=\text{sum}\,[0,\beta]\subset M_{\mathbb{R}},
\end{equation}
where the Minkowski sum is taken over all weights $\beta$ of $V$.
The category $\mathbb{D}_\delta(\mathcal{X})$ can be also described as the full subcategory of $D^b(\mathcal{X})$ generated by vector bundles $\mathcal{O}_{\mathcal{X}}\otimes \Gamma(\chi)$ where $\chi$ is a dominant weight of $G$ such that
\[\chi+\rho+\delta\in \frac{1}{2}\mathbb{W},\]
where the sum is taken over all weights $\beta$ of $V$.
Define $\mathbb{A}_\delta$ as the subcategory of $D^b(\mathcal{X})$ generated by complexes $p_{\lambda*}q_\lambda^*(\mathcal{E})$ where $\mathcal{E}$ is a complex in $D^b(\mathcal{X}^\lambda)$ with
\[\langle \lambda, \mathcal{E}|_0\rangle<-\frac{n_\lambda}{2}+\langle\lambda, \delta\rangle.\]
The following was proved by \v{S}penko--Van den Bergh \cite[Proposition 8.4]{SvdB} (the semi-orthogonal decomposition in loc. cit. holds for quotient stacks satisfying Assumption A, the condition that $X$ has a $T$-fixed stable point in loc. cit. is necessary to identify the summands with NCRs):
\begin{thm}\label{local}
There exists a semi-orthogonal decomposition
\[D^b(\mathcal{X})=\langle \mathbb{A}_\delta, \mathbb{D}_\delta\rangle.\]
The semi-orthogonal decomposition holds relative to $X$ in the following sense: if $\mathcal{A}\in \mathbb{A}_\delta$ and $\mathcal{D}\in \mathbb{D}_\delta$, then \[Rp_*\left(R\mathcal{H}om_{\mathcal{X}}(\mathcal{D}, \mathcal{A})\right)=0.\]
\end{thm}
\subsection{Global case} Assume that $\pi: \mathcal{X}\to X$ is a symmetric stack satisfying Assumption B. Let $\ell\in \text{Pic}(\mathcal{X})_{\mathbb{R}}$.
Recall the definition of $\mathbb{D}_\ell(\mathcal{X})$ from Subsection \ref{assum}.
As in Step $1$, define $\mathbb{A}_\ell$ as the subcategory of $D^b(\mathcal{X})$ generated by complexes of sheaves $p_*q^*\left(\mathcal{E}\right)$, where $\mathcal{S}$ is a $\Theta$-stack, $\mathcal{Z}$ is its associated fixed stack with maps
$\mathcal{Z}\xleftarrow{q}\mathcal{S}\xrightarrow{p}\mathcal{X},$
and $\mathcal{E}$ satisfies \[\text{wt}\,\lambda^*(\mathcal{E})<-\frac{n_{\lambda}}{2}+\langle\lambda, \delta\rangle.\]
\begin{thm}\label{symsod}
There is a semi-orthogonal decomposition
\[D^b(\mathcal{X})=\langle \mathbb{A}_\ell, \mathbb{D}_\ell\rangle.\]
The semi-orthogonal decomposition holds relative to $X$ in the following sense: if $\mathcal{A}\in \mathbb{A}_\ell$ and $\mathcal{D}\in \mathbb{D}_\ell$, then \begin{equation}\label{ad}
R\pi_*\left(R\mathcal{H}om_{\mathcal{X}}(\mathcal{D}, \mathcal{A})\right)=0.\end{equation}
\end{thm}
For $p\in X$, let $D^b_o\left(\widehat{\mathcal{X}_p}\right)$ be the split category generated by the restrictions of complexes in $D^b(\mathcal{X})$. For $U\subset X$ as in Corollary \ref{ahr2}, let $\mathcal{X}_U:=\pi^{-1}(U)$ and define $D^b_o\left(\mathcal{X}_U\right)$ as the split category of coherent analytic sheaves generate by restrictions of complexes in $D^b(\mathcal{X})$. For $\mathcal{Y}=V/G$, the category $D^b\left(\mathcal{Y}\right)$ is generated by $\mathcal{O}_\mathcal{Y}\otimes \Gamma(\chi)$ for $\chi$ a dominant weight of $G$, and thus
$D^b\left(\widehat{\mathcal{Y}_0}\right)$ is generated
by $\mathcal{O}_{\widehat{\mathcal{Y}}}\otimes \Gamma(\chi)$. By Theorem \ref{ahr}, the categories $D^b_o\left(\mathcal{X}_U\right)$ and $D^b_o\left(\widehat{\mathcal{X}_p}\right)$ are also generated by these vector bundles.
Further, let $\widehat{\mathbb{D}_{\ell, p}}\subset D^b_o\left(\widehat{\mathcal{X}_p}\right)$ be the category generated by restrictions of sheaves in $\mathbb{D}_\ell$; we define $\widehat{\mathbb{A}_{\ell, p}}$, $\widehat{\mathbb{D}_{\ell, U}}$ etc. similarly. For the stack $\mathcal{Y}=V/G$ from Corollary \ref{ahr2}, let $\delta\in M(G)_{\mathbb{R}}$ be the restriction of $\ell$ and
we denote by $\mathbb{A}'_\delta$ and $\mathbb{D}'_\delta$ the categories from Theorem \ref{local}.
By Corollary \ref{ahr2} and using the notation from there, we have that \begin{align*}
\mathbb{D}_{\ell, U}&\cong \mathbb{D}'_{\delta, \mathcal{U}},\\
\mathbb{A}_{\ell, U}&\cong \mathbb{A}'_{\delta, \mathcal{U}}
\end{align*}
and the analogues equivalences for formal completions.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{symsod}]
We continue with the notations from the above.
Let $\mathcal{A}\in \mathbb{A}_\ell$ and $\mathcal{D}\in \mathbb{D}_\ell$. To show \eqref{ad}, it suffices to prove the statement after restriction to $\widehat{\mathcal{X}_p}$ for all $p\in X$. Then $\mathcal{A}\in \widehat{\mathbb{A}'_{\delta, 0}}$ and $\mathcal{D}\in \widehat{\mathbb{D}'_{\delta, 0}}$ and thus the claim follows from Theorem \ref{local}. To show that $\mathbb{A}_\ell$ and $\mathbb{D}_\ell$ generate $D^b(\mathcal{X})$, observe that they generate the local categories $D^b_o\left(\mathcal{X}_U\right)$. The claim follows as in \cite[Proposition 3.5.8]{SvdB}.
\end{proof}
\subsection{NCR}\label{ncr2}
We show that $\mathbb{D}_\ell(\mathcal{X})$ is a smooth and proper over $X$ category. More precisely, $\mathbb{D}(\mathcal{X})$ is an admissible subcategory of the Kirwan resolution of $\mathcal{X}$ as constructed by Edidin--Rydh \cite{ER}. In loc. cit., the authors do not use the language of $\Theta$-strata, but their construction is natural and applied to quotient stacks recovers Kirwan's resolution of singularities \cite[pages 475-476]{Ki}.
For a stack $\mathcal{X}$ satisfying Assumption B,
the Edidin--Rydh construction provides a sequence of stacks \[\mathcal{X}=:\mathcal{X}_0\xleftarrow{\pi_0}\mathcal{X}_1\hookleftarrow\mathcal{X}^{\text{ss}}_1\xleftarrow{\pi_1}\cdots\xleftarrow{\pi_n}\mathcal{X}_{n+1}\hookleftarrow \mathcal{X}^{\text{ss}}_{n+1}=:Y,\]
with the following properties:
(i) the stacks $\mathcal{X}_i$ have good moduli spaces $X_i$,
(ii) $\mathcal{X}_i^{\text{ss}}\subset \mathcal{X}_i$ is an open subset, complement to $\Theta$-strata,
(iii) \'etale locally on $X_k$, either $\mathcal{X}_k\xleftarrow{\pi_k}\mathcal{X}_{k+1}\hookleftarrow\mathcal{X}^{\text{ss}}_{k+1}$ are isomorphisms, or
there are neighborhoods as in Theorem \ref{ahr}:
\begin{equation*}
\begin{tikzcd}
X_k&\mathcal{X}_k\arrow[l]&\mathcal{X}_{k+1}\arrow[l, "\pi_k"']& \mathcal{X}^{\text{ss}}_{k+1}\arrow[l, hook']\\
A\sslash G\arrow[u]\arrow[d]&
A/G\arrow[l]\arrow[u]\arrow[d]& \left(\text{Bl}_{A^0}A\right)/G\arrow[u]\arrow[l, "\pi"']\arrow[d]& \left(\text{Bl}_{A^0}A\right)^{\text{ss}}/G \arrow[l, hook']\arrow[u]\arrow[d]\\
N\sslash G& N/G\arrow[l, "\pi"']&\left(\text{Bl}_{N^0}N\right)/G\arrow[l, "\pi"']& \left(\text{Bl}_{N^0}N\right)^{\text{ss}}/G. \arrow[l, hook']
\end{tikzcd}
\end{equation*}
Here, $A^0\subset A$ is the $G$-fixed locus, the stability condition is given by the tautological line bundle $\mathcal{O}(1)$ on $\text{Bl}_{A^0}A$, and $N$ is the normal bundle of $a$ in $A$.
(iv) The stack $Y:=\mathcal{X}^{\text{ss}}_{n+1}$ is a smooth Deligne--Mumford stack with a proper map $Y\to X$ of relative dimension zero.
\medskip
The class $\ell\in \text{Pic}(\mathcal{X})_\mathbb{R}$ induces classes which we also denote by $\ell\in \text{Pic}(\mathcal{X}_k)_\mathbb{R}$ for $1\leq k\leq n+1$
\begin{prop}\label{indsym}
Let $0\leq k\leq n$.
Assume that $\mathcal{X}_k$ is a symmetric stack. Then $\mathcal{X}^{\text{ss}}_{k+1}$ is also a symmetric stack.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
It suffices to check the statement in the local case
\[V/G\xleftarrow{\pi} \text{Bl}_0V/G\hookleftarrow (\text{Bl}_0V)^{\text{ss}}/G,\]
where $G$ is a reductive group, $V$ is a symmetric $G$-representation with $0$ the only $G$-fixed point in $V$, and the linearization is given by the tautological line bundle $\mathcal{O}(1)$.
We claim that the unstable loci of $\text{Bl}_0V\cong \text{Tot}_{\mathbb{P}(V)}\left(\mathcal{O}(-1)\right)$ are determined by pairs \[(\lambda, \mathbb{P}(V_a))\] where $\lambda:\mathbb{C}^*\to G$, $V_a\subset V$ is the subspace on which $\lambda$ acts with weight $a$, and $a<0$.
The GIT algorithm, see \cite[Section 2.1]{HL2}, eliminates pairs $(\lambda, Z)$ for $\lambda:\mathbb{C}^*\to G$, $Z$ is a $\lambda$-fixed component on $\text{Tot}_{\mathbb{P}(V)}\left(\mathcal{O}(-1)\right)$, and \[\text{wt}_{\lambda}\,\mathcal{O}(1)|_Z>0.\]
The fixed loci $Z$ are $\mathbb{P}(V_a)$ for $a\neq 0$ and $\text{Tot}_{\mathbb{P}(V_0)}\left(\mathcal{O}(-1)\right)$.
Further, we compute
\[\text{wt}_{\lambda}\mathcal{O}(1)|_{\mathbb{P}(V_a)}=\sum_{n\in\mathbb{Z}} (n-a)\dim V_n>0.\]
The representation $V$ is symmetric, so $\text{dim}\,V_i=\text{dim}\,V_{-i}$ for $i\in\mathbb{Z}$.
We thus have that
\[0<\sum_{n\in\mathbb{Z}} n\cdot\dim V_n-a\cdot\dim V=-a\cdot\dim V,\] so indeed $a<0$.
Finally, let $\lambda:\mathbb{C}^*\to G$ be a cocharacter which fixes a point $v$ in
$\text{Tot}_{\mathbb{P}(V)^{\text{ss}}}\left(\mathcal{O}(-1)\right)$. If it lies on a $\lambda$-fixed component $\mathbb{P}(V_a)$ for $a\neq 0$, it is part of an unstable locus for either $\lambda$ or $\lambda^{-1}$. Thus it lies on $\text{Tot}_{\mathbb{P}(V_0)}\left(\mathcal{O}(-1)\right)$; the normal bundle is $\bigoplus_{i\in\mathbb{Z}-\{0\}}V_i$, which is symmetric.
\end{proof}
\begin{prop}
Let $0\leq k\leq n$.
The category $\mathbb{D}_\ell(\mathcal{X}_k)$ is admissible in $\mathbb{D}_\ell\left(\mathcal{X}^{\text{ss}}_{k+1}\right)$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
To simplify the notation, let $\mathcal{X}:=\mathcal{X}_k$, $\mathcal{Y}:=\mathcal{X}_{k+1}$. We will see that the unstable loci are indexed by $(\lambda, a)$, where $\lambda:B\mathbb{G}_m\to\mathcal{X}$ and $a\in\mathbb{Z}$. For each $\Theta$-stratum $\mathcal{S}_{\lambda, a}$ with associated fixed stack $\mathcal{Z}_{\lambda, a}$, choose a real number $w_{\lambda, a}\notin\mathbb{Z}$.
By \cite[Theorem 3.9]{HL}, there is an admissible subcategory $\mathbb{G}\hookrightarrow D^b(\mathcal{Y})$ with objects complexes $\mathcal{F}$ such that for any $\Theta$-stratum $\mathcal{S}_{\lambda,a}$:
\[-\frac{n_{\lambda, a}}{2}+ \lambda^*(\ell)+
w_{\lambda, a}\leq \lambda^* \mathcal{F}
\leq \frac{n_{\lambda, a}}{2}+\lambda^*(\ell)+w_{\lambda, a}\]
with the property that
\[\text{res}:\mathbb{G}\cong D^b(\mathcal{Y}^{\text{ss}}).\]
We next characterize $\Theta$-strata and compute $n_{\lambda, a}$.
We can assume that we are in the local case
\[V/G\xleftarrow{\pi} \text{Bl}_0V/G\cong\text{Tot}_{\mathbb{P}(V)}\left(\mathcal{O}(-1)\right)\hookleftarrow (\text{Bl}_0V)^{\text{ss}}/G,\]
where $G$ is a reductive group, $V$ is a symmetric $G$-representation with $0$ the only $G$-fixed point in $V$, and the linearization is given by the tautological line bundle $\mathcal{O}(1)$.
By the argument of Proposition \ref{indsym}, the unstable loci are determined by pairs
\[(\lambda, \mathbb{P}(V_a))\] where $V_a$ is the $\lambda$-weight $a$ subspace of $V$ and $a<0$.
The $\lambda$-positive part of the normal bundle is \[N_{\mathbb{P}(V_a)/\mathbb{P}(V)}^{\lambda>0}\cong \bigoplus_{i>a} V_i\]
and $\lambda$ acts with weight $i+a$ on $V_i$. The length of the window $n_{\lambda, a}$
is thus:
\begin{multline}\label{m1}
n_{\lambda, a}=\langle \lambda, N_{\mathbb{P}(V_a)/\mathbb{P}(V)}^{\lambda>0}\rangle-\langle \lambda, \mathfrak{g}^{\lambda>0}\rangle=\\ \sum_{i>a}(i+a)\text{dim}\,V_i-\langle \lambda, \mathfrak{g}^{\lambda>0}\rangle>
\langle\lambda, V^{\lambda>0}\rangle-
\langle\lambda, \mathfrak{g}^{\lambda>0}\rangle.
\end{multline}
The category $\mathbb{D}_\ell(\mathcal{X})\subset D^b(\mathcal{X})$ is defined by the conditions
\begin{equation}\label{m2}
-\frac{m_\lambda}{2}+\lambda^*(\ell)
\leq \text{wt}\,\lambda^*\mathcal{F}\leq \frac{m_\lambda}{2}+\lambda^*(\ell),
\end{equation}
where, in the local model $\mathcal{X}=V/G$ from above, $m_\lambda=\langle\lambda, V^{\lambda>0}\rangle-
\langle\lambda, \mathfrak{g}^{\lambda>0}\rangle$.
Similarly, the category $\mathbb{D}_\ell(\mathcal{Y}^{\text{ss}})$ of $D^b(\mathcal{Y}^{\text{ss}})$ is defined by the conditions
\begin{equation}\label{m3}
-\frac{m_\lambda}{2}+\lambda^*(\ell)
\leq \text{wt}\,\lambda^*\mathcal{F}\leq \frac{m_\lambda}{2}+\lambda^*(\ell).
\end{equation}
Indeed, a fixed substack $\mathcal{Z}$ associated to a map $\lambda:B\mathbb{G}_m\to\mathcal{X}$ is isomorphic, in the local model, to $\text{Tot}_{\mathbb{P}(V_0)}\left(\mathcal{O}(-1)\right)$, where $V_0\subset V$ is the $\lambda$-fixed locus. This follows from the analysis at the end of the proof of Proposition \ref{indsym}.
The $\lambda$-fixed loci of $\mathcal{Y}^{\text{ss}}$ are all above $\lambda$-fixed loci of $\mathcal{X}$.
Using \eqref{m1}, \eqref{m2}, \eqref{m3}, we can thus choose weights $w_{\lambda, a}\notin\mathbb{Z}$ such that
\begin{align*}
\pi^*:D^b(\mathcal{X})&\to D^b(\mathcal{Y})\\ \mathbb{D}_\ell(\mathcal{X})&\subset \mathbb{D}_\ell\left(\mathcal{Y}^{\text{ss}}\right).
\end{align*}
Let $\Phi: D^b(\mathcal{X})\to \mathbb{D}_\ell(\mathcal{X})$ be the right adjoint of $\mathbb{D}_\ell(\mathcal{X})\hookrightarrow D^b(\mathcal{X})$ which exists by Theorem \ref{symsod}, see Subsection \ref{rightfunctor}. Consider the functor
\[\Phi\pi_*:\mathbb{D}_\ell\left(\mathcal{Y}^{\text{ss}}\right)\to \mathbb{D}_\ell(\mathcal{X}),\] where recall that $\pi_*$ is the derived functor. We claim that $\pi^*$ and $\Phi\pi_*$ are adjoint. Let $A\in \mathbb{D}_\ell(\mathcal{X})$ and $B\in \mathbb{D}_\ell\left(\mathcal{Y}^{\text{ss}}\right)$. Then
\[\text{RHom}_{\mathcal{Y}}(\pi^*A, B)\cong\text{RHom}_{\mathcal{X}}(A, \pi_*B)\cong\text{RHom}_{\mathcal{X}}(A, \Phi\pi_*B).\]
Finally, the functor $\pi^*$ is fully faithful. By the projection formula, it suffices to show that $\pi_*\mathcal{O}_{\mathcal{Y}}=\mathcal{O}_{\mathcal{X}}$, which follows from a direct computation in the local case. Thus $\mathbb{D}_\ell(\mathcal{X})$ is admissible in $\mathbb{D}_\ell\left(\mathcal{Y}^{\text{ss}}\right)$.
\end{proof}
We thus obtain that:
\begin{cor}\label{kirw}
The category $\mathbb{D}_\ell(\mathcal{X})$ is admissible in $D^b\left(Y\right)$.
\end{cor}
We finally show that $\mathbb{D}(\mathcal{X}):=\mathbb{D}_0(\mathcal{X})$ is an NCR of $X$.
\begin{prop}
Let $\ell\in \text{Pic}(\mathcal{X})_\mathbb{R}$ be such that for any cocharacter $\lambda$,
\[-\frac{n_\lambda}{2}+\lambda^*(\ell)\leq 0\leq \frac{n_\lambda}{2}+\lambda^*(\ell).\]
Then $\mathbb{D}_\ell(\mathcal{X})$ is an NCR of $X$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Consider the inclusion functor and its natural adjoint obtained by Theorem \ref{symsod} and the discussion in Subsection \ref{rightfunctor}:
\begin{align*}
\iota&: \mathbb{D}_\ell(\mathcal{X})\hookrightarrow D^b(\mathcal{X})\\
\Phi&: D^b(\mathcal{X})\to \mathbb{D}_\ell(\mathcal{X}).
\end{align*}
Consider the functors \begin{align*}
\pi_*\iota&:\mathbb{D}_\ell(\mathcal{X})\to D^b(X)\\
\Phi\pi^*&:\text{Perf}\,(X)\to \mathbb{D}_\ell(\mathcal{X}).
\end{align*}
We need to show that for $\mathcal{F}\in \text{Perf}\,(X)$, we have that
\[\pi_*\iota\Phi\pi^*(\mathcal{F})=\mathcal{F}.\]
The complexes $\pi^*\mathcal{F}$ have weight zero for any cocharacter $\lambda$, and thus they are in $\mathbb{D}_\ell(\mathcal{X})$. This means that $\iota\Phi\pi^*\mathcal{F}=\pi^*\mathcal{F}$. We have that
\[\pi_*\iota\Phi\pi^*(\mathcal{F})=\pi_*\pi^*(\mathcal{F})=\mathcal{F}\otimes \pi_*\mathcal{O}_\mathcal{X}=\mathcal{F}.\]
The last equality follows from $\pi_*\mathcal{O}_\mathcal{X}=\mathcal{O}_X$, see Subsection \ref{goodmoduli}.
Finally, the category $\mathbb{D}_\ell(\mathcal{X})$ is smooth and proper over $X$ by Corollary \ref{kirw}, and thus it is an NCR of $X$.
\end{proof}
\section{Intersection cohomology for quotient singularities}\label{comp}
In this Section, $\mathcal{X}$ is a symmetric stack satisfying Assumption B. Let \[\pi:\mathcal{X}\to X\] be the good moduli space morphism.
Denote by $I$ the set of connected components of $\underline{\text{Map}}\,(B\mathbb{G}_m, \mathcal{X})$, by $o$ the connected component $\mathcal{X}$, and let $J:=I-o$. Further, let $I'$ be the set of connected components of $\underline{\text{Map}}\,(\Theta, \mathcal{X})$, $o$ the connected component corresponding to $\mathcal{X}$, and let $J':=I'-o$.
For an attracting stack $\mathcal{S}$ in $J'$ with associated fixed stack $\mathcal{Z}$, consider the map
\[p_{\mathcal{S}*}q_{\mathcal{S}}^*: \mathrm{H}^\cdot(\mathcal{Z})\to \mathrm{H}^\cdot(\mathcal{X}).\]
Define
\[\textbf{B}:=\text{image}\,\left(\bigoplus_{J'} p_{\mathcal{S}*}q_{\mathcal{S}}^*: \mathrm{H}^\cdot(\mathcal{Z})\to \mathrm{H}^\cdot(\mathcal{X})\right).\]
Recall that $D_{\text{shvs}}(X)$ is the category of complexes of constructible sheaves on a space $X$. Let $\left(\tau^{\leq i}, \tau^{>i}\right)$ be the functors corresponding to the usual t-structure on $D_{\text{shvs}}(X)$ and let $D_{\text{shvs}}^{\leq i}(X)$ the subcategory of sheaves with $\tau^{>i}=0$.
Let $\left({}^p\tau^{\leq i}, {}^p\tau^{>i}\right)$ be the functors associated to the perverse t-structure on $D_{\text{shvs}}(X)$ and denote by ${}^pD_{\text{shvs}}^{\leq i}(X)$ the subcategory of sheaves with ${}^p\tau^{>i}=0$. The map $\pi$ induces a perverse filtration:
\[\textbf{P}^{\leq i}\mathrm{H}^\cdot(\mathcal{X}):=\text{image}\big(\mathrm{H}^\cdot\left(X,{}^p\tau^{\leq i}R\pi_*\mathrm{IC}_\mathcal{X}\right)\to \mathrm{H}^\cdot\left(\mathcal{X},R\pi_*\mathrm{IC}_\mathcal{X}\right)\big)\subset \mathrm{H}^\cdot(\mathcal{X}).\]
If $\mathcal{X}$ satisfies Assumption C, then $\textbf{P}^{\leq 0}\mathrm{H}^\cdot(\mathcal{X})\cong \mathrm{IH}^\cdot(X)$ by Proposition \ref{prp}.
The main result we prove in this Section is:
\begin{thm}\label{Thmcoh}
Let $\mathcal{X}$ be a symmetric stack satisfying Assumption B.
Then
\[\mathrm{H}^\cdot(\mathcal{X})=\textbf{P}^{\leq 0}\mathrm{H}^\cdot(\mathcal{X})\oplus \textbf{B}.\]
\end{thm}
We first explain that the BBDG Decomposition Theorem \cite{BBD} implies a Decomposition Theorem for the map $\pi$.
\begin{prop}\label{bbdg}
There is a decomposition
\[R\pi_*\mathrm{IC}_{\mathcal{X}}\cong\bigoplus_{i\geq 0}{}^p\mathcal{H}^i(R\pi_*\mathrm{IC}_\mathcal{X})[-i]\]
and each sheaf ${}^p\mathcal{H}^i(R\pi_*\mathrm{IC}_\mathcal{X})$ is a direct sum of sheaves $\mathrm{IC}_Z(\mathcal{L})$ for $Z\subset X$ and $\mathcal{L}$ a local system on an open smooth subset of $Z$.
\end{prop}
An explicit computation of $R\pi_*\mathrm{IC}_\mathcal{X}$ for $\mathcal{X}$ a stack of representation of a quiver appears in \cite[Theorem 4.6]{MR}, \cite[Proof of Theorem 4.10]{DM}.
\begin{proof}
The idea, inspired by Totaro's approximations of quotient stacks, is to approximate the stack $\mathcal{X}$ with smooth varieties proper over $X$ and apply the BBDG Decomposition Theorem \cite{BBD}. By Corollary \ref{ahr2}, it suffices to treat the local case $\mathcal{X}=V/G$.
\smallskip
For $n\geq 1$, consider the stacks
\[\mathcal{X}_n:=\left(V\oplus V^{\oplus n}\right)/G\times\mathbb{C}^*,\]
where $\mathbb{C}^*$ acts with weight zero on the first copy of $V$ and with weight $1$ on the summand $V^{\oplus n}$, and $G$ acts naturally on all copies of $V$. Consider the linearization $G\times\mathbb{C}^*\xrightarrow{\text{pr}_2} \mathbb{C}^*$. Define the schemes
\begin{align*}
S_n&:=\left(V\oplus V^{\oplus n}\right)^{\text{st}}\sslash G\times\mathbb{C}^*\\
S_n^o&:=\left(V\oplus V^{\oplus n}\right)^{\text{st}, \text{nf}}\sslash G\times\mathbb{C}^*.
\end{align*}
The superscript $\textit{nf}$ means that we take the open subset of the stable locus $\left(V\oplus V^{\oplus n}\right)^{\text{st}}$ not fixed by any elements of $G$. Consider the natural maps:
\begin{equation*}
\begin{tikzcd}
\mathcal{X}_n\arrow[d,"t_n"']& S_n^o\arrow[l,"i_n"']\arrow[d,hook,"\ell_n"]\\
\mathcal{X}\arrow[d,"\pi"']& S_n\arrow[dl,"q_n"]\\
X.
\end{tikzcd}
\end{equation*}
Denote by $\pi_n:=\pi t_n:\mathcal{X}_n\to X$. We discuss two preliminary results.
\begin{prop}\label{stable}
We have that $\left(V\oplus V^{\oplus n}\right)^{\text{st}}=\left(V\oplus V^{\oplus n}\right)^{\text{ss}}$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Let $\mu$ be a cocharacter of $G\times\mathbb{C}^*$. It is enough to show that there are no $\mu$-fixed points on $\left(V\oplus V^{\oplus n}\right)^{\text{ss}}$. Write $\mu=\lambda\cdot z^b$ for $b\in\mathbb{Z}$, $\lambda$ a cocharacter of $G$, and $z$ the identity cocharacter of $\mathbb{C}^*$.
If $b>0$, then $\left(V\oplus V^{\oplus n}\right)^{\mu}$ is unstable. If $b<0$, then $\left(V\oplus V^{\oplus n}\right)^{\mu^{-1}}$ is unstable. If $b=0$, then
\[\left(V\oplus V^{\oplus n}\right)^{\lambda}\subset \left(V\oplus V^{\oplus n}\right)^{\lambda\cdot z\geq 0},\] so $\left(V\oplus V^{\oplus n}\right)^{\lambda}$ is contained in an unstable locus.
\end{proof}
\begin{prop}\label{truncations}
Fix $a\in\mathbb{Z}$.
For $n$ large enough, we have that
\begin{align*}
{}^p\tau^{\leq a}R\pi_{n*}\mathbb{Q}_{\mathcal{X}_n}&\cong{}^p\tau^{\leq a}R\pi_{n*}i_{n*}\mathbb{Q}_{S_n^o}\\
{}^p\tau^{\leq a}Rq_{n*}\mathbb{Q}_{S_n}&\cong{}^p\tau^{\leq a}R\pi_{n*}i_{n*}\mathbb{Q}_{S_n^o}.
\end{align*}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
We only explain the first equality; the second one is similar.
All complexes we consider have cohomology of finite dimension and are bounded on the left. For stacks, functoriality of such complexes is discussed by Laszlo--Olsson \cite{LO1}, \cite{LO2}. Consider the substacks
\[j_n:\mathcal{Z}_n\hookrightarrow \mathcal{X}_n \hookleftarrow S_n^o: i_n.\]
There is a distinguished triangle in $D_{\text{shvs}}(Y)$:
\[j_{n!}j_n^!\mathbb{Q}_{\mathcal{X}_n}=j_{n*}\omega_{\mathcal{Z}_n}[-2\dim\mathcal{X}_n]\to \mathbb{Q}_{\mathcal{X}_n}\to i_{n*}\mathbb{Q}_{S^o_n}\xrightarrow{[1]}.\]
The complex $\omega_{\mathcal{Z}_n}$ is in $D^{\geq -2\dim \mathcal{Z}_n}_{\text{shvs}}(\mathcal{Z}_n)$, see \cite[Section V.2]{Iv}. Let $c_n$ be the codimension of $\mathcal{Z}_n$ in $\mathcal{X}_n$. Then $\omega_{\mathcal{Z}_n}[-2\dim\mathcal{X}_n]\in D^{\geq 2c_n}_{\text{shvs}}(\mathcal{Z}_n).$ Pushforward preserves the categories $D^{\geq \cdot}$, so \[R\pi_{n*}i_{n*}\omega_{\mathcal{Z}_n}[-2\dim\mathcal{X}_n]\in D^{\geq 2c_n}_{\text{shvs}}(X).\] There is a constant $b$ only depending on $X$ such that
\[R\pi_{n*}i_{n*}\omega_{\mathcal{Z}_n}[-2\dim\mathcal{X}_n]\in {}^pD^{\geq b+2c_n}_{\text{shvs}}(X),\] and this implies the desired conclusion for large enough $n$.
\end{proof}
Now we continue the proof of Proposition \ref{bbdg}. By Proposition \ref{stable}, the variety $S_n$ has finite quotient singularities, thus $\mathrm{IC}_{S_n}\cong\mathbb{Q}_{S_n}[\dim S_n]$. By Proposition \ref{truncations}, we have that for $m>n$ large enough,
\[{}^p\tau^{\leq a}R\pi_{n*}\mathbb{Q}_{\mathcal{X}_n}\cong{}^p\tau^{\leq a}Rq_{n*}\mathbb{Q}_{S_n}\cong{}^p\tau^{\leq a}Rq_{m*}\mathbb{Q}_{S_m}.\]
Fix $a\in\mathbb{Z}$. The complex $R\pi_{*}\mathbb{Q}_\mathcal{X}$ is a direct summand of $R\pi_{n*}\mathbb{Q}_{\mathcal{X}_n}$, so ${}^p\tau^{\leq a}R\pi_*\mathbb{Q}_\mathcal{X}$ is a direct summand of ${}^p\tau^{\leq a}R\pi_{n*}\mathbb{Q}_{\mathcal{X}_n}$.
The Decomposition Theorem for the maps $q_{n}$ implies the desired conclusion.
\end{proof}
For a cocharacter $\lambda$, define $c_\lambda:=\dim \mathcal{X}-\dim \mathcal{X}^{\lambda\geq 0}$.
\begin{prop}\label{CH}
Assume that $\mathcal{X}=V/G$.
Let $\lambda$ be a cocharacter of $G$ and let $\textbf{B}$ be a semisimple summand of ${}^p\mathcal{H}^i(R\pi_*\mathrm{IC}_\mathcal{X})$ with support contained in the image of $X^\lambda\to X$.
Then
\[\textbf{B}\subset \text{image}\,\left({}^p\mathcal{H}^i\left(R\pi_*p_*\mathrm{IC}_{\mathcal{X}^{ \lambda\geq 0}}[-c_\lambda]\right)\to {}^p\mathcal{H}^i\left(R\pi_*\mathrm{IC}_\mathcal{X}\right)\right).\]
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
We use the same notations as in the proof of Proposition \ref{bbdg}. First, for any $n$, there is an isomorphism
\begin{equation}
Rt_{n*}\mathbb{Q}_{\mathcal{X}_n}\cong\mathbb{Q}_{\mathcal{X}}\otimes\mathbb{Q}[h],
\end{equation}
where $\mathbb{Q}[h]$ is the polynomial ring in a generator
$h$ of cohomological degree $2$. It suffices to show the statement for summands $\textbf{B}$ of $R\pi_{n*}\mathbb{Q}_{\mathcal{X}_n}$.
Choose $n$ such that $\textbf{B}$ is a summand of ${}^p\mathcal{H}^i\left(Rq_{n*}\mathbb{Q}_{S_n}[\dim X]\right)$. Define
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{Y}_n&:=\left(V^{\lambda\geq 0}\oplus V^{\oplus n}\right)/G\times\mathbb{C}^*,\\
W_n&:=\left(V^{\lambda\geq 0}\oplus V^{\oplus n}\right)^{\text{st}}\sslash G\times\mathbb{C}^*\\
W_n^o&:=\left(V^{\lambda\geq 0}\oplus V^{\oplus n}\right)^{\text{st}, \text{nf}}\sslash G\times\mathbb{C}^*.
\end{align*}
It suffices to show that:
\begin{equation}\label{summand}
\textbf{B}\subset \text{image}\,\left({}^p\mathcal{H}^\cdot\left(R\pi_{n*}p_*\mathrm{IC}_{\mathcal{Y}_n}[-c_\lambda]\right)\to {}^p\mathcal{H}^\cdot\left(R\pi_{n*}\mathrm{IC}_{\mathcal{X}_n}\right)\right).
\end{equation}
Consider the diagram
\begin{equation*}
\begin{tikzcd}
S_n\arrow[d,"q_n"']& W_n\arrow[l,"p"']\arrow[d,"r_n"]\\
X& X^\lambda. \arrow[l]
\end{tikzcd}
\end{equation*}
By \cite[Proposition 1.5]{CH2}, $\textbf{B}$ appears in the image of
\[{}^p\mathcal{H}^\cdot\left(Rr_{n*}\mathrm{IC}_{W_n}[-c_\lambda]\right)\to
{}^p\mathcal{H}^\cdot\left(Rq_{n*}\mathrm{IC}_{S_n}\right).\]
Using an argument similar to Proposition \ref{truncations} for $\mathcal{Y}_n$, $W_n$, and $W_n^o$, the claim in \eqref{summand} follows.
\end{proof}
\begin{prop}\label{prp}
Let $\mathcal{X}=V/G$ be a symmetric stack satisfying Assumption B. Let $\lambda$ be a non-zero cocharacter of $G$. Then
\begin{align*}
&\text{image}\,\left(R\pi_*p_*\mathrm{IC}_{\mathcal{X}^{ \lambda\geq 0}}[-c_\lambda]\to R\pi_*\mathrm{IC}_\mathcal{X}\right)\subset {}^pD^{\geq 1}_{\text{shvs}}(\mathcal{X}).
\end{align*}
In particular, ${}^p\tau^{\leq 0}R\pi_*\mathrm{IC}_\mathcal{X}$ is a direct sum of IC sheaves with full support.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
We show the first statement. We use induction on $\dim G$.
Consider the diagram
\begin{equation*}
\begin{tikzcd}
\mathcal{X}^{\lambda\geq 0}\arrow[d,"q"']\arrow[dr,"p"]& \\
\mathcal{X}^\lambda\arrow[d,"\pi^\lambda"'] & \mathcal{X}\arrow[d,"\pi"]\\
X^\lambda \arrow[r]&X.
\end{tikzcd}
\end{equation*}
There are natural maps
\[p_*q^*\mathrm{IC}_{\mathcal{X}^\lambda}\to p_*\mathrm{IC}_{\mathcal{X}^{\lambda\geq 0}}[-c_\lambda]\to \mathrm{IC}_\mathcal{X}.\]
The map $q$ is an affine bundle map, so $q_*\mathbb{Q}_{\mathcal{X}^{\lambda\geq 0}}=\mathbb{Q}_{\mathcal{X}^\lambda}$. The stack $\mathcal{X}$ is symmetric, so $\text{reldim}\,q=c_\lambda$. We thus need to show that
\[\text{image}\,\left(R\pi^\lambda_*\mathrm{IC}_{\mathcal{X}^{ \lambda}}\to R\pi_*\mathrm{IC}_\mathcal{X}\right)\subset {}^pD^{\geq 1}_{\text{shvs}}(X).\]
Let $\widetilde{G^\lambda}$ be the quotient of $G^\lambda$ by the torus which acts trivially on $V^\lambda$.
Then \[\widetilde{\pi^\lambda}:\widetilde{\mathcal{X}^\lambda}:=V^\lambda/\widetilde{G^\lambda}\to X^\lambda\] is a good moduli space and $\widetilde{\mathcal{X}^\lambda}$ is a symmetric stack satisfying Assumption B. We thus have that
\begin{align*}
R\widetilde{\pi^\lambda}_*\mathrm{IC}_{\widetilde{\mathcal{X}^\lambda}}\in {}^pD^{\geq 0}_{\text{shvs}}(\mathcal{X}^\lambda)\\
R\pi_{\lambda*}\mathrm{IC}_{\mathcal{X}^\lambda}\in {}^pD^{\geq 1}_{\text{shvs}}(\mathcal{X}^\lambda).
\end{align*}
The second statement follows from Proposition \ref{CH} and the fact that $\pi$ is generically finite.
\end{proof}
We next discuss some preliminary computations regarding the maps $m_\mathcal{S}$. For $\mathcal{X}=A/G$ for $A$ an affine scheme (but one can assume for simplicity that $A$ is an affine space by Corollary \ref{ahr2}) and $\lambda:\mathbb{C}^*\to G$, denote by \[m_\lambda:=p_{\lambda^{-1}*}q_{\lambda^{-1}}^*: \mathrm{H}^\cdot(\mathcal{X}^\lambda)\to \mathrm{H}^\cdot(\mathcal{X}).\]
Let $N:=N_{a/A}$ be the normal bundle, and denote by $\textbf{A}$ for the set of weights in $N$, $\textbf{A}_\lambda$, $\textbf{g}_\lambda$ for the set of weights (counted with multiplicities) of $N^{\lambda>0}$, $\mathfrak{g}^{\lambda>0}$ etc. For $\beta$ a weight of $G$, denote by $h_\beta\in \mathrm{H}^2(T)$. The following computation are standard, for similar computations see \cite[Theorem 2.2]{COHA}, \cite[Proposition 1.2]{YZ}:
\begin{prop}\label{compcoh}
Let $\lambda$ be a cocharacter of $G$.
Let $x\in \mathrm{H}^{\cdot}(\mathcal{X}^\lambda)$. Then
\[m_\lambda(x)=\sum_{w\in W/W^\lambda}w\left((-1)^{|\textbf{A}_\lambda|-|\textbf{g}_\lambda|}x\frac{\prod_{\textbf{A}_{\lambda}}h_\beta}{\prod_{\textbf{g}_{\lambda}}h_\beta}\right).\]
\end{prop}
\begin{prop}\label{Levi}
Let $\lambda$ and $\mu$ be cocharacters of $G$ with the same associated Levi group $L$. Then
\[\text{image}\,\left(\mathrm{H}^\cdot(\mathcal{X}^L)\xrightarrow{m_\lambda}\mathrm{H}^\cdot(\mathcal{X})\right)=\text{image}\,\left(\mathrm{H}^\cdot(\mathcal{X}^L)\xrightarrow{m_\mu}\mathrm{H}^\cdot(\mathcal{X})\right).\]
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Let $y\in \mathrm{H}^{\cdot}(\mathcal{X}^L)$. By Proposition \ref{compcoh}, we have that:
\begin{align*}
m_\lambda(y)&=\pm\sum_{w\in W/W^L}w\left(x\frac{\prod_{\textbf{A}_{\lambda}}h_\beta}{\prod_{\textbf{g}_{\lambda}}h_\beta}\right)\\
m_\mu(y)&=\pm\sum_{w\in W/W^L}w\left(x\frac{\prod_{\textbf{A}_{\mu}}h_\beta}{\prod_{\textbf{g}_{\mu}}h_\beta}\right).
\end{align*}
The representation $N$ is symmetric, so
\[\{\pm h_\beta|\,\beta\in N^{\lambda>0}\}=\{\pm h_\beta|\,\beta\in N^{\mu>0}\}=\{h_\beta|\, \beta\in N/N^L\},\]
and thus $m_\lambda(y)=\pm m_\mu(y)$.
\end{proof}
Let $\lambda$ be a cocharacter of $G$.
Let $T^{\lambda}\subset G^\lambda$ be the torus which acts trivially on $A^\lambda$, and let $\widetilde{G^\lambda}:=G^\lambda/T^\lambda$.
Consider the map \[\widetilde{\pi^\lambda}:\widetilde{\mathcal{X}^\lambda}:=A^\lambda/\widetilde{G^\lambda}\to X^\lambda.\]
Define
\[\mathrm{H}^\cdot(\mathcal{X}^\lambda)':=\mathrm{H}^\cdot\left({}^p\tau^{\leq 0}R\widetilde{\pi^\lambda}_*\mathrm{IC}_{\widetilde{\mathcal{X}^\lambda}}\right)\otimes \mathbb{Q}[\mathfrak{t}^\lambda]\hookrightarrow \mathrm{H}^\cdot(\mathcal{X}^\lambda),\] where the generators of $\mathfrak{t}^\lambda$ have cohomological degree $2$.
For each Levi group $L$, choose a cocharacter $\lambda_L$ such that $L\cong G^{\lambda_L}$.
\begin{prop}
We have that
\begin{align*}
\textbf{B}&\cong\text{image}\,\left(\bigoplus_L \mathrm{H}^\cdot\left(\mathcal{X}^{\lambda_L}\right)\to \mathrm{H}^\cdot(\mathcal{X})\right)\\
\textbf{B}&\cong\text{image}\,\left(\bigoplus_L \mathrm{H}^\cdot\left(\mathcal{X}^{\lambda_L}\right)'\to \mathrm{H}^\cdot(\mathcal{X})\right).
\end{align*}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
The first equality follows from Proposition \ref{Levi} and the second follows by induction and the Decomposition Theorem.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{Thmcoh}]
Let $p\in X$ and recall the setting from Corollary \ref{ahr2}. The restriction of fixed and $\Theta$-stacks to $p^{-1}(\mathcal{U})$ and $\pi^{-1}(U)$ are in a natural bijection. It suffices to prove the statement in the local case $\mathcal{X}=V/G$.
Choose a splitting in the decomposition theorem for $\pi:\mathcal{X}\to X$:
\[\mathrm{H}^\cdot(\mathcal{X})\cong\bigoplus_{i\geq 0}{}^p\mathrm{H}^i(\mathcal{X}),\]
where ${}^p\mathrm{H}^i(\mathcal{X}):=\mathrm{H}^\cdot\left({}^p\mathcal{H}^i\left(R\pi_*\mathrm{IC}_\mathcal{X}\right)\right)$.
For $L$ a Levi subgroup, denote by $\mathrm{H}^\cdot(\mathcal{X})_{X^L}$ the cohomology of the summands in $\bigoplus_i {}^p\mathcal{H}^i(R\pi_*\mathrm{IC}_\mathcal{X})$ with support $X^L\to X$. These are all the supports that appear in the Decomposition Theorem for the map $\pi:\mathcal{X}\to X$. Further, by Propositions \ref{CH}, \ref{prp}, and \ref{Levi},
\[\text{image}\,\left(\mathrm{H}^\cdot\left(\mathcal{X}^{\lambda_L}\right)'\to \mathrm{H}^\cdot(\mathcal{X})\right)=\mathrm{H}^\cdot(\mathcal{X})_{X^L}\cong\bigoplus_{i\geq 1}{}^p\mathrm{H}^i(\mathcal{X})_{X^L}.\]
The conclusion follows from Proposition \ref{prp}.
\end{proof}
\section{Categorification of IH for quotient singularities}\label{cat}
In this Section, assume that $\mathcal{X}$ satisfies Assumption B and is symmetric. We will use the category $\mathbb{D}(\mathcal{X})$ for $\ell$ zero.
For $\mathcal{X}=A/G$ as in Theorem \ref{ahr}, denote by $N=N_{a/A}$ the normal bundle.
We write $\textbf{A}_\lambda$, $\textbf{g}_\lambda$, $\textbf{n}$, $\textbf{n}^\mu$ etc. for the sets of weights (counted with multiplicities) of $N^{\lambda>0}$, $\mathfrak{g}^{\lambda>0}$, $\mathfrak{n}$, $\mathfrak{n}^\mu$ etc. We (abuse notation and) denote by $N^{\lambda>0}$, $\mathfrak{g}^{\lambda>0}$ etc. the sum of weights in $\textbf{A}_\lambda$, $\textbf{g}_\lambda$ etc.
Recall that $\mathrm{K}_\cdot$ denotes rational K-theory.
\subsection{Notations and definitions}
We begin with some preliminary constructions and definitions.
\subsubsection{}\label{Weylinv}
There is a natural isomorphism
\[\mathrm{K}_\cdot(A/G)\cong \mathrm{K}_\cdot(A/T)^W.\]
\subsubsection{}
Let $\chi$ be a weight of $T$. Denote by $\mathrm{K}_\cdot(A/T)_\chi$ the subspace of $\mathrm{K}_\cdot(A/T)$ which is the image in K-theory of the inclusion $D^b(A/T)_\chi\subset D^b(A/T)$ of the subcategory generated by locally free $T$-equivariant sheaves with $T$-weight $\chi$.
\subsubsection{}\label{ag}
Let $\lambda$ be a cocharacter.
For $I$ a subset of $\textbf{A}_\lambda$, denote by
\[\sigma_I:=\sum_{\beta\in I}\beta.\]
\subsubsection{}\label{notations}
For two cocharacters $\lambda$ and $\mu$, let $I_\mu^\lambda$ be the set of weights $\beta$ of $\textbf{A}_{\lambda}$ such that $\langle \mu, \beta\rangle<0$; define similarly $J_\mu^\lambda$ for the adjoint representation. We will use the notations:
\begin{align*}
&d^\lambda_\mu=|I^\lambda_\mu|,\\
&e^\lambda_\mu=|J^\lambda_\mu|,\\
&c^\lambda_\mu=|I^\lambda_\mu|-|J^\lambda_\mu|\\
&N^\lambda_\mu=\sum_{I_\mu^\lambda}\beta,\\
&\mathfrak{g}^\lambda_\mu=\sum_{J_\mu^\lambda}\beta,\\
&\mathcal{N}^\lambda_\mu=N^\lambda_\mu-\mathfrak{g}^\lambda_\mu.
\end{align*}
\subsubsection{}\label{S} Let $\lambda$ and $\mu$ be cocharacters of $G$ with associated Levi and Weyl groups $G^\lambda$, $W^\lambda$, $G^\mu$, $W^\mu$. Consider the set $\textbf{S}:=W^\lambda \backslash W\slash W^\mu$. Let $V$ be the set of simple weights. For $s\in \textbf{S}$, consider partitions of $V$ induced by $\lambda$ and $w\mu$:
\begin{equation*}
V=\bigsqcup_{i\in I^\lambda} V_i,\,V=\bigsqcup_{j\in I^{w\mu}} V_j.
\end{equation*}
The sets $I^\lambda$ and $I^{w\mu}$ are the sets of eigenvalues of $\lambda$ and $w\mu$ on $\mathfrak{h}=\mathbb{C}^V$, respectively. They are ordered by the natural ordering of $\mathbb{Z}$.
Define $V^w_{ij}:=V_i\cap V_j$ and use the lexicographic order on the set $(I^\lambda, I^{w\mu})$. Consider the decomposition
\begin{equation}\label{V1}
V=\bigsqcup_{(i, j)\in (I^\lambda, I^{w\mu})} V^w_{ij}.
\end{equation}
Similarly, consider the partitions of $V$ induced by $\mu$ and $w^{-1}\lambda$:
\begin{equation*}
V=\bigsqcup_{i\in I^\mu} V_i,\,V=\bigsqcup_{j\in I^{w^{-1}\lambda}} V_j.\end{equation*}
Define $V'^w_{ij}:=V_i\cap V_j$. Use the lexicographic order on the set $\left(I^\mu, I^{w^{-1}\lambda}\right)$ and consider the decomposition
\begin{equation}\label{V2}
V=\bigsqcup_{(i, j)\in (I^\mu, I^{w^{-1}\lambda})} V'^w_{ij}.\end{equation}
Assume next that $\lambda$ and $\mu$ are dominant cocharacters. Let $w\in W^\lambda s W^\mu$ be an element such that the lexicographic order on $(I^\lambda, I^{w_s\mu})$ induces a dominant cocharacter $\nu$; $w$ can be chosen such that it
does not permute elements of $V_i$ for $i\in I^\lambda$ among themselves, and similarly for $V_j$ for $j\in I^{\mu}$. We can choose $w$ to be the element of minimal length $w_s\in W^\lambda s W^\mu$.
Let $\nu$ be the dominant cocharacter induced by $\left(I^\lambda, I^{w_s\mu}\right)$. Further, $\left(I^\mu, I^{w_s^{-1}\lambda}\right)$ induces a dominant cocharacter $\nu'$.
Further, for any $w\in W^\lambda w_s W^\mu$, there exists $w'\in W^\lambda$ such that
\[\{w'V^w_{ij}| i\in I^\lambda, j\in I^{w\mu}\}=\{V^{w_s}_{ij}| i\in I^\lambda, j\in I^{w_s\mu}\}.\]
\subsubsection{Example.}\label{example} We discuss an example of the construction from the previous Subsection.
Let $G=GL(n)$ and assume that $\lambda$ and $\mu$ are dominant cocharacters with parabolic groups \begin{align*}
G^{\lambda\geq 0}&=GL(a,b)\\
G^{\mu\geq 0}&=GL(c,d).
\end{align*}
We identify the set $V$ with $\{1,\cdots, n\}$. The partition of $V$ corresponding to $\lambda$ is $\{1,\cdots, a\}\sqcup \{a+1,\cdots, n\}$, and the partition of $V$ corresponding to $\mu$ is $\{1,\cdots, c\}\sqcup \{c+1,\cdots, n\}$.
The set $\textbf{S}=\mathfrak{S}_a\times\mathfrak{S}_b\backslash \mathfrak{S}_n\slash \mathfrak{S}_c\times\mathfrak{S}_d$ parametrizes quadruplets $\left(e_1, e_2, e_3, e_4\right)$ such that \begin{align*}
e_1+e_2&=a,\\ e_3+e_4&=b,\\
e_1+e_3&=c,\\ e_2+e_4&=d.
\end{align*}
The decomposition \eqref{V1} corresponds to a partition of $V$ in four sets $V_i$ of cardinal $e_i$ for $1\leq i\leq 4$ such that $V_1\sqcup V_2=\{1,\cdots, a\}$; the decomposition \eqref{V2} corresponds to a partition of $V$ in four sets $V'_i$ of cardinals $e_1$, $e_3$, $e_2$, and $e_4$ respectively, such that $V'_1\sqcup V'_2=\{1,\cdots, c\}$. The decomposition corresponding to $\nu$ is
\[V_1=\{1,\cdots, e_1\}, \cdots, V_4=\{e_1+e_2+e_3+1,\cdots, n\}.\]
The dominant cocharacters $\nu$ and $\nu'$ correspond to the parabolic groups
\begin{align*}
G^{\nu\geq 0}&=GL(e_1, e_2, e_3, e_4)\\
G^{\nu'\geq 0}&=GL(e_1, e_3, e_2, e_4).
\end{align*}
The permutation $w_s\in \mathfrak{S}_n$ sends
\begin{align*}
i&\mapsto i+e_2\text{ for }e_1+1\leq i\leq e_1+e_2,\\
i&\mapsto i-e_2\text{ for }e_1+e_2+1\leq i\leq e_1+e_2+e_3.
\end{align*}
\subsubsection{}\label{face}
Recall the definition of $\mathbb{W}$ from \eqref{defW}.
Let $\lambda$ a cocharacter of $G$. Assume that $n_\lambda$ is even and let $b_\lambda=n_\lambda/2$.
Denote by $\mathbb{F}(\lambda)$ the set of weights $\chi$ such that
\[\langle \lambda, \chi\rangle=b_\lambda.\]
Let $\chi$ be a weight satisfying the inequalities in \eqref{bounds} and such that $\chi\in \mathbb{F}(\lambda)$. Then there exists $\psi$ and $w\in W$ such that $w\psi$ is dominant, $w\psi+\rho_L\in \frac{1}{2}\mathbb{W}(\mathcal{X}^L)$, and
\begin{equation}\label{decompositionchi}
\chi=\frac{1}{2}N^{\lambda>0}-\frac{1}{2}\mathfrak{g}^{\lambda>0}+\psi.
\end{equation}
Here $\rho_L$ is half the sum of positive roots of $\mathfrak{l}=\mathfrak{g}^\lambda$.
Indeed, the condition that $\chi$ satisfies the inequalities in \eqref{bounds} means that there exists $w\in W$ such that $w\chi$ is dominant and
\[w\chi+\rho\in\frac{1}{2}\mathbb{W}.\]
This also implies that $w\lambda$ is dominant. By \cite[Lemma 3.12]{HLS}, \cite[Corollary 2.4]{P2}, there exists a weight $\tau\in\frac{1}{2}\mathbb{W}(\mathcal{X}^L)$ such that
\[w\chi+\rho=\frac{1}{2}N^{w\lambda>0}+\tau.\]
Write $\rho=\frac{1}{2}\mathfrak{g}^{w\lambda>0}+\rho_L$. Then there exists $\omega$ dominant such that $\omega+\rho_L\in\frac{1}{2}\mathbb{W}(\mathcal{X}^L)$ and
\[w\chi=\frac{1}{2}N^{w\lambda>0}-\frac{1}{2}\mathfrak{g}^{w\lambda>0}+\omega.\]
For $\psi=w^{-1}\omega$ we obtain the desired conclusion.
\subsubsection{}\label{cha}
Recall from the discussion in Subsection \ref{abcd} that the categories $\mathbb{D}(\mathcal{X})$ may contain complexes supported on attracting stacks. We discuss how to characterize these complexes.
Assume that $\mathcal{X}=A/G$.
Let $\lambda$ be a cocharacter. Recall that $b_\lambda=n_\lambda/2$. Denote by $\mathbb{D}(\mathcal{X}^\lambda)_b$ the subcategory of $\mathbb{D}(\mathcal{X}^\lambda)$ generated by sheaves of weights $\chi$ such that $\langle \lambda, \chi\rangle=b_\lambda$, see \eqref{decompositionchi} for their description.
A cocharacter $\lambda$ determines a map
\[m_\lambda:=\frac{1}{|W^\lambda|}p_{{\lambda^{-1}}*}q_{\lambda^{-1}}^*:\mathrm{K}_\cdot\left(\mathbb{D}(\mathcal{X}^\lambda)_b\right)\to \mathrm{K}_\cdot\left(\mathbb{D}(\mathcal{X})\right).\]
To see that the image lies in $\mathbb{D}(\mathcal{X})$, the sheaves in Proposition \ref{bbw} all have $r$-invariant $\leq 1/2$ by the argument in \cite[Proposition 3.12]{HLS}.
A cocharacter $\nu:\mathbb{C}^*\to G$ with image in $G^\lambda$ determines a cocharacter of $G^\lambda$ and thus a map
\[m^\lambda_\nu=\frac{1}{|W^\nu|}p_{{\nu^{-1}}*}q_{\nu^{-1}}^*: \mathrm{K}_\cdot\left(\mathbb{D}(\mathcal{X}^\nu)_b\right)\to \mathrm{K}_\cdot\left(\mathbb{D}(\mathcal{X}^\lambda)_b\right).\]
There are similarly defined maps in the global case.
\smallskip
A dominant cocharacter $\lambda$ of $G$ determines a restriction map:
\[\Delta_\lambda:=\beta_{\geq b_\lambda}p_\lambda^*: \mathrm{K}_\cdot\left(\mathbb{D}(\mathcal{X})\right)\to \mathrm{K}_\cdot\left(\mathbb{D}(\mathcal{X}^\lambda)_b\right).\] Here, $\beta_{\geq b_\lambda}$ is the functor which considers the top $\lambda$-weight component:
\[\beta_{\geq b_\lambda}: D^b(\mathcal{X}^{\lambda\geq 0})\to D^b(\mathcal{X}^{\lambda\geq 0})_{b_\lambda}\cong D^b(\mathcal{X}^{\lambda})_{b_\lambda},\]
see \cite[Lemma 3.4, Corollary 3.17]{HL2} for a defintion of the functor $\beta_{\geq \cdot}$; the equivalence is induces by the functor $q_\lambda^*$ \cite[Amplification 3.18]{HL2}.
It has the formula from Proposition \ref{computations3}.
For dominant $\nu$ as above, there is a restriction map:
\[\Delta^\lambda_\nu: \mathrm{K}_\cdot\left(\mathbb{D}(\mathcal{X}^\lambda)_b\right)\to \mathrm{K}_\cdot\left(\mathbb{D}(\mathcal{X}^\nu)_b\right).\]
\subsubsection{}\label{sss} Assume that $\mathcal{X}=A/G$. We use the notations and settings of
Subsections \ref{notations} and \ref{S}. Consider dominant $\lambda$ and $\mu$ inducing dominant $\nu$ and $\nu'$. Then
\[\{\beta\in N|\,\langle \lambda, \beta\rangle>0, \langle w_s\mu, \beta\rangle<0\}=\{\beta\in N|\,\langle \nu, \beta\rangle>0, \langle \nu', \beta\rangle<0\},\] and so
$c^\lambda_{w_s\mu}=c^\nu_{\nu'},
\mathcal{N}^\lambda_{w_s\mu}=\mathcal{N}^\nu_{\nu'}.$ A weight $\beta$ of $T$ determines $q_\beta\in K_0(BT)$.
Define
\begin{align*}
\widetilde{\text{sw}_s}: \mathrm{K}_\cdot\left(\mathbb{D}(\mathcal{X}^\nu)_b\right)&\to \mathrm{K}_\cdot\left(\mathbb{D}(\mathcal{X}^{\nu'})_b\right)\\
y&\mapsto (-1)^{c^\nu_{\nu'}}
w_s^{-1}\left(yq^{-\mathcal{N}^\nu_{\nu'}}\right)=(-1)^{c^\lambda_{w_s\mu}}
w_s^{-1}\left(yq^{-\mathcal{N}^\lambda_{w_s\mu}}\right).
\end{align*}
\subsection{Computations in K-theory}\label{subcoproduct}
Recall the notations $I, J, I', J'$ from the beginning of Section \ref{comp}.
For $\mathcal{S}$ an attracting stack in $J$ with fixed locus $\mathcal{Z}$, consider the map
\[m_\mathcal{S}:=p_*q^*: \mathrm{K}_\cdot(\mathcal{Z})\to \mathrm{K}_\cdot(\mathcal{X})\]
and the subspace of $K_\cdot(\mathcal{X})$:
\[\textbf{B}\mathrm{K}_\cdot(\mathcal{X}):=\text{image}\left(\bigoplus_{J'}
\mathrm{K}_\cdot(\mathcal{Z})\to \mathrm{K}_\cdot(\mathcal{X})\right).\]
We define $\textbf{P}\mathrm{K}_\cdot(\mathcal{X})$ in Subsection \ref{intKtheory}. The main result we prove in this Section is:
\begin{thm}\label{decompK}
There is a decomposition $\mathrm{K}_\cdot(\mathcal{X})=\textbf{P}\mathrm{K}_\cdot(\mathcal{X})\oplus \textbf{B}\mathrm{K}_\cdot(\mathcal{X})$.
\end{thm}
The definition of $\textbf{P}\mathrm{K}_\cdot(\mathcal{X})$ is based on the following result. We restrict to the local case $\mathcal{X}=A/G$. The following is the main ingredient in the proof of Theorem \ref{decompK}.
\begin{thm}\label{copr}
Let $\lambda$ and $\mu$ be two dominant cocharacters, let $\textbf{S}$ be the set defined in Subsection \ref{S}, and let $\nu$ be dominant cocharacters as constructed in Subsection \ref{S}.
The following diagram commutes:
\begin{equation*}
\begin{tikzcd}
\mathrm{K}_\cdot\left(\mathbb{D}(\mathcal{X}^\lambda)_b\right)\arrow[d, "\bigoplus_{\textbf{S}} \Delta^\lambda_\nu"']\arrow[r, "m_\lambda"]& \mathrm{K}_\cdot(\mathbb{D}(\mathcal{X}))\arrow[d, "\Delta_\mu"]\\
\bigoplus_{\textbf{S}} \mathrm{K}_\cdot\left(\mathbb{D}(\mathcal{X}^\nu)_b\right) \arrow[r, "\bigoplus_{\textbf{S}} \widetilde{m^\mu_{\nu}}"] & \mathrm{K}_\cdot\left(\mathbb{D}(\mathcal{X}^\mu)_b\right).
\end{tikzcd}
\end{equation*}
\end{thm}
Before the start of the above result, we list some preliminary computations. The first two are standard, for example, for the first one see \cite[Proposition 1.2]{YZ}, \cite[Propositions 3.1 and 3.2]{P3}:
\begin{prop}\label{computations}
Consider the maps
$A/T\xleftarrow{t} A/B\xrightarrow{s} A/G.$
Then the map $s_*t^*:\mathrm{K}_\cdot(A/T)\to \mathrm{K}_\cdot(A/G)$ has the formula
\[s_*t^*(y)=\sum_{w\in W} w\left(\frac{y}{\prod_{\beta\in\textbf{n}}(1-q^{-\beta})}\right).\]
\end{prop}
\begin{prop}\label{computations2}
The map
$m_{\lambda}: \mathrm{K}_\cdot(\mathcal{X}^\lambda)\to \mathrm{K}_\cdot(\mathcal{X})$ has the formula
\[m_{\lambda}(x)=\frac{1}{|W^\lambda|}\sum_{w\in W/W^\lambda}
w\left(x\frac{\prod_{\beta\in \textbf{A}_{\lambda}}(1-q^{-\beta})}
{\prod_{\beta\in \textbf{g}_{\lambda}}(1-q^{-\beta})}\right).\]
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Consider the natural maps \begin{align*}
r&: A\hookrightarrow A^{\lambda\geq 0}\times_{A^{\lambda}}A^{\lambda\leq 0}\to A^\lambda,\\
v&: A/G^{\lambda\geq 0}\to A/G.
\end{align*}
In the statement of Proposition \ref{bbw}, the sheaves $\mathcal{F}_I$ are $v_*\left(r^*(\mathcal{F})(-\sigma_I)\right)$. The claim thus follows from Proposition \ref{bbw}, see also \cite[Propositions 3.1]{P3} for a similar computation.
\end{proof}
\begin{prop}\label{Leviequal}
Let $\lambda$ and $\mu$ be cocharacters with the same associated Levi group $L\subset G$.
For $y\in \mathrm{K}_\cdot(\mathcal{X}^L)$, let $y':=(-1)^{c^\lambda_ \mu}yq^{-\mathcal{N}^{\lambda}_{\mu}}\in \mathrm{K}_\cdot(\mathcal{X}^L)$. Then \[m_\lambda(y)=m_\mu(y').\]
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Using Proposition \ref{computations2}, we have that:
\begin{align*}
m_\lambda(y)&=\frac{1}{|W^\lambda|}\sum_{W/W^L}
w\left(y\frac{\prod_{\textbf{A}_{\lambda}}(1-q^{-\beta})}{\prod_{\textbf{g}_{\lambda}}(1-q^{-\beta})}\right)\\
m_\mu(y)&=\frac{1}{|W^\lambda|}\sum_{W/W^L}w\left(y\frac{\prod_{\textbf{A}_{\mu}}(1-q^{-\beta})}{\prod_{\textbf{g}_{\mu}}(1-q^{-\beta})}\right).
\end{align*}
Further, we have that
\[\frac{\prod_{\textbf{A}_{\mu}}(1-q^{-\beta})}{\prod_{\textbf{g}_{\mu}}(1-q^{-\beta})}=
\frac{\prod_{\textbf{A}_{\lambda}}(1-q^{-\beta})}{\prod_{\textbf{g}_{\lambda}}(1-q^{-\beta})}(-1)^{c^\lambda_\mu}q^{\mathcal{N}^{\lambda}_{\mu}},\]
which implies the desired conclusion.
\end{proof}
\begin{cor}\label{corD}
Under the hypothesis of Proposition \ref{Leviequal},
\[\text{image}\,\left(\mathrm{K}_\cdot\left(\mathbb{D}(\mathcal{X}^\lambda)_b\right)\xrightarrow{m_\lambda}\mathrm{K}_\cdot(\mathbb{D}(\mathcal{X}))\right)=
\text{image}\,\left(\mathrm{K}_\cdot\left(\mathbb{D}(\mathcal{X}^\mu)_b\right)\xrightarrow{m_\mu}\mathrm{K}_\cdot(\mathbb{D}(\mathcal{X}))\right).\]
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
Assume that $y\in \mathrm{K}_\cdot\left(\mathbb{D}(\mathcal{X}^\lambda)_b\right)$. Let $\chi$ and $\chi'$ be the weights of $y$ and $y'$, respectively. Then
\[\chi'=\chi+\mathcal{N}^{\mu}_\lambda.\]
By the discussion in Subsection \ref{face} and the decomposition in \eqref{decompositionchi}, there is a weight $\psi$ with the properties mentioned there such that
\begin{align*}
\chi&=\frac{1}{2}N^{\lambda>0}-\frac{1}{2}\mathfrak{g}^{\lambda>0}+\psi\\
\chi'&=\frac{1}{2}N^{\mu>0}-\frac{1}{2}\mathfrak{g}^{\mu>0}+\psi,
\end{align*}
and thus $y'=(-1)^{c^\lambda_ \mu}yq^{\mathcal{N}^{\mu}_{\lambda}}\in \mathrm{K}_\cdot\left(\mathbb{D}(\mathcal{X}^\mu)_b\right)$.
\end{proof}
\begin{prop}\label{computations3}
Let $\mu$ be a dominant character and let $y\in \mathrm{K}_\cdot(A/T)_\chi$ with $\chi$ on the face $\mathbb{F}(\mu)$. Then the restriction map
$\Delta_\mu: \mathrm{K}_\cdot(\mathbb{D}(\mathcal{X}))\to \mathrm{K}_\cdot\left(\mathbb{D}(\mathcal{X}^\mu)_b\right)$ sends
\[\Delta_\mu\left(\sum_{w\in W} w\left(\frac{y}{\prod_{\beta\in \textbf{n}}(1-q^{-\beta})}\right)\right)=
\sum_{w\in W^\mu} w\left(\frac{y}{\prod_{\beta\in \textbf{n}^\mu}(1-q^{-\beta})}\right).\]
Let $y\in \mathrm{K}_\cdot(A/T)_\chi$ with $w*\chi$ not on $\mathbb{F}(\mu)$ for any $w\in W$, then
\[\Delta_\mu\left(\sum_{w\in W} w\left(\frac{y}{\prod_{\beta\in \textbf{n}}(1-q^{-\beta})}\right)\right)=0.\]
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
The weight $\chi$ is dominant up to multiplication by an element of $W^\mu$, so we can assume it is dominant. For $\mathcal{F}\in \mathbb{D}(\mathcal{X})$, we have that \[\Delta_\mu(\mathcal{F})=\beta_{\geq b_\mu}p_\mu^*(\mathcal{F}).\] For $\mathcal{F}$ with associated representation $\Gamma_G(\chi)$, $\Delta_\mu(\mathcal{F})$ has associated representation $\Gamma_{G^\mu}(\chi)$, and the first part follows. For the second part, by Proposition \ref{Leviequal} we can replace $\chi$ with any $w*\chi$ for $w\in W$, so we can assume that $\chi$ is dominant. Then $\chi$ is not on $\mathbb{F}(\mu)$, so $\langle \mu, p_\mu^*(\mathcal{F})\rangle<b_\mu,$ and the second part thus follows.
\end{proof}
\begin{prop}\label{computations4}
Consider $\lambda, \tau$ two dominant cocharacters and $\chi$ a dominant weight with $\chi\in \mathbb{F}(\lambda)$. Assume there is a partial sum $\sigma$ of weights in $\textbf{A}_\lambda$ and an element $w\in W$ such that $w*\left(\chi-\sigma\right)\in\mathbb{F}(\tau)$. Let $\mu=w^{-1}\tau$. Then
\[\sigma=N^\lambda_{\mu}+\sigma',\]
where $\sigma'$ is a partial sum of weights in $(N^{\mu})^{\lambda>0}$. Conversely, any such partial sum $\sigma$ has the property that $w*\left(\chi-\sigma\right)\in\mathbb{F}(\tau)$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
The weight
\begin{equation}\label{rhalf}
\left(\chi-\sigma\right)^++\rho
\in \frac{1}{2}\mathbb{W}
\end{equation}
by the same argument as in \cite[Proposition 3.6]{P1}, see also \cite[Proof of Theorem 3.2]{HLS}.
Using the description in Subsection \ref{face},
write
\begin{align*}
\chi+\rho&=\frac{1}{2}N^{\lambda>0}+\psi\\
w*\left(\chi-\sigma\right)+\rho&=\frac{1}{2}N^{\tau>0}+\phi',\text{ and so}\\
\chi-\sigma+\rho&=\frac{1}{2}N^{\mu>0}+\phi,
\end{align*}
where $\psi$ is a sum of weights of $N^{\lambda}$ and $\phi$ is a sum of weights of $N^{\mu}$. For the first two relations above we use that $\lambda$ and $\tau$ are dominant. Then
\begin{equation}\label{sigma}
\sigma=N^\lambda_\mu+\psi-\phi.
\end{equation}
Write
\begin{align*}
\psi&=\psi^{\lambda0}_{\mu+}+\psi^{\lambda0}_{\mu0}+\psi^{\lambda0}_{\mu-}\\
\phi&=\phi^{\lambda+}_{\mu0}+\phi^{\lambda0}_{\mu0}+\phi^{\lambda-}_{\mu0},
\end{align*}
where $\psi^{\lambda0}_{\mu+}$ is a sum of weights in $(N^\lambda)^{\mu>0}$ etc. Then the decomposition \eqref{sigma} implies that
\begin{align*}
\psi&=\psi^{\lambda0}_{\mu0},\\ \phi&=\phi^{\lambda0}_{\mu0}+\phi^{\lambda-}_{\mu0},\\
\phi^{\lambda0}_{\mu0}&=\psi^{\lambda0}_{\mu0}.
\end{align*}
This implies that $\sigma=N^\lambda_\mu-\phi^{\lambda-}_{\mu0}$, where $-\phi^{\lambda-}_{\mu0}$ is a partial sum of weights in $(N^\mu)^{\lambda>0}$.
Conversely, if $\sigma=N^\lambda_\mu+\sigma'$, the argument above shows that $\chi-\sigma+\rho=\frac{1}{2}N^{\mu>0}+\phi$ and by \eqref{rhalf} we have that $w*\left(\chi-\sigma\right)\in\mathbb{F}(\tau)$.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{copr}]
Let $x\in \mathrm{K}_\cdot\left(\mathbb{D}(\mathcal{X}^\lambda)_b\right)$. By Proposition \ref{computations}, let $y\in \mathrm{K}_\cdot(A/T)$ such that
\[x=\sum_{v\in W^\lambda}v\left(\frac{y}{\prod_{\beta\in\textbf{n}^\lambda}(1-q^{-\beta})}\right).\] We may assume that $y$ is of dominant weight $\chi$.
By Proposition \ref{computations2}, we have that
\[p_{{\lambda}^{-1}*}q_{\lambda^{-1}}^*\sum_{v\in W^\lambda}
v\left(\frac{y}{\prod_{\beta\in\textbf{n}^\lambda}(1-q^{-\beta})}\right)=
\sum_{u\in W/W^\lambda} u\sum_{I\subset\textbf{A}_\lambda}
\sum_{v\in W^\lambda}v\left(\frac{(-1)^{|I|}yq^{-\sigma_I}}{\prod_{\beta\in\textbf{n}}(1-q^{-\beta})}\right)
.\]
The weight of $yq^{-\sigma_I}$ is $\chi-\sigma_I$. By Propositions \ref{computations3} and \ref{computations4}, such an element has non-zero $\mu$-restriction if and only if there exists $w\in W$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{sigmaI}
\sigma_I=N^\lambda_{w\mu}+\sigma_{I'},
\end{equation}
where $I'$ is a subset of $\textbf{A}^{w\mu}_\lambda$, the set of weights $\beta$ in $\textbf{A}_\lambda$ such that $\langle w\mu, \beta\rangle=0.$
Fix $w$. Let $\nu$ and $\nu'$ be the cocharacters constructed as in Subsection \ref{S}.
The weight $N^\lambda_{w\mu}$ and the set $\textbf{A}^{w\mu}_\lambda$ depend on the coset $W/W^{w\mu}$; if they have associated $\nu$ as above, then they depend on $W^\lambda/W^\nu\subset W/W^{w\mu}$.
Recall the element $w'$ as the end of Subsection \ref{S}. The element $yq^{-\sigma_I}$ has weight $\chi-\sigma_I$. By \eqref{decompositionchi}, the weight $\left(\chi-\sigma_I\right)^+$ is on $\mathbb{F}(\nu)$.
Then
\begin{align*}
\sum_{v\in W^\lambda}
v\left(
\frac{y}{\prod_{\beta\in\textbf{n}^\lambda}
(1-q^{-\beta})}\right)
q^{-N^\lambda_{w\mu}-\sigma_{I'}}
&=\sum_{v\in W^\lambda}
v\left(
\frac{y}{\prod_{\beta\in\textbf{n}^\lambda}
(1-q^{-\beta})}\right)
w'\left(
q^{-N^\lambda_{w_s\mu}-\sigma_{J}}
\right)\\
&=\sum_{v\in W^\lambda}
\left(
\frac{yq^{-N^\nu_{\nu'}-\sigma_{J}}}
{\prod_{\beta\in\textbf{n}^\lambda}(1-q^{-\beta})}
\right),
\end{align*}
where $J$ is a subset of $\textbf{A}^{w_s\mu}_{\lambda}$.
Define
\[m_{\lambda\nu}(x):=\frac{1}{|W^\nu|}\sum_{u\in W/W^\lambda} u\sum_{J\subset\textbf{A}^{w_s\mu}_\lambda}
\sum_{v\in W^\lambda} v\left(\frac{(-1)^{d^\nu_{\nu'}+|J|}
yq^{-N^\nu_{\nu'}-\sigma_{J}}}
{\prod_{\beta\in\textbf{n}}(1-q^{-\beta})}\right).\]
Then $m_\lambda=\sum_{\nu}m_{\lambda\nu}$. It suffices to show that the following diagram commutes
\begin{equation*}
\begin{tikzcd}
K_\cdot(\mathbb{D}(\mathcal{X}^\lambda)_b)\arrow[d, "\Delta^\lambda_\nu"]\arrow[r, "m_{\lambda\nu}"]& K_\cdot(\mathbb{D}(\mathcal{X}))\arrow[d, "\Delta_\mu"]\\
K_\cdot(\mathbb{D}(\mathcal{X}^\nu)_b) \arrow[r, "\widetilde{m^\mu_{\nu}}"] & K_\cdot(\mathbb{D}(\mathcal{X}^\mu)_b).
\end{tikzcd}
\end{equation*}
Let $\tau$ be the sum of weights $\beta$ in $\mathfrak{n}$ such that $w_s^{-1}\beta$ is not in $\mathfrak{n}$. Then $-w_s\tau=\mathfrak{g}^\lambda_{w_s\mu}$ because the two sides are sums over the weights in the following two sets
\[\{\beta\in \textbf{n}\text{ such that }-\beta\in w_s\textbf{n}\}=\{\beta\in \textbf{g}_\lambda\text{ such that }-\beta\in\textbf{g}_{w_s\mu}\}.\]
Recall the setting of Subsection \ref{sss}. We have that
\begin{align*}
w_s^{-1}\left(\frac{(-1)^{d^\nu_{\nu'}}
yq^{-N^\nu_{\nu'}}}
{\prod_{\beta\in\textbf{n}}(1-q^{-\beta})}\right)
&=\frac{(-1)^{d^\nu_{\nu'}}
w_s^{-1}\left(yq^{-N^\nu_{\nu'}}\right)}{(-1)^{e^\nu_{\nu'}}q^{\tau}\prod_{\beta\in\textbf{n}}(1-q^{-\beta})}\\
&=\frac{(-1)^{c^\nu_{\nu'}}
w_s^{-1}\left(yq^{-N^\nu_{\nu'}-w_s\tau}\right)}{\prod_{\beta\in\textbf{n}}(1-q^{-\beta})}\\
&=\frac{(-1)^{c^\nu_{\nu'}}
w_s^{-1}\left(yq^{-\mathcal{N}^\nu_{\nu'}}\right)}{\prod_{\beta\in\textbf{n}}(1-q^{-\beta})}.
\end{align*}
We can thus rewrite
\[m_{\lambda\nu}(x):=\frac{1}{|W^\nu|}
\sum_{J'\subset\textbf{A}^{\mu}_{w_s^{-1}\lambda}}
\sum_{v\in W}
v\left(\frac{(-1)^{c^\nu_{\nu'}+|J'|}
w_s^{-1}\left(yq^{-\mathcal{N}^{\nu'}_{\nu}}\right)q^{-\sigma_{J'}}}
{\prod_{\beta\in\textbf{n}}(1-q^{-\beta})}\right),\]
and thus
\[\Delta_\mu m_{\lambda\nu}(x)=\frac{1}{|W^\nu|}\sum_{J'\subset\textbf{A}^{\mu}_{w_s^{-1}\lambda}}
\sum_{v\in W^\mu}
v\left(\frac{(-1)^{c^\nu_{\nu'}+|J'|}
w_s^{-1}\left(yq^{-\mathcal{N}^{\nu'}_{\nu}}\right)q^{-\sigma_{J'}}}
{\prod_{\beta\in\textbf{n}^\mu}(1-q^{-\beta})}\right).\]
This is the same as the composition of left-bottom maps:
\begin{align*}
\widetilde{m^\mu_{\nu}}\Delta^\lambda_\nu(x)
&=\widetilde{m^\mu_{\nu}}\Delta^\lambda_\nu
\left(\sum_{v\in W^\lambda}v\left(\frac{y}{\prod_{\beta\in\textbf{n}^\lambda}(1-q^{-\beta})}\right)\right)\\
&=\widetilde{m^\mu_{\nu}}\sum_{v\in W^\nu}v\left(\frac{y}{\prod_{\beta\in\textbf{n}^\nu}(1-q^{-\beta})}\right)\\
&=m^\mu_{\nu'}
\sum_{v\in W^\nu} v\left( \frac{(-1)^{c^\nu_{\nu'}}w_s^{-1}\left(yq^{-\mathcal{N}^\nu_{\nu'}}\right)}{\prod_{\beta\in\textbf{n}^\nu}(1-q^{-\beta}) }
\right)\\
&=\frac{1}{|W^\nu|}\sum_{J'\subset\textbf{A}^{\mu}_{w_s^{-1}\lambda}}
\sum_{v\in W^\mu}
v\left(\frac{(-1)^{c^\nu_{\nu'}+|J'|}
w_s^{-1}\left(yq^{-\mathcal{N}^{\nu'}_{\nu}}\right)q^{-\sigma_{J'}}}
{\prod_{\beta\in\textbf{n}^\mu}(1-q^{-\beta})}\right)
\end{align*}
where the second equality follows from Proposition \ref{computations3} and the last one by Proposition \ref{computations2}.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Primitive K-theory: the local case}\label{intKtheory}
Recall the setting and notations from the beginning of Subsection \ref{subcoproduct}. In this Subsection, we define $\textbf{P}\mathrm{K}_\cdot(\mathcal{X})\subset \mathrm{K}_\cdot(\mathbb{D}(\mathcal{X}))$ which appears in Theorem \ref{decompK}.
Assume that $\mathcal{X}=A/G$ is a local stack.
\begin{prop}
Let $\lambda$ be a dominant cocharacter and let $\mathfrak{S}_\lambda\subset W$ be the set of elements $w_s$ for $s\in W^\lambda \backslash W\slash W^\lambda$ such that the weight $\nu$ constructed in Subsection \ref{S} is equal to $\lambda$. Then $\mathfrak{S}_\lambda$ is a group and it acts on $\mathrm{K}_\cdot(\mathbb{D}(\mathcal{X}^\lambda)_b)$ via $\widetilde{\text{sw}}$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
The elements $w_s$ above are the elements of $W$ that induce permutations of $I^\lambda$ and which do not permute elements in $V_i$ for $i\in I^\lambda$ among themselves. These elements are clearly closed under multiplication and taking inverses.
For the second part, consider elements $w_1, w_2\in \mathfrak{S}_\lambda$ and let $y\in \mathrm{K}_\cdot\left(\mathbb{D}(\mathcal{X}^\lambda)_b\right)$. Let $\widetilde{\text{sw}_1}$, $\widetilde{\text{sw}_2}$, $\widetilde{\text{sw}_3}$ be the swap maps for the elements $w_1, w_2$, and $w_2w_1$, respectively. We need to show that $\widetilde{\text{sw}_1}\widetilde{\text{sw}_2}=\widetilde{\text{sw}_3}$:
\begin{align*}
&(-1)^{c^\lambda_{w_1\lambda}}
w_1^{-1}
\left((-1)^{c^\lambda_{w_2\lambda}}w_2^{-1}\left(
yq^{-\mathcal{N}^\lambda_{w_2\lambda}}
\right)q^{-\mathcal{N}^\lambda_{w_1\lambda}}
\right)=\\
&(-1)^{c^\lambda_{w_1\lambda}+ c^\lambda_{w_2\lambda}}
w_1^{-1}w_2^{-1}\left(yq^{-\mathcal{N}^\lambda_{w_2\lambda}-\mathcal{N}^{w_2\lambda}_{w_2w_1\lambda}}\right)=\\
&(-1)^{c^\lambda_{w_2w_1\lambda}}
(w_2w_1)^{-1}\left(
yq^{-\mathcal{N}^\lambda_{w_2w_1\lambda}}
\right).
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
In the example from Subsection \eqref{example}, $\mathfrak{S}_\lambda$ is trivial unless $a=b$, case in which it is the symmetric group $\mathfrak{S}_2$. More generally, for $\lambda$ a cocharacter of $GL(n)$ with corresponding decomposition in distinct parts $d_1, \cdots, d_k$ with multiplicities $m_1, \cdots, m_k$, the group $\mathfrak{S}_\lambda$ is the product of symmetric groups $\times_{i=1}^k\mathfrak{S}_{m_i}$.
In the framework of the above Proposition, denote by
\begin{align*}
\text{Sym}_\lambda:\mathrm{K}_\cdot\left(\mathbb{D}(\mathcal{X}^\lambda)_b\right)&\to \mathrm{K}_\cdot\left(\mathbb{D}(\mathcal{X}^\lambda)_b\right)\\
x&\mapsto \sum_{\sigma\in \mathfrak{S}_\lambda}\sigma(x).
\end{align*}
Define \[\textbf{B}\mathrm{K}_\cdot\left(\mathbb{D}(\mathcal{X}^\lambda)_b\right)=\text{image}\left(\bigoplus_{\nu}m_\nu: \mathrm{K}_\cdot\left(\mathbb{D}(\mathcal{X}^\nu)_b\right)\to \mathrm{K}_\cdot\left(\mathbb{D}(\mathcal{X}^\lambda)_b\right)\right),\] where the sum is over all non-trivial cocharacters $\nu$ of $G^\lambda$.
We define $\textbf{P}\mathrm{K}_\cdot\left(\mathbb{D}(\mathcal{X}^\lambda)_b\right)$ inductively on $\dim G^\lambda$
such that
\begin{equation}\label{OPB}
\mathrm{K}_\cdot\left(\mathbb{D}(\mathcal{X}^\lambda)_b\right)=\textbf{P}\mathrm{K}_\cdot\left(\mathbb{D}(\mathcal{X}^\lambda)_b\right)\oplus \textbf{B}\mathrm{K}_\cdot\left(\mathbb{D}(\mathcal{X}^\lambda)_b\right).\end{equation}
There are then natural surjections $\pi_\lambda: \mathrm{K}_\cdot\left(\mathbb{D}(\mathcal{X}^\lambda)_b\right)\twoheadrightarrow \textbf{P}\mathrm{K}_\cdot\left(\mathbb{D}(\mathcal{X}^\lambda)_b\right)$.
When $\dim G^\lambda=0$, then $\textbf{P}\mathrm{K}_\cdot\left(\mathbb{D}(\mathcal{X}^\lambda)_b\right)= \mathrm{K}_\cdot\left(\mathbb{D}(\mathcal{X}^\lambda)_b\right)$. Assume that $\dim G>0$. For any Levi $L<G$, choose a dominant cocharacter $\lambda_L$ such that $G^{\lambda_L}=L$. Denote by $m_H=m_{\lambda_H}$ etc.
Define
\[\textbf{P}\mathrm{K}_\cdot\left(\mathbb{D}(\mathcal{X}^{\lambda_L})_b\right)=
\bigcap_{H<L}\left(\text{Sym}_H \pi_H \Delta_H: \mathrm{K}_\cdot\left(\mathbb{D}(\mathcal{X}^{\lambda_L})_b\right)
\to
\textbf{P}\mathrm{K}_\cdot\left(\mathbb{D}(\mathcal{X}^{\lambda_H})_b\right)\right).\]
Denote by $\iota: \textbf{P}\mathrm{K}_\cdot\left(\mathbb{D}(\mathcal{X}^{\lambda_L})_b\right)\hookrightarrow \mathrm{K}_\cdot\left(\mathbb{D}(\mathcal{X}^{\lambda_L})_b\right)$ the natural map, and denote by $\Phi_H:=\text{Sym}_H \pi_H \Delta_H$.
\begin{prop}\label{compequal}
The composition
\[\textbf{P}\mathrm{K}_\cdot\left(\mathbb{D}(\mathcal{X}^{\lambda_L})_b\right)
\xrightarrow{m_L}
\mathrm{K}_\cdot(\mathbb{D}(\mathcal{X}))\xrightarrow{\pi_L\Delta_L}
\textbf{P}\mathrm{K}_\cdot\left(\mathbb{D}(\mathcal{X}^{\lambda_L})_b\right)\] is $\pi_L\Delta_L m_L(x)=\frac{1}{|W^\lambda|} \sum_{\sigma\in\mathfrak{S}_\lambda}\sigma(x)$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
By Theorem \ref{copr}, we have that
\[\Delta_\lambda m_\lambda(x)=\sum_{\textbf{S}}\widetilde{m_{\nu'}}\Delta_\nu(x).\] For $\nu'$ different from $\lambda$, the element $\widetilde{m_{\nu'}}\Delta_\nu(x)$ is in $\textbf{B}\mathrm{K}_\cdot\left(\mathbb{D}(\mathcal{X}^{\lambda_L})_b\right)$. Then
\[\pi_L\Delta_L m_L(x)=
\sum_{\mathfrak{S}_\lambda}\widetilde{m_{\nu'}}\Delta_\nu(x)=\frac{1}{|W^\lambda|}\sum_{\mathfrak{S}_\lambda}\sigma(x).\]
\end{proof}
\begin{prop}\label{compdiff}
Let $L$ and $E$ be proper Levi groups of $G$ such that $E\nsubseteq L$. Let $\lambda$ and $\mu$ be the associated cocharacters to these Levi groups.
The composition
\[\textbf{P}\mathrm{K}_\cdot\left(\mathbb{D}(\mathcal{X}^\lambda)_b\right)\xrightarrow{m_L}
\mathrm{K}_\cdot(\mathbb{D}(\mathcal{X}))\xrightarrow{\Delta_E}\mathrm{K}_\cdot\left(\mathbb{D}(\mathcal{X}^\mu)_b\right)\xrightarrow{\pi_E} \textbf{P}\mathrm{K}_\cdot\left(\mathbb{D}(\mathcal{X}^\mu)_b\right)\] is zero.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
By Theorem \ref{copr}, we have that
\[\Delta_E m_L(x)=\sum_{\textbf{S}}\widetilde{m_{\nu'}}\Delta_\nu(x).\]
If $E\nsubseteq L$, there is no $s\in \textbf{S}$ such that $\nu'=\mu$, and so the right hand side is in $\textbf{B}\mathrm{K}_\cdot(\mathbb{D}(\mathcal{X}^\mu)_b)$.
\end{proof}
We now assume the statements in \eqref{OPB} for $L<G$.
\begin{prop}
There is a surjection
\[\bigoplus_{L<G}
\textbf{P}\mathrm{K}_\cdot\left(\mathbb{D}(\mathcal{X}^{\lambda_L})_b\right)^{\mathfrak{S}_L}\twoheadrightarrow \textbf{B}\mathrm{K}_\cdot(\mathbb{D}(\mathcal{X})).\]
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
The image of $m_{L}: \textbf{P}\mathrm{K}_\cdot\left(\mathbb{D}(\mathcal{X}^{\lambda_L})_b\right)\to \mathrm{K}_\cdot(\mathbb{D}(\mathcal{X}))$ factors through the symmetrization map
\[\textbf{P}\mathrm{K}_\cdot\left(\mathbb{D}(\mathcal{X}^{\lambda_L})_b\right)\xrightarrow{\text{Sym}_L}
\textbf{P}\mathrm{K}_\cdot\left(\mathbb{D}(\mathcal{X}^{\lambda_L})_b\right)^{\mathfrak{S}_L}\xrightarrow{m_L}
\mathrm{K}_\cdot(\mathbb{D}(\mathcal{X}))\] by Proposition \ref{Leviequal}.
The statement follows using \eqref{OPB} for $L<G$
and Proposition \ref{corD}.
\end{proof}
\begin{thm}\label{deco}
There is a decomposition
\[\left(\iota, \bigoplus_{L<G}m_{\lambda_L}\right):
\textbf{P}\mathrm{K}_\cdot(\mathbb{D}(\mathcal{X}))\oplus\bigoplus_{L<G} \textbf{P}\mathrm{K}_\cdot\left(\mathbb{D}(\mathcal{X}^{\lambda_L})_b\right)^{\mathfrak{S}_L}\xrightarrow{\sim}
\mathrm{K}_\cdot(\mathbb{D}(\mathcal{X})).\]
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
Using Propositions \ref{compequal} and \ref{compdiff}, we see that the map is an injection. To see it is a surjection, let $x\in \mathrm{K}_\cdot(\mathbb{D}(\mathcal{X}))$ and assume that $\Phi_H(x)=0$ for all $L<H<G$ and
$\pi_L(x)\neq 0$. By Propositions \ref{compequal} and \ref{compdiff}, there is a constant $c$ such that
\[y:=x-c\cdot m_L\Phi_L(x)\in \mathrm{K}_\cdot(\mathbb{D}(\mathcal{X}))\]
satisfies $\Phi_H(y)=0$ for $L\leq H<G$. Repeating this process, we see that the map is indeed surjective.
\end{proof}
We now prove Theorem \ref{decompK} in the local case.
\begin{cor}\label{thm5}
There is a decomposition $\mathrm{K}_\cdot(\mathcal{X})=\textbf{P}\mathrm{K}_\cdot(\mathcal{X})\oplus \textbf{B}\mathrm{K}_\cdot(\mathcal{X})$.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
This follows from Theorem \ref{symsod}, Proposition \ref{Leviequal}, and Theorem \ref{deco}.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Compatibility of decompositions along \'etale maps}\label{compa}
Let $e:\mathcal{X}'\to\mathcal{X}$ be an \'etale map. Let $\mathcal{S}$ be a $\Theta$-stack of $\mathcal{X}$ with associated fixed stack $\mathcal{Z}$. Let $\mathcal{S}'$ be a $\Theta$-stack in $\mathcal{X}'$ contained in $e^{-1}(\mathcal{S})$, and let $\mathcal{Z}'$ be its associated fixed stack. Finally, let $w\in \mathbb{Z}$. Then \begin{align*}
e^*: D^b(\mathcal{Z})_w\to D^b(\mathcal{Z}')_w,\, e^*: D^b(\mathcal{S})\to D^b(\mathcal{S}'),\\
e_*: D^b(\mathcal{Z}')_w\to D^b(\mathcal{Z})_w,\, e^*: D^b(\mathcal{S}')\to D^b(\mathcal{S}).
\end{align*}
By the construction of the categories $\mathbb{D}$ from Section \ref{ncr}, we obtain functors \begin{align*}
e^*: \mathbb{D}(\mathcal{X})&\to \mathbb{D}(\mathcal{Y}),\\
e_*: \mathbb{D}(\mathcal{Y})&\to \mathbb{D}(\mathcal{X}).
\end{align*}
By the construction of the spaces $\textbf{P}\mathrm{K}$ and $\textbf{B}\mathrm{K}$, we see that $e_*$ and $e^*$ respect these spaces for $\mathcal{X}$ and $\mathcal{Y}$ quotient stacks of smooth affine varieties by reductive groups.
\subsection{Primitive K-theory: the global case}
Let $\mathcal{X}$ be a symmetric stack satisfying Assumption B and let $X$ be its good moduli space. Consider a direct system of \'etale covers $\mathcal{A}$ containing \'etale maps $\mathcal{Y}\to\mathcal{X}$ as in Theorem \ref{ahr}.
Then, by \cite[Corollary 2.17]{Th}:
\begin{equation}\label{thomason}
\check{\mathrm{H}}^p\left(\mathcal{A}, \mathrm{K}_q(-)\right)\Rightarrow \mathrm{K}_{q-p}(\mathcal{X}),
\end{equation}
where $\check{\mathrm{H}}$ denotes \v{C}ech cohomology and the spectral sequence converges strongly. It is essential that we use rational K-theory to obtain this statement.
Any $\lambda:B\mathbb{G}_m\to\mathcal{X}$ induces a cocharacter $\lambda$ in local charts $\mathcal{Y}$. Further, any local attracting locus corresponds to a map $\lambda:B\mathbb{G}_m\to\mathcal{X}$ and thus determines an attracting stack. Denote by $\mathcal{X}^\lambda$ the corresponding fixed stack.
For $\lambda: B\mathbb{G}_m\to \mathcal{X}$, define
$\mathrm{K}_\cdot^\lambda(\mathcal{Y}):=\mathrm{K}_\cdot\left(\mathcal{Y}^\lambda\right)$. Then
\[\check{\mathrm{H}}^p\left(\mathcal{A}, \mathrm{K}_q^\lambda(-)\right)\Rightarrow \mathrm{K}_{q-p}\left(\mathcal{X}^\lambda\right).\]
Thus the following spectral sequence converges strongly:
\begin{equation}\label{bthomason}
\check{\mathrm{H}}^p\left(\mathcal{A}, \textbf{B}\mathrm{K}_q(-)\right)\Rightarrow \textbf{B}\mathrm{K}_{q-p}(\mathcal{X}).
\end{equation}
By Theorem \ref{thm5}, \eqref{thomason}, and \eqref{bthomason},
we thus obtain that the following spectral sequence converges strongly and define $\textbf{P}\mathrm{K}_\cdot(\mathcal{X})$ such that
\[\check{\mathrm{H}}^p\left(\mathcal{A}, \textbf{P}\mathrm{K}_q(-)\right)\Rightarrow \textbf{P}\mathrm{K}_{q-p}(\mathcal{X}).\]
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{decompK}]
The decomposition claimed in
Theorem \ref{decompK} follows from the construction of $\textbf{P}\mathrm{K}_\cdot(\mathcal{X})$ and $\textbf{B}\mathrm{K}_\cdot(\mathcal{X})$ and by Theorem \ref{thm5}.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Categorification of intersection cohomology}
\subsubsection{}
The categories $D^b(\mathcal{X})$ have natural dg enhancements and the admissible subcategories $\mathbb{D}(\mathcal{X})$ also have natural dg enhancements \cite[Section 4.1]{}.
Recall the definitions from Subsection \ref{ncmotives}.
The splitting \[\mathrm{K}_0(\mathbb{D}(\mathcal{X}))\to \textbf{P}\mathrm{K}_0(\mathbb{D}(\mathcal{X}))\to \mathrm{K}_0(\mathbb{D}(\mathcal{X}))\] induces an idempotent of $e_\mathcal{\mathcal{X}}\in \text{Hom}_{\textbf{Hmo}_{0;\mathbb{Q}}}(\mathbb{D}(\mathcal{X}), \mathbb{D}(\mathcal{X}))$. Indeed, all the functors used to construct the above splitting are constructed from the functors for attracting and fixed stacks
\begin{align*}
p_*&: D^b(\mathcal{S})\to D^b(\mathcal{X})\\
p^*&: D^b(\mathcal{X})\to D^b(\mathcal{S})\\
q^*_w&: D^b(\mathcal{Z})_w\xrightarrow{\sim} D^b(\mathcal{S})_w,
\end{align*}
see \cite[Amplification 3.18]{HL2} for the last functor. Thus the functors used
are induced by Fourier--Mukai transforms in $\text{rep}\left(D^b(\mathcal{S}), D^b(\mathcal{X})\right)$ and $\text{rep}\left(D^b(\mathcal{Z}), D^b(\mathcal{X})\right)$, respectively.
We thus obtain a noncommutative motive:
\[\mathbb{D}^{\text{nc}}(\mathcal{X}):=
\left(\mathbb{D}(\mathcal{X}),e_\mathcal{X}\right)\in \textbf{Hmo}_{0;\mathbb{Q}}^{\natural}.\]
Consider the Chern character
\[\text{ch}: \mathrm{K}_\cdot(\mathcal{X})\to \widehat{\mathrm{H}^{\cdot}}(\mathcal{X}):= \prod_{j\in \mathbb{Z}}\mathrm{H}^{i+2j}(\mathcal{X}).\]
We write $\text{gr}^\cdot K_\cdot(\mathcal{X})$ for the associated graded with respect to the codimension filtration \cite[Definition 3.7, Section 5.4]{G}. By Theorems \ref{Thmcoh} and \ref{decompK}, we obtain:
\begin{cor}
There is an inclusion
$\text{gr}^\cdot \mathrm{K}_\cdot(\mathbb{D}^{\text{nc}}(\mathcal{X}))\subset \textbf{P}^{\leq 0}\mathrm{H}^\cdot(\mathcal{X}).$
\end{cor}
If $\mathcal{X}$ is symmetric and satisfies Assumption C, then $\textbf{P}^{\leq 0}\mathrm{H}^\cdot(\mathcal{X})\cong\mathrm{IH}^\cdot(X)$. In this situation, we define \textit{the intersection K-theory of} $X$:
\[\mathrm{IK}_\cdot(X):=\mathrm{K}_\cdot(\mathbb{D}^{\text{nc}}(\mathcal{X})).\]
There is a natural map \[\text{ch}:\mathrm{IK}_\cdot(X)\to \mathrm{IH}^\cdot(X)\] obtained using the splittings from Theorem \ref{Thmcoh} and Theorem \ref{decompK}:
\[\mathrm{IK}_\cdot(X)\hookrightarrow \mathrm{K}_\cdot(\mathcal{X})\xrightarrow{\text{ch}} \widehat{\mathrm{H}^\cdot}(\mathcal{X})\twoheadrightarrow \mathrm{IH}^\cdot(X).\]
Directly from the definition of $\mathbb{D}^{\text{nc}}(\mathcal{X})$, intersection K-theory satisfies a version of Kirwan surjectivity \cite[Theorem 2.5]{Ki}:
\[\mathrm{K}_\cdot(\mathcal{X})_\mathbb{Q}\twoheadrightarrow \mathrm{IK}_\cdot(X).\]
\subsubsection{}\label{Kirwa}
Denote by $\mathrm{K}^{\text{top}}$ the Blanc topological K-theory of a dg category \cite{Bl}. Recall that for $\mathcal{X}$ a smooth stack, $\mathrm{K}^{\text{top}}\left(D^b(\mathcal{X})\right)$ recovers the Atiyah-Segal equivariant topological K-theory \cite[Theorem 3.9]{HLP}.
For $j\in \{0, 1\}$, denote by $\text{gr}^\cdot\mathrm{K}_j^{\text{top}}(\mathcal{X})$ the associated graded with respect to filtration $F^{\geq i}$ induced by $\mathrm{H}^{\geq j+2i}(\mathcal{X})$ via \[\text{ch}: \mathrm{K}_j^{\text{top}}(\mathcal{X})\to \prod_{i\in\mathbb{Z}}\mathrm{H}^{j+2i}(\mathcal{X}).\] The idempotent $e$ induces a well-defined direct summand $\mathrm{K}^{\text{top}}\left(\mathbb{D}^{\text{nc}}(\mathcal{X})\right)$ of $\mathrm{K}^{\text{top}}\left(\mathbb{D}(\mathcal{X})\right)$. For $j\in \{0, 1\}$, we have that
\[\text{gr}^i \mathrm{K}^{\text{top}}_j(\mathcal{X})\cong \mathrm{H}^{j+2i}(\mathcal{X},\mathbb{Q}).\]
Indeed, it suffices to show the statement for quotient stacks, case in which both sides can be computed using Totaro's approximations $S_n^o$ of $\mathcal{X}$ from the proof of Proposition \ref{Thmcoh}.
The isomorphism for a scheme $S_n^o$ holds by the Atiyah-Hirzebruch theorem. By Theorems \ref{Thmcoh} and \ref{decompK}, we have that $\text{gr}^i \mathrm{K}^{\text{top}}_j\left(\mathbb{D}^{\text{nc}}(\mathcal{X})\right)\cong \mathrm{IH}^{j+2i}(X,\mathbb{Q})$ for $j\in \{0, 1\}$. If the natural map
\begin{equation}\label{iso123}
\mathrm{K}^{\text{top}}_j\left(\mathbb{D}^{\text{nc}}(\mathcal{X})\right)\xrightarrow{\sim} \text{gr}^i \mathrm{K}^{\text{top}}_j\left(\mathbb{D}^{\text{nc}}(\mathcal{X})\right),\end{equation}
is an isomorphism, then \begin{equation}\label{kirwaniso}
\mathrm{K}^{\text{top}}_j\left(\mathbb{D}^{\text{nc}}(\mathcal{X})\right)\cong \mathrm{IH}^{j+2i}(X,\mathbb{Q})\end{equation}
for $j\in \{0, 1\}$. We claim that if the Kirwan resolution $Y\to X$ is a scheme, then \eqref{iso123} holds. Indeed, it suffices to check \eqref{iso123} for $\mathbb{D}(\mathcal{X})$ instead of $\mathbb{D}^{\text{nc}}(\mathcal{X})$. It suffices to check that the Chern character map for $\mathbb{D}(\mathcal{X})$ is injective. By Corollary \ref{kirw}, it suffices to check that the Chern character map for $Y$ is injective. For a scheme $Y$, the Chern character is an isomorphism by the Atiyah-Hirzebruch theorem.
Denote by $\mathrm{HP}$ the periodic cyclic homology of a dg category.
The idempotent $e$ induces a well-defined direct summand $\mathrm{HP}_\cdot\left(\mathbb{D}^{\text{nc}}(\mathcal{X})\right)$ of $\mathrm{HP}_\cdot\left(\mathbb{D}(\mathcal{X})\right)$.
By \cite[Theorem A]{HLP} and \eqref{kirwaniso}, we also obtain that if the Kirwan resolution $Y\to X$ is a scheme, then
\[\mathrm{HP}_i\left(\mathbb{D}^{\text{nc}}(\mathcal{X})\right)\cong \bigoplus_{j\in\mathbb{Z}} \mathrm{IH}^{i+2j}(X,\mathbb{C}).\]
|
\section{Introduction}
Recent trends have shown a surge of interest in methods that \textit{intelligently learn from the data}. This trend is also motivated by recent successes in using deep-learning based methods for supervised learning tasks or control problems. In control systems data-driven control approaches, a branch of adaptive control, have gathered much attention over the last few decades \cite{campi2002virtual,hjalmarsson1998iterative,karimi2007non,de2019formulas,coulson2019data,esparza2011neural}, due to some interesting features, such as being able to directly compute a control law from experimental data gathered on the plant. This type of technique avoids identifying a model for the plant, which is particularly troublesome in those cases where it is difficult to derive, from first-principles, a mathematical description of the system, thus enabling direct data-to-controller design.
In this work, we will analyze the feasibility of using the Virtual Reference Feedback Tuning (VRFT) method \cite{campi2002virtual,formentin2014comparison,esparza2011neural} for temperature control in buildings. VRFT, compared to other data-driven control methods such as those based on Willems' lemma \cite{willems2005note,de2019formulas}, allows to specify which requirements the closed-loop system should satisfy and aims at deriving a control law that satisfies the prescribed requirements. This particular feature of VRFT, coupled with the fact that the method is straightforward to use, makes it appealing in many control scenarios, from wastewater treatment \cite{rojas2012application} to unmanned aerial vehicle control \cite{invernizzi2016data} and control of solid oxide fuel cells \cite{li2011data}.
Despite these advantages, the performance of VRFT is tightly coupled with the data being used and can be seen as an identification problem. As such, it inherits the weaknesses of using data-based methods. For example, recently, it has been shown in the supervised learning community that a malicious agent can severely affect the performance of classifiers at test time by means of slight changes in the data used at training time \cite{biggio1,jagielski2018manipulating,goodfellow2014explaining}. A recent analysis demonstrated that data-driven control techniques are also affected by this particular attack for simple PID-like controllers \cite{alessio2020poisoning}, whilst the case where VRFT is used with non-linear controllers is left unexplored. Similar attacks, conducted at test time, have also been shown to work in the case of systems controlled through Reinforcement Learning controllers \cite{russo2019optimal}.\\
\textit{Contributions:} the objectives of this work are twofold:\\
\textbf{(1)} We first analyze the feasibility of using VRFT for temperature control in buildings. This is validated by using a \textit{digital replica} of the KTH Live-In Lab testbed \cite{liveinlab}, a model of the real building set up using IDA Indoor Climate and Energy (IDA ICE) \cite{ida_ice}, a software used to simulate buildings performance.\\
\textbf{(2)} We then analyze the susceptibility of VRFT to data poisoning attacks, using the IDA ICE environment.
We believe this is an important example of how data-driven control laws can be attacked. In buildings, the probability of sensors being hijacked is far from remote, and a malicious agent can use the data in several ways. This data could be used to determine the number of people present in the building or be poisoned to decrease the building's energy efficiency. Gartner \cite{burke2019gartner} predicts that through 2022 \textit{30\% of all AI cyberattacks will leverage training-data poisoning, AI model theft, or adversarial samples to attack AI-powered systems.} In \cite{kumar2020adversarial}, Microsoft engineers analyzed 28 companies and found out that only 3 of them have the right tools in place to secure their ML systems. This further stresses the importance of studying such problems.
\textit{Organization of the paper: } \cref{sec:background} introduces the notation, the VRFT method, and the KTH Live-in Lab Testbed, which is a smart residential building located at the KTH campus. In \cref{sec:vrft_building}, the VRFT method is used to derive a controller that can control the temperature in the KTH Live-in Lab testbed's model. Finally, in \cref{sec:vrft_poisoned_building}, the data poisoning attack from \cite{alessio2020poisoning} is presented and applied to the VRFT method introduced in the previous section.
\section{Background and preliminaries}\label{sec:background}
\subsection{Notation}
We consider discrete-time models, indexed by $t\in \mathbb{N}_0$, and we will indicate by $[N]$ the sequence of integers from $0$ to $N$. We denote by $z$ the one-step forward shift operator and by $\mathcal{H}_2$ the Hardy space of complex functions which are analytic in $|z|< 1$ for $z\in \mathbb{C}$. For a vector $x\in \mathbb{R}^n$ and a function $f: \mathbb{R}^n\to \mathbb{R}$, we denote by $\nabla_x f(x)$ the $n$-dimensional vector of partial derivatives, where each element is $\partial_{x_i} f(x)$ with $\partial_{x_i} = \frac{\partial }{\partial x_i}$. We will describe a linear time-invariant system in the following way for $t\in \mathbb{N}_0$:
\begin{align}\label{eq:system_state_space1}
x_{t+1} &= Ax_t +Bu_t,\quad x_0\in \mathcal X_0\\
y_t&=Cx_t+Du_t, \label{eq:system_state_space2}
\end{align}
where $x_t\in \mathbb{R}^n$ is the state of the system, $u_t\in \mathbb{R}^m$ is the exogenous input, $y_t\in \mathbb{R}^p$ is a vector of measurements and $\mathcal X_0$ is a closed-convex subset of $ \mathbb{R}^n$. We can equivalently use transfer function notation and denote the input-output relationship using transfer function notation $y_t = G(z)u_t,$ with $G(z) = C(zI-A)^{-1}B+D$. We also denote the multiplication of two transfer functions $G(z)$ and $L(z)$ by $GL(z)$ (similarly the sum). Finally, we will denote by $X_T = \begin{bmatrix}
x_0, \dots, x_T
\end{bmatrix}^\top$ a matrix of dimensions $(T+1)\times n$ containing a collection of state measurements of the system, for $T\in \mathbb{N}_0$. Similarly, we can define $U_T$ and $Y_T$.
\subsection{Virtual Reference Feedback Tuning}
In the following, we will denote by $\mathcal D_N = (U_{N}, Y_{N})$ the data available to the learner that comes from experiments on the plant, with $N>1$. This data will be used to learn the control law, and it is usually assumed to have been taken in open-loop conditions. In VRFT \cite{campi2002virtual}, the design requirements are encapsulated into a reference model $M_r(z)$ that captures the desired closed-loop behavior from $r_t$ to $y_t$, where $r_t \in \mathbb{R}^p$ is the reference signal. We assume that $M_r$ satisfies some realizability assumptions, such as being a proper stable transfer function.
In VRFT, we wish to find a controller $K_\theta(z)$, parametrized by $\theta\in \mathbb{R}^{n_k}$, that minimizes the difference between the reference model and the closed-loop system in the $\mathcal H_2$ norm sense. Define $\Delta_\theta(z) = M_r(z)-[(I+GK_\theta)^{-1}GK_\theta](z)$, then the criterion is usually casted as follows
\begin{align}\label{eq:criterion_J_MR}
J_{\text{MR}}(\theta) &= \left\|M_r(z)-[(I+GK_\theta)^{-1}GK_\theta](z)\right\|_2^2\\
&= \frac{1}{2\pi} \int_{-\pi}^{\pi} \Tr\left[\Delta_\theta(e^{j\omega}) \Delta_\theta^\top(e^{-j\omega})\right]\textrm{d}\omega.
\end{align}
One can immediately observe that $J_{\text{MR}}(\theta)$ is non-convex in $\theta$. To address this difficulty, the following assumption \cite{campi2002virtual,karimi2007non,formentin2014comparison} is often used:
\begin{assumption}[\cite{campi2002virtual}]\label{assumption1}
The sensitivity function $I-M_r(z)$ is close (in the $\mathcal H_2$ norm sense) to the actual sensitivity function $(I+GK_{\hat{\theta}})^{-1}(z)$ in the minimizer $\hat{\theta}$ of \ref{eq:criterion_J_MR}.
\end{assumption}
This allows us to instead consider the following criterion
\begin{equation}\label{eq:criterion_J}
\bar J_{\text{MR}}(\theta) = \left\|M_r(z)-[(I-M_r)GK_\theta](z)\right\|_2^2.\\
\end{equation}
One can show that minimizing \ref{eq:criterion_J} can be cast as a problem that involves minimizing the difference between the input signal $u_t$ injected during the experiments and the control signal $ K_\theta(z) e_t$ computed using the \textit{virtual error signal}, $e_t$. The latter is defined as $ e_t = r_t -y_t = (M_r^{-1}(z)-1)y_t$ where $ r_t$ is the \textit{virtual reference signal} computed using the reference model $M_r(z)$ as $ r_t = M_r^{-1}(z)y_t$. Unfortunately this minimization will lead to a biased estimate of the minimizer if the controller that leads the cost function to zero is not in the controller set. To address this problem, one can introduce a filter $L(z)$ that will pre-filter the data $\mathcal D_N$. One can then define the objective criterion that is actually solved in the VRFT method:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:criterion_J_VR_N}J_{\text{VR}}(\theta, \mathcal D_N) = \frac{1}{N+1} \sum_{t=0}^{N} \|u_t - K_\theta(z) e_t\|_2^2,\end{equation}
and it can be proven \cite{campi2002virtual} that for stationary and ergodic signals $\{y_t\}$ and $\{u_t\}$, we get the following asymptotic result:
$\lim_{N\to\infty}J_{\text{VR}}(\theta, \mathcal D_N) =J_{\text{VR}}(\theta)$, where
\begin{align*}J_{\text{VR}}(\theta) &= \frac{1}{2\pi} \int_{-\pi}^{\pi} \Tr\left[\bar \Delta_\theta(e^{j\omega}) \Phi_{u}(\omega)\bar\Delta_\theta^\top(e^{-j\omega})\right]\textrm{d}\omega\\
\bar \Delta_\theta(z) &\coloneqq I-[K_\theta(I-M_r)G](z),
\end{align*}
with $\Phi_{u}$ being the power spectral density of $u_t$. Let $K^\star$ denote the minimizer over all possible transfer functions $K(z)$ of $\left\|M_r(z)-[(I-M_r)GK](z)\right\|_2^2$. If $ K^\star\in \{K_\theta(z): \theta \in \mathbb{R}^{n_k}\}$, then $K^\star$ is also the minimizer of \ref{eq:criterion_J_VR_N}. Otherwise, one can properly choose a filter $L(z)$ to filter the experimental data so that the minimizer of \ref{eq:criterion_J_VR_N} and \ref{eq:criterion_J} still coincide (refer to \cite{campi2002virtual} for details). Here the control set is assumed to be be linearly parametrized in terms of a basis of transfer functions:
\begin{assumption}\label{assumption2vrft_linear_control}
The control law $K$ is represented by an LTI system $K_\theta(z)$ that is linearly parametrized by $\theta \in \mathbb{R}^{n_k}$, and we will write $K_\theta(z) = \beta^\top(z)\theta$, with $\beta(z)$ being a vector of linear discrete-time transfer functions of dimension $n_k$.
\end{assumption}
Assumption \oldref{assumption2vrft_linear_control} includes different types of control law, such as PID, and can be relaxed to other types of models, including neural networks \cite{sala2005extensions,esparza2011neural}.
\subsection{KTH Live-In Lab Testbed and IDA ICE}
The Live-In Lab Testbed KTH \cite{liveinlab} (see Fig. \ref{fig:kth_liveinlab}) is located in one of Einar Mattsson's three plus-energy buildings (see Fig. \ref{fig:liveinlab}) in the KTH Main Campus, in Stockholm. The Testbed KTH premises feature a total of 305 m$^2$ distributed over approximately 120 m$^2$ of living space, 150 m$^2$ of technical space, and an office of approximately 20 m$^2$. The living space currently features four apartments; each apartment has a separate living room/bedroom and a bathroom and shares the kitchen as a common space. Space heating is provided via ventilation.
The testbed, which is part of the larger Live-In Lab testbed platform, is designed to be energetically independent, with dedicated electricity generation systems through PV panels, heat generation (ground source heat pumps), and storage (electricity and heat) systems. Sensors are extensively used to monitor and control the indoor climate, to improve energy efficiency, study user behavior, and to improve control and fault detection strategies.
In this paper, a digital replica of the testbed that focuses on one apartment was created using the IDA ICE software \cite{ida_ice}. IDA ICE is a state-of-the art dynamic simulation software for energy and comfort in buildings. In order to assess the control laws that we derived, we set up a co-simulation environment that allowed IDA ICE and a Python script to communicate and exchange data through APIs available in IDA ICE.
\begin{figure}[!tbp]
\centering
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.49\columnwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{1.Figures/liveinlab/liveinlab_1.png}
\caption{Digital view of the Live-In Lab Testbed KTH apartments.}
\label{fig:kth_liveinlab}
\end{minipage}
\hfill
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.49\columnwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{1.Figures/liveinlab/liveinlab_2.png}
\caption{Digital image of the Live-In Lab [source: property developer Einar Mattsson].}
\label{fig:liveinlab}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[b]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{1.Figures/liveinlab/control-cropped.pdf}
\caption{HVAC architecture of the KTH Live-In Lab testbed.}
\label{fig:control_liveinlab}
\end{figure}
\section{VRFT Method and Temperature Control} \label{sec:vrft_building}
In this section, we will briefly describe how the VRFT method has been applied to derive a controller. We will (1) sketch the HVAC (Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning) architecture of the testbed; (2) outline the usage of VRFT; (3) conclude with a performance analysis of the derived controllers.
\subsection{Method and experiments}
\textbf{HVAC architecture.} Fig. \ref{fig:control_liveinlab} shows a model of the HVAC architecture of the Live-In Lab Testbed KTH. VRFT will be applied to the ventilation control unit that regulates the amount of airflow supplied from the central Air Handling Unit (AHU) to the various apartments in the buildings. Measurements coming from the apartment include the temperature $T(t)$ and CO$_2(t)$ readings, sampled every $540$ seconds (9 minutes).\\
\textbf{Experiment setup. } The first step involves designing an experiment that permits the user to gather informative data from the plant. The data will then be used to compute a control law using the VRFT method. We have decided to gather data from an empty apartment during winter months, and have used weather data from the local weather station in Bromma. For simplicity, we have chosen the experiments to be conducted in open-loop, with a control signal distributed according to a Gaussian distribution $\mathcal{N}(\mu, \sigma^2)$. Since the amount of airflow can be expressed as a percentage, the control law $u_t$ is automatically clipped between $0$ and $1$.
Because of this saturation effect, one needs to pay extra attention while designing the experiment. To that aim, we have designed two scenarios: scenario (\textbf{A}) where the mean of the control law is $\mu=0.5$ and the standard deviation is $\sigma=1/6$; instead, in scenario (\textbf{B}) we have $\mu=0.5$ and $\sigma=1$. Scenario (\textbf{B}) represents the case where the user does not take into consideration the saturation effect. In contrast, scenario (\textbf{A}) guarantees that with $99\%$ probability the control action will belong between $0$ and $1$ (at the cost of having a crest factor of $3$). The amount of data gathered for the training process is another important factor. Therefore we have also decided to consider two cases: one where we use $N=100$ data points (roughly 10 hours of data with a sampling time of $540$ seconds), and $N=1000$ data points (that is 150 hours). Finally, due to the experiment's randomness, we have decided to generate $50$ sets of simulations for each scenario.\\
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{1.Figures/reference_model/ref_model_final.pdf}
\caption{On the left: step response of the reference model $M_r(z)$ (the circle denotes the settling time); On the right: Bode plot of the reference model $M_r(z)$.}
\label{fig:ref_model_plots}
\end{figure}
\textbf{Reference model and control law. } In VRFT, the user has to specify the closed-loop system's design requirements by choosing a specific reference model $M_r(z)$. This model, together with the data gathered during the experiments, is used to derive the control law $K_\theta(z)$. We have opted for a simple reference model and assumed that the closed-loop response of the system could be well represented by a second-order system. In practice, we assumed that it would take approximately one hour for the heating system in consideration to increase the temperature in the apartment from $15^\circ$ to $21^\circ$ degrees Celsius.
Therefore, we have chosen a reference model of the type \[M_r(z) = \frac{(1-\lambda)^2}{z^2-2\lambda z+\lambda ^2},\] where $\lambda = e^{-T_s\omega_0}$ with $\omega_0=0.002$ [rad/s] and $T_s=540 $ [s]. Fig. \ref{fig:ref_model_plots} shows the response of $M_r(z)$ to a step signal (with amplitude $21$, starting from an initial temperature of roughly $15^\circ$ [C]), and its Bode plot. All the data has been pre-filtered using a filter $L(z)=(1-M_r(z))M_r(z)$ (as explained in \cref{sec:background}; or see \cite{campi2002virtual} for more details). Finally, we have chosen to use a simple PID controller, of the form
\[K_\theta(z) = \beta^\top(z)\theta = \sum_{k=1}^{3} \theta_i \underbrace{\dfrac{z^{-k+2}}{z-1}}_{\beta_k(z)}.\]
This is one of the simplest controller that one can use with VRFT. Future work could also involve the analysis of more complex controllers, such as neural networks.
\subsection{Performance validation and results}
\textbf{Validation of the controllers. }As previously indicated, we have conducted 50 different simulations for each scenario, for a total of $200$ simulations. The performance of each controller $K_{\theta_i}(z)$ has been validated over $2$ weeks (2240 data points), with the apartment being occupied by one person (according to the occupancy profile shown in Fig. \ref{fig:occupancy}).
\textbf{Performance criteria.} The performance of a controller $K_{\theta_i}(z)$ has been evaluated on the basis of two criteria: (1) the RMSE of the temperature signal $e_{\text{RMSE}} = \sqrt{\frac{1}{N}\int_{0}^N (T(s) - r(s))^2 \textrm{d}s}$, where $T(t)$ is the temperature of the living room and $r(t)$ is the reference temperature, with constant value $r(t) =21$ [$^\circ$C]; (2) the average power spectral density of $T(t)$: $e_{\text{PSD}} = \frac{1}{1/(2T_s)} \int_{0}^{1/(2T_s)} S_T(f) \textrm{d}f $, where $1/(2T_s)$ is the Nyquist frequency and $S_T(f)$ is the power spectral density (PSD) of the temperature $T(t)$ (which was computed using Welch's method).
\textbf{Results.} A summary of the results are shown in Fig. \ref{fig:vrft_results} and in Table \ref{table:vrft_results}. From visual inspection of the results, we decided to classify $K_{\theta_i}(z)$ to be a "good" controller if results for that controller satisfied the following ellipse condition $e_{\text{RMSE}}^2+(\frac{e_{\text{PSD}}}{15})^2\leq 1$: this guarantees that $K_{\theta_i}(z)$ satisfies good tracking performance and small oscillations. Overall, we found no major difference in performance in using 100 or 1000 data points for Scenario \textbf{A}, whilst there is a clear difference in using 100 or 1000 datapoints for scenario \textbf{B}. In the latter case, using fewer points may result in controllers with poor performance, as indicated by the results. Surprisingly, using $1000$ datapoints for scenario \textbf{B} results in high performance controllers. Nonetheless, the difference with controllers found in scenario \textbf{A} is minimal.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{1.Figures/liveinlab/occupancy.pdf}
\caption{Occupancy of the apartment over 2 weeks. We assumed there is only one person living in the apartment.}
\label{fig:occupancy}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}[H]
\centering
\resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{%
\begin{tabular}{lcccc}
\hline
\rowcolor{Gray}\hline
\multicolumn{1}{l|}{\textbf{Scenario $(N=100)$}} & VRFT Loss & RMSE & Avg PSD & \% good controllers \\ \hline
\multicolumn{1}{l|}{Scenario A} & $.36\pm .02$ & $.13\pm .01$ & $17.97 \pm .31 $ & $100\%$ \\
\multicolumn{1}{l|}{Scenario B} & $.36\pm .02$ & $\mathbf{.70\pm .42}$ & $\mathbf{25.82\pm 7.45}$& $84\%$ \\
\rowcolor{Gray}\hline
\multicolumn{1}{l|}{\textbf{Scenario $(N=1000)$}} & VRFT Loss & RMSE & Avg PSD & \% good controllers \\ \hline
\multicolumn{1}{l|}{Scenario A} & $\mathbf{.38\pm .01}$ & $.12\pm .01$ & $15.14\pm .18$& $100\%$ \\
\multicolumn{1}{l|}{Scenario B} & $.33\pm .01$ &$.08\pm .01$ &$5.95\pm .04$& $100\%$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
}
\caption{For each scenario are shown the average value and confidence level at $95\%$ computed over $50$ simulations. Percentage of good controllers indicates the proportion of controllers that falls inside the ellipse $e_{\text{RMSE}}^2+(\frac{e_{\text{PSD}}}{15})^2=1$.}
\label{table:vrft_results}
\end{table}
\section{Data Poisoning of VRFT} \label{sec:vrft_poisoned_building}
In this section, we first present the data poisoning attack, introduced in \cite{alessio2020poisoning}, which inherits the main characteristics of the attack formulated in \cite{biggio1}. We then apply the poisoning attack to the data that was gathered in the previous section and conclude with a performance analysis of the poisoned controllers.
\subsection{Attack Framework and setup}
\textbf{Attack formulation} We now assume that a malicious agent has access to the experimental data $\mathcal D_N$ and knows the reference model $M_r(z)$ used by VRFT to identify a controller.
The goal of the malicious agent is to degrade the performance of the resulting closed-loop system by subtly changing the dataset $\mathcal D_N$.
We denote the malicious signal on the actuators by $a_{u,t}\in \mathbb{R}^{m}$, and respectively by $a_{y,t}\in\mathbb{R}^{p}$, the attack signals on the sensors at time $t$. The new input and output data points in the dataset at time $t$ are $u_t'=u_t+a_{u,t}$ and $y_t'=y_t+a_{y,t}$, respectively. We will then denote the corrupted dataset by $\mathcal D_N'=(U_N', Y_N')$ where $
U_{N}'=\begin{bmatrix}u_{0}' & u_{1}' &\dots & a_{N}'\end{bmatrix}^{\top}$, and similarly $Y_N'=\begin{bmatrix}y_{0}' & y_{1}' &\dots & y_{N}'\end{bmatrix}^{\top}$. We will focus our attention on the maxmin attack, introduced in \cite{alessio2020poisoning}, which is casted as a bi-level optimization problem
\begin{equation}\label{eq:op_maxmin}
\begin{aligned}
\max_{U_N',Y_N'}\quad & J_{\text{VR}}(\hat \theta', \mathcal D_N)& \\
\textrm{s.t.} \quad & \hat{\theta}' \in \argmin_{\theta} J_{\text{VR}}(\theta, \mathcal D_N')\\
&\|U_N'-U_N\|_{2} \leq \delta_u,\quad \|Y_N'-Y_N\|_{2} \leq \delta_y,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{1.Figures/simulations/poisoned/diagram-cropped.pdf}
\caption{Results for the data poisoning attack. Each point on the left plots represents the average across 50 simulations for a specific set of values $(\varepsilon_u,\varepsilon_y)$, displayed on the top of each point (also the unpoisoned cases are depicted in the plots).}
\label{fig:vrft_poisoned_results}
\end{figure*}
\noindent
where the constraints limit the amount of change applied to the dataset $\mathcal D_N$.
In a maxmin attack, the malicious agent aims at maximizing the learner's loss. By choosing this cost function, the malicious agent is implicitly maximizing the residual error $\|M_r(z)-[(I-M_r)GK_\theta](z)\|_2$ (as $N\to \infty$). Despite this criterion's attractiveness, the resulting closed-loop system may remain stable or just slightly affected by the attack. One can formulate alternative criteria, as shown in \cite{alessio2020poisoning}, but for the sake of simplicity, we will restrict our analysis to the maxmin attack.
We also want to highlight a few differences compared to classical data poisoning: first, in contrast with supervised learning, there is no label for the data, which implies that we cannot merely maximize the probability of classification error. Second, the problem involves two sets of data, the input $U_N$, and the output data $Y_N$. Since the dependency of the solution may depend in a complicated way on $U_N$ and $Y_N$, the problem is harder.
\textbf{Convexity.} It can be shown that the optimization problem \ref{eq:op_maxmin} is convex in $U'$ for a fixed $Y'$. Therefore, the maximum over $U'$, for some $Y'$, is attained on some extremal point of the feasible set. To find the optimal attack vector on the input, one can use, for example, disciplined convex-concave programming (DCCP) \cite{shen2016disciplined}. However, convexity with respect to $Y'$ does not hold, but one can still use gradient-based methods or genetic algorithms to find a solution.
\textbf{Algorithm and setup.} Based on the previous discussion, we use Alg. \ref{algo1} to approximately solve problem \ref{eq:op_maxmin}. We first perform the change of variable $A_u = U_N'-U_N$ and $A_y=Y_N'-Y_N$ and solve in the new variables $(A_u,A_y)$. The algorithm first solves \ref{eq:op_maxmin} in the input variable $A_u$ using DCCP, and then in the output variable $A_y$ using PGA (Projected Gradient Ascent). For both DCCP and PGA, we pick uniformly at random 20 initial points at every iteration. The algorithm stops whenever the increase between one iteration and the other is not greater than a fixed user-chosen value $\eta>0$.
\begin{algorithm}[h]
\DontPrintSemicolon
\KwIn{Dataset $\mathcal D_N=(U_N, Y_N)$; parameters $\delta_u,\delta_y,\eta$}
\KwOut{Poisoned dataset $\mathcal D_N'$}
$i \gets 0, (A_u^{(i)},A_y^{(i)})\gets (0,0)$ \Comment*[r]{Initialize algorithm}
$\hat\theta^{(i)}\gets \argmin_\theta J_{\text{VR}}(\theta, U_N+A_u^{(i)},Y_N+A_y^{(i)})$\;
\Do{$|J_{\text{VR}}(\hat\theta^{(i+1)}, U_N, Y_N)-J_{\text{VR}}(\hat\theta^{(i)}, U_N, Y_N)|>\eta$}{
$A_u^{(i+1)} \gets $ solve \ref{eq:op_maxmin} in $A_u$ using DCCP\;
$A_y^{(i+1)} \gets $ solve \ref{eq:op_maxmin} in $A_y$ (using $A_u^{(i+1)}$) with PGA\;
$\hat\theta^{(i+1)}\gets \argmin_\theta J_{\text{VR}}(\theta, U_N+A_u^{(i+1)},Y_N+A_y^{(i+1)})$\;
$i \gets i+1$\;
}
\Return $\mathcal D_N'=(U_N+A_u^{(i)}, Y_N+A_y^{(i)})$
\caption{Max-min attack algorithm}
\label{algo1}
\end{algorithm}
\subsection{Performance and results.}
\textbf{Setup. }
As in the previous section, we will consider 4 configurations: Scenario \textbf{A} with 100/1000 data points and similarly Scenario \textbf{B}. For each configuration, we chose $\delta_u$ and $\delta_y$ in \ref{eq:op_maxmin} as $\delta_u = \varepsilon_u \|U_N\|_2$ and $\delta_y = \varepsilon_y \|U_N\|_2 $, where $\varepsilon_u,\varepsilon_y$ are positive parameters in $[0,1]$ that we used as control knobs to vary the amount of change in $\mathcal D_N$. For simplicity, we also assume that the data has already been pre-filtered using the filter $L(z)$.
\textbf{Results. } The main result is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:vrft_poisoned_results}, whilst in Fig. \ref{fig:poisoned_data_example} we show an example of poisoned dataset for Scenario \textbf{A}.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.94\columnwidth]{1.Figures/simulations/poisoned/0.1_0.2_True_1000_29.pdf}
\caption{Example of poisoned (pre-filtered) data for scenario \textbf{A} with 1000 data points and $(\varepsilon_u,\varepsilon_y)=(0.1,0.2)$.}
\label{fig:poisoned_data_example}
\end{figure}
Due to the large number of simulations performed, we have decided to summarize results and show the average value for each configuration in Fig. \ref{fig:vrft_poisoned_results}. This means that each point in the left plots of Fig. \ref{fig:vrft_poisoned_results} represents the average across 50 simulations (on top of each point are written the values of $\varepsilon_u,\varepsilon_y$). The average values for the unpoisoned case are also shown, which can be used as reference values to understand the attack's impact. As expected, from the plot, one can immediately perceive that Scenario \textbf{B} is more susceptible to the attack. But Scenario \textbf{A}, for a large number of data points, is also significantly affected by the attack, while using a low number of data points seems to improve robustness. Unfortunately, as depicted in Fig. \ref{fig:poisoned_data_example}, minimal changes lead to a substantial performance degradation, as shown in the bottom right plot in Fig. \ref{fig:vrft_poisoned_results}. This stresses the importance of performing experiments wisely and make sure that the gathered data is secured.
\section{Conclusion}
In this work, we have shown the feasibility of VRFT, an input-output data-driven method, for comfort control in buildings, namely temperature control, and analyzed the impact of the maxmin data poisoning attack. VRFT has been validated on a digital replica of the KTH Live-In Lab, modeled using IDA-ICE, showing good performance and small tracking error. We then analyzed the impact of data poisoning attacks, which revealed that small changes in the dataset could disrupt the controller's performance. Results also indicated that smaller datasets are more robust to data poisoning attacks, while datasets naively constructed are more susceptible to the attack, resulting in substantial performance degradation. This stresses the importance of securing the data used to derive the control law.
\section*{APPENDIX}
\iffalse
\section*{ACKNOWLEDGMENT}
The preferred spelling of the word ÒacknowledgmentÓ in America is without an ÒeÓ after the ÒgÓ. Avoid the stilted expression, ÒOne of us (R. B. G.) thanks . . .Ó Instead, try ÒR. B. G. thanksÓ. Put sponsor acknowledgments in the unnumbered footnote on the first page.
\fi
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
|
\section{Introduction}
The quantum Hall effects (QHE) \cite{Klitzing1980} are the earliest known example
of topological insulators \cite{Hasan2010}. They have a charge gap in the bulk, and
all currents are carried by edge/surface modes, which can be either charged (with
fractional charge in the fractional QHE) or neutral chiral modes. While the charge
modes produce quantized electrical conductance, neutral modes are a manifestation of
topology, electron-electron interactions, and possibly disorder, and contribute to
heat transport. Neutral edge modes in quantum Hall systems have been detected by shot
noise experiments \cite{Bid2010} and also by their quantized heat transport
coefficients \cite{Venkatachalam2012,Deviatov_etal_2011}. Apart from
quantum Hall systems, neutral (e.g. Goldstone) modes arise in systems
in which a continuous symmetry is broken spontaneously.
In this work, we design a geometry where the unique current path from
the source to the drain is forced to pass through a segment consisting
of neutral modes only. We assume that the $U(1)$ symmetry of each channel
is broken by the contacts; thus backscattering between channels is
{present
under them}. The breaking of these $U(1)$ symmetries results in a non-zero dc current at
the drain D. This protocol can be used either as a transformer, which
converts charge current to neutral current, and then back to charge current, or as an efficient detector of
neutral modes as long as the neutral counterpropagates with respect to all charge modes.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{geometry.jpeg}
\caption{A single right-moving chiral charged mode (solid black
line) represents the edge of a $\nu=1$ quantum Hall system
extending above the figure, which is the ``probe'' system. Charges
are injected at the source S and detected at the drain D. The
``test'' system extends below the figure, and has two
counterpropagating neutral modes (dashed black lines), and
possibly other charged chiral modes (dash-dotted
orange lines), which all have to be right-moving for our scheme to
be relevant. The edges of the two systems overlap only
in regions II and IV, separated from the active region III by
boundaries B$_2$, B$_3$. Density-density interactions between the
chiral modes of the top and bottom systems exist only in regions
II and IV, which also host the contacts C$_1$ and
C$_2$. Regions I and V are present to specify boundary
conditions. Tunneling/scattering between the chiral modes occurs solely under the
contacts. Reflection and transmission of a right-moving charge injected at S is
shown schematically at B$_3$, while a similar
process for a left-moving neutral excitation is shown at B$_2$.}
\label{fig:geo}
\end{figure}
The proposed geometry is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:geo}. The relevant physics
can be extracted by focusing on regions II, III, and IV. The solid black
line at the top is a right-moving chiral charge mode, arising from a
$\nu=1$ quantum Hall system extending above Fig. \ref{fig:geo},
constituting the ``probe'' system. The dashed lines at the bottom in region
III are a pair of counter-propagating gapless, bosonic \cite{bosonic},
neutral modes, presumed to arise from a ``test'' system extending below Fig.
\ref{fig:geo}. The test system may be quantum Hall, so long as all its charge
modes (dash-dotted orange lines) are right-moving, or it may be a system with
neutral modes only, such as an $XXZ$ chain. Electrons are injected from the
source S via tunnelling into the probe chiral edge mode and detected at the
drain D. The source and drain are separated by a grounded contact G. Clearly,
current cannot flow from S to D along the right-moving, chiral top edge. The
edge modes of the probe and test systems overlap, and thus interact, only in
regions II and IV. The interaction is of the density-density form, with separate
number conservation in the ``bare'' charged and neutral modes. These
interactions renormalize the bare charged and neutral modes such that,
generically, all three renormalized eigenmodes have nonuniversal charge. Regions
II and IV also host the contacts C$_1$ and C$_2$ respectively
\cite{Spanslatt_etal_2021}, which we assume can be decoupled from the
interacting modes at will. Finally, regions I and V are semi-infinite ``free''
regions, where the edges of the probe and test systems are fully decoupled and
are present to fix the asymptotic boundary conditions.
{Before proceeding we discuss the notion of ideal contacts. The latter refers
to terminals connected to the edge modes, which absorb the entire impinging current
with no detectable signal away from the contact \cite{Kane_Fisher_1995}. Ideal
contacts have been discussed in Refs.
\onlinecite{Artur_etal_2013,Propotov_Gefen_Mirlin_2017,Nosiglia_etal_2018, Spanslatt_etal_2021} in the absence of interactions, and, in the presence of
interactions, in \onlinecite{Spanslatt_etal_2021}, where it was shown that a
microscopic realization of an ideal contact for counterpropagating edge modes
requires backscattering between them.
}
Our results can be encapsulated in two ways: Firstly, neutral modes can carry
information about the charge current, information that can be used to reconstruct
the charge current at a different location. Secondly, one can use the charge
chiral mode (top mode of Fig. \ref{fig:geo}) as a ``probe'', and apply it to a
``test'' system (bottom of Fig. \ref{fig:geo}). In this functionality,
our device can be used to detect coherently propagating
bosonic \cite{bosonic} neutral modes in the test system. A
dc charge current at the drain is direct evidence for
neutral modes.
More concretely, let us assume there is at least one left-moving neutral mode
in the test system. When electrons are injected at the
source S if both C$_1$ and C$_2$ are coupled to the modes in region II and IV respectively,
a dc current will be detected at D, regardless of whether the test system has
(right-moving) charge chirals or not.
The presence of right moving chiral charge modes in the test system will not change
this conclusion qualitatively.
Let us understand the physics in
two extreme limits, when (i) both the contacts are coupled, or
(ii) both of the contacts are decoupled.
{\it Case (i) Both contacts coupled:} Assuming no charge chiral modes in the test
system, consider a charge (positive by fiat) injected into the probe chiral at
S, which travels to the boundary B$_3$. There, a lump of positive
neutral density (a neutralon) is reflected into the left-moving
neutral mode in region III and lumps of nonuniversal charge are
transmitted into the two right-moving modes in region IV to be fully
absorbed at C$_2$. The left-moving neutralon in III travels to B$_2$,
at which point a positive (electrically) charged lump is reflected into the probe chiral, and an equal and opposite charge is transmitted into the
left-moving mode in the region II, to be fully absorbed at
C$_1$. There will also be a neutralon reflected into the right-moving
neutral chiral in region III, which travels to B$_3$. As usual, this
will undergo transmission and reflection, with the transmitted part
being completely absorbed at C$_2$. The reflected neutralon part has the same
sign as the original neutralon, and repeats the process described
earlier with a smaller amplitude. With both contacts coupled, an
infinite sequence of charge lumps {\it of the same sign} is detected
at D. Thus, a dc current at S implies a dc current of the
same sign (but with a nonuniversal magnitude) at D.
This is already an instance of the effect we are looking for. Now we add (right-moving) charge chirals to the test system. All proceeds as
before until the left-moving neutralon impinges on B$_2$. Now, in addition to the reflected neutral lump, charge lumps will be
transmitted into the nonuniversal charge modes in region II (to
be absorbed at C$_1$), and reflected into the probe
and test charge chirals. The magnitude and sign of the charges are determined by the interaction parameters in region II. Recall that the reflection/transmission is deterministic because no tunneling between the different modes is involved. Thus, there is a dc current at D.
To summarize, when both contacts are coupled, if a left-moving neutral is present in the test system, there is always a dc current at D, as long as the charge chirals (if any) of the test system are all right-moving.
{\it Case (ii) Both contacts decoupled:} Initially, let us assume that no
charge chiral modes are present in the test system. The first
step (the injected lump of electric charge traveling from S to B$_3$,
resulting in the reflection of a neutralon and transmission of lumps of
nonuniveral charge in the two right-moving chirals in region IV) is the
same as before. However, now the right-moving lumps in region IV travel
to B$_4$ and undergo repeated partial reflection and transmission. Similarly,
the left-moving neutralon, upon arriving at B$_2$, results in a charge
lump in the probe charge chiral in III, and a left-moving
charge lump in region II. This latter lump will undergo partial
transmission/reflection at B$_1$. This leads to multiple scattering
at all the boundaries. However, we can assert, based on charge conservation,
that {\it no dc current is observed at D}.
Since no left-moving charge modes enter region III, the entire charge
injected at $S$ has to proceed to region V (after multiple scattering
in region IV)
\cite{Safi_Schultz_1995,*Maslov_Stone_1995,*Ponomarenko_1995,*Oreg_Finkelstein_1996}. Any
charge detected at D is initiated by a neutralon arriving at B$_2$ via
the left-moving neutral in III and its descendants via multiple
scattering. Since no total (time-integrated) charge enters region III from either
of regions II or IV, the time-integrated charge entering the drain D must vanish. Evidently, charge
noise will be detected at D. Similar logic ensures that the dc
charge current exiting region IV into region V is the entire charge
current injected at S.
These conclusions
do not change when we allow (right-moving) charge modes in the test system. Since
the interactions in regions II and region IV are density-density interactions, the total $U(1)$
``charge" (which is completely independent of electric charge) of each mode has to be conserved in the dc limit.
Thus, we conclude, that in the presence
of (right-moving) charge chiral modes in the test system, we still need both the
contacts to be coupled in order to have a non-zero current
at the drain D.
In what follows, we will present an outline of the calculations
leading to our results, relegating straightforward mathematical details
to the supplemental material (SM \cite{SM}). For simplicity, we will
focus on the case where the test system has neutral modes only.
We model the neutrals by an XXZ spin chain and the interaction between
the spin chain and the spin-polarized charged mode as a spin-spin
interaction. The model is described by the action in
Eq. \ref{eq:action} where the probe charged mode is represented by the
bosonic field $\phi_1$, the right-moving test neutral by $\phi_2$ and
the left-moving test neutral by $\phi_3$. The interaction between the neutrals
$\phi_2$ and $\phi_3$ is denoted by $\lambda_{23}\left( x \right)$.
The interaction between the charged mode and the spin chain, (the same
for both the left- and right-moving neutrals), is denoted by
$\lambda_{12}\left( x \right)$ (= $\lambda_{13}\left( x \right)$)
\begin{align}
S=&\frac{1}{4\pi} \int dxdt \Big[-\partial_x \phi_1 \left(\partial_t \phi_1
+v_1\partial_x \phi_1\right)\nonumber \\
&-\partial_x \phi_2 \left(\partial_t \phi_2+v_2\partial_x \phi_2\right)+
\partial_x \phi_3 \left(\partial_t \phi_3-v_2\partial_x \phi_3\right)\nonumber \\
&-2 \lambda_{12}(x) \partial_x \phi_1 (\partial_x\phi_2+\partial_x\phi_3)-
2 \lambda_{23}(x) \partial_x\phi_2\partial_x\phi_3\Big].
\label{eq:action}
\end{align}
Assuming the interactions are turned on abruptly in regions II and IV,
we calculate the reflection ($r^{\text{B}_\alpha}_{i j}$) and transmission
coefficients ($t^{\text{B}_\alpha}_{i j}$) at B$_2$ and B$_3$, which allows us
to compute the current at D as a function of time via multiple reflections
\cite{Safi_Schultz_1995,*Maslov_Stone_1995,*Ponomarenko_1995,*Oreg_Finkelstein_1996}.
\begin{figure}[h]
\center
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{joinedplot.jpeg}
\caption{The dc current at D as a function of the
$\lambda_{12}$ and $\lambda_{23}$ for two
different values of $v_1, v_2$, when C$_1$ C$_2$ is coupled.
}
\label{fig:current}
\end{figure}
\section{Computation of current and noise}
When both C$_1$ and C$_2$ are coupled, the fraction of the current that
reaches D as a function of time is
\begin{align}
r_\text{D}(t)=r^{\text{B}_3}_{13}r^{\text{B}_2}_{31}\sum_{n=0}^\infty \left( r^{\text{B}_2}_{32}r^{\text{B}_3}_{23} \right)^n \delta(t-t_{d_n})
\end{align}
where $t_{d_n}=t_0+n \Delta t$. Here $t_0$ is the time for the first
signal and $\Delta t$ is the time for one full reflection
between B$_3$ and B$_2$. The dc current at D is the zero-frequency
limit of the Fourier transform.
\begin{equation}
I_\text{D}(\omega\rightarrow 0)=\frac{r_{13}^{B_3}r_{31}^{B_2}}{1-r_{32}^{B_2}r_{23}^{B_3}}\langle I_\text{tun} \rangle
\label{draincurrent}
\end{equation}
Similarly, we calculate the noise at D
\cite{Martin_2005,Chamon_Freed_We_1995,Berg_etal_2009} via the
current-current correlation function on a Schwinger-Keldysh contour to obtain
\begin{equation}
N_\text{D}\left(\omega\rightarrow 0\right)=\frac{e(r_{13}^{B_3}r_{31}^{B_2})^2}{1-(r_{32}^{B_3}r_{23}^{B_3})^2} \langle I_\text{tun} \rangle
\end{equation}
The noise when one or both of the
contacts are decoupled can be computed very similarly \cite{SM}.
When C$_2$ is decoupled the interactions in region IV are purely density-density,
implying that the $U(1)$ ``charge" of each mode (as previously mentioned, completely
independent of electric charge) is conserved. Thus if we sum up all the multiple
reflections from boundary B$_3$ and B$_4$ (dc limit), the total $U(1)$ ``charge" of the
neutral reflected from region IV to region III must vanish. Hence the total dc current
at D will be zero. The dc current at the drain is only non-zero if and only if both
the contacts C$_1$ and C$_2$ are coupled.
\section{Experimental Realization}
We now discuss an experimental realization of our setup. For
monolayer graphene, Hartree-Fock calculations suggest
\cite{Kharitonov_2012} that at charge neutrality ($\nu=0$), there is
a quantum phase transition between a canted antiferromagnetic (CAF)
phase, stabilized for purely perpendicular magnetic field, and a
spin-polarized phase which can be stabilized by increasing the Zeeman
energy $E_Z$ with an in-plane $B$ field. The spin-polarized phase has
a fully gapped bulk and a pair of gapless helical edge modes
\cite{Abanin2006,BreyFertig2006}, whereas the CAF phase breaks U(1)
spin-rotation symmetry and has a neutral Goldstone mode in the bulk,
but no gapless charged edge modes
\cite{Ganpathy_Shimshoni_Fertig_2014,MurthyShimshoniFertig2016}.
Experimentally, the phase transition has been seen \cite{Young2014},
but evidence that the phase at purely perpendicular $B$ is the CAF
phase is indirect, via the detection of magnon transmission above
the Zeeman energy \cite{Wei2018}. Indeed, recent scanning tunneling spectroscopy
measurements indicate that the ground state has bond-order
\cite{li2019:stm,liu2021visualizing,coissard2021imaging}. To confirm that the
system has CAF order one would need to detect {\it gapless}
collective excitations, as has been done recently in bilayer graphene
\cite{Hailong_etal_2021}.
A potential experimental realization of the central idea of this
paper is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:prop}. A sheet of graphene in a
perpendicular $B$ field is gated such that the left half is at
filling $\nu=1$, while the right half is at $\nu=0$. In the central
part of the $\nu=0$ region, we overlay graphene with a ferromagnetic
insulator, whose exchange field makes the graphene under it fully polarized and gapped.
However, the annular
periphery of $\nu=0$ region is in the putative CAF phase, with a gapless
Goldstone mode. No topological edge modes exist
between the two phases at $\nu=0$. Confinement in the ``radial''
direction in the $\nu=0$ region will reconstruct the continuum of
bulk Goldstone modes into bands of clockwise-moving and
anticlockwise-moving neutral modes. The lowest two bands will be
gapless, and represent the counterpropagating neutral modes in
Fig. \ref{fig:geo}. These counter-propagating neutral
modes interact with the charge edge mode of the $\nu=1$
quantum Hall phase on the left in the regions where they are proximate (Fig.
\ref{fig:prop}). Adding the source S, drain D, and grounded contact G at
appropriate locations realizes the setup of Fig. \ref{fig:geo}, and provides
a way to unambiguously detect the gapless neutral Goldstone mode of the CAF.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth,angle=0]{XXZ.jpeg}
\caption{A sheet of graphene in a perpendicular $B$-field is gated to have
$\nu=1$ on the left and $\nu=0$ on the right. The central region of $\nu=0$
is overlain by an insulating ferromagnet, inducing the fully polarized phase
of $\nu=0$ graphene in this region. The periphery of $\nu=0$ is presumed to
be in the CAF state, with gapless Goldstone modes. The lowest subband of the
radially confined Goldstone modes interacts with the $\nu=1$ edge mode and
is detected by the scheme described in the text.}
\label{fig:prop}
\end{figure}
\section{Summary and outlook}
In this work we have
proposed a setup that has two functionalities: (i) Given a system known to have a
neutral mode (the bottom system in Fig. \ref{fig:geo}), we encode information about
the charge current into the neutral current, and subsequently read it
out as a dc charge current at a different spatial location. (ii) Given
a test system suspected of having coherently propagating, bosonic
\cite{bosonic}, neutral modes, we place it along the bottom part of Fig. \ref{fig:geo}
and use our device as a neutral mode detector. An important condition for our
protocol to work is that the neutral mode to be detected should counterpropagate with respect
to all charge modes, else the charge modes will ``short-circuit" the neutral mode.
However, measurements of the upstream and downstream charge conductance along the edge
of the test system are sufficient to determine whether all charge modes co-propagate
in a given system. Backscattering under the contacts breaks the $U(1)$ symmetry
of each mode; without backscattering no dc current at the drain is possible.
Let us elaborate a bit on the functionality of our setup as a neutral mode detector.
Our setup can detect coherently propagating, bosonic \cite{bosonic}, neutral edge
modes when all the charge modes in the test system are gapped, and gapless modes
represent spin/valley fluctuations. Trivial insulators with spontaneous symmetry
breaking of a continuous symmetry, such as the putative CAF phase of graphene at
charge neutrality, are prime examples of such systems. Moreover, our setup will
detect coherently propagating, bosonic, neutral edge modes in QH systems as well,
as long as two conditions are met: (i) all chiral charge modes of the test QH
system are co-propagating, and (ii) there is at least one neutral mode which
counter-propagates with respect to the charge modes.
For example, the neutral
mode of $\nu=2/3$ at the Kane-Fisher-Polchinski fixed point \cite{KFP_1994} could
be detected by our setup. Using monolayer graphene for the probe system allows
one to reverse the propagation direction of the probe charge chiral {\it in situ}
by gating to obtain $\nu=\pm1$ in order to realize the geometry of Fig.
\ref{fig:geo}. It must be noted that pairs of neutral edge modes can be generated
by edge reconstructions in quantum Hall systems \cite{SpinModeSwitching,nu4to3}.
We emphasize that our setup can detect coherently propagating bosonic neutral
modes regardless of their physical origin.
Let us compare our setup with previous approaches to neutral mode detection.
In one approach, the passage of upstream neutral modes through a quantum point
contact was detected through the generation of charge noise
\cite{Bid2010,Bid_etal_2009, Cohen_etal_2019,Biswas_etal_2021}.
More recently, measurements of
heat transport “upstream" as compared to charge transport have been employed
\cite{yacoby_etal_1994,Banerjee_etal_2017,Srivastav_etal_2020}. Not only are
these hard measurements, (they require a precise determination of the
temperature at a given contact), but they cannot determine whether the heat
propagating upstream reflects coherent neutral modes rather than incoherent
transport (e.g., due to diffusive modes). The latter is the result of charge
and heat equilibration \cite{Propotov_Gefen_Mirlin_2017,Nosiglia_etal_2018},
and also leads to upstream charge noise \cite{Spanslatt_etal_2019}.
A second theoretical approach for detecting neutral modes in certain
quantum Hall systems \cite{Feldman_Li_2008,Cano_Nayak_2014} via dc
currents depends on tunneling between QH edges at quantum point contacts, and only
specific neutral modes in specific configurations lead to dc currents.
In our proposal, tunneling between different chiral modes occurs only under the
contacts.
There are a few unresolved issues of broad import:
(i) How does one understand
the formulation of linear and non-linear response
in the charge-neutral-charge circuit?
(ii) Certain exotic spin systems are believed to
have neutral Majorana modes \cite{Kitaev_2006_2,Kasahara_etal_2018}, as is the
$\nu=5/2$ state \cite{Banerjee_etal_2017}. Our proposed
device can detect bosonic \cite{bosonic} neutral modes, but can some extension
thereof be used to detect Majorana modes as well?
\begin{acknowledgements}
We thank A. Mirlin, I. Gornyi, D. Polyakov, and K. Snizhko for their extremely
valuable comments and proposed modifications which significantly improved our
manuscript. AD was supported by the German-Israeli Foundation Grant No.
I-1505-303.10/2019 and the GIF. AD also thanks
Israel planning and budgeting committee (PBC) and Weizmann
Institute of Science, Israel Dean of Faculty fellowship,
and Koshland Foundation for financial support.
YG was supported by CRC 183 of the DFG, the Minerva Foundation,
DFG Grant No. MI 658/10-1 and the GIF. SR and GM would like to
thank the VAJRA scheme of SERB, India for its support. GM would
like to thank the US-Israel Binational Science Foundation for its
support via grant no. 2016130, and the Aspen Center for Physics (NSF grant PHY-1607611) where this work was completed.
\end{acknowledgements}
\bibliographystyle{apsrev}
|
\section{Introduction} \label{sec:intro}
The detection of transiting exoplanets is a very active research topic, with implications ranging from physics to astrobiology. Since the first discovery of a transiting exoplanet \citep{Charbonneau1999}, various approaches have been applied to detect the telltale signals of exoplanetary transits in the observed stellar light curves. These approaches mostly focus on the detection of periodic dimmings in the light curves \cite[e.g.][]{Defay2001,Kovacs2002,Renner2008, Hippke2019}. The Box-fitting Least Squares (BLS) algorithm \citep[][hereafter \citetalias{Kovacs2002}]{Kovacs2002} is the most widely-used approach for the detection of periodically transiting exoplanets. It is based on a simplified box-shaped model of a strictly periodic transit, which is characterized by only five parameters:
\begin{itemize}\label{ts_params}
\setlength\itemsep{0.01em}
\item{\makebox[2cm]{$P$\hfill} Period}
\item{\makebox[2cm]{$T_0$\hfill} Epoch of mid-transit}
\item{\makebox[2cm]{$w$\hfill} Transit duration}
\item{\makebox[2cm]{$M$\hfill} Out-of-transit mean magnitude}
\item{\makebox[2cm]{$d$\hfill} Transit depth}
\end{itemize}
This simple approximation of a transit shape requires less parameters than a more accurate one \citep[e.g.][]{Mandel2002,Hippke2019}. Furthermore, the two last parameters, $M$ and $d$, are determined analytically by the data and the temporal parameters $P$, $T_0$ and $w$, and thus the search space is three-dimensional and includes only the first three parameters. Therefore, by the principle of parsimony ('Occam's Razor'), it brings about some statistical advantages \citep[e.g.][]{Jefferys1992}, especially when the data are scarce and their quality does not justify a more detailed model. In addition to the statistical aspects, the simplicity also translates to an algorithmic advantage, by requiring a shorter computation time. In large surveys, with many light curves, using an overly complicated model can result in prohibitively long run times. Thus, in the case of low-cadence surveys such as \textit{Gaia} \citep{Gaia2016}, fitting detailed models to each light curve, for the purpose of detection, is even likely to be counterproductive, in both efficiency and run time. It is therefore necessary to come up with an adaptation of BLS specifically designed for such cases, of sparse light curves.
The popularity of BLS resulted in a variety of implementations and improvements \citep[e.g.][]{Grziwa2012,Ofir2014,Hippke2019}. Many of these implementations are based on the original FORTRAN BLS code, in which the light curve is phase-folded according to each trial period and binned in phase. A double iteration is then performed over the bins to test different beginning (ingress) and end (egress) phases of the transit. Equivalently, some implementations \citep[e.g.][]{CollierCameron2006} scan a different parameter space, replacing the double iteration over phase bins with iteration over discrete grids of phase and duration. Binning, or alternatively discrete phase and duration grids, are useful when dealing with high-cadence photometry with thousands of samples, mainly in terms of computing time. However, they necessarily lose part of the information in the data, such as the exact phases of all the samples. In the case of low-cadence light curves containing only hundreds of samples, in which information is more scarce and computing times are shorter, they might only introduce loss of information, without any significant improvement in running time.
In this paper we present a new BLS implementation that does not rely on binning nor on phase and duration grids. In Sec.\ \ref{sec:SBLS} we present and detail this novel implementation, and in Sec.\ \ref{sec:issues} we discuss a few implementation issues (such as run-time complexity). Section \ref{sec:performance} discusses the performance of our implementation, and we conclude in Sec.\ \ref{sec:conc} with some final comments.
\section{Sparse BLS} \label{sec:SBLS}
The implementation we introduce here, Sparse-BLS\footnote{A Java code is provided in: \url{https://github.com/aviadpi/SparseBLS}} (SBLS), essentially follows the same original approach described in \citetalias{Kovacs2002}, except the data is left unbinned.
The essence of the BLS approach is the identification of two brightness levels, in and out of transit, and estimate them in order to compute a goodness-of-fit statistic (e.g. $\chi^2$). When scanning trial configurations of $P$, $T_0$ and $w$, only configuration changes that affect the inclusion of points in the transit affect the goodness of fit, mainly by modifying the estimates of the two levels. A naive grid scanning scheme that ignores the phases of the light-curve samples might thus perform unnecessary computations when the configuration change has no practical effect. Alternatively, depending on the exact sample times, it might miss other configuration changes that take place between grid points and do have an effect. SBLS, on the other hand, focuses only on configuration changes that affect the inclusion of points in the transit. In fact, for a given period, SBLS effectively scans the space of transit phases and durations continuously, by checking only the configurations in which the goodness-of-fit changes due to inclusion and exclusion of points in transit.
SBLS scans a single grid of trial periods, followed by a double iteration over indices in the phase-folded light curve. However, the indices now refer to the \emph{data points} themselves, instead of the phase bins. This requires, of course, sorting the points by phase for each trial period. Once the light curve is sorted by phase, the double iteration looks for the points in transit. We iterate over all data points for the first in-transit point, with index $i_1$. For the last in-transit point, with index $i_2$, we only need to scan points immediately following $ i_1 $, up to some predetermined maximum duration \citep[e.g.][]{Ofir2014}. We recommend setting a lower limit to the number of points in transit, to reduce the chance of false detections caused by spurious outliers. This of course depends on the total number of samples available.
For example, in our test runs (see Sec.~\ref{sec:performance}), we simulated light curves with a very small number of data points -- $100$. We have set a lower limit of three to the number of points in transits. This ensured a reasonable performance while avoiding a substantial increase in spurious detections.
We repeat here the derivations presented in \citetalias{Kovacs2002}. We denote the original time series indices by $j$, while using $i$ for the indices of the time series sorted by phase ('phase-folded indices'). Given a time series of values $x_j$ and errors $\sigma _j$, we first convert it to a zero-weighted-mean dataset with normalized weights $\left(\tilde{x_j},\tilde{w_j}\right)$:
\begin{align} \label{eq:init1}
w_j &= \sigma _j ^{-2} & W &= \sum \limits_{j=1}^{N} w_j & \tilde{w_j} &= \dfrac{w_j}{W}\\
\label{eq:init2}
\mu &= \sum \limits_{j=1}^{N}\tilde{w_j} x_j & \tilde{x_j} &= x_j -\mu
\end{align}
For each trial period $P$ we compute the phase values of the folded time series using the modulo operation\footnote{We assume that the modulo operation returns positive values for negative dividends. This is not necessarily the case in all programming languages.}:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:phase}
\phi_i = \frac{t_i \mod P}{P}
\end{equation}
For a given set of in-transit phase-folded indices $\left\{i_1,i_1+1,\ldots,i_2\right\}$, we calculate the Signal Residue (\textit{SR}):
\begin{align} \label{eq:srSR}
s &= \sum \limits_{i=i_1}^{i_2} \tilde{w_i} \tilde{x_i} & r &= \sum \limits_{i=i_1}^{i_2} \tilde{w_i} & \mathrm{\textit{SR}} = \left(\dfrac{s^2}{r(1-r)}\right)^{1/2}
\end{align}
The $s$ and $r$ values can be used to estimate the stellar magnitude $\left( M \right)$ and the transit depth $\left( d \right)$:
\begin{align}
\hat{M} &= \mu - \frac{s}{1 - r} & \hat{d} &= \frac{s}{r \left( 1 - r \right)}
\end{align}
The maximal \textit{SR} value is saved for each trial period, resulting in a figure-of-merit assigned to each period, i.e.\ a periodogram.
The calculation of the $s$ and $r$ values in SBLS makes use of memoization, which reduces the computing time significantly. Memoization is a common technique to optimize code execution by caching and retrieving interim values of various variables. SBLS benefits from a memoization method we dubbed "sliding window", in which the values of $s$ and $r$ are sequentially updated only once in each loop iteration, by subtracting or adding the necessary value for every incremental change of either $i_1$ or $i_2$.
Figure~\ref{fig:fGrams} shows the BLS and SBLS spectra obtained for a simulated test case of a low-cadence light curve with $200$ samples over a baseline period of $1\,000$~days and a noise standard deviation of $1$~mmag. The simulated transit parameters are based on those of HD$209458$b , with a period of $3.52472$~days, transit duration of $0.128$~days and a depth of $0.0164$~magnitude \citep{Charbonneau1999}.
Figure \ref{fig:fGrams} demonstrates another feature of SBLS: although the prominent peak in the two spectra is very similar, there is a slight difference manifested as a small slope in the BLS spectrum. This is related to the number of transit configurations tested for each trial period, which is proportional to the period in the specific phase grid scheme we used, and thus fewer configurations are tested in the higher frequencies. The SBLS spectrum does not use any scheme for binning or phase grid, and therefore the number of configurations tested in each period depends only on the number of data points.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{3_fGrams_no_line.pdf}
\caption{Spectra of BLS (\textit{Top}) and SBLS (\textit{Bottom}). See text for details of the simulated signal. In both spectra the most prominent peak is at the correct frequency.}
\label{fig:fGrams}
\end{figure}
\section{Implementation issues} \label{sec:issues}
\subsection{Run-time complexity} \label{Imp_runtime}
Let us compare the estimated time complexity of the BLS and SBLS implementations. We can safely omit the identical preparatory stages in which we subtract the mean and normalize, especially since their complexity is only $\mathcal{O}(N)$ operations. For the comparison we chose to use the equivalent BLS implementation \citep[e.g.][]{CollierCameron2006}, rather than the implementation that uses binning. This implementation scans a three-dimensional parameter space of periods, phases and durations, with grid sizes of $N_P,N_{T_0},N_w$, respectively. For each configuration BLS then proceeds to calculate \textit{SR}, an $\mathcal{O}(N)$ procedure, resulting in a total time complexity of $ \mathcal{O}(N \cdot N_P \cdot N_{T_0} \cdot N_w)$. Thus, the BLS time complexity depends linearly on $N$ (assuming $N_P,N_{T_0},N_w$ are determined independently of $N$).
SBLS, on the other hand, scans a single grid of trial periods, and for each period orders the samples by their phases, requiring $\mathcal{O}(N\log N)$ operations per trial period. Iteration over the in-transit indices $\left(i_1,i_2\right)$ requires $\mathcal{O}(N^2)$ operations, though this is only an upper limit (and therefore a worst-case estimate), as $i_2$ is usually not too far from $i_1$. The calculation of $SR$ would naively require additional $\mathcal{O}(N)$ steps, but can be reduced to $\mathcal{O}(1)$ using memoization. The total time complexity is therefore $ \mathcal{O}\left(N_P \cdot(N\log N + N^2) \right) \xrightarrow{} \mathcal{O}(N_P \cdot N^2)$. In cases where the phase and duration grid sizes, $N_{T_0}$ and $N_w$, depend on $N$, the difference between BLS and SBLS time complexities would only increase, making BLS less preferable over SBLS for large $N$. However, as we show in Sec.\ \ref{sec:performance}, the balance might shift only at quite large values of $N$, and therefore SBLS still has superior performance for small $N$.
\subsection{Duration of transit}
In this paper, phase values, denoted by $\phi$, are defined so that they are dimensionless numbers ranging between $0$ and $1$. For any pair of transit-scanning indices in the phase-folded light curve, $\left(i_1,i_2\right)$, we find their out-of-transit neighbours $\left(i_1^-,i_2^+\right)$ and use them to estimate ingress and egress phase values, while accounting for wrap-around phases:
\begin{align} \label{eq:i1}
& \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad i_1^- = \left( i_1 - 1 \right)\mod N\\
& \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad i_2^+ = \left( i_2 + 1 \right) \mod N
\end{align}
\begin{align} \label{eq:ingress}
\phi^\text{ingress} =
\begin{cases} \frac{\phi[i_1]+\phi[i_1^-] }{2} &\text{if\quad} \phi[i_1^-]<\phi[i_1]\\\\
\frac{\phi[i_1]+\phi[i_1^-] }{2} - \frac{1}{2} &\text{if\quad} \phi[i_1^-]>\phi[i_1]
\end{cases}
\end{align}
\begin{align}
\label{eq:egress}
\phi^\text{egress} =
\begin{cases} \frac{\phi[i_2]+\phi[i_2^+] }{2} &\text{if\quad} \phi[i_2]<\phi[i_2^+]\\\\
\frac{\phi[i_2]+\phi[i_2^+] }{2} + \frac{1}{2} &\text{if\quad} \phi[i_2]>\phi[i_2^+]
\end{cases}
\end{align}
Figure \ref{fig:Phases} serves to illustrate schematically the calculations detailed above.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{phases.pdf}
\caption{Schematic illustration of the phase calculations in Eqs.\ \ref{eq:i1}--\ref{eq:egress}. The dashed magenta lines mark the phases of the first and last samples in the transit ($i_1$ and $i_2$), while the dashed blue lines mark the phases of the neighbouring samples out of transit. The red dashed-dotted lines mark the estimated phases of the ingress and egress obtained by averaging the phases of the corresponding in-transit and out-of-transit phases.}
\label{fig:Phases}
\end{figure}
Finally we estimate the transit duration in units of time, using $\phi^\text{ingress}$ and $\phi^\text{egress}$:
\begin{align} \label{eq:duration}
w &= \left[ \left( \phi^\text{egress}-\phi^\text{ingress}\right) \mod 1 \right] \cdot P
\end{align}
Figure \ref{fig:sbls} provides a pseudocode of the SBLS algorithm, depicting the steps necessary for memoization, using the above definitions of the ingress and egress phases, and the duration.
\begin{figure}
\input{PseudoCode}
\caption{SBLS algorithm}
\label{fig:sbls}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Nearly sorted time series}
\label{sec:sorting}
In cases where the frequency grid is very dense, e.g.\ frequency steps of $10^{-5}\,\text{~d}^{-1}$ with a time baseline of $T \sim 1\,000$~d, the phase-folded order of the samples changes only slightly for successive trial frequencies. In such cases, the sorting time complexity can be reduced by applying sorting techniques tailored for nearly-sorted arrays on the light curve which is already partially sorted from the previous trial frequency \citep[e.g.\ insertion sort;][]{CooKim1980}. However, since the conventional sorting time complexity, $\mathcal{O}(N\log N)$, is negligible compared to the time spent in the double iteration, $\mathcal{O}(N^2)$, the improvement in run time is only on the order of a few percent of the total run time (less than $5\%$ in our tests).
\section{Performance} \label{sec:performance}
\subsection{Detection efficiency} \label{sec:detection_eff}
As \citetalias{Kovacs2002} have already shown, binning has the immediate effect of introducing some dependence of the performance on the transit phase, since the transit phase need not necessarily align with the arbitrary binning scheme. This is also the case for algorithms that scan discrete phase and duration grids. By avoiding arbitrary binning or phase grids, the performance of SBLS is by definition independent of the transit phase.
We present here one of the tests we have performed for comparing the performance of BLS and SBLS, by applying them on two separate datasets -- one containing pure white Gaussian noise without any signal, and another containing randomly generated transit signals at a predetermined signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) as defined by \citetalias{Kovacs2002}. For each dataset we simulated $1\,000$ light curves, each containing $100$ points with uniformly-distributed random sampling times in the range of $\left[ 0,1\,000 \right]$~days. We generated transit signals with a transit depth of $d=0.01$~mag, noise with standard deviation of $\sigma = 3$~mmag, using frequencies drawn from a log-uniform distribution in the range $\left[ 0.1,2.0 \right] \mathrm{~d}^{-1}$, transit phases drawn from a uniform distribution in the range $\left[ 0,1 \right]$ and transit duration set to $3\%$ of the drawn period (shorter duration might not be detectable at all either by BLS or by SBLS with only $100$ samples). Both BLS and SBLS \textbf{scanned} frequencies in the same range as the simulated frequencies, with a frequency step of $10^{-4} \mathrm{~d}^{-1}$. For the BLS we used a phase grid size of $N_{T_0} = 1\,000$ and $N_w \leq 16$ for the transit duration grid, ranging between $0.02\mathrm{~d}$ and the upper limit for the transit duration, used in both implementations. The upper limit we used for the duration was proportional to $P^{1/3}$, similarly to that used by \cite{CollierCameron2006}. We used the maximum $SR$ value as the detection statistic.
We chose to ignore the correctness of the frequency where the maximum $SR$ was obtained, since if there were only few points in transit (due to the sparse sampling), there could be several equivalently plausible frequencies that led to the same affiliation of points to transit. In real life this issue should be resolved by follow-up observations. Thus, a true detection was declared when the returned maximum $SR$ value exceeded the threshold value when applied on light curves containing a signal, disregarding its frequency.
We ended up with four distributions for the test statistic -- "Noise" and "Signal" for each one of the two implementation. Figure \ref{fig:MaxSR_dists} presents histograms of the four distributions. Apparently, the two implementations produced very similar distributions, as expected. In both of them there is considerable overlap between the Signal and Noise histograms. This is related to the relatively difficult detection challenge -- only $100$ samples and considerable noise. When the number of samples increases, the two distributions are presenting diminishing overlap.
The Noise and Signal distributions described above can be used to compile a Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve. A ROC curve \cite[e.g.][]{FAWCETT2006861} is a graphical tool to illustrate the performance of a detection scheme, and is widely used in signal detection theory and related disciplines. As the detection threshold increases, the rate of positive detection decreases -- both true (correctly identifying a transit signal as such) and false (wrongly identifying a pure noise light curve as one that contains transit). The ROC curve presents the way the true positive rate and the false positive rate are related, by scanning different detection thresholds and counting the number of true and false detections above them.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.925\linewidth]{MaxSR_Dists.pdf}
\caption{Sample distributions of the Maximum SR values for datasets containing white noise and transit signals, of BLS (\textit{top}) and Sparse-BLS (\textit{bottom}).}
\label{fig:MaxSR_dists}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{fig:ROC} presents the two ROC curves resulting from the distributions in Fig.~\ref{fig:MaxSR_dists}. The upper panel presents the two ROC curves, while the lower panel shows the difference between them. It is clearly seen that the SBLS curve is dominating the BLS curve, i.e.\ the SBLS true positive rate is larger than that of the BLS for almost every assumed false positive rate. This is a manifestation of the non-sensitivity of the SBLS performance to the transit phase. Of course, using a much finer grid for the transit phase and duration may eventually improve the performance of BLS, but that would come on the expense of running time as was shown above in Sec.~\ref{Imp_runtime}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.95\linewidth]{ROC_curve.pdf}
\caption{\textit{Top:} Comparison of the ROC curves of BLS and SBLS. \textit{Bottom:} The difference between the two ROC curves. The details of the simulations used in producing the curves are listed in the main text.}
\label{fig:ROC}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Run time comparison}
We have implemented both BLS and SBLS in Java, and measured the run times of both implementations for different sizes of datasets, using a $3.4$ GHz Intel Octa-core i7 CPU. Figure~\ref{fig:Runtime_benchmark} presents the results of this comparison. As expected, one can see a linear dependence of the BLS run time on the size of the light curve, and a quadratic dependence for SBLS. Indeed, for large light curves SBLS is slower than BLS. However for sparse light curves, with less than $5\,000$ points, the SBLS run time can be considerably shorter than that of the BLS, even down to $2\%$.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=1.\linewidth]{Runtime_combined_seethrough.pdf}
\caption{\textit{Top:} Run time of BLS and SBLS for light curves with up to $8\,000$ points. \textit{Bottom:} Run time ratio: SBLS over BLS.}
\label{fig:Runtime_benchmark}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec:conc}
We have presented the SBLS (Sparse BLS) implementation of the BLS. Its main advantage is that it is independent of any arbitrary phase grid or binning scheme, unlike the original BLS of \citetalias{Kovacs2002}. However, it is not a very efficient implementation in terms of computing time, and therefore it might not be suitable to long, high-cadence surveys, such as Kepler \citep{Boretal2010} or TESS \citep{Ricetal2014}.
Nevertheless, the dependence of the complexity on the size of the light curve is quadratic, and curiously enough, for data that is sparse enough, of less than a few thousand samples per light curve, the linear dependence of the BLS complexity is still considerably larger than the quadratic complexity for SBLS. In those cases, the resource balance tilts towards SBLS, and it becomes clear that SBLS is more efficient than BLS, both in terms of complexity and in terms of detection efficiency.
In fact, our complexity estimates of the BLS runtime, which we presented in Sec.~\ref{Imp_runtime}, were a little simplistic in assuming that the number of bins (or alternatively grid cells) does not depend on the light-curve size ($N$). If we introduce a dependence of $N_{T_0}$ and $N_w$ on $N$, this would make the $N$-dependence of the BLS complexity superlinear, increasing even more the breakeven point in the upper panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:Runtime_benchmark}.
Thus, for large and sparse datasets such as \textit{Gaia}, SBLS should be the tool of choice for searching for periodic planetary transits.\\
\acknowledgments
This research was supported by the ISRAEL SCIENCE FOUNDATION (grant No. 848/16). We also acknowledge partial support by the Ministry of Science, Technology and Space, Israel.
|
\section{Introduction}
For a complex variety $X$, intersection cohomology $IH^\cdot(X)$ coincides with singular cohomology with rational coefficients $H^\cdot(X)$ when $X$ is smooth and has better properties than $H^\cdot(X)$ when $X$ is singular, for example it satisfies Poincar\'e duality and the Hard Lefschetz theorem.
Many applications of intersection cohomology, for example in representation theory \cite{L}, \cite[Section 4]{dCM2}, are through the decomposition theorem of Beilinson--Bernstein--Deligne--Gabber \cite{BBD}.
A construction of intersection $K$-theory is expected to have applications in computations of $K$-theory via a $K$-theoretic version of the decomposition theory, and in representation theory, for example in the construction of representations of vertex algebras using (framed) Uhlenbeck spaces \cite{BFN}.
The Goresky--MacPherson construction of intersection cohomology \cite{GMcP2} does not generalize in an obvious way to $K$-theory.
\subsection{The perverse filtration and intersection cohomology}
\label{coh}
For $S$ a variety over $\mathbb{C}$, intersection cohomology $IH^\cdot(S)$ is a subquotient of $H^\cdot(X)$ for any resolution of singularities $f:X\to S$.
The decomposition theorem implies that $IH^{\cdot}(S)$ is a (non-canonical) direct summand of $H^{\cdot}(X)$. Consider the perverse filtration
\[{}^pH^{\leq i}_f(X):=H^{\cdot}\left(S, {}^p\tau^{\leq i}Rf_*IC_X\right)\hookrightarrow H^{\cdot}(S, Rf_*IC_X)=H^{\cdot}(X).\]
For $V\hookrightarrow S$, denote by $X_V:=f^{-1}(V)$. Let $A_V$ be the set of irreducible components of $X_V$ and let $c^a_V$ be the codimension on $\iota^a_V: X_V^a\hookrightarrow X$ for $a\in A_V$. Consider a resolution of singularities $\pi^a_V: Y_V^a\to X_V^a$.
Let $g^a_V:=f\pi^a_V:Y_V^a\to V$. Define
\begin{align*}
{}^p\widetilde{H}_{f,V}^{\leq i}:=&\bigoplus_{a\in A_V}\iota^a_{V*}\pi_{V*}^a\, {}^pH^{\leq i-c^a_V}_{g^a_V}(Y_V^a)\subset {}^pH_f^{\leq i}(X),\\
{}^p\widetilde{H}_{f}^{\leq i}:=&\bigoplus_{V\subsetneqq S}{}^p\widetilde{H}_{f,V}^{\leq i}\subset {}^pH_f^{\leq i}(X).
\end{align*}
The decomposition theorem implies that
\[IH^{\cdot}(S)\cong{}^pH_f^{\leq 0}H^\cdot(X)\big/{}^p\widetilde{H}_f^{\leq 0}H^\cdot(X).\]
\subsection{Perverse filtrations in $K$-theory}
Inspired by the above characterization of intersection cohomology via the perverse filtration, we propose two $K$-theoretic perverse filtrations $\P^{\leq i}_f\subset P^{\leq i}_f$ on $\text{gr}^\cdot K_\cdot(X)$ for a proper map $f:X\to S$ of complex varieties with $X$ smooth. Here, the associated graded $\text{gr}^\cdot K_\cdot(X)$ is with respect to the codimension of support filtration on $K_\cdot(X)$ \cite[Definition 3.7, Section 5.4]{G}.
The precise definition of the filtration $P^{\leq i}_f \text{gr}^\cdot K_\cdot(X)$ is given in Subsection \ref{filtPP}; roughly, it is generated by (subspaces of) images
\begin{equation}\label{correspo}
\Phi_\Gamma: \text{gr}^\cdot K_\cdot(T)\to \text{gr}^\cdot K_\cdot(X)
\end{equation}
induced by correspondences $\Gamma$ on $X\times T$ of restricted dimension, see \eqref{ranges}, for $T$ a smooth variety with a generically finite map onto a subvariety of $S$.
These subspaces of the images of $\Phi_\Gamma$ are required to satisfy certain conditions when restricted to the subvarieties $Y^a_V$ from Subsection \ref{coh}.
The definition of the filtration $\P^{\leq i}_f \text{gr}^\cdot K_\cdot(X)\subset P^{\leq i}_f \text{gr}^\cdot K_\cdot(X)$ is given in Subsection \ref{Kper2}. In \eqref{correspo}, we further impose that $\Gamma$ is a quasi-smooth scheme surjective over $T$. This futher restricts the possible dimension of the cycles $\Gamma$, see Proposition \ref{lb}, and allows for more computations.
\begin{thm}\label{cycle}
Let $f:X\to S$ be a proper map with $X$ smooth. Then the cycle map $\mathfrak{c}:\text{gr}^\cdot K_0(X)_\mathbb{Q}\to H^\cdot(X)$ respects the perverse filtration
\[\P^{\leq i}_f\text{gr}^\cdot K_0(X)_\mathbb{Q}\subset P^{\leq i}_f\text{gr}^\cdot K_0(X)_\mathbb{Q}\xrightarrow{\mathfrak{c}} {}^pH^{\leq i}_f(X).\]
\end{thm}
Perverse filtrations in $K$-theory have the following functorial properties. Let $X$ and $Y$ be smooth varieties with $c=\dim X-\dim Y$. Consider proper maps
\begin{equation*}
\begin{tikzcd}[column sep=small]
Y\arrow[dr,"g"']\arrow[rr,"h"] && X\arrow[dl,"f"]\\
& S. &
\end{tikzcd}
\end{equation*}
There are induced maps
\begin{align*}
h_* &:P_g^{\leq i-c}\text{gr}_\cdot K_\cdot(Y)\to P_f^{\leq i}\text{gr}_\cdot K_\cdot(X),\\
h_* &:\P_g^{\leq i-c}\text{gr}_\cdot K_\cdot(Y)\to \P_f^{\leq i}\text{gr}_\cdot K_\cdot(X),\\
h^* &:P_f^{\leq i-c}\text{gr}^\cdot K_\cdot(X)\to P_g^{\leq i}\text{gr}^\cdot K_\cdot(Y).
\end{align*}
If $h$ is surjective, then there is also a map
\[h^*:\P_f^{\leq i-c}\text{gr}^\cdot K_\cdot(X)\to \P_g^{\leq i}\text{gr}^\cdot K_\cdot(Y).\]
Let $f:X\to S$ be a resolution of singularities. We define $\widetilde{P}^{\leq 0}_f\text{gr}^\cdot K_\cdot(X)$ and $\widetilde{\P}^{\leq 0}_f\text{gr}^\cdot K_\cdot(X)$ similarly to ${}^p\widetilde{H}^{\leq i}(X)$.
Inspired by the discussion in cohomology from Subsection \ref{coh}, define
\begin{align*}
\text{gr}^\cdot IK_{\cdot}(S)&:=P_f^{\leq 0}\text{gr}^\cdot K_\cdot(X)\big/\left(\widetilde{P}_f^{\leq 0}\text{gr}^\cdot K_\cdot(X)\cap \text{ker}\,f_*\right)
\\
\text{gr}^\cdot \textbf{I}K_{\cdot}(S)&:=\P_f^{\leq 0}\text{gr}^\cdot K_\cdot(X)\big/\left(\widetilde{\P}_f^{\leq 0}\text{gr}^\cdot K_\cdot(X)\cap \text{ker}\,f_*\right).\end{align*}
Note that we do not construct $\text{gr}^\cdot IK_{\cdot}(S)$ and
$\text{gr}^\cdot \textbf{I}K_{\cdot}(S)$ as associated graded of spaces $IK_{\cdot}(S)$ or $\textbf{I}K_{\cdot}(S)$, but we hope that such a construction is possible, see Subsection \ref{inkt}.
\begin{thm}\label{well}
The definitions of $\text{gr}^\cdot IK_{\cdot}(S)$ and $\text{gr}^\cdot \textbf{I}K_{\cdot}(S)$ do not depend on the resolution of singularities $f:X\to S$ with the properties mentioned above.
Further, there are cycle maps
\begin{align*}
\mathfrak{c}&: \text{gr}^jIK_0(S)_\mathbb{Q}\to IH^{2j}(S)\\
\mathfrak{c}&: \text{gr}^j\textbf{I}K_0(S)_\mathbb{Q}\to IH^{2j}(S).
\end{align*}
\end{thm}
We also propose definitions for $\text{gr}^\cdot IK_{\cdot}(S,L)$ and $\text{gr}^\cdot \textbf{I}K_{\cdot}(S,L)$ for $L$ a local system on $U$ open in $S$ of the form $L\cong h_*\left(\mathbb{Z}_V\right)$ for an étale map $h:V\to U$. There are cycle maps
\begin{align*}
\mathfrak{c}&: \text{gr}^jIK_0(S, L)_\mathbb{Q}\to IH^{2j}(S, L\otimes\mathbb{Q})\\
\mathfrak{c}&: \text{gr}^j\textbf{I}K_0(S, L)_\mathbb{Q}\to IH^{2j}(S, L\otimes\mathbb{Q}).
\end{align*}
\subsection{Properties of the perverse filtrations and intersection $K$-theory}
The perverse filtrations in $K$-theory and intersection $K$-theory have similar properties to their counterparts in cohomology.
For a map $f:X\to S$, let
$s:=\dim X\times_SX-\dim X$ be its defect of semismallness. In Theorem \ref{sd}, we show that \begin{align*}
\P^{\leq -s-1}_f\text{gr}^\cdot K_0(X)&=0,\\
\P^{\leq s}_f\text{gr}^\cdot K_0(X)=P^{\leq s}_f\text{gr}^\cdot K_0(X)&=\text{gr}^\cdot K_0(X).
\end{align*}
This implies that
\begin{align*}
& \text{gr}^\cdot IK_\cdot(S)=
\text{gr}^\cdot \textbf{I}K_\cdot(S)=
\text{gr}^\cdot K_\cdot(S) \text{ for } S \text{ smooth,}\\
& \text{gr}^\cdot \textbf{I}K_0(S)=\text{gr}^\cdot K_0(X) \text{ if } S \text{ has a small resolution }f:X\to S.
\end{align*}
For more computations of perverse filtrations in $K$-theory and intersection $K$-theory, see Subsections \ref{examplesfilt} and \ref{computations}.
Let $d=\dim S$. In cohomology, there are natural maps
\begin{align*}
&H^i(S)\to IH^i(S)\to H^{\text{BM}}_{2d-i}(S)\\
&IH^i(S)\otimes IH^j(S)\to H^{\text{BM}}_{2d-i-j}(S).
\end{align*}
The composition in the first line is the natural map $H^i(S)\to H^{\text{BM}}_{2d-i}(S)$. The second map is non-degenerate for cycles of complementary dimensions.
In Subsection \ref{multK} we explain that there exist natural maps
\begin{align*}
\text{gr}_i IK_\cdot(S)&\to \text{gr}_i G(S)\\
\text{gr}^i IK_\cdot(S)\times \text{gr}^j IK_\cdot(S)&\to \text{gr}_{d-i-j} G_\cdot(S)
\end{align*}
and their analogues for $\textbf{I} K$.
The above filtration on $G$-theory is by dimension of supports, see \cite[Section 5.4]{G}.
\subsection{The decomposition theorem for semismall maps}\label{ssn}
As mentioned above, many applications of intersection cohomology are based on the decomposition theorem. When the map
\[f:X\to S\] is semismall, the statement of the decomposition theorem is more explicit, which we now explain. Let $\{S_a|\,a\in I\}$ be a stratification of $S$ such that $f_a: f^{-1}(S_a^o)\to S_a^o$ is a locally trivial fibration, where $S_a^o=S_a-\bigcup_{b\in I} \left(S_a\cap S_b\right).$
Let $A\subset I$ be the set of relevant strata, that is, those strata such that for $x_a\in S_a^o$:
\[\dim f^{-1}(x_a)=\frac{1}{2}\left(\dim S-\dim S_a\right).\]
For $x_a\in S_a^o$, the monodromy group $\pi_1(S_a^0, x_a)$ acts on the set of irreducible components of $f^{-1}(x_a)$ of top dimension; let $L_a$ be the corresponding local system.
Let $c_a$ be the codimension of $X_a=f^{-1}(S_a)$ in $X$. The decomposition theorem for the map $f:X\to S$ says that there exists a canonical decomposition \cite[Theorem 4.2.7]{dCM2}:
\[H^j(X)\cong\bigoplus_{a\in A} IH^{j-c_a}(S_a, L_a).\]
We conjecture the analogous statement in $K$-theory.
\begin{conj}\label{dss}
Let $f:X\to S$ be a semismall map and consider $\{S_a|\,a\in I\}$ a stratification as above, and let $A\subset I$ be the set of relevant strata. There is a decomposition for any integer $j$:
\[\text{gr}^j K_\cdot(X)_{\mathbb{Q}}\cong\bigoplus_{a\in A} \text{gr}^{j-c_a} \textbf{I} K_\cdot(S_a, L_a)_{\mathbb{Q}}.\]
\end{conj}
See Conjecture \ref{dss2} for a more precise statement. In Theorem \ref{localrat},
we check the above conjecture for $K_0$ under the extra condition that for any $a\in A$, there are small maps $\pi_a:T_a\to S_a$ such that $\pi_a^{-1}(S_a^o)\to S_a^o$ is étale with associated local system $L_a$. The proof of the above result is based on a theorem of de Cataldo--Migliorini \cite[Section 4]{dCM}. In Subsection \ref{surface}, we prove the statement for $K_0$ when $f: X\to S$ is a resolution of singularities of a surface.
\subsection{Intersection Chow groups}
When $X$ is smooth, $\text{gr}^i K_0(X)_{\mathbb{Q}}=CH^i(X)_{\mathbb{Q}}$. Thus $\text{gr}^i IK_0(S)_{\mathbb{Q}}$ is a candidate for an intersection Chow group of $S$. Corti--Hanamura already defined (rational) intersection Chow groups (or Chow motives) in \cite{CH1}, \cite{CH2} inspired by the decomposition theorem. One proposed definition assumes conjectures of Grothendieck and Murre and proves a version of the decomposition theorem for Chow groups; the other approach defines a perverse-type filtration on Chow groups by induction on level $i$ of the filtration and via correspondences involving all varieties $W\to S$.
These correspondences need to satisfy certain vanishings for the perverse filtration in cohomology. The advantage of the definition we propose is that one uses fewer correspondences to define $P^{\leq i}_f$ and $\P^{\leq i}_f$ and this allows for computations, see Subsection \ref{computations} and Theorem \ref{ss}.
For varieties $S$ with a semismall resolution of singularities $f:X\to S$, de Cataldo--Migliorini \cite{dCM} proposed a definition of Chow motives $ICH\,(S)$ and proved a version of the decomposition theorem for semismall maps.
\subsection{Intersection $K$-theory}\label{inkt}
Our approach to define (graded) intersection $K$-theory uses functoriality of the perverse filtration in an essential way. To obtain this functoriality, it is essential to pass to $\text{gr}^\cdot K_\cdot(X)$.
It is a very interesting problem to find a definition of the perverse filtration on $K_\cdot(X)$.
We hope that such a definition will provide a version of equivariant intersection $K$-theory with applications to geometric representation theory, for example in understanding the $K$-theoretic version of \cite{BFN}.
There are proposed definitions of intersection $K$-theory in some particular cases. Cautis \cite{C}, Cautis--Kamnitzer \cite{CK} have an approach for categorification of intersection sheaves for certain subvarieties of the affine Grassmannian. Eberhardt defined intersection $K$-theoretic sheaves for varieties with certain stratifications \cite{E}.
In \cite{P1}, we proposed a definition of intersection $K$-theoretic for good moduli spaces of smooth Artin stacks which has applications to the structure theory of Hall algebras of Kontsevich--Soibelman \cite{P2}.
\subsection{Outline of the paper} In Section \ref{2}, we discuss preliminary material. In Section \ref{3}, we introduce the two perverse filtrations $\P^{\leq \cdot}_f\subset P^{\leq \cdot}_f$. In Section \ref{4}, we define the two versions of intersection $K$-theory $\text{gr}^\cdot IK_\cdot(S)$ and $\text{gr}^\cdot \textbf{I}K_\cdot(S)$. In Section \ref{semismall}, we discuss the decomposition theorem for semismall maps.
\subsection{Acknowledgements}
I thank Jacob Lurie for useful discussions related to the paper.
I thank the Institute of Advanced Studies for support during the preparation of the paper. This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. DMS-1926686.
\section{Preliminary material}\label{2}
\subsection{Notations and conventions}
All schemes considered in this paper are finite type and defined over $\mathbb{C}$.
The definition of the filtration in Subsection \ref{Kper} works over any field, but to define intersection $K$-theory we use resolution of singularities. The definition of intersection $K$-theory works over any field of characteristic zero. A variety is an irreducible reduced scheme. We use quasi-smooth schemes in Subsections \ref{filtPP} and \ref{towa}, which are the natural extension of lci schemes in derived geometry.
For $S$ a scheme, let $D^b\text{Coh}(S)$ be the derived category of bounded complexes of coherent sheaves and let
$\text{Perf}(S)$ be its subcategory of bounded complexes of locally free sheaves on $S$. For their analogues for quasi-smooth schemes, see \cite[Subsections 2.1 and 3.1]{K}. The functors used in the paper are derived; we sometimes drop $R$ or $L$ from notation, for example we write $f_*$ instead of $Rf_*$.
When $S$ is smooth, the two categories coincide. Define
\begin{align*}
G_\cdot(S)&:=K_\cdot\left(D^b\text{Coh}(S)\right),\\
K_\cdot(S)&:=K_\cdot\left(\text{Perf}(S)\right).
\end{align*}
For $Y$ a subvariety of $X$, let $D^b\text{Coh}_Y(X)$ be the subcategory of $D^b\text{Coh}(X)$ of complexes supported on $Y$, and
define \[G_{Y, \cdot}(X):=K_\cdot\left(D^b\text{Coh}_Y(X)\right).\] When $X$ is smooth, we also use the notation $K_{Y, \cdot}(X)$ for the above. We will usually drop the subscript $\cdot$ from the notation.
The local systems used in this paper are of the form $L\cong h_*\left(\mathbb{Z}_V\right)$ (or $L\cong h_*\left(\mathbb{Q}_V\right)$) for an étale morphism $h:V\to U$. We call these local systems \textit{integer (or rational) finite local systems}.
Singular and intersection cohomology and Borel-Moore homology are used only with coefficients in a rational finite local system, usually $\mathbb{Q}$.
For $f$ a morphism of varieties, we denote by $\mathbb{L}_f$ its cotangent complex.
\subsection{Filtrations in $K$-theory}
\label{fil}
A reference for the following is \cite{G}, especially Section 5 in loc. cit. Let $F^{i}G_\cdot(S)$ be the filtration on $G_\cdot(S)$ by sheaves with support of codimension $\geq i$; it induces a filtration on $K_\cdot(S)$. The associated graded will be denoted by $\text{gr}^\cdot G_\cdot(S), \text{gr}^\cdot K_\cdot(S)$. A morphism $f:X\to Y$ of smooth varieties induces maps:
\begin{align*}
f^*&: F^{ i} K_\cdot(Y)\to F^{ i} K_\cdot(X)\\
f^*&: \text{gr}^iK_\cdot(Y)\to \text{gr}^iK_\cdot(X).
\end{align*}
Further, let $F^{\text{dim}}_iG_\cdot(S)$ be the filtration on $G_\cdot(S)$ by sheaves with support of dimension $\leq i$; it induces a filtration on $K_\cdot(S)$. The associated graded will be denoted by $\text{gr}_\cdot G_\cdot(S), \text{gr}_\cdot K_\cdot(S)$. A proper morphism $f:X\to Y$ of schemes induces maps:
\begin{align*}
f_*&: F^{\text{dim}}_iG_\cdot(X)\to F^{\text{dim}}_iG_\cdot(Y)\\
f_*&: \text{gr}_iG_\cdot(X)\to \text{gr}_iG_\cdot(Y).
\end{align*}
There are similar filtrations and associated graded on $G_Y(X)$ for $Y\hookrightarrow X$ a subvariety. If $X$ is smooth of dimension $d$, then $\text{gr}_i G_Y(X)=\text{gr}^{d-i}G_Y(X)$.
\begin{prop}\label{prop1}
Let $S\xrightarrow{a} \text{Spec}\,\mathbb{C}$ be a variety of dimension $d$. Then
\[\left(a^*,\bigoplus_{T\subsetneqq S}\iota_{T*}\right): G_0(\text{Spec}\,\mathbb{C})\oplus\bigoplus_{T\subsetneqq S}\text{gr}_\cdot G_0(T)\twoheadrightarrow \text{gr}_\cdot G_0(S),\]
where the sum is taken over all proper subvarieties $T$ of $S$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
For $i<d$, the map
\[\bigoplus_{T\subsetneqq S}\iota_{T*}: \bigoplus_{T\subsetneqq S}\text{gr}_i G_0(T)\twoheadrightarrow \text{gr}_i G_0(S)\] is surjective by definition of the filtration $F^i_{\text{dim}}$. Finally, the following map is an isomorphism \[a^*: G_0(\text{Spec}\,\mathbb{C})\xrightarrow{\sim} \text{gr}_dG_0(S).\]
\end{proof}
\begin{prop}\label{prop2}
Let $S$ be a singular variety of dimension $d$, and let $f:X\to S$ be a resolution of singularities. The following map is surjective:
\[f_*:\text{gr}_i G_0(X)\twoheadrightarrow \text{gr}_i G_0(S).\]
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
We use induction on $d$. By Proposition \ref{prop1}, the following is an isomorphism \[f_*:\text{gr}_d G_0(X)\xrightarrow{\sim} \text{gr}_d G_0(S)\xrightarrow{\sim} G_0(\text{Spec}\,\mathbb{C}).\]
For $V\subsetneqq S$ a subvariety, consider $g$ a resolution of singularities as follows:
\begin{equation*}
\begin{tikzcd}
Y\arrow[d,"g"]\arrow[r]&X\arrow[d,"f"]\\
V\arrow[r, hook]&S.
\end{tikzcd}
\end{equation*}
The surjectivity of $f_*$ for $i<d$ follows using Proposition \ref{prop1} and the induction hypothesis.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Quasi-smooth schemes}\label{qss}
\subsubsection{} A morphism $f:X\to Y$ of derived schemes is \textit{quasi-smooth} if it is locally of finite presentation and the cotangent complex $\mathbb{L}_f$ has Tor-amplitude $\leq 1$. Alternatively, there is a factorization \[X\xrightarrow{\iota} X'\xrightarrow{\pi}Y\] with $\pi$ smooth and $\iota$ a quasi-smooth immersion, that is, the complex $\mathbb{L}_\iota[-1]$ is a vector bundle, see \cite[Section 2]{KR}, \cite[Subsections 2.1 and 2.2]{AG}. A proper map between smooth varieties is quasi-smooth. Any quasi-smooth map has a well defined relative dimension.
A derived scheme $X$ is quasi-smooth if the structure morphism $X\to \text{Spec}\,\mathbb{C}$ is quasi-smooth. Any quasi-smooth scheme has a well defined dimension.
\subsubsection{} We list some properties satisfied by quasi-smooth morphisms and schemes. We are using them only in the proof of an excess intersection formula, see \eqref{eul}. Consider a cartesian diagram
\begin{equation*}
\begin{tikzcd}
X'\arrow[d]\arrow[r,"f'"]&Y'\arrow[d]\\
X\arrow[r,"f"]&Y.
\end{tikzcd}
\end{equation*}
If $f$ is quasi-smooth, then $f'$ is quasi-smooth and \begin{equation}\label{reldimeq}
\text{reldim}\,(f)=\text{reldim}\,(f').
\end{equation} Composition of quasi-smooth maps is quasi-smooth.
Let $Y$ be a quasi-smooth scheme. Define a filtration $F^iG_\cdot(Y)\subset G_\cdot(Y)$ generated by images of \[f_*: G_\cdot(Y)\to G_\cdot(X)\] for $f:Y\to X$ a quasi-smooth morphism with $\text{reldim}\,(f)\leq -i$. It induces a filtration on $K_\cdot(Y)$. One can define similarly a filtration $F^{\text{dim}}_iG_\cdot(Y)$. When $Y$ is a classical scheme, this definitions recover the filtrations introduced in Subsection \ref{fil}, see \cite[Theorem 6.21]{K}. By \eqref{reldimeq}, pullback respects the filtrations $F^i$. Pushforward clearly respects the filtrations $F^{\text{dim}}_i$.
\subsubsection{}\label{zerodiff} Let $X$ be a quasi-smooth scheme. There exists an open set $U\subset X$ of codimension $\geq 1$ and a vector bundle $\mathcal{E}$ on $U^{\text{cl}}$ such that
\[\mathcal{O}_U\cong \mathcal{O}_{U^{\text{cl}}}[\mathcal{E}[1];d],\]
where $d:\mathcal{E}\to\mathcal{O}_U$ is the zero map. The bundle $\mathcal{E}$ has rank $\dim X^{\text{cl}}-\dim X$.
\subsection{The perverse filtration in cohomology}\label{percoh}
Let $S$ be a scheme over $\mathbb{C}$.
Let $D^b_c(S)$ be the derived category of bounded complexes of rational constructible sheaves \cite[Section 2]{dCM2}. Consider the perverse $t$-structure $\left(\mathcal{P}^{\leq i}, \mathcal{P}^{\geq i}\right)_{i\in\mathbb{Z}}$ on this category. There are functors:
\begin{align*}
{}^p\tau^{\leq i}:&D^b_c(S)\to \mathcal{P}^{\leq i},\\ {}^p\tau^{\geq i}:&D^b_c(S)\to \mathcal{P}^{\geq i}
\end{align*}
such that
for $F\in D^b_c(S)$ there is a distinguished triangle in $D^b_c(S)$:
\[{}^p\tau^{\leq i}F\to F\to {}^p\tau^{\geq i+1}F\xrightarrow{[1]}.\]
For a proper map $f:X\to S$ and $F\in D^b_c(X)$, the perverse filtration on $H^\cdot(X,F)$ is defined as the image of
\[{}^pH^{\leq i}_f(X,F):=H^\cdot(S,{}^p\tau^{\leq i}Rf_*F)\to H^\cdot(S, Rf_*F)=H^\cdot(X,F).\]
For $F=IC_X$, the decomposition theorem implies that
\[{}^pIH^{\leq i}_f(X)\hookrightarrow IH^\cdot(X).\]
Let $f:X\to S$ be a generically finite morphism from $X$ smooth, let $U$ be a smooth open subset of $S$ such that $f^{-1}(U)\to U$ is étale, and let $L=f_*\left(\mathbb{Q}_{f^{-1}(U)}\right)$.
For $V\hookrightarrow S$, denote by $X_V:=f^{-1}(V)$. Let $A_V$ be the set of irreducible components of $X_V$. Let $c^a_V$ be the codimension on $\iota^a_V: X_V^a\hookrightarrow X$ for $a\in A_V$. Consider a resolution of singularities $\pi_V^a: Y_V^a\to X_V^a$.
Let $g_V^a:=f\pi_V^a:Y_V^a\to V$.
Then
\[{}^p\tau^{\leq 0}Rf_*IC_X\cong \text{ker}\left(Rf_*IC_X\to \bigoplus_{V\subsetneqq S}\bigoplus_{a\in A_V}\left({}^p\tau^{>c_V^a}Rg^a_{V*}IC_{Y^a_V}\right)[c^a_V]\right).\]
Define the subspace
\[{}^p\widetilde{\tau}^{\leq 0}Rf_*IC_X:=\text{image}\left(\bigoplus_{V\subsetneqq S}\bigoplus_{a\in A_V}\left({}^p\tau^{\leq-c_V^a}Rg^a_{V*}IC_{Y^a_V}\right)[-c^a_V]\to {}^p\tau^{\leq 0}Rf_*IC_X\right).\]
By a computation of Corti--Hanamura \cite[Proposition 1.5, Theorem 2.4]{CH2}, there is an isomorphism:
\begin{equation}\label{comp1}
IC_S(L)\cong{}^p\tau^{\leq 0}Rf_*IC_X\big/{}^p\widetilde{\tau}^{\leq 0}Rf_*IC_X.
\end{equation}
Further, consider a more general morphism $f:X\to S$ with $X$ smooth. Let $V\subsetneqq S$ be a subvariety. For $i\in\mathbb{Z}$, denote by ${}^p\mathcal{H}^i(Rf_*IC_X)_V$ the direct sum of simple summands of ${}^p\mathcal{H}^i(Rf_*IC_X)$ with support equal to $V$.
A computation of Corti--Hanamura \cite[Proposition 1.5]{CH2} shows that:
\begin{equation}\label{comp2}
{}^p\mathcal{H}^i\left(Rf_*IC_X\right)_V\hookrightarrow \bigoplus_{a\in A_V}{}^{p}\mathcal{H}^{i+c^a_V}\left(Rg^a_{V*}IC_{Y^a_V}\right).
\end{equation}
\section{The perverse filtration in $K$-theory}\label{3}
\subsection{Definition of the filtration $P'^{\leq \cdot}$}\label{Kper}
Let
$f:X\to S$ be a proper map between varieties. We define an increasing filtration
\[P'^{\leq i}_f\text{gr}^\cdot G_\cdot(X)\subset \text{gr}^\cdot G_\cdot(X).\]
It induces a filtration on $\text{gr}^\cdot K_\cdot(X)$.
We use the notations from Subsection \ref{percoh}.
Let $Y\hookrightarrow X$ be a subvariety and let $T\xrightarrow{\pi}S$ be a map generically finite onto its image from $T$ smooth.
Consider the diagram:
\begin{equation*}
\begin{tikzcd}
T\times X\arrow[d,"q"]\arrow[r,"p"]&X\arrow[d,"f"]\\
T\arrow[r,"\pi"]&S.
\end{tikzcd}
\end{equation*}
For a correspondence $\Gamma\in \text{gr}_{\dim X-s}G_{T\times_S Y, 0}(T\times X)$, define
\[\Phi_\Gamma:=p_*(\Gamma\otimes q^*(-)):\text{gr}^\cdot K_i(T)\to \text{gr}^{\cdot-s} G_{Y, i}(X).\]
We usually drop the shift by $s$ in the superscript of $\text{gr}^\cdot G_Y(X)$.
We define the subspace of $\text{gr}^\cdot G_Y(X)$:
\begin{align*}
P'^{\leq i}_{f,T}&:=\text{span}_\Gamma\left(\Phi_\Gamma: \text{gr}^\cdot K_\cdot(T)\to \text{gr}^\cdot G_Y(X)\right)\\
P'^{\leq i}_{f}&:=\text{span}\left(P'^{\leq i}_{f,T}\text{ for all maps }\pi\text{ as above}\right),\end{align*}
where the dimension of the correspondence satisfies
\begin{equation}\label{ranges}
\left\lfloor \frac{i+\dim X-\dim T}{2}\right\rfloor\geq s.
\end{equation}
We also define a quotient of $\text{gr}^\cdot G_Y(X)$:
\[P'^{\leq i}_{f}\text{gr}^\cdot G_Y(X)\hookrightarrow \text{gr}^\cdot G_Y(X)\twoheadrightarrow P'^{>i}_{f}\text{gr}^\cdot G_Y(X).\]
\subsection{Functoriality of the filtration $P'^{\leq \cdot}$}
\begin{prop}\label{pullback}
Let $X$ and $Y$ be smooth varieties with $c=\dim X-\dim Y$.
Consider proper maps
\begin{equation*}
\begin{tikzcd}[column sep=small]
Y\arrow[dr,"g"']\arrow[rr,"h"] && X\arrow[dl,"f"]\\
& S. &
\end{tikzcd}
\end{equation*}
There are induced maps
\[h^*: P'^{\leq i-c}_{f}\text{gr}^\cdot K_\cdot(X)\to P'^{\leq i}_{g}\text{gr}^\cdot K_\cdot(Y).\]
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Let $T\to S$ be a generically finite map onto its image with $T$ smooth. It suffices to show that
\[h^*: P'^{\leq i-c}_{f,T}\text{gr}^\cdot K_\cdot(X)\to P'^{\leq i}_{g,T}\,\text{gr}^\cdot K_\cdot(Y).\]
Consider the diagram:
\begin{equation*}
\begin{tikzcd}
Y\arrow[rr,"h"]& &X\\
Y\times T\arrow[u,"p_Y"]\arrow[rr,"\widetilde{h}"]\arrow[dr,"q_Y"']& & X\times T\arrow[u,"p_X"]\arrow[dl,"q_X"]\\
&T&
\end{tikzcd}
\end{equation*}
Let $\Theta\in \text{gr}_{\dim X-s}G_{T\times_S X, 0}(T\times X)$ be a correspondence such that \[i\geq 2s-\dim X+\dim T.\] For $j\in\mathbb{Z}$, we have that:
\begin{equation*}
\begin{tikzcd}
\text{gr}^j K_\cdot(T)\arrow[r,"\Phi_\Theta"]\arrow[dr,"\Phi_{\widetilde{h}^*\Theta}"']&\text{gr}^{j-s} K_\cdot(X)\arrow[d,"h^*"]\\
&\text{gr}^{j-s} K_\cdot(Y).
\end{tikzcd}
\end{equation*}
To see this, we compute:
\[h^*\Phi_\Theta(F)=h^*p_{X*}(\Theta\otimes q_X^*F)=p_{Y*}\widetilde{h}^*(\Theta\otimes q_X^*F)=p_{Y*}(\widetilde{h}^*\Theta\otimes q_Y^*F)=\Phi_{\widetilde{h}^*\Theta}(F).\]
The correspondence $\widetilde{h}^*\Theta\in \text{gr}_{\dim Y-s}G_{T\times_S Y}(T\times Y)$ satisfies \[i+c\geq 2s-\dim Y+\dim T,\] and this implies the desired conclusion.
\end{proof}
\begin{prop}\label{pushfor}
Let $X$ and $Y$ be varieties with proper maps
\begin{equation*}
\begin{tikzcd}[column sep=small]
Y\arrow[dr,"g"']\arrow[rr,"h"] && X\arrow[dl,"f"]\\
& S &
\end{tikzcd}
\end{equation*}
Let $c=\dim X-\dim Y$.
There are induced maps
\[h_*: P'^{\leq i-c}_{g}\text{gr}_\cdot G_\cdot(Y)\to P'^{\leq i}_{f}\text{gr}_\cdot G_\cdot(X).\]
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Let $T\to S$ be a generically finite map onto its image from $T$ smooth. We first explain that
\[h_*: P'^{\leq i-c}_{g,T}\text{gr}_\cdot G_\cdot(Y)\to P'^{\leq i}_{f,T}\,\text{gr}_\cdot G_\cdot(X).\]
We use the notation from the proof of Theorem \ref{pullback}. Consider a correspondence $\Gamma\in \text{gr}_{\dim Y-s}G_{T\times_S Y, 0}(T\times Y)$ such that
\[i\geq 2s-\dim Y+\dim T.\]
For $j\in\mathbb{Z}$, we have that:
\begin{equation*}
\begin{tikzcd}
\text{gr}_{\dim T-j} K_\cdot(T)\arrow[r,"\Phi_\Gamma"]\arrow[dr,"\Phi_{\widetilde{h}_*\Gamma}"']&\text{gr}_{\dim Y-j+s} G_\cdot(Y)\arrow[d,"h_*"]\\
&\text{gr}_{\dim Y-j+s} G_\cdot(X).
\end{tikzcd}
\end{equation*}
To see this, we compute:
\[h_*p_{Y*}(\Gamma\otimes q_Y^*F)=p_{X*}\widetilde{h}_*(\Gamma\otimes \widetilde{h}^*q_X^*F)=p_{X*}(\widetilde{h}_*\Gamma\otimes q_X^*F).\]
The correspondence \[\widetilde{h}_*\Gamma\in \text{gr}_{\dim Y-s}G_{T\times_S X}(T\times X)=\text{gr}_{\dim X-(c+s)}G_{T\times_S X}(T\times X)\] satisfies
\[i+c\geq 2(s+c)-\dim X+\dim T,\]
and thus the conclusion follows.
\end{proof}
We continue with some further properties of the filtration $P'^{\leq \cdot}$. The following is immediate:
\begin{prop}
Let $f:X\to S$ be a proper map. Let $U$ be an open subset of $S$, $X_U:=f^{-1}(U)$, $\iota: X_U\hookrightarrow X$, and $f_U:X_U\to U$. Then \[\iota^*: P'^{\leq i}_{f}\text{gr}_\cdot G_\cdot(X)\to P'^{\leq i}_{f_U}\text{gr}_\cdot G_\cdot(X_U).\]
\end{prop}
\begin{prop}\label{eulermult}
Let $f:X\to S$ be a proper map from $X$ smooth and consider $e\in \text{gr}^jK_0(X)$. Then
\[e\cdot P'^{\leq i}_f\text{gr}^a K_\cdot(X)\subset P'^{\leq i+2j}_f\text{gr}^{a+j} K_\cdot(X).\]
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Let $T\to S$ be a generically finite map onto its image with $T$ smooth and let $\Theta\in \text{gr}_aG_{T\times_SX, 0}(T\times X)$. Let $p:T\times X\to X$ be the natural projection. Then
\[p^*(e)\cdot \Theta\in \text{gr}_{a-j}G_{T\times_SX, 0}(T\times X).\]
For $x\in \text{gr}_\cdot K_\cdot(T)$, we have that
\[e\cdot \Phi_\Theta(x)=\Phi_{p^*(e)\cdot \Theta}(x),\] and the conclusion thus follows.
\end{proof}
\begin{prop}\label{smpr}
Let $X$ and $Y$ be smooth varieties with proper maps
\begin{equation*}
\begin{tikzcd}[column sep=small]
Y\arrow[dr,"g"']\arrow[rr,"h"] && X\arrow[dl,"f"]\\
& S &
\end{tikzcd}
\end{equation*}
such that $h$ is surjective. Let $c=\dim X-\dim Y$. Then \begin{align*}
h_*\left(P'^{\leq i}_f\text{gr}_\cdot K_\cdot(Y)_\mathbb{Q}\right)&=P'^{\leq i+c}_f\text{gr}_\cdot K_\cdot(X)_\mathbb{Q}\\
h^*\big(\text{gr}^\cdot K(X)_\mathbb{Q}\big)\cap P'^{\leq i+c}_g\text{gr}^\cdot K_\cdot(Y)_\mathbb{Q}&=h^*\left(P'^{\leq i}_f\text{gr}^\cdot K_\cdot(X)_\mathbb{Q}\right).
\end{align*}
If there exists $X'\to Y$ such that the induced map $X'\to X$ is birational, then the above isomorphisms hold integrally.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
The statement and its proof are similar to \cite[Proposition 3.11]{CH2}.
Let $i:X'\to Y$ be a map such that $hi:X'\to X$ is generically finite and surjective. Let $f':=fi:X'\to S$. Then, by Proposition \ref{pushfor}:
\[P'^{\leq i+c}_{f'}\text{gr}_\cdot K_\cdot(X')\xrightarrow{i_*} P'^{\leq i}_g\text{gr}_\cdot K_\cdot(Y)\xrightarrow{h_*} P'^{\leq i+c}_f\text{gr}_\cdot K_\cdot(X).\]
The map $h_*i_*:\text{gr}_\cdot K_\cdot(X')\to \text{gr}_\cdot K_\cdot(X)$ is multiplication by the degree of the map $hi$, so it is an isomorphism rationally. It is an isomorphism integrally if $X'\to X$ has degree $1$. The pullback statement is similar.
\end{proof}
\subsection{The filtration $P^{\leq \cdot}$}\label{filtPP}
Let $f:X\to S$ be a proper map from $X$ smooth. Let $V\hookrightarrow S$ be a subvariety, and let $A_V$ the set of irreducible components of $f^{-1}(V)$. For an irreducible component $X^a_V$ of $f^{-1}(V)$, consider a resolution of singularities $\pi^a_V$ as follows:
\begin{equation*}
\begin{tikzcd}
\widetilde{X^a_V}\arrow[dr, "\widetilde{f^a_V}"']\arrow[r,"\pi^a_V"]& X^a_V\arrow[r, hook, "\iota^a_V"]\arrow[d,"f^a_V"]&X\arrow[d,"f"]\\
&V\arrow[r, hook]&S.
\end{tikzcd}
\end{equation*}
Let $c^a_V$ be the codimension of $X^a_V$ in $X$. Denote by $\tau^a_V=\iota^a_V\pi^a_V$.
Consider a subvariety $Y\hookrightarrow X$. Define
\[P^{\leq i}_f\text{gr}^\cdot G_Y(X):=\bigcap_{V\subsetneqq S}\bigcap_{a\in A_V}\text{ker}\left(\tau^{a*}_V:P'^{\leq i}_f\text{gr}^\cdot G_Y(X)\to P'^{>i+c^a_V}_{\widetilde{f^a_V}}\text{gr}^\cdot K_\cdot\left(\widetilde{X^a_V}\right)\right).\]
The definition is independent of the resolutions $\pi^a_V$ chosen. Indeed, consider two different resolutions $\widetilde{X^a_V}$, $\widetilde{X'^a_V}$. There exists $W$ such that
\begin{equation*}
\begin{tikzcd}
& W\arrow[dl,"\pi"']\arrow[dr,"\pi'"]& \\
\widetilde{X^a_V}\arrow[dr]& &\widetilde{X'^a_V}\arrow[dl]\\
&X^a_V&
\end{tikzcd}
\end{equation*}
where the maps $\pi$ and $\pi'$ are successive blow-ups along smooth subvarieties of $\widetilde{X^a_V}$ and $\widetilde{X'^a_V}$, respectively.
Let $\tau'^a_V: \widetilde{X'^a_V}\to X$ as above. Then $\tau^a_V\pi=\tau'^a_V\pi'$.
By Proposition \ref{smpr},
\begin{multline*}
\text{ker}\left(\tau^{a*}_V:P'^{\leq i}_f\text{gr}^\cdot G_Y(X)\to P'^{>i+c^a_V}_{\widetilde{f^a_V}}\text{gr}^\cdot K_\cdot\left(\widetilde{X^a_V}\right)\right)\cong\\
\text{ker}\left(\pi^*\tau^{a*}_V:P'^{\leq i}_f\text{gr}^\cdot G_Y(X)\to P'^{>i+c^a_V}_{\widetilde{f^a_V}}\text{gr}^\cdot K_\cdot(W)\right)\cong\\
\text{ker}\left(\tau'^{a*}_V:P'^{\leq i}_f\text{gr}^\cdot G_Y(X)\to P'^{>i+c^a_V}_{\widetilde{f^a_V}}\text{gr}^\cdot K_\cdot\left(\widetilde{X'^a_V}\right)\right).
\end{multline*}
\begin{thm}\label{functorialityP}
Let $X$ and $Y$ be smooth varieties with $c=\dim X-\dim Y$.
Consider proper maps
\begin{equation*}
\begin{tikzcd}[column sep=small]
Y\arrow[dr,"g"']\arrow[rr,"h"] && X\arrow[dl,"f"]\\
& S. &
\end{tikzcd}
\end{equation*}
There are induced maps
\begin{align*}
h^*&: P^{\leq i-c}_{f}\text{gr}^\cdot K_\cdot(X)\to P^{\leq i}_{g}\text{gr}^\cdot K_\cdot(Y)\\
h_*&: P^{\leq i-c}_{g}\text{gr}_\cdot K_\cdot(Y)\to P^{\leq i}_{f}\text{gr}_\cdot K_\cdot(X).
\end{align*}
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
The functoriality of $h^*$ follows from Proposition \ref{pullback} and induction on dimension of $S$.
We discuss the statement for $h_*$. We use induction on the dimension of $S$. The case of $S$ a point is clear as $P'^{\leq i}_f=P^{\leq i}_f$. We use the notation from the beginning of Subsection \ref{filtPP}. Let $V$ be a subvariety of $S$. Let $X^a_V$ be an irreducible component of $f^{-1}(V)$ with a resolution of singularities $\widetilde{X^a_V}\to X^a_V$. Let $B$ be the set of irreducible component of $Y_V$ over $X_V^a$. For $b\in B$, consider a resolution of singularities $\widetilde{Y^b_V}\to Y^b_V$ and maps such that
\begin{equation*}
\begin{tikzcd}
\bigsqcup_{b\in B}\widetilde{Y^b_V}\arrow[r,"\bigoplus_B h^b_V"]\arrow[d,"\bigoplus_B \tau^b_V"]& \widetilde{X^a_V}\arrow[d,"\tau^a_V"]\\
Y\arrow[r,"h"]&X.
\end{tikzcd}
\end{equation*}
Consider the cartesian diagram
\begin{equation*}\label{yder}
\begin{tikzcd}
Y^{\text{der}}_V\arrow[d,"\tau"]\arrow[r,"\widetilde{h}"]&\widetilde{X^a_V}\arrow[d,"\tau^a_V"]\\
Y\arrow[r,"h"]&X.
\end{tikzcd}
\end{equation*}
The scheme $Y^{\text{der}}_V$ is quasi-smooth, see Subsection \eqref{qss}, and $\text{reldim}\,\widetilde{h}=\text{reldim}\,h$.
For $b\in B$, there is a map $p_b:\widetilde{Y^b_V}\to Y^{\text{der}}_V.$ Let $d_b=\dim \widetilde{Y^b_V}-\dim Y^{\text{der}}_V$ and define
\[e_b=\text{det}\left(\mathbb{L}_{\tau^b_V}/h^{b*}_V\mathbb{L}_{\tau^a_V}\right)\in \text{gr}^{d_b}K_0\left(\widetilde{Y^b_V}\right).\]
By a version of the excess intersection formula, the following diagram commutes:
\begin{equation}\label{eul}
\begin{tikzcd}
\text{gr}_\cdot K_\cdot(Y)\arrow[r,"h_*"]\arrow[d,"\bigoplus_{B} \tau^{b*}_V"]
&\text{gr}_\cdot K_\cdot(X)\arrow[dd, "\tau^{a*}_V"]\\
\bigoplus_B \text{gr}_\cdot K_\cdot(\widetilde{Y^b_V})\arrow[d,"\bigoplus_{ B}e_b"]& \\
\bigoplus_B \text{gr}_\cdot K_\cdot(\widetilde{Y^b_V})\arrow[r,"\bigoplus_B h^b_{V*}"]& K_\cdot(\widetilde{X^a_V}),
\end{tikzcd}
\end{equation}
where we have ignored shifts in the above gradings. We now explain that \eqref{eul} commutes.
Consider the diagram
\begin{equation*}
\begin{tikzcd}
\bigsqcup_B \widetilde{Y^b_V} \arrow[drr, bend left, "\bigoplus_B h^b_V"]\arrow[ddr, bend right, "\bigoplus_{B} \tau^{b}_V"']\arrow[dr, "\sqcup_Bp_b"]& & \\
&Y^{\text{der}}_V\arrow[d, "\tau"]\arrow[r,"\widetilde{h}"]& \widetilde{X^a_V}\arrow[d,"\tau^a_V"]\\
&Y\arrow[r,"h"]&X.
\end{tikzcd}
\end{equation*}
Then
\[\sum_{b\in B} h^b_{V*}\left(e_b\cdot \tau^{b*}_V\right)=\sum_{b\in B}\widetilde{h}_*p_{b*}\left(e_b\cdot p_b^*\tau^*\right)=\widetilde{h}_*\left(\left(\sum_{b\in B}p_{b*} e_b\right)\cdot \tau^*\right).\]
For $M$ a quasi-smooth scheme, denote by $1:=[\mathcal{O}_M]\in \text{gr}^0K_0(M).$
It suffices to show that
\begin{equation}\label{sumone}
\sum_{b\in B}p_{b*}(e_b)=1\in \text{gr}^0K_0\left(Y^{\text{der}}_V\right).
\end{equation}
The underlying scheme $Y^{\text{cl}}_V$ has irreducible components indexed by $B$ and these componenets are birational to $\widetilde{Y^b_V}$.
Recall the discussion in Subsection \ref{zerodiff}. There exist open sets
\begin{align*}
W=\bigsqcup_{b\in B}W^b&\subset Y^{\text{der}}_V,\\
U^b&\subset \widetilde{Y^b_V}
\end{align*}
whose complements have codimension $\geq 1$ and such that for any $b\in B$:
\begin{align*}
W^{b,\text{cl}}&\cong U^b,\\
W^b\times_{Y^{\text{der}}_V}\widetilde{Y^b_V}&\cong
U^b,\\
\mathcal{O}_{W^b}&\cong\mathcal{O}_{U^b}\left[\mathcal{E}^b[1];d\right],
\end{align*}
where $\mathcal{E}^b$ is a vector bundle on $U^b$ of rank $d_b$ and the differential $\mathcal{E}^b\to\mathcal{O}_{U^b}$ is zero.
Let $\varepsilon_b\in \text{gr}^{d_b}K_0\left(U^b\right)$ be the Euler class of $\mathcal{E}^b$. Then $p_{b*}\left(\varepsilon_b\right)=1\in \text{gr}^0K_0(W^b)$ and the restriction map sends
\begin{align*}
\text{res}: \text{gr}^{d_b}K_0\left(\widetilde{Y^b_V}\right)&\to \text{gr}^{d_b}K_0\left(U^b\right)\\
e_b&\mapsto \varepsilon_b.
\end{align*}
Back to proving \eqref{sumone},
we have that $\text{gr}^0K_0\left(Y^{\text{der}}_V\right)\cong \bigoplus_{b\in B}\text{gr}^0K_0\left(W^b\right)$. Consider the diagram
\begin{equation*}
\begin{tikzcd}
\text{gr}^{d_b}K_0\left(\widetilde{Y^b_V}\right)\arrow[d,"p_{b*}"]\arrow[r,"\text{res}"]&\text{gr}^{d_b}K_0\left(U^b\right)\arrow[d,"p_{b*}"]\\
\text{gr}^{0}K_0\left(Y^{\text{der}}_V\right)\arrow[r,"\text{res}"]& \text{gr}^0K_0(W^b),
\end{tikzcd}
\end{equation*}
where the horizontal maps are restriction to open sets maps. Then
\[\text{res}\,p_{b*}(e_b)=
p_{b*}\left(\varepsilon_b\right)=1
\text{ in }\text{gr}^0K_0(W^b).\]
The diagram \eqref{eul} thus commutes.
The conclusion now follows from Propositions \ref{pushfor} and \ref{eulermult}.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Towards the filtration $\P^{\leq i}_f$}\label{towa}
We continue with the notation from Subsection \ref{Kper}. Let $X$ be a smooth variety with a proper map $f:X\to S$. Let $T\xrightarrow{\pi}S$ be a generically finite map onto its image from $T$ smooth.
We say that $\Gamma$ is a \textit{$(f, \pi)$-quasi-smooth scheme} if $\Gamma$ is a derived scheme with maps
\begin{equation*}
\begin{tikzcd}
&X'\arrow[d,"t"]\\
\Gamma\arrow[d,"q"]\arrow[ur,hook, "\iota"]\arrow[r,"p"]&X\arrow[d,"f"]\\
T\arrow[r, "\pi"]&S
\end{tikzcd}
\end{equation*} such that $\iota$ is a quasi-smooth immersion in a smooth variety $X'$ (i.e. the cotangent complex $\mathbb{L}_\iota[-1]$ is a vector bundle on $\Gamma$), $t$ is smooth, and $q^{\text{cl}}$ is surjective.
The conditions on the maps $\iota$ and $t$ imply that $\Gamma$ is quasi-smooth.
Let \[\text{gr}^\cdot K^q_{T\times_SX}(T\times X)\subset\text{gr}^\cdot K_{T\times_SX}(T\times X)\] be the subspace generated by classes $[\Gamma]$ for $(f, \pi)$-quasi-smooth schemes as above.
\begin{prop}\label{quasi}
Let $h$ be a proper map:
\begin{equation*}
\begin{tikzcd}[column sep=small]
Y\arrow[dr,"g"']\arrow[rr,"h"] && X\arrow[dl,"f"]\\
& S. &
\end{tikzcd}
\end{equation*}
There are induced maps
\[h_*:\text{gr}_\cdot K^q_{T\times_SY}(T\times Y)\to \text{gr}_\cdot K^q_{T\times_SX}(T\times X).\]
If $h$ is surjective, then there are induced maps
\[h^*: \text{gr}^\cdot K^q_{T\times_SX}(T\times X)\to \text{gr}^\cdot K^q_{T\times_SY}(T\times Y).\]
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
We discuss the statement about pullback. Consider the diagram:
\begin{equation*}
\begin{tikzcd}
\Theta\arrow[d, "r"]\arrow[r, hook]&Y'\arrow[d,"h'"]\arrow[r,"t_Y"]&Y\arrow[d,"h"]\\
\Gamma\arrow[d,"q"]\arrow[r, hook]&X'\arrow[r,"t_X"]&X\arrow[dl,"f"]\\
T\arrow[r, "\pi"]&S,
\end{tikzcd}
\end{equation*}
where $\Gamma$ is a $(f, \pi)$-quasi-smooth scheme with $q^{\text{cl}}$ is surjective, $t_X$ is smooth, and the upper squares are cartesian. Then
the map $\Theta\hookrightarrow Y'$ is a quasi-smooth immersion and $t_Y$ is smooth.
The map $h$ is surjective, so $r^{\text{cl}}:\Theta^{\text{cl}}\to \Gamma^{\text{cl}}$ is surjective, and thus $(qr)^{\text{cl}}: \Theta^{\text{cl}}\to T$ is surjective as well, so $\Theta$ is a $(g,\pi)$-quasi-smooth scheme.
We next discuss the statement about pushforward. Consider
\begin{equation*}
\begin{tikzcd}
&Y'\arrow[d,"t"]\\
\Gamma\arrow[d,"q"]\arrow[ur,hook, "\iota"]\arrow[r,"p"]&Y\arrow[d,"g"]\\
T\arrow[r]&S
\end{tikzcd}
\end{equation*} such that $\iota$ is a closed immersion, $t$ is smooth, and $q^{\text{cl}}$ is surjective. The map $Y'\to X$ is a proper map of smooth quasi-projective varieties, so we can choose $X'$ with maps
\[Y'\xrightarrow{\iota'} X'\xrightarrow{t'}X\] such that $\iota'$ is a closed immersion and $t'$ is smooth. Then
\begin{equation*}
\begin{tikzcd}
&X'\arrow[d,"t'"]\\
\Gamma\arrow[d,"q"]\arrow[ur,hook, "\iota'\iota"]\arrow[r,"hp"]&X\arrow[d,"f"]\\
T\arrow[r]&S
\end{tikzcd}
\end{equation*}
such that $\iota'\iota$ is a closed immersion, $t'$ is smooth, and $q^{\text{cl}}$ is surjective.
\end{proof}
Consider a diagram
\begin{equation}\label{prime}
\begin{tikzcd}
& X'\arrow[d,"t"]\\
\Gamma\arrow[d,"q"]\arrow[r,"p"]\arrow[ru,hook,"\iota"]&X\arrow[d,"f"]\\
T\arrow[r,"\pi"]&S
\end{tikzcd}
\end{equation}
as above, with $t$ a smooth map and with $\iota$ a closed immersion. Let \[T\times_SX=Z_1\cup Z_2,\] where $Z_1$ is the union of irreducible components of $T\times_SX$ dominant over $T$ and $Z_2$ is the union of the other irreducible components. Denote by $Z_1^o:=Z_1-\left(Z_1\cap Z_2\right)$. Similarly define $Z'_1$ and $Z'_2$ for $T\times_SX'$.
Let $b=\text{reldim}\,q$ and $a=b+\dim T=\dim \Gamma$.
\begin{prop}\label{reszero}
The class $[\Gamma]\in \text{gr}_aK_{T\times_SX'}(T\times X')$ is not supported on $Z'_2$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Let $\ell$ be an $ft$-ample divisor. Denote by $\text{pr}_1:T\times X'\to T$.
Then
\begin{equation}\label{inte}
\text{pr}_{1*}\left([\Gamma]\cdot \ell^b\right)=d[T]\in \text{gr}_{\dim T}K_\cdot(T)
\end{equation}
for $d$ a non-zero integer. Indeed, let $\eta$ be the generic point of $T$. By abuse of notation, we denote by $\eta$ its image in $S$.
It suffices to show \eqref{inte} after restricting to $\eta$. In this case, $d$ is the intersection number $\left[\Gamma_\eta\right]\cdot\ell^b$ in $X'_{\eta}$.
Further, let $x\in \text{gr}_aK_{Z'_2}(T\times X')$. We have that \[\text{pr}_{1*}\left(x\cdot \ell^b\right)=0\in \text{gr}_{\dim T} K_\cdot(T)\] because the support on $x\cdot \ell^b$ is not dominant over $T$. The conclusion thus follows.
\end{proof}
\begin{prop}\label{lb}
Let $T\xrightarrow{\pi}X$ be a generically finite map from $T$ smooth with image $V$.
Let $a>\dim X_V$. Then $\text{gr}_aK^q_{T\times_SX}(T\times X)=0$. Further, $\text{gr}_{\dim X_V}K^q_{T\times_SX}(T\times X)$ is generated by irreducible components of $T\times_SX$ dominant over $T$ of dimension $X_V$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Suppose we are in the setting of \eqref{prime} and let $s:X\to X'$ be a section of $t$. We write $\widetilde{p}:\Gamma\to T\times X$, $\widetilde{\iota}:\Gamma\to T\times X'$ etc.
Assume that \[\widetilde{t}_*\widetilde{\iota}_*[\Gamma]=\widetilde{p}_*[\Gamma]\neq 0\in \text{gr}_aK^q_{T\times_SX}(T\times X).\] Then there exists a non-zero $x\in \text{gr}_aK^q_{T\times_SX}(T\times X)$ such that \[\widetilde{p}_*[\Gamma]=\widetilde{s}_*(x)\in \text{gr}_aK^q_{T\times_SX'}(T\times X').\]
Consider the diagram
\begin{equation*}
\begin{tikzcd}
\text{gr}_aK_{T\times_SX'}(T\times X')\arrow[r,"\text{res}"]& \text{gr}_aK_{Z'^o_1}(T\times X'\setminus Z'_2)\\
\text{gr}_aK_{T\times_SX}(T\times X)\arrow[r,"\text{res}"]\arrow[u,"\widetilde{s}_*"]& \text{gr}_aK_{Z_1^o}(T\times X\setminus Z_2).\arrow[u,"\widetilde{s}_*"]
\end{tikzcd}
\end{equation*}
By Proposition \ref{reszero}, we have that $\text{res}(x)\neq 0\in \text{gr}_aK_{Z_1^o}(T\times X\setminus Z_2)$. We have that $\dim Z_1^o=\dim X_V$, and the conclusion follows from here.
\end{proof}
\subsection{The perverse filtration $\P^{\leq i}_f$}
\label{Kper2}
We now define a smaller filtration $\P^{\leq i}_f\subset P^{\leq i}_f$.
We use the notation from Subsection \ref{Kper}.
Let $X$ be a smooth variety with a proper map $f:X\to S$ and let $T\xrightarrow{\pi}S$ be a generically finite map onto its image from $T$ smooth. Consider a subvariety $Y\hookrightarrow X$.
Define the subspaces of $\text{gr}^\cdot G_Y(X)$:
\begin{align*}
\P'^{\leq i}_{f,T}&:=\text{span}_\Gamma\left(\Phi_\Gamma: \text{gr}^\cdot K_\cdot(T)\to \text{gr}^\cdot G_Y(X)\right)\\
\P'^{\leq i}_{f, V}&:=\text{span}\left(\P'^{\leq i}_{f,T}\text{ for all maps }\pi\text{ as above }V\right),\end{align*}
where $\Gamma\in \text{gr}_{\dim X-s}K^q_{T\times_S Y, 0}(T\times X)$
and
\begin{equation*}
\left\lfloor \frac{i+\dim X-\dim T}{2}\right\rfloor\geq s.
\end{equation*}
Using the notation from Subsection \ref{filtPP}, define
\[\P^{\leq i}_f\text{gr}^\cdot G_Y(X):=\bigcap_{V\subsetneqq S}\bigcap_{a\in A_V}\text{ker}\left(\tau^{a*}_V:\P'^{\leq i}_f\text{gr}^\cdot G_Y(X)\to P'^{> i+c^a_V}_{\widetilde{f^a_V}}\text{gr}^\cdot K_\cdot\left(\widetilde{X^a_V}\right)\right).\]
The definition is independent of the resolutions $\widetilde{X^a_V}$ chosen, see Subsection \ref{filtPP}.
\begin{thm}\label{functorP}
Let $X$ and $Y$ be smooth varieties with $c=\dim X-\dim Y$.
Consider proper maps
\begin{equation*}
\begin{tikzcd}[column sep=small]
Y\arrow[dr,"g"']\arrow[rr,"h"] && X\arrow[dl,"f"]\\
& S. &
\end{tikzcd}
\end{equation*}
There are induced maps
\begin{align*}
h_*&: \P'^{\leq i-c}_{g}\text{gr}_\cdot K_\cdot(Y)\to \P'^{\leq i}_{f}\text{gr}_\cdot K_\cdot(X)\\
h_*&: \P^{\leq i-c}_{g}\text{gr}_\cdot K_\cdot(Y)\to \P^{\leq i}_{f}\text{gr}_\cdot K_\cdot(X).
\end{align*}
If $h$ is surjective, then there are induced maps
\begin{align*}
h^*&: \P'^{\leq i-c}_{f}\text{gr}^\cdot K_\cdot(X)\to \P'^{\leq i}_{g}\text{gr}^\cdot K_\cdot(Y)\\
h^*&: \P^{\leq i-c}_{f}\text{gr}^\cdot K_\cdot(X)\to \P^{\leq i}_{g}\text{gr}^\cdot K_\cdot(Y).
\end{align*}
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
The functoriality follow as in Propositions \ref{pullback}, \ref{pushfor}, and Theorem \ref{functorialityP}, using Proposition \ref{quasi}.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Properties of the perverse filtration}
Consider a proper map $f:X\to S$ with $X$ smooth. Define the defect of semismallness of $f$ by
\[s:=s(f)=\dim X\times_S X-\dim X.\]
Further, define $s'=\text{max}\left(\dim X+\dim S-4, \dim X\right)$.
The perverse filtration in cohomology satisfies
\[{}^pH^{\leq -s-1}_f(X)=0\text{ and }{}^pH^{\leq s}_f(X)=H^\cdot(X),\]
see \cite[Section 1.6]{dCM2}.
We prove an analogous result in $K$-theory:
\begin{thm}\label{sd}
For $f$ as above,
\begin{align*}
&P^{\leq -s'-1}_f\text{gr}^\cdot K_\cdot(X)=\P^{\leq -s-1}_f\text{gr}^\cdot K_\cdot(X)=0\\
&P^{\leq s}_f\text{gr}^\cdot K_0(X)=\P^{\leq s}_f\text{gr}^\cdot K_0(X)=\text{gr}^\cdot K_0(X).\end{align*}
\end{thm}
\begin{prop}\label{ppp}
Let $f:X\to S$ be a surjective map from $X$ smooth with $\text{reldim}\,f>0$
and consider a subvariety $Z\hookrightarrow X$ of codimension $\geq 2$. Then there exists a subvariety $\iota: Y\hookrightarrow X$ of codimension $1$ such that $Z\subset Y$ and $f\iota:Y\to S$ is surjective.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
It suffices to pass to the generic point of $Z$, and we can thus assume that $Z$ is a point and is given by a complete intersection of smooth hypersurfaces $H_1,\cdots, H_r$ in $X$ with $r\geq 2$. Localizing at the generic point of $Z$, we can assume that $Z$ is a point. Further restricting to an open set of $X$, we can assume that the fibers of $f$ are irreducible. Assume that none of the maps \[f_i: H_i\to Z\] are surjective. Let $S_i$ be the image of $f_i$.
Let $S':=\bigcap_{i=1}^rS_i$. Then $S'$ is not empty because it contains $f(Z)$. We have $\pi^{-1}(S_i)=H_i$ and so $\bigcap_{i=1}^r H_i$ contains $\pi^{-1}\left(S'\right)$. This means that $\dim \big(\bigcap_{i=1}^r H_i\big)\geq \text{reldim}\,f$. This bound contradicts that $\bigcap_{i=1}^r H_i$ is a point $Z$.
\end{proof}
\begin{prop}\label{reldim}
Let $f:X\to S$ be a proper surjective map from $X$ smooth of relative dimension $d$.
Then
\[\P'^{\leq d}_{f}\text{gr}^\cdot K_0(X)=\text{gr}^\cdot K_0(X).\]
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
We use induction on $d$.
Assume that $f$ is generically finite. Consider the correspodence $\Delta\cong X\hookrightarrow X\times_SX$:
\begin{equation*}
\begin{tikzcd}
\Delta\arrow["\sim",r] \arrow["\sim",d]&X\arrow[d,"f"]\\
X\arrow[r,"f"]&S.
\end{tikzcd}
\end{equation*}
This implies that $\P'^{\leq 0}_{f}\text{gr}^\cdot K_\cdot(X)=\text{gr}^\cdot K_\cdot(X)$.
Consider $f$ with $d>0$. Let $\iota: Z\hookrightarrow X$ be a subvariety of codimension $\geq 2$. By Proposition \ref{ppp}, there exists $Y\hookrightarrow X$ of codimension $1$ such that $Z\subset Y$ and $Y\to S$ has image $W$ of codimension $\leq 1$ in $S$. Let $Y'\to Y$ be a resolution of singularities and denote the resulting map by $g:Y'\to W$.
By induction,
\[\P'^{\leq d-1}_{g}\text{gr}^\cdot K_0(Y')=\text{gr}^\cdot K_0(Y').\]
By Proposition \ref{prop2}, \[\text{image}\,\left(\iota_*:\text{gr}_\cdot G_0(Z)\to \text{gr}_\cdot K_0(X)\right)\subset \text{image}\,\left(g_*:\text{gr}_\cdot K_0(Y')\to \text{gr}_\cdot K_0(X)\right).\]
Finally, assume that $Z\hookrightarrow Y$ has codimension $1$. By Proposition \ref{prop1}, it suffices to show that \[\text{image}\left(\text{gr}_{\dim Z}G_0(Z)\to \text{gr}_{\dim Z}G_0(X)\right)\subset \P'^{\leq d}_f\text{gr}^\cdot K_0(X)\] because $\text{gr}_iG_0(Z)$ for $i<\dim Z$ is generated by varieties of smaller dimension than $Z$.
If $Z\to S$ is surjective, then it has relative dimension $d-1$ and we can treat it as above. If $Z\to S$ is not surjective, let $W\subset S$ be its image. Choose a resolution of singularities $T\to W$ and a smooth variety $\Gamma$ with surjective maps $p$ and $q$:
\begin{equation*}
\begin{tikzcd}
\Gamma\arrow[d,"q"]\arrow[r,"p"]&Z\arrow[d]\arrow[r,hook]&X\arrow[d,"f"]\\
T\arrow[r]&W\arrow[r, hook]&S.
\end{tikzcd}
\end{equation*}
Then $[\Gamma]\in \text{gr}_{\dim X-1}K^q_{T\times_SX}(T\times X)$ and its image $\Phi_\Gamma$ is in $\P'^{\leq d}_{f}\text{gr}^\cdot K_0(X)$. Then \[\text{image}\left(\text{gr}_{\dim Z}G_0(Z)\to \text{gr}_{\dim Z} K_0(X)\right)\subset \text{image}\,\Phi_\Gamma\subset \P'^{\leq d}_{f}\text{gr}^\cdot K_0(X).\]
The conclusion now follows from Proposition \ref{prop1}.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{sd}]
We first show that $P^{\leq -s'-1}_f\text{gr}^\cdot K_\cdot(X)=0$.
Consider a map $\pi:T\to X$ generically finite onto its image $V\subset S$ with $T$ smooth and consider a correspondence
\[\Gamma\in \text{gr}_{\dim X-b}G_{T\times_S X}(T\times S).\]
Then $\dim X-b\leq \dim T\times_SX\leq \text{max}\left(\dim X, \dim X+\dim T-2\right)$, and so
\[b\geq \text{min}\left(0, -\dim T+2\right).\]
By the bound \eqref{ranges}, it suffices to show that
\[\left\lfloor \frac{-s'-1+\dim X-\dim T}{2}\right\rfloor< \text{min}\left(0, -\dim T+2\right),\] or, alternatively, that
\[\text{max}\big(\dim X-\dim T-1, \dim X+\dim T-5\big)< s',\]
which is true because $0\leq \dim T\leq \dim S$.
\smallskip
We next explain that $\P^{\leq -s-1}_f\text{gr}^\cdot K_\cdot(X)=0$. We keep the notation from the previous paragraph. Let $[\Gamma]\in \text{gr}_{\dim X-b}K^q_{T\times_S X}(T\times S).$ By Proposition \ref{lb}, we have that \[b\geq \dim X-\dim X_V.\] It suffices to show that
\[\left\lfloor \frac{-s-1+\dim X-\dim T}{2}\right\rfloor< \dim X-\dim X_V,\] or, alternatively, that
\[2\dim X_V-\dim V\leq s-\dim X=\dim X\times_SX,\]
which is true because $2\dim X_V-\dim V\leq \dim X_V\times_VX_V\leq \dim X\times_SX$.
\smallskip
We next show that $\P^{\leq s}_f\text{gr}^\cdot K_0(X)=\text{gr}^\cdot K_0(X)$. We can assume that $f$ is surjective of relative dimension $d$. Use the notation from Subsection \ref{filtPP}.
We have that
\[\P^{\leq s}_f\text{gr}^\cdot K_0(X):=\bigcap_{V\subsetneqq S}\bigcap_{a\in A_V}\text{ker}\left(\tau^{a*}_V:\P'^{\leq s}_f\text{gr}^\cdot K_0(X)\to P'^{> s+c^a_V}_{\widetilde{f^a_V}}\text{gr}^\cdot K_0\left(\widetilde{X^a_V}\right)\right).\]
We claim that
\[\text{reldim}\,\left(\widetilde{X^a_V}\to V\right)=\text{reldim}\,\left(X^a_V\to V\right)\leq s+c^a_V.\]
Indeed,
\begin{align*}
\dim X^a_V-\dim V&\leq \left(\dim X\times_SX-\dim X\right)+\left(\dim X-\dim X^a_V\right)\\
2\dim X^a_V-\dim V&\leq \dim X^a_V\times_VX^a_V\leq \dim X\times_SX,
\end{align*}
which is true.
By Proposition \ref{reldim}, this implies that $P'^{>s+c^a_V}_{\widetilde{f^a_V}}\text{gr}^\cdot K_0\left(\widetilde{X^a_V}\right)=0$. Furthermore, $s\geq d$, so Proposition \ref{reldim} implies that $\P'^{\leq s}_f\text{gr}^\cdot K_0(X)=\text{gr}^\cdot K_0(X)$, and thus
$\P^{\leq s}_f\text{gr}^\cdot K_0(X)=\text{gr}^\cdot K_0(X).$ This also implies that $P^{\leq s}_f\text{gr}^\cdot K_0(X)=\text{gr}^\cdot K_0(X)$.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Examples of perverse filtration in $K$-theory}
\label{examplesfilt}
\subsubsection{}\label{oneex} Let $X$ be a smooth variety of dimension $d$, and let $f:X\to \text{Spec}\,\mathbb{C}.$
Then
\[P^{\leq i}_f\text{gr}^j K_\cdot(X)=
\begin{cases} \mbox{$\text{gr}^jK_\cdot(X)$} & \mbox{if } j\leq \lfloor \frac{i+d}{2}\rfloor, \\ \mbox{$0$} & \mbox{otherwise.} \end{cases}\]
\subsubsection{}\label{projective} Let $X$ be a smooth variety and let $E$ be a vector bundle on $X$ of rank $d+1$. Let $Y:=\mathbb{P}_X(E)$. Denote by $\hbar:=c_1(\mathcal{O}_Y(1))\in \text{gr}^2 K_0(Y).$
Consider the projection map $f:Y\to X$. We have that $s(f)=d$. For $i\leq d$, there exists an isomorphism
\begin{align*}
\bigoplus_{0\leq j\leq\lfloor \frac{i+d}{2}\rfloor}\text{gr}^{a-2j} K_\cdot(X) &\cong P'^{\leq i}_f\text{gr}^a K_\cdot(Y)\\
\big(x_0,\cdots, x_{\lfloor \frac{i+d}{2}\rfloor}\big)&\mapsto\sum_{j\leq \lfloor \frac{i+d}{2}\rfloor} \hbar^jf^*(x_j).
\end{align*}
The condition for $P^{\leq i}$ is checked using projective bundles over varieties of smaller dimension, and
we obtain that
\[\bigoplus_{0\leq j\leq\lfloor \frac{i+d}{2}\rfloor}\text{gr}^{a-2j} K_\cdot(X) \cong P^{\leq i}_f\text{gr}^a K_\cdot(Y).\]
\subsubsection{}
Let $X$ be a smooth variety and let $Z$ be a smooth subvariety of codimension $d+1$. Consider the blow-up diagram for $Y=\text{Bl}_ZX$:
\begin{equation*}
\begin{tikzcd}
E\arrow[r, hook, "\iota"]\arrow[d,"p"]& Y\arrow[d,"f"]\\
Z\arrow[r, hook, "j"]& X.
\end{tikzcd}
\end{equation*}
Let $\hbar:=c_1(\mathcal{O}_E(1))\in \text{gr}^2K_0(E)$. We have that $s(f)=d-1$. For $i\leq d-1$, there is an isomorphism:
\begin{align*}
\text{gr}^a K(X)^\varepsilon\oplus
\bigoplus_{0\leq j\leq\lfloor \frac{i+d}{2}\rfloor-1}\text{gr}^{a-2-2j} K_\cdot(Z) &\cong P^{\leq i}_f\text{gr}^a K_\cdot(Y)\\
\big(x,z_0,\cdots,z_{\lfloor \frac{i+d}{2}\rfloor-1}\big)&\mapsto f^*(x)+\sum_{j\leq \lfloor \frac{i+d}{2}\rfloor-1} \iota_*\left(\hbar^jq^*(z_j)\right).
\end{align*}
Here $\varepsilon$ is $0$ if $i<0$ and is $1$ otherwise.
This follows from the computation in Subsection \ref{projective} and Proposition \ref{blowup}.
One can check that in the above examples, we have that $\P^{\leq \cdot}_f=P^{\leq \cdot}_f$.
\subsection{Compatibility with the perverse filtration in cohomology}
Consider a proper map $f:X\to S$ with $X$ smooth.
Define filtrations
$P'^{\leq i}_{f}, P^{\leq i}_{f}, \textbf{P}^{\leq i}_{f}$ on $H^\cdot(X), H^\cdot(X)_{\text{alg}}$ as in Subsections \ref{Kper} and \ref{Kper2}.
We have that
\[\text{image}\left(\mathfrak{c}: P^{\leq i}_f\text{gr}^j K_0(X)_\mathbb{Q}\to P^{\leq i}_f H^{2j}(X)\right)=P^{\leq i}_f H^{2j}(X)_{\text{alg}}.\]
We use the notation ${}^pH^{\leq i}_f(X)_{\text{full}}$ for the cohomology of summands of ${}^p\tau^{\leq i}Rf_*IC_X$ with support $S$.
\begin{prop}\label{cyclemap}
There exist natural inclusions
\begin{align*}
\P^{\leq i}_fH^\cdot(X)\subset P^{\leq i}_f H^\cdot(X)&\subset {}^pH^{\leq i}_f(X)\\
\P^{\leq i}_fH^\cdot(X)_{\text{alg}}\subset P^{\leq i}_f H^\cdot(X)_{\text{alg}}&\subset {}^pH^{\leq i}_f(X)_{\text{alg}}.
\end{align*}
Thus the cycle map restricts to
\begin{align*}
\mathfrak{c}: P^{\leq i}_f \text{gr}^\cdot K_0(X)_{\mathbb{Q}}&\to {}^pH^{\leq i}_f(X)_{\text{alg}}\\
\mathfrak{c}: \P^{\leq i}_f \text{gr}^\cdot K_0(X)_{\mathbb{Q}}&\to {}^pH^{\leq i}_f(X)_{\text{alg}}.
\end{align*}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Let $\pi:T\to S$ be a generically finite map with $T$ smooth. Consider a correspondence
\[\Gamma\in \text{gr}_{\dim X-s}K_{T\times_S X, 0}(T\times X)\] such that
\[\left\lfloor \frac{i+\dim X-\dim T}{2}\right\rfloor\geq s.\]
The correspondence $\Gamma$ induces a map of constructible sheaves on $S$:
\begin{align*}\label{boundd}
R\pi_*\mathbb{Q}_T[-2s]&\xrightarrow{\Phi_\Gamma} Rf_*\mathbb{Q}_X.\\
Rp_*IC_{T}[\dim X-\dim T-2s]&\xrightarrow{\Phi_\Gamma} Rf_*IC_X.
\end{align*}
If $\pi$ is not surjective, $R\pi_*IC_T$ has summands with support $W\subsetneqq S$. If $\pi$ is surjective,
the complex $R\pi_*IC_{T}$ has summands $IC_S(\mathcal{L})$ of full support and of perverse degree zero, and other summands with support $W\subsetneqq S$. The perverse degree of the sheaf with support $S$ in the image of $\Phi_\Gamma$ is
\[\dim X-\dim T-2s\leq i.\] Thus $P'^{\leq i}_fH^\cdot(X)$ contains cohomology of sheaves $IC_S(\mathcal{L})[j]$ with $j\leq i$ which appear as summands of $Rf_*IC_X$ and of other sheaves with support $W\subsetneqq S$. Thus \[P'^{>i}_fH^\cdot(X)\twoheadrightarrow {}^pH^{>i}_f(X)_{\text{full}}.\]
Using the notation in Subsection \ref{filtPP}, we have that
\[P^{\leq i}_fH^\cdot(X):=\bigcap_{V\subsetneqq S}\bigcap_{a\in A_V}\text{ker}\left(\tau^{a*}_V:P'^{\leq i}_fH^\cdot(X)\to P'^{> i+c^a_V}_{\widetilde{f^a_V}}H^\cdot\left(\widetilde{X^a_V}\right)\right).\]
In particular,
\[P^{\leq i}_fH^\cdot(X)\subset\bigcap_{V\subsetneqq S}\bigcap_{a\in A_V}\text{ker}\left(\tau^{a*}_V:P'^{\leq i}_fH^\cdot(X)\to {}^pH^{> i+c^a_V}_{\widetilde{f^a_V}}\left(\widetilde{X^a_V}\right)_{\text{full}}\right).\]
Using \eqref{comp2}, we obtain that
$P^{\leq i}_fH^\cdot(X)\subset {}^pH^{\leq i}_f(X)$.
\end{proof}
\textbf{Remark.} We expect equalities $\P^{\leq i}_fH^\cdot(X)_{\text{alg}}= P^{\leq i}_f H^\cdot(X)_{\text{alg}}= {}^pH^{\leq i}_f(X)_{\text{alg}}$ in the above Proposition.
\section{Intersection $K$-theory}\label{4}
\subsection{Definition of intersection $K$-theory}\label{defintK}
Let $S$ be a variety, let $U$ be an open subset, let $f:X\to S$ be such $f^{-1}(U)\to U$ is étale, and let $L=f_*\left(\mathbb{Z}_{f^{-1}(U)}\right)$.
Recall the notation of Subsection \ref{filtPP}. Define
\begin{align*}
\widetilde{P}^{\leq i}_f\text{gr}^\cdot K_\cdot(X)&:=
\text{image}\left(\bigoplus_{V\subsetneqq S}\bigoplus_{a\in A_V}P^{\leq i}_f\text{gr}^\cdot K_{X^a_V}(X)\to P^{\leq i}_f\text{gr}^\cdot K_\cdot(X)\right)\\
\widetilde{\P}^{\leq i}_f\text{gr}^\cdot K_\cdot(X)&:=
\text{image}\left(\bigoplus_{V\subsetneqq S}\bigoplus_{a\in A_V}\P^{\leq i}_f\text{gr}^\cdot K_{X^a_V}(X)\to \P^{\leq i}_f\text{gr}^\cdot K_\cdot(X)\right).
\end{align*}
Define
\begin{align*}
\text{gr}^\cdot IK_\cdot(S,L)&:=P^{\leq 0}_f\text{gr}^\cdot K_\cdot(X)\big/\left(\widetilde{P}^{\leq 0}_f\text{gr}^\cdot K_\cdot(X)\cap \text{ker}\,f_*\right)\\
\text{gr}^\cdot \textbf{I} K_\cdot(S,L)&:=\P^{\leq 0}_f\text{gr}^\cdot K_\cdot(X)\big/\left(\widetilde{\P}^{\leq 0}_f\text{gr}^\cdot K_\cdot(X)\cap\text{ker}\,f_*\right).
\end{align*}
\begin{thm}\label{intK}
The definitions of $\text{gr}^\cdot IK_{\cdot}(S,L)$ and $\text{gr}^\cdot \textbf{I} K_{\cdot}(S,L)$ do not depend on the choice of the map $f:X\to S$ with $f^{-1}(U)\to U$ étale such that $L\cong f_*\left(\mathbb{Z}_{f^{-1}(U)}\right)$. Further, let $U^o\subset U$ be an open set and let $L^o:=L|_{U^o}$. Then
\begin{align*}
\text{gr}^\cdot IK_\cdot(S,L)&\cong \text{gr}^\cdot IK_\cdot(S,L^o),\\
\text{gr}^\cdot \textbf{I} K_\cdot(S,L)&\cong\text{gr}^\cdot \textbf{I} K_\cdot(S,L^o).
\end{align*}
\end{thm}
We start with some preliminary results.
Let $f:X\to S$ be a proper map with $X$ smooth. Let $Z$ be a smooth subvariety of $X$ with normal bundle $N$, $Y=\text{Bl}_ZX$, and $E=\mathbb{P}_Z(N)$ the exceptional divisor
\begin{equation*}
\begin{tikzcd}
E\arrow[r, hook, "\iota"]\arrow[d,"p"]& Y\arrow[d,"\pi"]\\
Z\arrow[r, hook, "j"]& X.
\end{tikzcd}
\end{equation*}
Consider the proper maps
\begin{equation*}
\begin{tikzcd}
E\arrow[r, hook, "\iota"]\arrow[dr,"h"']& Y\arrow[d,"g"]\arrow[r,"\pi"]&X\arrow[dl,"f"]\\
& S.&
\end{tikzcd}
\end{equation*}
Let $X'\hookrightarrow X$ be a closed subset, and denote its preimages in $Y$, $Z$, $E$ by $Y'$, $Z'$, $E'$ respectively. Denote by \[\text{gr}_\cdot K_{Y'}(Y)^0=\text{ker}\big(\pi_*: \text{gr}_\cdot K_{Y'}(Y)\to \text{gr}_\cdot K_{X'}(X)\big).\]
\begin{prop}\label{prp}
Let $T\to S$ be a map with $T$ smooth which is generically finite onto its image. Then
\begin{align*}
\text{gr}_\cdot K_{T\times_SY'}(T\times Y)&=\pi^*\text{gr}_\cdot K_{T\times_SX'}(T\times X)\oplus \text{gr}_\cdot K_{T\times_SE'}(T\times Y)^0\\
\text{gr}_\cdot K^q_{T\times_SY'}(T\times Y)&=\pi^*\text{gr}_\cdot K^q_{T\times_SX'}(T\times X)\oplus \text{gr}_\cdot K^q_{T\times_SE'}(T\times Y)^0.
\end{align*}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Let $c+1$ be the codimension of $Z$ in $X$. Denote by $\mathcal{O}(1)$ the canonical line bundle on $E$ and let $\hbar=c_1(\mathcal{O}(1))\in\text{gr}^2K_0(E)$.
There is a semi-orthogonal decomposition \cite[Theorem 4.2]{BO} with $\pi^*$ fully faithful on $D^b(X)$:
\[D^b(Y)=\left\langle \pi^*D^b(X),\iota_*\left(p^*D^b(Z)\otimes \mathcal{O}(-1)\right),\cdots,\iota_*\left(p^*D^b(Z)\otimes \mathcal{O}(-c)\right)\right\rangle,\]
which implies that
\[\text{gr}^j K_\cdot(Y)=\pi^*\text{gr}^j K_\cdot(X)\oplus \bigoplus_{0\leq k\leq c-1}\iota_*\left(\hbar^k\cdot p^*\text{gr}^{j-2-2k} K_\cdot(Z)\right).\]
Using the analogous decomposition for $Y\setminus Y'=\text{Bl}_{Z\setminus Z'}\left(X\setminus X'\right)$ and the localization sequence in K-theory \cite[V.2.6.2]{W}, we obtain that
\begin{equation*}
\text{gr}^j K_{Y'}(Y)=\pi^*\text{gr}^j K_{X'}(X)\oplus \bigoplus_{0\leq k\leq c-1}\iota_*\left(\hbar^k\cdot p^*\text{gr}^{j-2-2k} K_{Z'}(Z)\right).
\end{equation*}
In particular, we have that
\begin{equation*}
\text{gr}^j K_{T\times_S Y'}(T\times Y)=\pi^*\text{gr}^j K_{T\times_S X'}(T\times X)\oplus \bigoplus_{0\leq k\leq c-1}\iota_*\left(\hbar^k\cdot p^*\text{gr}^{j-2-2k} K_{T\times_S Z'}(T\times Z)\right)
\end{equation*}
and thus that
\[\text{gr}_\cdot K_{T\times_SY'}(T\times Y)=\pi^*\text{gr}_\cdot K_{T\times_SX'}(T\times X)\oplus \text{gr}_\cdot K_{T\times_SE'}(T\times Y)^0.\]
By Proposition \ref{quasi}, we also have that
\[\text{gr}_\cdot K^q_{T\times_SY'}(T\times Y)=\pi^*\text{gr}_\cdot K^q_{T\times_SX'}(T\times X)\oplus \text{gr}_\cdot K^q_{T\times_SE'}(T\times Y)^0.\]
\end{proof}
An immediate corollary of Proposition \ref{prp} is:
\begin{cor}\label{blowup2}
We continue with the notation from Proposition \ref{prp}. There are decompositions
\begin{align*}
P'^{\leq i}_g \text{gr}^\cdot K_{Y'}(Y)&=\pi^*P'^{\leq i}_f\text{gr}^\cdot K_{X'}(X)\oplus P'^{\leq i}_g \text{gr}^\cdot K_{E'}(Y)\\
\P'^{\leq i}_g \text{gr}^\cdot K_{Y'}(Y)&=\pi^*\P'^{\leq i}_f\text{gr}^\cdot K_{X'}(X)\oplus \P'^{\leq i}_g \text{gr}^\cdot K_{E'}(Y).
\end{align*}
\end{cor}
We next prove:
\begin{prop}\label{blowup}
We continue with the notation from Proposition \ref{prp}. There are decompositions
\begin{align*}
P^{\leq i}_g \text{gr}^\cdot K_{Y'}(Y)&=\pi^*P^{\leq i}_f\text{gr}^\cdot K_{X'}(X)\oplus P^{\leq i}_g \text{gr}^\cdot K_{E'}(Y)\\
\P^{\leq i}_g \text{gr}^\cdot K_{Y'}(Y)&=\pi^*\P^{\leq i}_f\text{gr}^\cdot K_{X'}(X)\oplus \P^{\leq i}_g \text{gr}^\cdot K_{E'}(Y).
\end{align*}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
We use the notation from Subsection \ref{filtPP}. For $V\subsetneqq S$, let $A_V$ be the set of irreducible components of $f^{-1}(V)$. Let $X^a_V$ be such a component.
If $X^a_V\subset Z$, then there is only one irreducible component $Y^a_V=\mathbb{P}_{X^a_V}(N)$ of $g^{-1}(V)$ above it.
If $X^a_V$ is not in $Z$, then there is one component $Y^a_V$ of $g^{-1}(V)$ birational to $X^a_V$. The other components are $\mathbb{P}_{W^b_V}(N)$, where $W^b_V$ is an irreducible component of $X^a_V\cap Z$. Denote by $B_a$ the set of such components.
For $a\in A$ and $b\in B_a$, consider resolutions of singularities $r$ such that
\begin{equation*}
\begin{tikzcd}
\widetilde{Y^a_V}\arrow[d]\arrow[r, "r"]& Y^a_V\arrow[d]\arrow[r]&Y\arrow[d]&\\
\widetilde{X^a_V}\arrow[r, "r"]&X^a_V\arrow[r]&X\\
&X^a_V\cap Z\arrow[u, hook]\\
\widetilde{W^b_V}\arrow[r, "r"]\arrow[uu]&W^b_V.\arrow[u, hook]
\end{tikzcd}
\end{equation*}
Denote by $\tau$ maps as in Subsection \ref{filtPP}, for example $\tau^a_V:\widetilde{X^a_V}\to X$, and by $\mu$ the map
\begin{equation}\label{mumaps}
\tau^b_V: \widetilde{W^b_V}\xrightarrow{\mu}\widetilde{X^a_V}\xrightarrow{\tau^a_V}X.
\end{equation}
We consider the proper maps
\begin{align*}
\widetilde{f^a_V}&: \widetilde{X^a_V}\to X^a_V\to V\\
\widetilde{g^a_V}&: \widetilde{Y^a_V}\to Y^a_V\to V\\
\widetilde{f^b_V}&: \widetilde{W^b_V}\to W^b_V\to V\\
\widetilde{g^b_V}&: \mathbb{P}_{\widetilde{W^b_V}}(N)\to
\mathbb{P}_{W^b_V}(N)\to V.
\end{align*}
Denote by
\begin{align*}
&c^a_V=\text{codim}\left(X^a_V\text{ in }X\right)=\text{codim}\left(Y^a_V\text{ in }Y\right)\\
&c^b_V=\text{codim}\left(W^b_V\text{ in }X\right)\\
&c'^b_V=\text{codim}\left(\mathbb{P}_{W^b_V}(N)\text{ in }Y\right)
\end{align*} the codimensions as in Subsection \ref{filtPP}. By Proposition \ref{smpr}, we have that
\begin{multline}\label{onee}
\text{ker}\left(\tau^{a*}_V:\pi^*P'^{\leq i}_f\text{gr}^\cdot K_\cdot(X)\to P'^{>i+c^a_V}_{\widetilde{g^a_V}}\text{gr}^\cdot K_\cdot\left(\widetilde{Y^a_V}\right)\right)\cong\\
\text{ker}\left(\tau^{a*}_V:P'^{\leq i}_f\text{gr}^\cdot K_\cdot(X)\to P'^{>i+c^a_V}_{\widetilde{f^a_V}}\text{gr}^\cdot K_\cdot\left(\widetilde{X^a_V}\right)\right).
\end{multline}
By Proposition \ref{smpr} and Proposition \ref{pullback} for the map $\mu$ in \eqref{mumaps}, we have that
\begin{multline}\label{twoo}
\text{ker}\left(\tau^{b*}_V:\pi^*P'^{\leq i}_f\text{gr}^\cdot K_\cdot(X)\to P'^{>i+c'^b_V}_{\widetilde{g^b_V}}\text{gr}^\cdot K_\cdot\left(\mathbb{P}_{\widetilde{W^b_V}}(N)\right)\right)\cong\\
\text{ker}\left(\tau^{b*}_V:P'^{\leq i}_f\text{gr}^\cdot K_\cdot(X)\to P'^{>i+c^b_V}_{\widetilde{f^b_V}}\text{gr}^\cdot K_\cdot\left(\widetilde{W^b_V}\right)\right)\supset\\
\text{ker}\left(\tau^{a*}_V:P'^{\leq i}_f\text{gr}^\cdot K_\cdot(X)\to P'^{>i+c^a_V}_{\widetilde{f^a_V}}\text{gr}^\cdot K_\cdot\left(\widetilde{X^a_V}\right)\right).
\end{multline}
Let $B_V$ be the set of irreducible components of $g^{-1}(V)$. For $d\in B_V$, denote by $\widetilde{g^d_V}:\widetilde{Y^d_V}\to V$ and
let $c^d_V:=\text{codim}\left(Y^d_V\text{ in }Y\right)$. We have that $B_V=A\cup \bigcup_{a\in A}B_a.$
The statements in \eqref{onee} and \eqref{twoo} imply that
\begin{align*}
\pi_*&: \bigcap_{V\subsetneqq S}\bigcap_{d\in B_V}\text{ker}\left(\tau^{d*}_V:\pi^*P'^{\leq i}_f\text{gr}^\cdot K_\cdot(X)\to P'^{>i+c^d_V}_{\widetilde{g^d_V}}\text{gr}^\cdot K_\cdot\left(\widetilde{Y^d_V}\right)\right)\cong\\
&\bigcap_{V\subsetneqq S}\bigcap_{a\in A_V}\text{ker}\left(\tau^{a*}_V:P'^{\leq i}_f\text{gr}^\cdot K_\cdot(X)\to P'^{>i+c^a_V}_{\widetilde{f^a_V}}\text{gr}^\cdot K_\cdot\left(\widetilde{X^a_V}\right)\right).
\end{align*}
Using Corollary \ref{blowup2}, we obtain that
\[P^{\leq i}_{g}\, \text{gr}^\cdot K_{Y'}(Y)=\pi^*P^{\leq i}_{f}\,\text{gr}^\cdot K_{X'}(X)\oplus P^{\leq i}_{g}\,\text{gr}^{\cdot} K_{E'}(Y)^0.\]
The analogous statement for $\P^{\leq i}$ follows similarly.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{intK}]
Any two such varieties $f:X\to S$ and $f':X'\to S$ are birational, so by \cite{akmw} there is a smooth variety $W$ such that
\begin{equation*}
\begin{tikzcd}
& W\arrow[dl,"\pi"']\arrow[dr,"\pi'"]& \\
X\arrow[dr,"f"']& &X'\arrow[dl,"f'"]\\
&S&
\end{tikzcd}
\end{equation*}
and the maps $\pi$ and $\pi'$ are successive blow-ups along smooth subvarieties of $X$ and $X'$, respectively. It thus suffices to show that
\begin{equation}\label{eqq}
P^{\leq 0}_f\text{gr}^\cdot K_\cdot(X)\Big/\left(\widetilde{P}^{\leq 0}_f\text{gr}^\cdot K_\cdot(X)\cap \text{ker}\,f_*\right)
\cong
P^{\leq 0}_g\text{gr}^\cdot K_\cdot(Y)\Big/\left(\widetilde{P}^{\leq 0}_g\text{gr}^\cdot K_\cdot(Y)\cap \text{ker}\,g_*\right),
\end{equation}
where $\pi:Y\to X$ is the blow up along smooth subvariety $Z\hookrightarrow X$ and
\begin{equation*}
\begin{tikzcd}
Y\arrow[dr, "g"']\arrow[r,"\pi"]& X\arrow[d,"f"]\\
& S.
\end{tikzcd}
\end{equation*}
By Proposition \ref{blowup}, we have that
\begin{align*}
P^{\leq i}_g \text{gr}^\cdot K_\cdot(Y) & =\pi^*P^{\leq i}_f\text{gr}^\cdot K_\cdot(X)\oplus P^{\leq i}_g\text{gr}^\cdot K_E(Y)^0\\
\widetilde{P}^{\leq i}_g \text{gr}^\cdot K_\cdot(Y) & =\pi^*\widetilde{P}^{\leq i}_f\text{gr}^\cdot K_\cdot(X)\oplus P^{\leq i}_g\text{gr}^\cdot K_E(Y)^0.
\end{align*}
The map $\pi^*$ is injective.
Taking the quotients we thus obtain the isomorphism \eqref{eqq}. The analogous statement for $\textbf{I} K$ is similar.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Cycle map for intersection $K$-theory}\label{cyclemap2}
Let $S$ be a variety, let $U$ be an open subset, let $f:X\to S$ be such $f^{-1}(U)\to U$ is étale, and let $L=f_*\left(\mathbb{Z}_{f^{-1}(U)}\right)$.
\begin{prop}
The cycle map $\text{ch}:\text{gr}^j K_0(X)_\mathbb{Q}\to H^{2j}(X)$ induces cycle maps independent of the map $f:X\to S$ as in Subsection \ref{defintK}:
\begin{align*}
\mathfrak{c}&: \text{gr}^j IK_0(S,L)_\mathbb{Q}\to IH^{2j}(S,L\otimes \mathbb{Q})\\
\mathfrak{c}&: \text{gr}^j \textbf{I} K_0(S,L)_\mathbb{Q}\to IH^{2j}(S,L\otimes \mathbb{Q}).
\end{align*}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Define $P'^{\leq i}_fH^\cdot_{X^a_V}(X)$ as in Subsection \ref{Kper} and denote by
\[\widetilde{P}^{\leq 0}_fH^\cdot(X):=
\text{image}\left(\bigoplus_{V\subsetneqq S}\bigoplus_{a\in A_T}P'^{\leq i}_f H^\cdot_{X^a_V}(X)\to H^\cdot(X)\right)\cap P^{\leq 0}_fH^\cdot(X).\]
Denote by ${}^p\widetilde{H}^{\leq 0}_f(X)\subset {}^pH^{\leq 0}_f(X)$ the sum of summands of ${}^p\tau^{\leq 0}Rf_*IC_X$ with support strictly smaller than $S$.
By Proposition \ref{cyclemap}, the cycle map respects the perverse filtrations in $K$-theory and cohomology
\begin{align*}
\mathfrak{c}&:P^{\leq 0}_f\text{gr}^jK_0(X)_\mathbb{Q}\to P^{\leq 0}_fH^{2j}(X)\hookrightarrow {}^pH^{\leq 0}_f(X)\\
\mathfrak{c}&:\widetilde{P}^{\leq 0}_f\text{gr}^jK_0(X)_\mathbb{Q}\to \widetilde{P}^{\leq 0}_fH^{2j}(X)\hookrightarrow {}^p\widetilde{H}^{\leq 0}_f(X).
\end{align*}
Taking the quotient and using \eqref{comp1}, we obtain a map
\[\mathfrak{c}: \text{gr}^j IK_0(S,L)_\mathbb{Q}\to IH^{2j}(S,L\otimes\mathbb{Q}).\]
The proof that the above cycle map is independent of the map $f$ chosen follows as in Theorem \ref{intK}. The argument for $\textbf{I} K$ is similar.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Further properties of intersection $K$-theory}\label{multK}
Intersection cohomology satisfies the following properties, the second one explaining its name \cite[Motivation]{CH1}:
\begin{itemize}
\item The natural map $H^i(S)\to H^{\text{BM}}_{2d-i}(S)$ factors through \[H^i(S)\to IH^i(S)\to H^{\text{BM}}_{2d-i}(S).\]
\item There is a natural intersection map \[IH^i(S)\otimes IH^j(S)\to H^{\text{BM}}_{2d-i-j}(S)\] which is non-degenerate for $i+j=2d$.
\end{itemize}
We prove analogous, but weaker versions of the above properties in $K$-theory.
\begin{prop}\label{propIK}
(a) There are natural maps
\begin{align*}
\text{gr}^i IK_\cdot(S)&\to \text{gr}_{d-i} G_\cdot(S)\\
\text{gr}^i \textbf{I} K_\cdot(S)&\to \text{gr}_{d-i} G_\cdot(S).
\end{align*}
(b) There are natural intersection maps \begin{align*}
\text{gr}^i IK_\cdot(S)\otimes \text{gr}^j IK_\cdot(S)&\to \text{gr}_{d-i-j} G_\cdot(S)\\
\text{gr}^i \textbf{I} K_\cdot(S)\otimes \text{gr}^j \textbf{I} K_\cdot(S)&\to \text{gr}_{d-i-j} G_\cdot(S).
\end{align*}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Let $f:X\to S$ be a resolution of singularities. We discuss the claims for $IK_\cdot$, the ones for $\textbf{I} K_\cdot$ are similar. We construct maps as above using $f$. They are independent by $f$ by an argument as in Theorem \ref{intK}.
(a) There is a natural map
$\text{gr}^i K_\cdot(X)=\text{gr}_{d-i}G_\cdot(X)\xrightarrow{f_*}\text{gr}_{d-i}G_\cdot(S),$ and we thus obtain a map
\[\text{gr}^iIK_\cdot(S)=
P^{\leq 0}_f\text{gr}^iK_\cdot(X)\big/ \left(\widetilde{P}^{\leq 0}_f\text{gr}^iK_\cdot(X)\cap \text{ker}\,f_*\right)\to \text{gr}_{d-i}G_\cdot(S).\]
(b) Consider the composite map
\[P^{\leq 0}_f\text{gr}^i K_\cdot(X)\boxtimes P^{\leq 0}_f\text{gr}^j K_\cdot(X)\to \text{gr}^{i+j}K_\cdot(X\times X)\xrightarrow{\Delta^*}\text{gr}^{i+j}K_\cdot(X)\xrightarrow{f_*}\text{gr}_{d-i-j}G_\cdot(S).\]
The subspaces \begin{align*}
&\left(\widetilde{P}^{\leq 0}_f\text{gr}^iK_\cdot(X)\cap \text{ker}\,f_*\right)\boxtimes P^{\leq 0}_f\text{gr}^iK_\cdot(X)\\
&P^{\leq 0}_f\text{gr}^iK_\cdot(X)\boxtimes \left(\widetilde{P}^{\leq 0}_f\text{gr}^iK_\cdot(X)\cap \text{ker}\,f_*\right)
\end{align*}
are in the kernel of $f_*\Delta^*=\Delta^*\left(f_*\boxtimes f_*\right)$. We thus obtain the desired map.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Computations of intersection $K$-theory}\label{computations}
\subsubsection{} If $S$ is smooth, then $\text{gr}^\cdot IK_\cdot(S)=\text{gr}^\cdot \textbf{I} K_\cdot(S)=
\text{gr}^\cdot K_\cdot(S).$
\subsubsection{}
Let $f:X\to S$ be a small resolution of singularities. Then
\[\text{gr}^\cdot \textbf{I} K_0(S)=\text{gr}^\cdot K_0(X).\]
Let $T\xrightarrow{\pi}S$ be a generically surjective finite map from $T$ smooth. By Proposition \ref{lb}, $\text{gr}_{\dim X}K^q_{T\times_SX}(T\times X)$ is generated by the irreducible components of $T\times_SX$ dominant over $S$. This means that the cycles in $\text{gr}_{a}K^q_{T\times_SX}(T\times X)$ supported on the exceptional locus have $a<\dim X$, and thus they only contribute in perverse degrees $\geq 1$, see \eqref{ranges}.
Next, say that $T\xrightarrow{\pi}S$ has image $V\subsetneqq S$. Let $[\Gamma]\in \text{gr}_{\dim X-a}K^q_{T\times_SX}(T\times X)$. By Proposition \ref{lb}, $a\leq \dim X-\dim X_V$.
If it contributes in perverse degree $i$, then
\[\left\lfloor \frac{i+\dim X-\dim V}{2}\right\rfloor \geq \dim X-\dim X_V,\]
and thus that
\[i\geq \dim X+\dim V-2\dim X_V\geq 1.\]
This means that $\widetilde{\P}^{\leq 0}_f\text{gr}^\cdot K_\cdot(X)=0$. By Theorem \ref{sd}, $\P^{\leq 0}_f\text{gr}^\cdot K_0(X)=\text{gr}^\cdot K_0(X)$, and thus $\text{gr}^\cdot \textbf{I} K_0(S)=\text{gr}^\cdot K_0(X).$
\subsubsection{}
Let $S$ be a surface. Consider a resolution of singularities $f:X\to S$. Let $B$ be the set of singular points of $S$. For each $p$ in $B$, let
$A_p=\{C_p^a\}$ be the set of irreducible components of $X_p:=f^{-1}(p)$. For each such curve, consider the diagram
\begin{equation*}
\begin{tikzcd}
C_p^a\arrow[d,"h^a_p"']\arrow[r, hook, "g^a_p"]&X\arrow[d,"f"]\\
p\arrow[r, hook]& S.
\end{tikzcd}
\end{equation*}
Consider the maps
\begin{align*}
&m^a_p:=g^a_{p*}h^{a*}_p:K_\cdot(p)\to \text{gr}^1K_\cdot(X)\\
&\Delta^a_p:=h^a_{p*}g^{a*}:\text{gr}^1K_\cdot(X)\to K_\cdot(p).
\end{align*}
We claim that
\[\widetilde{\P}^{\leq 0}_f\text{gr}^\cdot K_\cdot(X)=
\text{image}\left(\bigoplus_{p\in B}\bigoplus_{a\in A_p} m^a_p: K_\cdot(p)\to \text{gr}^1K_\cdot(X)
\right).\]
The correspondences which contribute to $\widetilde{\P}^{\leq 0}_f$ are in $\text{gr}_{2-s} K^q_{T\times_SX}(T\times X)$ for $\pi: T\to S$ a generically finite map onto its image $V\subsetneqq S$ with $T$ smooth.
By Proposition \ref{lb},
\[\left\lfloor \frac{2-\dim V}{2}\right\rfloor\geq s\geq \dim X-\dim X_V.\]
So the map $T\to S$ is the inclusion of a point $p\hookrightarrow S$ for $p\in B$ and $\Gamma$ is in $\text{gr}_1G_{X_p}(X)$. Further, for $p, q\in B$, $a\in A_p$, $b\in A_q$:
\[\Delta^b_qm^a_p=\delta_{pq}\delta_{ab}\,\text{id}.\]
This means that:
\[\bigoplus_{p\in B}\bigoplus_{a\in A_p}m^a_{p}:\bigoplus_{p\in B} K_\cdot(p)^{|A_p|}\cong \widetilde{\P}^{\leq 0}_f\text{gr}^1K_\cdot(X).\]
The map $f$ is semismall, so by Theorem \ref{sd} we obtain a form of the decomposition theorem for the map $f$:
\[\text{gr}^\cdot K_0(X)\cong\text{gr}^\cdot \textbf{I} K_0(S)\oplus\bigoplus_{p\in B} K_0(p)^{|A_p|}.\]
See Section \ref{semismall} for further discussions of the decomposition theorem for semismall maps.
\subsubsection{}\label{surface}
Let $Y$ be a smooth projective variety of dimension $d$ and let $\mathcal{L}$ be a line bundle on $Y$. Consider the cone $S=C_Y\mathcal{L}$ and its resolution of singularities
\[X:=\text{Tot}_Y\mathcal{L}\xrightarrow{f} S.\]
Let $o$ be the vertex of the cone $X$. There is only one fiber with nonzero dimension
\begin{equation*}
\begin{tikzcd}
Y\arrow[r, hook, "\iota"]\arrow[d,"g"]&X\arrow[d,"f"]\\
o\arrow[r, hook]&S.
\end{tikzcd}
\end{equation*}
Using the correspondence $X\cong\Delta\hookrightarrow X\times_SX$, we see that
\[P'^{\leq 0}_f\text{gr}^\cdot K_\cdot(X)=\text{gr}^\cdot K_\cdot(X).\]
For $V\subsetneqq S$, the irreducible components of $f^{-1}(V)$ are $f_V:W\to V$ birational to $V$ and, if $V$ contains $o$, the fiber $Y$. As above, we have that $P'^{\leq 0}_{f_V}\text{gr}^\cdot G_\cdot(W)=\text{gr}^\cdot G_\cdot(W)$, so the conditions in defining $P^{\leq i}_f$ are automatically satisfied for these irreducible components $W$. We thus have that
\[P^{\leq 0}_f\text{gr}^\cdot K_\cdot(X)=\text{ker}\left(\iota^*:\text{gr}^\cdot K_\cdot(X)\to P'^{>1}_g\text{gr}^\cdot K_\cdot(Y) \right).\]
By the computation in Subsection \ref{oneex}, \[P'^{>1}_g\text{gr}^j K_\cdot(Y)=
\begin{cases} \mbox{$\text{gr}^jK_\cdot(Y)$} & \mbox{if } j> \lfloor \frac{d+1}{2} \rfloor, \\ \mbox{$0$} & \mbox{otherwise.} \end{cases}\]
The map $\iota^*: \text{gr}^jK_\cdot(X)\to \text{gr}^jK_\cdot(Y)$ is an isomorphism, so we have that
\[P^{\leq 0}_f\text{gr}^jK_\cdot(X)=
\begin{cases} \mbox{$\text{gr}^jK_\cdot(Y)$} & \mbox{if } j\leq \lfloor \frac{d+1}{2} \rfloor, \\ \mbox{$0$} & \mbox{otherwise.} \end{cases}\]
Further, $\widetilde{P}^{\leq 0}_f\text{gr}^\cdot K_\cdot(X)$ is generated by the cycles over $X_o\cong Y$ of codimension between $0$ and $\lfloor \frac{d-1}{2}\rfloor$. The map
\[\iota_*:\text{gr}^i K_\cdot(Y)\to \text{gr}^{i+2} K_\cdot(X)\cong \text{gr}^{i+2} K_\cdot(Y)\] is multiplication by the class $\hbar:=c_1(\mathcal{L}|_Y)\in \text{gr}^2 K_0(Y)$.
As a vector space, we thus have that
\[ \text{gr}^j IK_\cdot(S)=
\begin{cases} \mbox{$\text{gr}^j K_\cdot(Y)\big/\hbar\,\text{gr}^{j-2} K_\cdot(Y)$} & \mbox{if } j\leq \lfloor \frac{d+1}{2} \rfloor, \\ \mbox{$0$} & \mbox{otherwise.} \end{cases} \]
The computation in cohomology is similar, see \cite[Example 2.2.1]{dCM2}.
\section{The decomposition theorem for semismall maps}
\label{semismall}
We will be using the notation from Subsection \ref{ssn}. For $a,b \in A$, we write $b<a$ if $S_b\subsetneqq S_a$. Denote by $\iota_{ba}:X_b\hookrightarrow X_a$.
For $a\in A$, define
\[\widetilde{\P}^{\leq 0}_{f}\text{gr}^\cdot K_{X_a}(X)=\text{image}\left(\bigoplus_{b<a}\iota_{ba*}:\P^{\leq 0}_f\text{gr}^\cdot K_{X_b}(X)\to \P^{\leq 0}_f\text{gr}^\cdot K_{X_a}(X)\right).\]
First, we state a more precise version of Conjecture \ref{dss}.
\begin{conj}\label{dss2}
Let $f:X\to S$ be a semismall map and consider $\{S_a|\,a\in I\}$ a stratification as in Subsection \ref{ssn}, denote by $A\subset I$ the set of relevant strata. For $a\in A$, consider generically finite maps $\pi_a: T_a\to S_a$ with $T_a$ is smooth such that $\pi_a^{-1}(S_a^o)\to S_a^o$ is smooth and $L_a\cong f_*\left(\mathbb{Z}_{S^o_a}\right)$. For each $a$, there exists a rational map $X_a\dashrightarrow T_a$, and let $\Gamma_a$ be the closure of its graph
\begin{equation*}
\begin{tikzcd}
\Gamma_a\arrow[d]\arrow[r]&X_a\arrow[r, hook,"\iota_a"]\arrow[d,"f_a"]&X\arrow[d,"f"]\\
T_a\arrow[r,"\pi_a"]&S_a\arrow[r, hook]&S,
\end{tikzcd}
\end{equation*}
The correspondence $\Gamma_a$ induces an isomorphism
\begin{multline}\label{topdegree}
\iota_{a*}\Phi_{\Gamma_a}: \P^{\leq 0}_{\pi_a}\text{gr}^{j-c_a} K_\cdot(T_a)_\mathbb{Q}\big/\widetilde{\P}^{\leq 0}_{\pi_a}\text{gr}^{j-c_a} K_\cdot(T_a)_\mathbb{Q}\cong\\ \iota_{a*}\left(\P^{\leq 0}_{f}\text{gr}^{j} K_{X_a}(X)_\mathbb{Q}\big/\widetilde{\P}^{\leq 0}_{f}\text{gr}^j K_{X_a}(X)_\mathbb{Q}\right)
\end{multline}
and a decomposition
\begin{align*}
\bigoplus_{a\in A} \text{gr}^{j-c_a} \textbf{I} K_\cdot(S_a, L_a)_\mathbb{Q}&\cong\text{gr}^j K_\cdot(X)_\mathbb{Q}\\
(x_a)_{a\in A}&\mapsto \sum_{a\in A}\iota_{a*}\Phi_{\Gamma_a}(x_a).
\end{align*}
\end{conj}
In relation to \eqref{topdegree}, we propose the following:
\begin{conj}
Let $f:X\to S$ be a surjective map of relative dimension $d$ with $X$ is smooth. Let $U$ be a smooth open subset of $S$ such that $f^{-1}(U)\to U$ is smooth. For $y\in U$, $\pi_1(U, y)$ acts on the irreducible components of $f^{-1}(y)$ of top dimension and let $L$ be the associated local system. Then $L$ is an integer finite local system.
There is an isomorphism
\[\P^{\leq -d}_f\text{gr}^j K_\cdot(X)_\mathbb{Q}\big/\widetilde{\P}^{\leq -d}_f\text{gr}^j K_\cdot(X)_\mathbb{Q}\cong \text{gr}^j \textbf{I} K_\cdot(S,L)_\mathbb{Q}.\]
\end{conj}
The analogous statement in cohomology follows from the decomposition theorem.
In this section, we prove the following:
\begin{thm}\label{ss}
We use the notation from Conjecture \ref{dss2}. Assume that the maps $\pi_a: T_a\to S_a$ are small. Then Conjecture \ref{dss2} holds for $K_0$.
\end{thm}
We first note a preliminary result.
\begin{prop}\label{localrat}
Consider varieties $S$ and $X$, and a smooth variety $Y$ with surjective maps $f:X\to S$ of relative dimension $d$ and
$g:Y\to S$ of relative dimension $0$.
Assume there exists an open subset $U$ of $S$ and a map $h$ such that:
\begin{equation*}
\begin{tikzcd}
g^{-1}(U)\arrow[dr,"g"']& & f^{-1}(U)\arrow[dl,"f"]\arrow[ll,"h"']\\
&U&
\end{tikzcd}
\end{equation*}
Denote also by $h$ the rational map $h:X\dashrightarrow Y$. Consider a resolution of singularities $\pi:X'\to X$ such that there exists a regular map $h'$ as follows:
\begin{equation*}
\begin{tikzcd}
&X'\arrow[d,"\pi"]\arrow[ddl, bend right, "h'"']\\
&X\arrow[d,"f"]\arrow[dl,"h"']\\
Y\arrow[r,"g"]&S.
\end{tikzcd}
\end{equation*}
Let $\Gamma$ be the closure of the graph of $h$ in $Y\times X$ and let $\Gamma'$ be the graph of $h'$ in $Y\times X'$. Then the following diagram commutes:
\begin{equation*}
\begin{tikzcd}
\text{gr}^\cdot K_\cdot(Y)\arrow[r,"\Phi_{\Gamma'}"]\arrow[dr,"\Phi_\Gamma"']& \text{gr}^\cdot K_\cdot(X')\arrow[d,"\pi_*"]\\
& \text{gr}^\cdot G_\cdot(X).
\end{tikzcd}
\end{equation*}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Consider the maps:
\begin{equation*}
\begin{tikzcd}
Y\times X' \arrow[d,"\pi'"']\arrow[r,"p'"]&X'\arrow[d,"\pi"]\\
Y\times X\arrow[r,"p"]\arrow[d,"q"']&X\arrow[d,"f"]\\
Y\arrow[r,"g"]&S.
\end{tikzcd}
\end{equation*}
Let $x\in \text{gr}^\cdot K_\cdot(Y)$. We want to show that:
\[\pi_*p'_*(\Gamma'\otimes \pi'^*q^*(x))=p_*(\Gamma\otimes q^*(x)).\]
It suffices to show that
\begin{equation}\label{Gamma}
\pi'_*\left[\Gamma'\right]=\left[\Gamma\right]\text{ in }\text{gr}_\cdot G(X\times Y).
\end{equation}
Both $\Gamma$ and $\Gamma'$ have dimension equal to the dimension of $X$. The map $\pi':\Gamma'\to\Gamma$ is birational, so the cone of
\[\mathcal{O}_\Gamma\to\pi'_*\mathcal{O}_{\Gamma'}\] is supported on a proper set of $\Gamma$, which implies the equality in \eqref{Gamma}.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{ss}]
Let $a\in A$ and consider the diagram:
\begin{equation*}
\begin{tikzcd}
& Y_a\arrow[d,"\tau_a"]\arrow[ddl,"h_a"']&\\
&X_a\arrow[d,"f_a"]\arrow[r, hook]&X\arrow[d,"f"]\\
T_a\arrow[r,"\pi_a"]&S_a\arrow[r,hook]&S,
\end{tikzcd}
\end{equation*}
where the map $\tau_a$ is a resolution of singularities. Let $\Gamma_a$ be the closure of the natural rational map $X_a\dashrightarrow T_a$.
By Proposition \ref{localrat} and Theorem \ref{functorP}, the map $\Phi_{\Gamma_a}$ factors as:
\begin{equation*}
\Phi_{\Gamma_a}: \text{gr}^j K_\cdot(T_a)\xrightarrow{h_a^*}\text{gr}^j K_\cdot(Y_a)\xrightarrow{\tau_{a*}}\text{gr}^j G_\cdot(X_a)\to \text{gr}^{j+c_a} K_{X_a}(X).
\end{equation*}
By Theorems \ref{functorialityP} and \ref{sd}, the map $\Phi_{\Gamma_a}$ factors as:
\begin{multline*}
\Phi_{\Gamma_a}: \text{gr}^j K_0(T_a)=\P^{\leq 0}_{h_a}\text{gr}^j K_0(T_a)\xrightarrow{h_a^*}
\P^{\leq -d_a}_{f_a\tau_a}\text{gr}^j K_0(Y_a)\xrightarrow{\tau_{a*}}\P^{\leq -d_a}_{f_a}\text{gr}^j K_0(X_a)\to\\
\P^{\leq 0}\text{gr}^{j+c_a} K_{X_a,0}(X)\to
\P^{\leq 0}_f\text{gr}^{j+c_a} K_0(X)=\text{gr}^{j+c_a} K_0(X).
\end{multline*}
We thus obtain a map of vector spaces
\begin{multline}\label{facto}
\bigoplus_{a\in A}\Phi_{\Gamma_a}: \bigoplus_{a\in A}\text{gr}^{j-c_a} K_0(T_a)\to \bigoplus_{a\in A}\iota_{a*}\left(\P^{\leq 0}_{f}\text{gr}^j K_{X_a,0}(X)\big/\widetilde{\P}^{\leq 0}_{f}\text{gr}^j K_{X_a,0}(X)\right)\\\to \text{gr}^j K_0(X).
\end{multline}
A theorem of de Cataldo--Migliorini \cite[Theorem 4.0.4]{dCM} says that there is an isomorphism:
\[\bigoplus_{a\in A}\Phi_{\Gamma_a}:
\bigoplus_{a\in A}\text{gr}^{j-c_a} K_0(T_a)_\mathbb{Q}\xrightarrow{\sim} \text{gr}^{j} K_0(X)_\mathbb{Q}.\]
Combining with \eqref{facto}, we see that in this case
\[\Phi_{\Gamma_a}:\text{gr}^{j-c_a} K_0(T_a)_\mathbb{Q}\xrightarrow{\sim} \iota_{a*}\left(\P^{\leq 0}_{f}\text{gr}^j K_{X_a,0}(X)_\mathbb{Q}\big/\widetilde{\P}^{\leq 0}_{f}\text{gr}^j K_{X_a,0}(X)_\mathbb{Q}\right).\]
This implies the claim of Theorem \ref{ss}.
\end{proof}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec1}
Compared to the fluid-structure interaction (FSI) problem of cylinders open to the uniform flow \cite{wang2020review} that has been widely investigated, cylinders relative to oscillatory flow has attracted less attention. However, its significance cannot be undermined for its rich physics as well as its existence in all kinds of engineering projects, especially in the ocean engineering field. Fan \cite{fan2017drag} listed such examples that its role could be found in the offshore field such as the wave-induced oscillatory flow around the risers, mooring lines and point wave energy generators, underwater structures, such as blow-out preventers (BOP) \cite{fan2016hydrodynamic} forced oscillatory motion close to the seabed forced to vibrate under the influence of the upper riser vortex-induced vibration (VIV) \cite{xu2013experimental,fan2019mapping,wang2021large} as well as pump towers in the liquefied natural gas (LNG) ship experiencing sloshing load induced by ship rolling. For all the examples mentioned above, the hydrodynamic model of the problems can be simplified as cylinders having an oscillatory motion with respect to the surrounding fluid.
Wang \cite{wang1968high} in 1968, using the methods of inner and outer expansions, first theoretically studied this problem of a fixed circular cylinder in oscillatory flow to $O(\beta^{-\frac{3}{2}})$. Based on this theory, Bearman et al. \cite{bearman1985forces} experimentally measured and reported the in-line force (along with the oscillation direction) and its decomposed hydrodynamic coefficients on a circular cylinder for different $KC$ up to 10 and $\beta$ from 196 to 1665. The results showed an accurate prediction of the cylinder forces for $KC$ below 3 and for moderately high $\beta$. Further experiments performed by Sarpakaya \cite{sarpkaya1986force} confirmed that the drag and added mass coefficient $C_d$ and $C_m$ are in tune with the theory under the critical $KC$ number at which flow transited into unstable and depends on different $\beta$ for the smooth cylinders. Apart from the in-line forces, Williamson \cite{williamson1985sinusoidal} studied lift forces (perpendicular to the oscillation direction) by oscillating a circular cylinder in still fluid. Together with the flow visualization, the results reveal that the appearance of the different harmonics of the oscillation frequency in the lift force depended on $KC$, as flow pattern changed with increasing $KC$ from pair attached vortices around cylinder ($0<KC<7$) to single-pair shedding vortices ($7<KC<15$), double-pair shedding vortices ($15<KC<24$), three-pair shedding vortices ($24<KC<32$) and four-pair shedding vortices ($32<KC<40$). A more comprehensive flow visualization study was carried out by Tatsuno et al. \cite{tatsuno1990visual} for a broad range of $KC$ from 1.6 to 15 and various $\beta$ between 5 and 160, and a comprehensive flow regimes map was established where eight different flow regimes were identified (A$^*$, A, B, C, D, E, F, and G).
Several numerical studies have also been performed on this problem. Lin et al. \cite{lin1996numerical} first performed simulation on oscillatory flow around a circular cylinder at $\beta=76$, using 2D discrete vortex method. In the results, the flow pattern was reported to be well replicated by numerical methods compared to the experimental results. D{\"u}tsch et al.\cite{dutsch1998low} numerically investigated oscillation of a circular cylinder in still fluid for a fixed $\beta=35$ and a large range of $KC$ up to 20, in-line force, as well as mean velocity distribution predicted by the simulation, showed a good agreement with their experiments \cite{dutsch1998low}. Zhao et al. \cite{zhao2014two} using Petrov-Galerkin finite-element method (PG-FEM) simulated a large range of $KC$ and $\beta$ number and successfully reenacted the 8 different flow pattern observed by Tatsuno et al \cite{tatsuno1990visual}. At the same time, though a majority of the simulation was two-dimensional, some of which has also been performed to understand the three-dimensional character of the flow around cylinder. Nehari et al. \cite{nehari2004three} and An et al. \cite{an2015two} performed both two and three-dimensional numerical study for comparison and results revealed that the major physics, such as the flow regime and in-line forces, were not affected by the three-dimensional flow characters as the two-dimensional simulation was able to capture the key phenomena.
Compared to the study of the single cylinder in uniform/oscillatory flow or the single oscillating cylinder in still fluid, the case of multiple cylinders, or even just two cylinders \cite{lin2020dynamic,tan2018numerical}, was relatively rare and far more complicated, as an additional cylinder can cause strong hydrodynamic interaction among cylinders, similar to the case in the flow \cite{wu2017kill,fan2019vortex,lin2020dynamic}. Williamson \cite{williamson1985sinusoidal} experimentally studied two identical cylinders in side-by-side configuration oscillating in the still fluid. Results showed that two cylinders would behave as a single cylinder when gap ratio (Distance between two cylinders divided by cylinder diameter, $G/d$) was larger than 1.5 and the vortex shedding from the two cylinders achieved synchronization either in the phase of anti-phase based on $KC$ and $G/d$. In Williamson's further study \cite{williamson1985fluid} on two cylinders of different diameters in a side-by-side configuration, it revealed that there were mean attraction and repulsion lift force between two cylinders, depending on $KC$. Chern et al. \cite{chern2010cfd} performed two-dimensional numerical simulations and focused on the effect of the gap ratio on the flow pattern for identical side-by-side cylinders. They found a small gap had a significant effect on the vortex shedding pattern from the cylinders that it kept asymmetrical vortex shedding pattern for the two cylinders when $KC$ was smaller than 10. Zhao et al. \cite{zhao2014two} undertook 2D simulation on both side-by-side and tandem cylinder arrangement, they found, compared to the single cylinder case, there was new flow regime when an additional cylinder was introduced (such as new GVS flow regime of gap vortex shedding from the cylinders in side-by-side configuration). Furthermore, Tong et al. \cite{tong2015oscillatory} carried out simulations about four cylinders of square arrangement in oscillatory flow, and quite different flow characters were found when compared to those in the single and two cylinders.
In the current study, both experiments and numerical simulations have been carried out to investigate the hydrodynamics of the identical dual cylinders in both tandem and side-by-side configurations oscillating in still water. Hydrodynamic coefficients of added mass coefficient $C_m$ and drag coefficient $C_d$ are reported experimentally for both single cylinder and dual cylinders covering a large number of $KC$ up to 20 and several $\beta$ from 350 to 3100. 2D numerical results, though at a smaller $\beta=20$, capture the major phenomena observed in the experiments, such as the drag enhancement of side-by-side dual cylinders and provides a critical insight into the flow pattern around single and dual cylinders of different gap ratios and arrangements, and this helps to explain the hydrodynamic force difference between the single cylinders and dual ones. It is worthwhile to point out that compared to the previous researches\cite{zhao2014two}, the current paper not only provides the experimental result on force over a large range of $\beta$ number but also emphasizes on the link between the flow pattern change and the fluid force variation due to the existence of the dual cylinder hydrodynamic interaction.
\section{Experimental Description and Numerical Method}
\label{sec2}
\subsection{Experimental Setup and Data Processing}
\label{sec2_1}
\subsubsection{Experimental Setup}
\label{sec2_1_1}
The experimental facility \cite{fan2019robotic} allows a prescribed sinusoidal oscillation of the cylinder model in the still water with different amplitudes and frequencies, hence covering a large range of $KC$ from 1 to 20 and $\beta$ from 350 to 3100, using cylinder models of three different diameters. Five different gap ratios are chosen as 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, 3.0 and $\infty$ (the single cylinder case) respectively, and meanwhile two configurations of tandem ($\theta = 0^o$) \cite{zhang2017numerical} and side-by-side ($\theta = 90^o$) \cite{fan2017drag} are tested in the current dual cylinder experiment. Detailed parameters are listed in Table \ref{tab:expcond}. The force data were recorded for two cylinders by two ATI Gamma sensors independently while the prescribed motion information was collected simultaneously. This allows the calculation of the added mass coefficient $C_m$ (force component in the phase of acceleration) and the drag coefficient $C_d$ (the force component in the phase of velocity).
\begin{table}[htbp]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccc}
\hline
\textbf{Model Parameters} & \textbf{} \\
\hline
Diameter $d$ & 2.54cm, 3.81cm, 5.08cm \\
Test Length $L$ (Immersed) & 58.42cm\\
\hline
\textbf{Experiment Parameters} & \textbf{} \\
\hline
KC Number ($2\pi \frac{A}{D}$) & 1.0 to 20.0\\
Stokes Number $\beta$ ($Re$/$KC$) & 350, 700, 1190, 1580, 2120, 3100 \\
Gap ratio ($G/d$) & 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, $\infty$\\
Configuration & Side-by-side, Tandem \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Model and experiment parameters}
\label{tab:expcond}
\end{table}
\subsubsection{Hydrodynamic Coefficient}
\label{sec2_1_2}
The inline force (along with the direction of the motion) on the oscillating cylinders can be modeled, using Morison equation \cite{morison1950force} as follows,
\begin{equation}
F_x = \frac{1}{2}\rho SC_{d}\left|\dot{X}\right|\dot{X} + \rho \nabla C_{m}\ddot{X},
\end{equation}
in which $\rho$ is the fluid density, $S$ is the projected area of the model along with the motion, $\nabla$ is the model displacement and $X$ is the motion of the model. In the current experiment, the motion is prescribed as a sinusoidal motion of $X = Asin(\omega t)$. Hence the added mass coefficient $C_{m}$ and the drag coefficient $C_{d}$ can be obtained with the measured in-line force $F_x(t)$, as the following equations,
\begin{equation}
C_d = \frac{\frac{1}{T}\int^{T}_{0}\hat{F}_{x}(t)\dot{X}(t)t}{\frac{2}{3\pi}\rho S(A\omega)^3},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
C_m = \frac{\frac{1}{T}\int^{T}_{0}\hat{F}_{x}(t)\ddot{X}(t)dt}{\frac{1}{2}\rho \nabla A^2\omega^4},
\end{equation}
where $\hat{F}_x(t)$ is $F_x(t)$ after applying non-casual band-filter (non-causality avoids to introduce artificial phase shift) to obtain the force component with the same frequency as the imposed oscillation motion.
The cross flow force (perpendicular to the direction of the motion) is referred as the lift force. In the current experiment, the mean and root mean square of the lift coefficients are calculated in the following equations,
\begin{equation}
\overline{C_l} = \frac{\frac{1}{T}\int^{T}_{0}F_y(t)dt}{\frac{1}{2}\rho S(A\omega)^2},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
C^{rms}_l = \frac{\sqrt{\frac{1}{T}\int^{T}_{0}(F_y(t)-\overline{F_y(t)})^2dt}}{\frac{1}{2}\rho S(A\omega)^2},
\end{equation}
in which $F_y(t)$ is the measured cross flow force.
\subsection{Numerical Method}
A Boundary Data Immersed Method (BDIM) based solver is used in this paper for the numerical simulation \cite{weymouth2011boundary,fan2020reinforcementArXiv,fan2020reinforcement,fan2020deep,wang2020active} to solve the problems of immersion of two oscillating cylinders in the fluid. BDIM is based on a general integration kernel formulation which combines the field equations of each domain and the inter-facial conditions analytically. The resulting governing equation for the complete domain preserves the behavior of the original system in an efficient Cartesian-grid method, including stable and accurate pressure values on the solid boundary.
The numerical simulation setup is quite similar to the experimental arrangement, except that the simulation is in 2-dimension. The calculation domain is chosen to be $40D \times 40D$ to erase the boundary and block effect, which is quite influential in this study. Unlike other traditional CFD methods, BDIM based solver does not need a complicated meshing technique for complex body shapes as well as significant structural motions. The resolution of the current simulation is based on the mesh number per cylinder diameter. Furthermore, a mesh dependent study will be presented in the later sections of a single cylinder case, together with a comparison between the current and existing studies.
What is worth mentioning is that $\beta$ in the current experiment and numerical simulation is chosen to be different. beta number is fixed at $\beta = 20$ in the simulation for different $KC$ numbers (hence numerical simulations have a smaller $Re = KC\times \beta$ than experiments) to guarantee a 2D flow. However, despite $\beta$ difference, numerical simulation in the current research is still able to capture the major physical phenomena observed in the experiment. Hence, a flow visualization provided by the simulation is still a valuable source for understanding and explaining the experimental results.
\section{Single Cylinder Oscillating in still Water}
The single cylinder in oscillatory flow or the single oscillating cylinder in the still fluid has been studied before both experimentally and numerically. In this section, the current experimental and numerical results of a single cylinder oscillating in still water will be reported.
\label{sec3}
\subsection{Experimental Results: Hydrodynamic Coefficients}
\label{sec3_1}
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}{0.4\columnwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth,keepaspectratio]{Fig/Single/Cm.eps}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.4\columnwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth,keepaspectratio]{Fig/Single/Cd.eps}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Single cylinder: trend of $C_m$ (left) and $C_d$ (right) with respect to $KC$. Marker \textcolor{yellow}{$\bigstar$} shows the result from Sarparkaya \cite{sarpkaya1986force}. It is noteworthy that in Sarparkaya's experiment, due to the experimental setup of a stationary cylinder in the oscillatory fluid, the added mass coefficient $C_m$ reported in \cite{sarpkaya1986force} includes Froude–Krylov force term, and hence is equal to $1+C_m$ reported in the current experiment.}
\label{fig:CSingle}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}{0.4\columnwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth,keepaspectratio]{Fig/Single/01_Cl_KC.eps}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.4\columnwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth,keepaspectratio]{Fig/Single/01_Cl_FFT.eps}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Single cylinder: trend of $C^{rms}_{l}$ along with $KC$ (left); PSD of $C_l$ along with $KC$ for $\beta = 350$ (right)}
\label{fig:ClSingle}
\end{figure}
The added mass coefficient $C_m$ of the single cylinder ($G/d = \infty$) is presented in Fig. \ref{fig:CSingle}(left) with the increase of $KC$ for various $\beta$. We observe that $C_m$ decreases with an increasing $KC$ and reaches a minimum of around $KC = 11$ and then increases again to a constant value of $C_m = 1.0$. Besides, it is found that in the current $\beta$ ranging from 350 to 3100, $C_m$ is weakly related to $\beta$ variation. Meanwhile, the drag coefficient of $C_d$ is plotted in Fig. \ref{fig:CSingle}(right). It is found that $C_d$ depends on both $KC$ and $\beta$ that $C_d$ generally will jump quickly to a small value for $KC$ from 1.0 to 2.0 and then increase to a steady value with increasing $KC$. Furthermore, it is observed that with the increase of $\beta$, $C_d$ for different $KC$ will decrease accordingly. Such similar trends were reported by Sarpkaya \cite{sarpkaya1986force}. The hydrodynamic coefficients $C_m$ and $C_d$ reported in \cite{sarpkaya1986force} at $\beta = 1380$ is plotted in Fig. \ref{fig:CSingle} to compare with the those obtained in the current experiment. It is noteworthy that due to the different experimental setup between the current research (cylinder oscillating in the still water) and \cite{sarpkaya1986force} (a stationary cylinder in the oscillatory fluid), the added mass coefficient $C_m$ reported in \cite{sarpkaya1986force} includes Froude–Krylov force term, and hence is equal to $1 + C_m$ reported in the current experiment. It is found that compared to the case of $\beta = 1580$, the two sets of experimental results show the similar trend of decreasing $C_m$ and increasing $C_d$ in the current $KC$ range. However, difference in value between the current result and \cite{sarpkaya1986force} can be observed at low $KC$ number, which may be attributed to the different experimental setup, including turbulence rate, free surface effect, model 3D effect and so forth.
The result of the lift coefficient RMS $C^{rms}_l$ is plotted in Fig. \ref{fig:ClSingle}(left) for different $\beta$ along with $KC$. It is observed that the lift coefficient RMS will have a sudden jump at $KC$ around seven and the second one at $KC$ around 14 for all $\beta$ cases in the current experiment. Moreover, the FFT results of $\beta = 350$ for all $KC$ are plotted in Fig. \ref{fig:ClSingle}(right), and it is observed the non-dimensional frequency of the lift coefficient $C_l$ ($F/f_{vib}$) changes with the increase of $KC$. The single cylinder will first have the same frequency in the lift direction as the in-line oscillation frequency when $KC$ is smaller than 6. Then a strong component of double oscillation frequency will dominate the lift response for $KC$ from 7 to 14 and is followed by the appearance of the third harmonics. These phenomena were also observed by Williamson \cite{williamson1985sinusoidal} and explained that the single oscillating cylinder in the still fluid would experience flow pattern change within a different KC range via flow visualization. When $KC <7$, vortices generated from the cylinder will attach to the moving cylinder when $7 < KC <15$, a pair of vortices will be shed away from each period of the cylinder oscillation, and this is followed by the double pair shedding vortices pattern when $KC >15$.
\subsection{Numerical Simulation: Flow Visualization}
\label{sec3_2}
Five types of meshes have been used in the current numerical study from coarse to dense, characterized by the number of nodes per cylinder diameter. Case of single cylinder of $KC=5$ and $\beta=20$ ($Re=100$) is chosen for the mesh dependence study, shown in Table \ref{tab:mesh}. The comparison of the force coefficients in Table \ref{tab:mesh} shows the convergence of the hydrodynamic coefficients from coarse to dense mesh, and mesh case 3, case 4 and case 5 achieve almost the same results and hence mesh of 100 nodes along the cylinder diameter is used in the current study. Compared with the existing numerical result, shown in Table \ref{tab:comp}, a good agreement can be observed for both $C_m$ and $C_d$.
\begin{table}[htbp]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{cccc}
\hline
\textbf{Mesh Case} & \textbf{$N_c$} & \textbf{$C_m$} & \textbf{$C_d$}\\
\hline
Mesh 1 & 50 & 1.28 & 2.25 \\
Mesh 2 & 75 & 1.37 & 2.12 \\
Mesh 3 & 100 & 1.41 & 2.02 \\
Mesh 4 & 130 & 1.42 & 2.02 \\
Mesh 5 & 200 & 1.40 & 2.04 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Comparison of the hydrodynamic coefficients of single cylinder of $KC=5$ and $\beta=20$. $N_c$ is the node number along cylinder diameter}
\label{tab:mesh}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[htbp]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccc}
\hline
\textbf{Source ($KC = 5, \beta= 20$)} & \textbf{$C_m$} & \textbf{$C_d$}\\
\hline
Current (Mesh 3) & 1.41 & 2.02 \\
Zhao et al. (2D Simulation \cite{zhao2014two}) & 1.48 & 2.04\\
Uzunoglu et al. (2D Simulation \cite{uzunouglu2001low}) & 1.45 & 2.10\\
Nehari et al. (2D Simulation \cite{nehari2004three}) & 1.43 & 2.10\\
Nehari et al. (3D Simulation \cite{nehari2004three}) & 1.47 & 2.04\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Comparison of the hydrodynamic coefficients between current and existing numerical results}
\label{tab:comp}
\end{table}
Simulations at a constant $\beta=20$ were performed for $KC$ from 1 to 12, and the time snapshots of the vorticity around the single cylinder in a half oscillation periodfor $KC=4$ and $KC=8$ at $t/\tau$ of 0, $\frac{1}{4}$ and $\frac{1}{2}$ is displayed in Fig. \ref{fig:vortSingle} ($\tau$ is the oscillation period). By comparison, two flow regimes can be observed between $KC = 4$ and $KC = 8$. Similar to what was visualized by Williamson \cite{williamson1985sinusoidal}, when $KC <7$, the flow regime of attached vortex pairs around the cylinder is found, while it changes to a new regime of shedding a single pair of vortices in one period of oscillation when $7 < KC <15$. It is this change of flow pattern that gives rise to the dominating twice of the oscillating frequency in the lift direction.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}{0.32\columnwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth,keepaspectratio]{Fig/Single/Flow/KC=4/01_KC=4_t=1.eps}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.32\columnwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth,keepaspectratio]{Fig/Single/Flow/KC=4/01_KC=4_t=3.eps}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.32\columnwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth,keepaspectratio]{Fig/Single/Flow/KC=4/01_KC=4_t=5.eps}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.32\columnwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth,keepaspectratio]{Fig/Single/Flow/KC=8/01_KC=4_t=1.eps}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.32\columnwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth,keepaspectratio]{Fig/Single/Flow/KC=8/01_KC=4_t=3.eps}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.32\columnwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth,keepaspectratio]{Fig/Single/Flow/KC=8/01_KC=4_t=5.eps}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.55\columnwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth,keepaspectratio]{Fig/Single/Flow/cbar.eps}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Snapshot of vorticity plot for single cylinder ($\beta = 20$) at $KC=4$ (first row, $C_m = 1.52$, $C_d = 2.11$) and at $KC=8$ (second row, $C_m = 1.08$, $C_d = 1.78$) at $t/\tau$ of 0 (left), $\frac{1}{4}$ (middle) and $\frac{1}{2}$ (right).}
\label{fig:vortSingle}
\end{figure}
\section{Dual Cylinder in Side-by-Side Configuration}
\label{sec4}
Experimental and numerical results of the oscillating side-by-side cylinders in still water will be presented in this section with a comparison with the single cylinder case.
\subsection{Experimental Results: Hydrodynamic Coefficients}
\label{sec4_1}
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}{0.4\columnwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth,keepaspectratio]{Fig/SbS/01_Cm-KC_05.eps}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.4\columnwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth,keepaspectratio]{Fig/SbS/01_Cm-KC_10.eps}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.4\columnwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth,keepaspectratio]{Fig/SbS/01_Cm-KC_20.eps}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.4\columnwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth,keepaspectratio]{Fig/SbS/01_Cm-KC_30.eps}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Cylinders in side-by-side configuration: trend of $C_m$ along with $KC$ for different $\beta$ at $G/d = 0.5$ (top left), $G/d = 1.0$ (top right), $G/d = 2.0$ (bottom left) and $G/d = 3.0$ (bottom right)}
\label{fig:CmSbS}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.4\columnwidth,keepaspectratio]{Fig/SbS/01_Cm-Beta=350.eps}
\caption{Cylinders in side-by-side configuration: trend of $C_m$ along with $KC$ for $\beta = 350$ at different $G/d$}
\label{fig:CmSbSGap}
\end{figure}
Fig. \ref{fig:CmSbS} plots the added mass coefficient $C_m$ of different $\beta$ for 4 gap ratios $G/d$ of 0.5, 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0. Similar to the single cylinder case, in the current $\beta$ range, $C_m$ of side-by-side dual cylinders for all gap ratios is not sensitive to the change of $\beta$ while strongly dependent on the increasing $KC$. It is found in general for all gap ratios, $C_m$ will first decrease with increasing $KC$ and then converge to a constant value for large $KC$. However, a difference can be found between different gap ratios on how fast $C_m$ decreases to what constant value. As for $G/d = 0.5$, when the interaction between the two cylinders is the strongest, it is observed $C_m$ will reach a minimum around $KC = 4$ and then converge to a value of around $C_m = 1.5$, and yet the $KC$ for the minimum $C_m$ increases with the increasing $G/d$, while the steady value of $C_m$ approaches 1.0 when gap distance gets larger. To reveal the effect of the interaction between two cylinders in a side-by-side configuration, in Fig. \ref{fig:CmSbSGap}, it plots $C_m$ at different $G/d$ (including single cylinder case of $G/d=\infty$) for $\beta = 350$ along with $KC$. As mentioned above, the $C_m$ difference between cylinders of different gap ratios lies in how fast $C_m$ decreases and to what constant value. In addition, it is observed that when gap distance is larger as 2.0 and 3.0, the distribution of $C_m$ along with $KC$ is close to the single cylinder case at same $\beta$, as naturally when the gap distance is larger, the interaction between two cylinders become weaker and weaker and hence simply behave like two independent cylinders.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}{0.4\columnwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth,keepaspectratio]{Fig/SbS/02_Cd-Beta=350.eps}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.4\columnwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth,keepaspectratio]{Fig/SbS/02_Cd-Beta=700.eps}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Cylinders in side-by-side configuration: trend of $C_d$ along with $KC$ at different $G/d$ for $\beta = 350$ (left) and $\beta = 700$ (right)}
\label{fig:CdSbSGap}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}{0.4\columnwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth,keepaspectratio]{Fig/SbS/02_Cd-KC_05.eps}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.4\columnwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth,keepaspectratio]{Fig/SbS/02_Cd-KC_10.eps}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.4\columnwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth,keepaspectratio]{Fig/SbS/02_Cd-KC_20.eps}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.4\columnwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth,keepaspectratio]{Fig/SbS/02_Cd-KC_30.eps}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Cylinders in side-by-side configuration: trend of $C_d$ along with $KC$ for different $\beta$ at $G/d = 0.5$ (top left), $G/d = 1.0$ (top right), $G/d = 2.0$ (bottom left) and $G/d = 3.0$ (bottom right)}
\label{fig:CdSbS}
\end{figure}
In Fig. \ref{fig:CdSbS}, it plots the drag coefficient $C_d$ of different $\beta$ for 4 gap ratios $G/d$ of 0.5, 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0. In general, $C_d$ has a similar trend with KC for side-by-side dual cylinders, compared to the single cylinder case that $C_d$ increases with increasing $KC$ and then decreases slightly to a constant value. However, one of the most striking results is that for all $\beta$, with the decrease of the $G/d$, we observe a coherent enhancement for Cd. Here in Fig. \ref{fig:CdSbSGap}, it plots two cases of $\beta = 350$ and $\beta = 700$ for different gap ratios G/d (including single cylinder case of $G/d=\infty$.) along with $KC$. It is revealed that compared to the single cylinder, $C_d$ of $G/d = 0.5$ and $G/d = 1.0$ are largely amplified, especially for the case of $G/d = 0.5$, its $C_d$ can reach almost twice that of the single cylinder. At the same time, when gap distances get larger as to 2 and 3 times of the cylinder diameter, it is found the results of their $C_d$ are really close to the single cylinder case, and hence the interaction between the two cylinders are weak, same as what is observed from $C_m$ results.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}{0.4\columnwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth,keepaspectratio]{Fig/SbS/03_Clavg-KC_05.eps}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.4\columnwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth,keepaspectratio]{Fig/SbS/03_Clavg-Beta=350.eps}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Cylinders in side-by-side configuration: trend of $\overline{C_l}$ along with $KC$ for different $\beta$ at $G/d = 0.5$ (left) and for $\beta = 350$ at different $G/d$ (right)}
\label{fig:ClavgSbS}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}{0.44\columnwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth,keepaspectratio]{Fig/SbS/03_Cltd-KC_05.eps}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.4\columnwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth,keepaspectratio]{Fig/SbS/03_Cltd-KC_10.eps}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.4\columnwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth,keepaspectratio]{Fig/SbS/03_Cltd-KC_20.eps}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.4\columnwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth,keepaspectratio]{Fig/SbS/03_Cltd-KC_30.eps}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Cylinders in side-by-side configuration: trend of $C^{rms}_l$ along with $KC$ for different $\beta$ at $G/d = 0.5$ (top left), $G/d = 1.0$ (top right), $G/d = 2.0$ (bottom left) and $G/d = 3.0$ (bottom right)}
\label{fig:ClstdSbS}
\end{figure}
With the configuration of the side-by-side dual cylinder, it may induce a mean lift coefficient on each cylinder pointing towards or away from each other \cite{williamson1985fluid}. In Fig. \ref{fig:ClavgSbS}(left), it plots the mean lift coefficient $C_l$ on one cylinder for different $\beta$ at $G/d = 0.5$. It shows some interesting phenomena that cylinders will first experience a mean lift force pushing two cylinders close to each other at smaller $KC$ at $G/d = 0.5$, with an increase of $KC$, and this mean force will switch direction around $KC = 7$, pushing the two cylinders away from each other. This holds for all $\beta$. When the gap distance between two cylinders becomes larger, the mean lift coefficient hence will also get smaller, and this is revealed in Fig. \ref{fig:ClavgSbS}(right) of $C_l$ on one cylinder for $\beta = 350$ at $G/d$. It can be observed that for $G/d = 1.0$, its $C_l$ will hold a similar trend but a smaller value as that of $G/d = 0.5$, and when gap becomes large as $G/d = 2.0$, the mean lift coefficient $C_l$ is close to 0 for all $KC$.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.4\columnwidth,keepaspectratio]{Fig/SbS/03_Cltd-Beta=350.eps}
\caption{Cylinders in side-by-side configuration: trend of $C^{rms}_l$ along with $KC$ for $\beta = 350$ at different $G/d$}
\label{fig:ClstdSbSGap}
\end{figure}
Furthermore, the lift coefficient RMS $C^{rms}_l$ is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:ClstdSbS} for all $\beta$ at different $G/d$. The result shows that though there is difference among different $\beta$ and $G/d$, the overall trend holds for $C^{rms}_l$ that it will first rise up then drop down with the increasing $KC$. Moreover, it is observed that with the smaller gap ratio and hence the stronger interaction between two cylinders, the larger $C^{rms}_l$ will be, as it is plotted in Fig. \ref{fig:ClstdSbSGap} of $C^{rms}_l$ for $\beta = 350$ at different $G/d$ along with $KC$. Unlike $C_m$, $C_d$ and $\overline{C_l}$, even for $G/d=2.0$, there is still a large difference between $C^{rms}_l$ of the side-by-side dual cylinders and the single cylinder.
\subsection{Numerical Simulation: Flow Visualization}
\label{sec4_2}
Numerical simulation, using the same mesh setup as in the single cylinder case, was conducted on the dual cylinders in side-by-side configuration for $KC$ of 4 and 8, $\beta = 20$ and G/d of 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.75, 0.9, 1.0, 1.25, 1.5, 1.6, 1.75, 2.0 and 3.0 respectively.
In the last subsection, we observe that when the two cylinders get closer, the drag coefficient is enhanced, which indicates a stronger wake interaction between two cylinders. As the Morison Equation states, the drag coefficient component is a dissipative term while the added mass coefficient component is a conservative term, which can be manifest itself through the following integral in one oscillation period,
\begin{equation}
\int^{T}_0 F_x \cdot \dot{X}dt=\int^{T}_0(\frac{1}{2} \rho SC_d|\dot{X}|\dot{X} + \rho \nabla C_{m} \ddot{X})\cdot \dot{X}dt=\frac{4}{3\omega}\rho SC_dA^3.
\end{equation}
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}{0.32\columnwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth,keepaspectratio]{Fig/SbS/Flow/KC=4_G=05/00_t=1.eps}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.32\columnwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth,keepaspectratio]{Fig/SbS/Flow/KC=4_G=05/00_t=3.eps}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.32\columnwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth,keepaspectratio]{Fig/SbS/Flow/KC=4_G=05/00_t=5.eps}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.32\columnwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth,keepaspectratio]{Fig/SbS/Flow/KC=8_G=05/00_t=1.eps}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.32\columnwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth,keepaspectratio]{Fig/SbS/Flow/KC=8_G=05/00_t=3.eps}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.32\columnwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth,keepaspectratio]{Fig/SbS/Flow/KC=8_G=05/00_t=5.eps}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.55\columnwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth,keepaspectratio]{Fig/Single/Flow/cbar.eps}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Snapshot of vorticity plot for side-by-side cylinders ($\beta = 20$, $G/d = 0.5$) at $KC=4$ (first row, $C_m = 1.61$, $C_d = 3.24$) and at $KC=8$ (second row, $C_m = 1.76$, $C_d = 2.79$) at $t/\tau$ of 0 (left), $\frac{1}{4}$ (middle) and $\frac{1}{2}$ (right).}
\label{fig:vortSbSG05}
\end{figure}
The flow visualization is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:vortSbSG05} of the cylinder pair in a side-by-side configuration for (first row) and (second row) reveals that compared to the single cylinder at same $KC = 4$ and $KC = 8$, the shedding vortex is strengthened due to the existence of the energetic flow jet induced by the gap between two cylinders. Tracking the vortex pair left the cylinder, we can see that the vortex pair can maintain its shape and also achieve high self-induced velocity away from the cylinder for a much longer time and distance, compared to the faster-decayed vortex wake in the single cylinder case. Moreover, therefore, the vortex pair generated between the gap enhances the energy transfer/dissipation from the cylinder to the fluid into the far flow field. Thus this explains the phenomenon of the enhancement of the drag coefficient, which is directly associated with the energy transfer between the fluid and structure.
\section{Dual Cylinder in Tandem Configuration}
\label{sec5}
Experimental and numerical results of the oscillating tandem cylinders in still water will be presented in this section with a comparison with a single cylinder case.
\subsection{Experimental Results: Hydrodynamic Coefficients}
\label{sec5_1}
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}{0.4\columnwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth,keepaspectratio]{Fig/Tandem/01_Cm-KC_05.eps}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.4\columnwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth,keepaspectratio]{Fig/Tandem/01_Cm-KC_10.eps}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.4\columnwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth,keepaspectratio]{Fig/Tandem/01_Cm-KC_20.eps}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.4\columnwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth,keepaspectratio]{Fig/Tandem/01_Cm-KC_30.eps}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Cylinders in tandem configuration: trend of $C_m$ along with $KC$ for different $\beta$ at $G/d = 0.5$ (top left), $G/d = 1.0$ (top right), $G/d = 2.0$ (bottom left) and $G/d = 3.0$ (bottom right)}
\label{fig:CmTandem}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.4\columnwidth,keepaspectratio]{Fig/Tandem/01_Cm-Beta=350.eps}
\caption{Cylinders in tandem configuration: trend of $C_m$ along with $KC$ for $\beta = 350$ at different $G/d$}
\label{fig:CmTandemGap}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}{0.4\columnwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth,keepaspectratio]{Fig/Tandem/02_Cd-KC_05.eps}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.4\columnwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth,keepaspectratio]{Fig/Tandem/02_Cd-KC_10.eps}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.4\columnwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth,keepaspectratio]{Fig/Tandem/02_Cd-KC_20.eps}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.4\columnwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth,keepaspectratio]{Fig/Tandem/02_Cd-KC_30.eps}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Cylinders in tandem configuration: trend of $C_d$ along with $KC$ for different $\beta$ at $G/d = 0.5$ (top left), $G/d = 1.0$ (top right), $G/d = 2.0$ (bottom left) and $G/d = 3.0$ (bottom right)}
\label{fig:CdTandem}
\end{figure}
The added mass coefficient $C_m$ for tandem dual cylinder is first plotted in Fig. \ref{fig:CmTandem} for 4 gap ratios $G/d$ of 0.5, 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0. The result shows that the overall $C_m$ of tandem cylinders will be smaller than that of the cylinders in a side-by-side configuration. Furthermore, it is observed that when the gap distance is smaller and naturally the interaction between two cylinders will be stronger, $C_m$ does not change too much with $KC$, and hence is more like a constant value. Meanwhile, when the gap ratio $G/d$ gets larger, $C_m$ is again dependent on $KC$. In Fig. 15, it plots $C_m$ at different $G/d$ (including single cylinder case of $G/d=\infty$) for $\beta = 350$ along with $KC$. It shows the gap effect on $C_m$ for a tandem oscillating cylinder that when $G/d$ gets larger, the difference of $C_m$ between the single cylinder and tandem cylinders becomes smaller. In addition, $C_m$ first increases, then decreases and finally rises again with an increasing $KC$ number.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.4\columnwidth,keepaspectratio]{Fig/Tandem/02_Cd-Beta=350.eps}
\caption{Cylinders in tandem configuration: trend of $C_d$ along with $KC$ for $\beta = 700$ at different $G/d$}
\label{fig:CdTandemGap}
\end{figure}
Fig. \ref{fig:CdTandem} plots the drag coefficient $C_d$ for 4 gap ratios $G/d$ of 0.5, 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0. The result shows that $C_d$ will first increase then decrease with an increasing $KC$ for all gap ratios, and however, the $KC$ corresponding to the maximum $C_d$ varies with different gap ratios, that is when the gap is smaller, the maximum $C_d$ $KC$ becomes smaller. To further reveal the gap effect on $C_d$, in Fig. \ref{fig:CdTandemGap}, it plots $C_d$ at different $G/d$ (including single cylinder case of $G/d=\infty$) for $\beta = 700$ along with $KC$. Again we can see, when $G/d$ is larger, $C_d$, of a single cylinder and that of tandem cylinders are alike. At the same time, it is found that, at a larger $KC$, $C_d$ will decrease with a decrease of $G/d$. Compared to the results of the cylinders in a side-by-side configuration, when the gap is smaller, and interaction is stronger, $C_d$ for both tandem and side-by-side configuration will be largely altered compared to that in a single cylinder case. However, the side-by-side configuration will enhance $C_d$, while the tandem configuration will result in a drop in $C_d$.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}{0.4\columnwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth,keepaspectratio]{Fig/Tandem/03_Cltd-KC_05.eps}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.4\columnwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth,keepaspectratio]{Fig/Tandem/03_Cltd-KC_10.eps}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.4\columnwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth,keepaspectratio]{Fig/Tandem/03_Cltd-KC_20.eps}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.4\columnwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth,keepaspectratio]{Fig/Tandem/03_Cltd-KC_30.eps}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Cylinders in tandem configuration: trend of $C^{rms}_l$ along with $KC$ for different $\beta$ at $G/d = 0.5$ (top left), $G/d = 1.0$ (top right), $G/d = 2.0$ (bottom left) and $G/d = 3.0$ (bottom right)}
\label{fig:ClstdTandem}
\end{figure}
For cylinders in a tandem configuration, in the current experiment, we find that it will have a zero mean lift coefficient $\overline{C_l}$, compared to the side-by-side configuration. Moreover, the lift coefficient RMS $C^{rms}_l$ is observed to have some more interesting phenomena and hence is plotted in Fig. \ref{fig:ClstdTandem} for 4 gap ratios $G/d$ of 0.5, 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0. Though there is no definite trend for $C^{rms}_l$ that can be concluded for $KC$ and $\beta$, it is obvious that $C^{rms}_l$ is smaller when $G/d$ is small. To better reveal the effect of $G/d$, it is plotted in Fig. \ref{fig:ClstdTandemGap} of $C^{rms}_l$ at different $G/d$ (including single cylinder case of $G/d=\infty$) for $\beta=350$ and $\beta=700$. Clearly it is revealed that, compared to the single cylinder as well as the larger $G/d$ cases, $C^{rms}_l$ of $G/d=0.5$ is much smaller over the entire $KC$ range.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}{0.4\columnwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth,keepaspectratio]{Fig/Tandem/03_Cltd-Beta=350.eps}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.4\columnwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth,keepaspectratio]{Fig/Tandem/03_Cltd-Beta=700.eps}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Cylinders in tandem configuration: trend of $C^{rms}_l$ along with $KC$ at different $G/d$ for $\beta = 350$ (left) and $\beta = 700$ (right)}
\label{fig:ClstdTandemGap}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Numerical Simulation: Flow Visualization}
\label{sec5_2}
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}{0.32\columnwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth,keepaspectratio]{Fig/Tandem/Flow/KC=4_G=05/00_t=1.eps}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.32\columnwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth,keepaspectratio]{Fig/Tandem/Flow/KC=4_G=05/00_t=3.eps}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.32\columnwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth,keepaspectratio]{Fig/Tandem/Flow/KC=8_G=05/00_t=1.eps}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.32\columnwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth,keepaspectratio]{Fig/Tandem/Flow/KC=8_G=05/00_t=3.eps}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.32\columnwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth,keepaspectratio]{Fig/Tandem/Flow/KC=8_G=05/00_t=5.eps}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.32\columnwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth,keepaspectratio]{Fig/Tandem/Flow/KC=4_G=05/00_t=5.eps}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.55\columnwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth,keepaspectratio]{Fig/Single/Flow/cbar.eps}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Snapshot of vorticity plot for tandem cylinders ($\beta = 20$, $G/d = 0.5$) at $KC=4$ (first row, $C_m = 1.18$, $C_d = 1.44$) and at $KC=8$ (second row, $C_m = 1.25$, $C_d = 1.23$) at $t/\tau$ of 0 (left), $\frac{1}{4}$ (middle) and $\frac{1}{2}$ (right).}
\label{fig:vortTandemG05}
\end{figure}
The simulated flow visualization of the cylinder pair in a tandem configuration at $G/d = 0.5$ is plotted in Fig. \ref{fig:vortTandemG05} for $KC = 4$ (first row) and $KC = 8$ (second row). The result shows that at $G/d = 0.5$, the shedding or attached vortices from the cylinder merge with the vortices of the same sign from the other cylinder, which creates a symmetric vortical wake pattern. Such a wake pattern explains the reduction of the drag coefficient of the cylinder pair in a tandem configuration, shown in Fig. \ref{fig:CdTandem}. At a small $G/d$, due to the blocking effect of the other cylinders, strength of the vortex generated is weaker, and therefore the drag coefficient is smaller than that of a single cylinder. In the meantime, due to the symmetric wake as a result of the merge and thus elongation of the vortices on either side of the cylinder pair in a tandem configuration, the RMS of the lift forces coefficient is small.
\section{Conclusion}
\label{sec6}
In this paper, we focus on the hydrodynamic problems of a cylinder pair in the oscillatory flow with a side-by-side and a tandem configuration. The experiment findings reveal that over a wide range of $KC$ and $\beta$, with a decrease in the gap ratio, the interaction between two cylinders gets stronger for both side-by-side and tandem cylinder pairs. The experiment also shows that with the decreasing gap ratio, the drag coefficient and the RMS of the lift coefficient will be enhanced for the cylinder pair in a side-by-side configuration, while those two coefficients will be reduced for the cylinder pair in a tandem configuration. In order to clearly reveal the flow physics of the hydrodynamic force variation due to the interaction between the dual cylinders, flow visualization is provided by numerical simulation at the same $KC$ but smaller $\beta$. The result demonstrates a strong coupling effect between fluid forces and the generated vortices around cylinders. The smaller gap of the cylinder pair in a side-by-side configuration induces a gap flow that results in a stronger vortex shedding and hence increases the mean energy outflow rate and the drag coefficient. On the contrary, the smaller gap of the cylinder pair in a tandem configuration leads to a symmetric flow pattern of the merge and elongation of the vortices of the same signs and hence decreasing the drag coefficient and the RMS of the lift coefficient.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
\label{sec7}
Author would like to acknowledge Dr. Zhicheng Wang's constructive discussion that facilitated this paper
\bibliographystyle{elsarticle-num}
|
\section*{Introduction}
The rising availability of effective vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 promises the lifting of restrictions, thereby relieving the social and economic burden caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. However, it is unclear how fast the restrictions can be lifted without risking another wave of infections; we need a promising long-term vaccination strategy \cite{contreras2021risking}. Nevertheless, a successful approach has to take into account several challenges; vaccination logistics and vaccine allocation requires a couple of months \cite{foy2021vaccination,moore2021vaccination,viana2021controlling}, vaccine eligibility depends on age and eventually serostatus \cite{bubar2021model}, vaccine acceptance may vary across populations \cite{wouters2021challenges}, and more contagious \cite{davies_estimated_2021} and escape variants of SARS-CoV-2 that can evade existing immunity \cite{plante2021variant_gambit,van2020risk} may emerge, thus posing a persistent risk.
Last but not least, disease mitigation is determined by how well vaccines block infection, and thus prevent the propagation of SARS-CoV-2 \cite{moore2021vaccination,viana2021controlling}, the time to develop effective antibody titers after vaccination, and their efficacy against severe symptoms.
All these parameters will greatly determine the design of an optimal strategy for the transition from epidemicity to endemicity \cite{lavine2021immunological}.
To bridge the time until a significant fraction of the population is vaccinated, a sustainable public health strategy has to combine vaccination with non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs). Otherwise it risks further waves and, consequently, high morbidity and excess mortality.
However, the overall compliance with NPIs worldwide has on average decreased due to a “pandemic-policy fatigue” \cite{petherick2021worldwide}.
Therefore, the second wave has been more challenging to tame \cite{van2020using} although NPIs, in principle, can be highly effective, as seen in the first wave \cite{dehning2020inferring,brauner_inferring_2020}. After vaccinating the most vulnerable age groups, the urge and social pressure to lift restrictions will increase. However, given the wide distribution of fatalities over age groups and the putative incomplete protection of vaccines against severe symptoms and against transmission, NPIs cannot be lifted entirely or immediately. With our study, we want to outline at which pace restrictions can be lifted as the vaccine roll-out progresses.
Public-health policies in a pandemic have to find a delicate ethical balance between reducing the viral spread and restricting individual freedom and economic activities.
However, the interest of health on the one hand and society and economy on the other hand are not always contradictory. For the COVID-19 pandemic, all these aspects clearly profit from low case numbers~\cite{Priesemann2020panEur,dorn_common_2020,oliu2021sars}, i.e., an incidence where test-trace-and-isolate (TTI) programs can efficiently compensate for local spreading events. The challenge is to reach low case numbers and maintain them \cite{contreras2021challenges,contreras2020low}. Especially with the progress of vaccination, restrictions should be lifted when the threat to public health is reduced. However, the apparent trade-off between public health interest and freedom is not always linear and straightforward. Taking into account that low case numbers facilitate TTI strategies (i.e. health authorities can concentrate on remaining infection chains and stop them quickly)\cite{Kretzschmar2020effectiveness,contreras2021challenges,contreras2020low}, an optimal strategy with a low public health burden \textit{and} large freedom may exist and be complementary to vaccination.
Here, we quantitatively study how the planned vaccine roll-out in the European Union (EU), together with the cumulative post-infection immunity (seroprevalence), progressively allows for lifting restrictions. In particular, we study how precisely the number of contacts can be increased without rendering disease spread uncontrolled over the year 2021. Our study builds on carefully curated epidemiological and contact network data from Germany, France, the UK, and other European countries. Thereby, our work can serve as a blueprint for an opening strategy.
\section*{Analytical framework}
Our analytical framework builds on our deterministic, age-stratified, SEIRD-ICU compartmental model, modified to incorporate vaccination through delay differential equations (schematized in~\figref{fig:WholeModelFlowchart}). It includes compartments for a 2-dose staged vaccine roll-out, immunization delays, intensive care unit (ICU)-hospitalized, and deceased individuals. A central parameter for our model is the gross reproduction number \ensuremath{R_t}\xspace. It is essentially the time-varying effective reproduction number without considering the effects of immunity nor of TTI. That number depends (among several factors) on i) the absolute number of contacts per individual, and ii) the probability of being infected given a contact. In other words, \ensuremath{R_t}\xspace is defined as the average number of contacts an infected individual has that would lead to an offspring infection in a fully susceptible population. Therefore, an increase in \ensuremath{R_t}\xspace implies an increase in contact frequency or the probability of transmission per contact, e.g., due to less mask-wearing.
The core idea is that increasing immunity levels among the population (post-infection or due to vaccination) allows for a higher average number of potentially contagious contacts and, thus, freedom (quantified by \ensuremath{R_t}\xspace), given the same level of new infections or ICU occupancy. Hence, with immunization progress reducing the susceptible fraction of the population, \ensuremath{R_t}\xspace can be dynamically increased while maintaining control over the pandemic, i.e., while keeping the effective reproduction number below one (\figref{fig:overview}~A).
To adapt the gross reproduction number \ensuremath{R_t}\xspace such that a specific strategy is followed (e.g. staying below TTI or ICU capacity), we include an automatic, proportional-derivative (PD) control system \cite{prakhar2021control}.
This control system allows for steady growth in \ensuremath{R_t}\xspace as long as it does not lead to overflowing ICUs (or surpassing the TTI capacity). However, when risking surpassing the ICU capacity, restrictions might be tightened again. In that way, we approximate the feedback-loop between political decisions, people's behavior, reported case numbers, and ICU occupancy.
The basic reproduction number is set to $R_0 = 4.5$, reflecting the dominance of the B.1.1.7 variant \cite{davies_estimated_2021,moore2021vaccination}. We further assume that the reproduction number can be decreased to about 3.5 by hygiene measures, face masks, and mild social distancing. This number is informed by the estimates of Sharma et al. \cite{sharma_understanding_2021}, who estimate the combined effectiveness of mask wearing, limiting gatherings to at most 10 people and closing night clubs to a reduction of about 20--40$\%$, thus leading to a reproduction number between 2.7 and 3.6. We use a conservative estimate, as this is only a exemplary set of restrictions. Therefore, we restrict \ensuremath{R_t}\xspace in general not to exceed 3.5 (\figref{fig:overview}~C). All other parameters (and their references) are listed in~\tabref{tab:Parametros}.
Efficient TTI contributes to reducing the effective reproduction number. Hence, it increases the average number of contacts (i.e., \ensuremath{R_t}\xspace) that people may have under the condition that case numbers remain stable (Fig.~\ref{fig:overview}A) \cite{contreras2021challenges}. This effect is particularly strong at low case numbers, where the health authorities can concentrate on tracing every case efficiently \cite{contreras2020low}. Here, we approximate the effect of TTI on \ensuremath{R_t}\xspace semi-analytically to achieve an efficient implementation (see Methods).
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\hspace*{-1cm}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=18.5cm]{R1_Figure_1.pdf}
\caption{%
\textbf{With progressing vaccination in the European Union, a slow but steady increase in freedom will be possible.
However, premature lifting of NPIs considerably increases the total fatalities without a major reduction in restrictions in the middle term.}
\textbf{A:} A schematic outlook into the effect of vaccination on societal freedom. Freedom is quantified by the maximum time-varying gross reproduction number (\ensuremath{R_t}\xspace) allowed to sustain stable case numbers. As \ensuremath{R_t}\xspace does not consider the immunized population, gross reproduction numbers above one are possible without rendering the system unstable. A complete return to pre-pandemic behavior would be achieved when \ensuremath{R_t}\xspace reaches the value of the basic reproduction number $R_0$ (or possibly at a lower value due to seasonality effects during summer, purple-blue shaded area). The thick full and dashed lines indicate the gross reproduction number \ensuremath{R_t}\xspace allowed to sustain stable case numbers if test-trace-isolate (TTI) programs are inefficient and efficient, respectively, which depends on the case numbers level. Increased population immunity (green) is expected to allow for lifting the most strict contact reduction measures while only keeping mild NPIs (purple) during summer 2021 in the northern hemisphere. Note that seasonality is not explicitly modeled in this work. See Supplementary Fig~S4 for an extended version including the year 2020.
\textbf{B:} We explore five different scenarios for lifting restrictions in the EU, in light of the EU-wide vaccination programs. We sort them according to the initial stringency that they require and the total fatalities that they may cause. One extreme (scenario 1) offers immediate (but still comparably little) freedom by approaching ICU-capacity limits quickly. The other extreme (scenario 5) uses a strong initial reduction in contacts to allow long-term control at low case numbers. Finally, the intermediate scenarios initially maintain moderate case numbers and lift restrictions at different points in the vaccination program.
\textbf{C:} All extreme strategies allow for a steady noticeable increase in contacts in the coming months (cf.\ panel \textbf{A}), but vary greatly in the (\textbf{D}) ICU-occupancy profiles and (\textbf{E}) total fatalities.
\textbf{F:} Independent on the strategy, we expect a transient but pronounced decrease in the average age of ICU patients and deceased over the summer.
}
\label{fig:overview}
\end{figure}
For vaccination, we use as default parameters an average vaccine efficacy of 90\% protection against severe illness \cite{dagan_bnt162b2_2021} and of 75\% protection against infection \cite{levine2021decreased}. We further assume that vaccinated individuals with a breakthrough infection carry a lower viral load and thus are 50\% less infectious \cite{harris2021impact} than unvaccinated infected individuals. We assume an average vaccine uptake of 80\% \cite{covimo} that varies across age (see~\tabref{tab:vaccine_uptake}), and an age-prioritized vaccine delivery as described in the Methods section. In detail, most of the vaccines are distributed first to the age group 80+, then 70+, 60+, and then to anyone of age 16+. A small fraction of the weekly available vaccines is distributed randomly (e.g. because of profession). After everyone got a vaccine offer roughly by the end of August, we assume no further vaccination (see \figref{fig:two_extreme_strategies}L). The daily amount of vaccine doses per million is derived from German government projections, but is expected to be similar across the EU. For the course of the disease, the age-dependent fraction of non-vaccinated, infected individuals requiring intensive care is estimated from German hospitalization data, using the infection-fatality-ratio (IFR) reported in \cite{odriscoll_age-specific_2021} (see~\tabref{tab:age_dep_ICU_rates} and Methods).
In our default scenario we use a contact structure between age groups as measured during pre-pandemic times \cite{mistry2021inferring}. However, we halve the infection probability in the 0--19 year age group to account for reduced in-person classes and better ventilation and systematic random screening in school settings using rapid COVID-19 tests. Under these assumptions, the infection probability among the 0--19 age group is similar to the one among the 20--39 and 40--69 age groups (\figref{fig:Contact_Structure}).
We start our simulations at the beginning of March 2021, with an incidence of 200 daily infections per million, two daily deaths per million, an ICU occupancy of 30 patients per million, a seroprevalence of 10\%, and about 4\% of the population already vaccinated. This is comparable to German data (assuming a case under-reporting factor of 2, which had been measured during the first wave in Germany\cite{rki_SOEP}) and typical for EU countries at the beginning of March 2021 (further details in the Methods section). We furthermore explore the impact of important differences between EU countries, namely the seroprevalance by the start of the vaccination program, demographics, and vaccine uptake exemplary for Finland, Italy and the Czech Republic in addition to the default German parameters.
\begin{table}\caption{
\textbf{Age-dependent infection-fatality-ratio (IFR), probability of requiring intensive care due to the infection (ICU probability) and ICU fatality ratio (ICU-FR).} The IFR is defined as the probability of an infected individual dying, whereas the ICU-FR is defined as the probability of an infected individual dying while receiving intensive care.
}
\label{tab:age_dep_ICU_rates}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{p{1.5cm} p{2.5cm} p{2.5cm} p{1.5cm} p{2.5cm}}\toprule
Age & IFR (\cite{odriscoll_age-specific_2021}) &ICU probability & ICU-FR & \makecell[c]{Avg. ICU time \\ (days)} \\ \midrule
0-19 & \num{0.00002} & \num{0.00014} & \num{0.0278} &\num{5} \\
20-39 & \num{0.00022} & \num{0.00203} & \num{0.0389} &\num{5} \\
40-59 & \num{0.00194} & \num{0.01217} & \num{0.0678} &\num{11} \\
60-69 & \num{0.00739} & \num{0.04031} & \num{0.1046} &\num{11} \\
70-79 & \num{0.02388} & \num{0.05435} & \num{0.1778} &\num{9} \\
$>$80 & \num{0.08292} & \num{0.07163} & \num{0.4946} &\num{6} \\ \midrule
Average & \num{0.00957} & \num{0.02067} & \num{0.0969} &\num{9} \\ \bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\section*{Results}
\subsection*{Aiming for low case numbers has the best long-term outcome}
We first present the two extreme scenarios: case numbers quickly rise so that the ICU capacity limit is approached (scenario 1), or case numbers quickly decline below the TTI capacity limit (scenario 5; Fig. \figref{fig:two_extreme_strategies}). We set the ICU capacity limit at 65 patients/million, reflecting the maximal occupancy and improved treatments during the second wave in Germany \cite{karagiannidis2021major} and use German demographics. The incidence (daily new cases) limit up to which TTI is fully efficient is set to 20 daily infections per million~\cite{Priesemann2020panEur}, but depends strongly on the gross reproduction number, as described in Methods.
The first scenario (`approaching ICU limit', \figref{fig:two_extreme_strategies}A--D) maximizes the initial freedom individuals might have (quantified as the allowed gross reproduction number \ensuremath{R_t}\xspace). However, the gained freedom is only transient as, once ICUs approach their capacity limit, restrictions need to be tightened (\figref{fig:two_extreme_strategies}~J,K). Additionally, stabilization at high case numbers leads to many preventable fatalities, especially in light of likely temporary overflows of the ICU capacity due to the hard-to-control nature of high case numbers.
The fifth scenario (`below TTI limit', \figref{fig:two_extreme_strategies}E--F) requires maintaining stronger restrictions for about two months to lower case numbers below the TTI capacity. Afterward, the progress of the vaccination allows for a steady increase in \ensuremath{R_t}\xspace while keeping case numbers low, enabling TTI to contribute to the containment effectively. From May 2021 on, this fifth scenario would allow for slightly more freedom, i.e., a higher \ensuremath{R_t}\xspace, than the first scenario (Fig. \ref{fig:overview}C). Furthermore, this scenario reduces morbidity and mortality: Deaths until the of the vaccination period (end of August) are reduced by a factor of five, total infections even by a factor of eleven. Due to the prioritization of the elderly in vaccination, the average age of ICU patients and fatalities drops by roughly 12 and 15 years, respectively, independently of the choice of scenarios (\figref{fig:two_extreme_strategies}~I).
Overall, the low-case-number scenario thus allows for a very similar increase in freedom over the whole time frame (quantified as the increase in \ensuremath{R_t}\xspace) and implies about fives times fewer deaths by the end of the vaccination program compared to the first scenario with high case numbers (\figref{fig:two_extreme_strategies}~K).
The vaccine uptake has little influence on the number of deaths and total cases during the vaccination period (\figref{fig:two_extreme_strategies}~J,K), mainly because restrictions are quickly enacted when reaching the ICU capacity. However, uptake becomes a crucial parameter; It controls the pandemic progression after completing the vaccine roll-out as it determines the residual susceptibility of the population (cf.~\figref{fig:after_vaccination}). With insufficient vaccination uptake, a novel wave will follow as soon as restrictions are lifted~\cite{moore2021vaccination}.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\hspace*{-1cm}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=18.5cm]{R1_Figure_2.pdf}
\caption{%
\textbf{Maintaining low case numbers during vaccine roll-out reduces the number of ICU patients and deaths by about a factor five compared to quickly approaching the ICU limit while hardly requiring stronger restrictions.}
Aiming to maximize ICU occupancy (\textbf{A--D}) allows for a slight increase of the allowed gross reproduction number \ensuremath{R_t}\xspace early on, whereas lowering case numbers below the TTI capacity limit (\textbf{E--H}) requires comparatively stronger initial restrictions. Afterwards, the vaccination progress allows for a similar increase in freedom (quantified by increments in \ensuremath{R_t}\xspace) for both strategies, starting approximately in May 2021.
\textbf{B--D, F--H:} These two strategies lead to a completely different evolution of case numbers, ICU occupancy, and cumulative deaths, but differ only marginally in the evolution of the average age of deceased and ICU patients (\textbf{I}), as the latter is rather an effect of the age-prioritized vaccination than of a particular strategy.
\textbf{J,K:} The total number of cases until the end of the vaccination period (of the 80\% uptake scenario, i.e., end of August, the rightmost dotted light blue line in sub-panels \textbf{A--H}) differ by a factor of eleven between the two strategies, and the total deaths by a factor of five. Vaccine uptake (i.e., the fraction of the eligible, 16+, population that gets vaccinated) has a minor impact on these numbers until the end of the vaccine roll-out but determines whether a wave would follow afterward (see \figref{fig:after_vaccination}).
\textbf{L:} Assumed vaccination rate as projected for Germany, which is expected to be similar across the European Union. For a full display of the time-evolution of the compartments for different uptakes see Supplementary Figs~S6--S8.
}
\label{fig:two_extreme_strategies}
\end{figure}
\subsection*{Maintaining low case numbers at least until vulnerable groups are vaccinated is necessary to prevent a severe further wave}
Between the two extreme scenarios 1 and 5, which respectively allow maximal or minimal initial freedom, we explore three alternative scenarios, where the vaccination progress and the slow restriction lifting roughly balance out (Figs.~\ref{fig:lifting_restrictions}, \ref{fig:overview}~B). These scenarios assume approximately constant case numbers and then a swift lifting of most of the remaining restrictions within a month after three different vaccination milestones:
when the age group 80+ has been vaccinated (scenario 2, \figref{fig:lifting_restrictions}~A--D),
when the age groups 60+ has been vaccinated (scenario 3, \figref{fig:lifting_restrictions}~E--H) and
when the entire adult population (16+) has been vaccinated (scenario 4, \figref{fig:lifting_restrictions}~I--L).
The relative freedom gained by lifting restrictions early in the vaccination timeline (scenario 2) hardly differs from the freedom gained from the other two scenarios (\figref{fig:lifting_restrictions}~M), as since new contact restrictions need to take place once reaching the ICU capacity limit, and the initial freedom is partly lost. Significantly, lifting restrictions later reduces the number of infections and deaths by more than 50\% and 35\% respectively if case numbers have been kept at a moderate level (250 daily infections per million) and by more than 85\% and 65\%, respectively if case numbers have been kept at a low level (50 per million) beforehand (\figref{fig:lifting_restrictions}~N,O). Lifting restrictions entirely after either offering vaccination to everyone aged 60+ or everyone aged 16+ only changes the total fatalities by a small amount, mainly because the vaccination pace is planned to be quite fast by then, and the 60+ age brackets make up the bulk of the highest-risk groups. Hence, a potential subsequent wave only unfolds after the end of the planned vaccination campaign (\figref{fig:lifting_restrictions}~F-H). Thus, with the current vaccination plan, it is recommended to keep case numbers at moderate or low levels, at least until the population at risk and people of age 60+ have been vaccinated.
If maintaining low or intermediate case numbers in the initial phase, vaccination starts to decrease the ICU occupancy considerably in May 2021 (\figref{fig:lifting_restrictions}~G,K). However, This decrease in ICU occupancy must not be mistaken for a generally stable situation. As soon as restrictions are relaxed too quickly, ICU occupancy surges again (\figref{fig:lifting_restrictions}~C,G,H), without any relevant gain in freedom for the total population. Nonetheless, the progress in vaccination will, in any case, allow lifting restrictions gradually.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\hspace*{-1cm}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=18.5cm]{R1_Figure_3.pdf}
\caption{%
\textbf{Vaccination offers a steady return to normality until the end of summer 2021 in the northern hemisphere, no matter whether a transient easing of restrictions is allowed earlier or later (second and fourth scenario, respectively). However, lifting restrictions later reduces fatalities by more than 35\%.}
We assume that the vaccine immunization progress is balanced out by a slow lifting of restrictions, keeping case numbers at a moderate level ($\leq 250$ daily new cases per million people). We simulated lifting all restrictions within a month starting from different time points: when (\textbf{A--D}) the 80+ age group, (\textbf{E--H}) the 60+ age group or (\textbf{I--L}) everyone 16+ has been offered vaccination. Restriction lifting leads to a new surge of cases in all scenarios. New restrictions are put in place if ICUs would otherwise collapse.
\textbf{M:} Lifting all restrictions too early increases the individual freedom only temporarily before new restrictions have to be put in place to avoid overwhelming ICUs. Overall, trying to lift restrictions earlier has a small influence on the additional increase in the allowed gross reproduction number \ensuremath{R_t}\xspace.
\textbf{N,O:} Relaxing major restrictions only medium-late or late reduces fatalities by more than 35\% and infections by more than 50\%. Fatalities and infections can be cut by an additional factor of more than two when aiming for a \textit{low} (50 per million) instead of \textit{moderate} (250 per million) level of daily infections before major relaxations.
\textbf{P:} Assumed daily vaccination rates, same as in \autoref{fig:two_extreme_strategies}.
}
\label{fig:lifting_restrictions}
\end{figure}
\subsection*{The long-term success of the vaccination campaign strongly depends on vaccine uptake and vaccine efficacy}
The vaccination campaign's long-term success will depend on both people's vaccine uptake (see \tabref{tab:vaccine_uptake}) and the efficacy of the vaccine against those variants of SARS-CoV-2 prevalent at the time of writing of this paper. A vaccine's efficacy has two contributions: first, vaccinated individuals become less likely to develop severe symptoms and require intensive care \cite{polack2020safety,voysey2021safety, israel2021effectiveness} (vaccine efficacy, \ensuremath{\kappa}\xspace). Second, a fraction \ensuremath{\eta}\xspace of vaccinated individuals gains sterilizing immunity, i.e., is completely protected against infections and does not contribute to viral spread at all \cite{levine2021decreased,petter2021initial}. We also assume that breakthrough infections among vaccinated individuals would bear lower viral loads, thus exhibit reduced transmissibility \cite{harris2021impact} (reduced viral load, \ensuremath{\sigma}\xspace). However, the possibly reduced effectiveness of vaccines against current variants of concern (VOCs), e.g., B.1.351 and P.1 \cite{voysey2021safety, altmann_immunity_2021, wang2021antibody}, and potential future VOCs render long-term scenarios about the success of vaccination uncertain.
Therefore, we explore different parameters of vaccine uptake and effectiveness. We quantify the success, or rather the lack of success of the vaccination campaign by the duration of the period where ICUs function near capacity limit, until population immunity is reached. Two different scenarios are considered upon finishing the vaccination campaign: in the first scenario, most restrictions are lifted, like in the previous scenarios (\figref{fig:after_vaccination}~B). In the second, restrictions are only lifted partially, to a one third lower gross reproduction number ($\ensuremath{R_t}\xspace=2.5$) (\figref{fig:after_vaccination}~C). This second scenario presents the long-term maintenance of moderate social distancing measures, including the restriction of large gatherings to smaller than 100 people, encouraging home-office, enabling effective test-trace-and-isolate (TTI) programs at very low case numbers, and supporting hygiene measures and face mask usage. Fig~\ref{fig:after_vaccination}B,C indicates how long ICUs are expected to be full in both scenarios, and for different parameters of vaccine efficacy (which may account for the emergence of vaccine escape variants).
The primary determinant for the success of vaccination programs after lifting most restrictions is the vaccine uptake among the population aged 20+; only with a high vaccine uptake ($>90\%$) we can avoid a novel wave of full ICUs (default parameters as in scenario 3; \figref{fig:after_vaccination}B, $\ensuremath{\kappa}\xspace=90\%$, $\ensuremath{\eta}\xspace=75\%$). However, if vaccine uptake was lower or vaccines prove to be less effective against prevalent or new variants, lifting most restrictions would imply that ICUs will work at the capacity limit for months.
In contrast, maintaining moderate social distancing measures (\figref{fig:after_vaccination}~C) may prevent a wave after completing the vaccine roll-out. This strategy can also compensate for a low vaccine uptake, requiring only about 55\% uptake to avoid surpassing ICU capacity for our default parameters. Nonetheless, any increase in vaccine uptake lowers intensive care numbers, increases freedom, and most importantly, provides better protection in case of the emergence of escape variants, as this would involve an effective reduction of vaccine efficacy (dashed lines). A full exploration of vaccine efficacy parameter combinations and different contact structures is presented in Supplementary~Fig~S2.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=14.3cm]{R1_Figure_4.pdf}
\caption{%
\textbf{A high vaccine uptake ($>90\%$ or higher among the eligible population) is crucial to prevent a wave when lifting restrictions after completing vaccination campaigns.}
\textbf{A:} We assume that infections are kept stable at 250 daily infections until all age groups have been vaccinated. Then restrictions are lifted, leading to a wave if the vaccine uptake has not been high enough (top three plots).
\textbf{B:} The duration of the wave (measured by the total time that ICUs function close to their capacity limit) depends on vaccine uptake and vaccine efficacy. We explore the dependency on the efficacy both for preventing severe cases (full versus dashed lines) and preventing infection (shades of purple). The dashed lines might correspond to vaccine efficacy in the event of the emergence of escape variants of SARS-CoV-2.
\textbf{C:} If some NPIs remain in place (such that the gross reproduction number stays at $R_t = 2.5$), ICUs will not overflow even if the protection against infection is only around 60\%. See Supplementary~Fig~S2 for all possible combinations of vaccine efficacies, also in the event of different contact structures.
}
\label{fig:after_vaccination}
\end{figure}
Heterogeneity among countries on an EU-wide level will affect the probability and strength of a new wave after completing vaccination campaigns. We chose some exemplary European countries to investigate how our results depend on age demographics, contact structure, and the degree of initial post-infection immunization (seroprevalence). We obtained the seroprevalence in the different countries by scaling the German 10\% seroprevalence with the relative differences in cumulative reported case numbers between Germany and the other countries, i.e., we assume the under-reporting factor to be roughly the same across the chosen countries. All other parameters are left unchanged. Specifically, we leave the capacities of the health systems at the estimated values for Germany, as lacking TTI data and varying definitions of ICU treatment make any comparison difficult. We repeated the analysis presented above (\figref{fig:after_vaccination}) for Finland, Italy and the Czech Republic (see~\figref{fig:after_vaccination_EU}~A--D). Germany, Finland, and Italy would need a similarly high vaccine uptake in the population to prevent another severe wave. In the Czech Republic, a much smaller uptake is sufficient. The largest deviations in the necessary vaccine uptake are due to the initial seroprevalence, which we estimate to range from $5\%$ in Finland to $30\%$ in the Czech Republic. In contrast, the differences in age demographics and contact structures only have a minor effect on the dynamics (see also Supplementary Fig~S1).
If no further measures remain in place to reduce the potential contagious contacts in school settings, the young age group (0--19 years) will drive infections after completing the vaccination program as they remain mostly unvaccinated. The combination of intense contacts and high susceptibility among school-aged children considerably increase the vaccine uptake required in the adult population to restrain a further wave (\figref{fig:after_vaccination_EU}~E--H). High seroprevalence, also in this age group, reduces the severity of this effect for the Czech Republic (\figref{fig:after_vaccination_EU}~H).
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\hspace*{-1cm}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=18.5cm]{R1_Figure_5.pdf}
\caption{%
\textbf{Seroprevalence and different demographics across EU countries determine the vaccine uptake required for population immunity.} As in \figref{fig:after_vaccination}~B, we assume that case numbers are stable at 250 daily infections per million per day until the end of vaccination, when most restrictions are lifted (such that the gross reproduction number goes up to 3.5). We vary the initial seroprevalence and age demographics and contact structures to represent German, Italian, Finnish, and Czech data. \textbf{A--D:} Projected ICU occupancy in a subsequent wave depending on vaccine uptake, assuming reduced transmission risk in schools but otherwise default pre-pandemic contact structures.
\textbf{E--H:} Projected ICU occupancy depending on vaccine uptake, assuming default pre-pandemic contact structures everywhere (including schools).
See Supplementary~Fig~S3 for a more comprehensive exploration of combinations of vaccine efficacies.
}
\label{fig:after_vaccination_EU}
\end{figure}
\section*{Discussion}
Our results demonstrate that the pace of vaccination first and foremost determines the expected gain in freedom (i.e., lifting of restrictions) during and after completion of the COVID-19 vaccination programs. Any premature lifting of restrictions risks another wave with high COVID-19 incidence and full ICUs. Moreover, the increase in freedom gained by these premature strategies is only transient because once ICU capacity is reached again, restrictions would have to be reinstated. Simultaneously, these early relaxations significantly increase morbidity and mortality rates, as a fraction of the population has not yet been vaccinated and thus remains susceptible. In contrast, maintaining low case numbers avoids another wave, and \textit{still} allows to lift restrictions steadily and at a similar pace as with high case numbers. Despite this qualitative behavior being general, the precise quantitative results depend on several parameters and assumptions, which we discuss in the following.
The specific time evolution of the lifting of restrictions is dependent on the progress of the vaccination program. Therefore, a steady lifting of restrictions may start in May 2021, when the vaccination rate in the European Union gains speed. However, if the vaccination roll-out stalls more than we assume, the lifting of restrictions has to be delayed proportionally. In such a slowdown, the total number of cases and deaths until the end of the vaccination period increases accordingly. Thus, cautious lifting of restrictions and a fast vaccination delivery is essential to reduce death tolls and promptly increase freedom.
The spreading dynamics after concluding vaccination campaigns (\figref{fig:after_vaccination}~B,C) will be mainly determined by i) final vaccine uptake, ii) the contact network structure, iii) vaccine effectiveness, and iv) initial seroprevalence. Regarding vaccine uptake, we assumed that after the vaccination of every willing person, no further people would get vaccinated. This assumption enables us to study the effects of each parameter separately. However, vaccination willingness might change over time: it will probably be higher if reported case numbers and deaths are high, and vice versa. This poses a fundamental challenge: If low case numbers are maintained during the vaccine roll-out, the overall uptake might be comparably low, thus leading to a more severe wave once everyone has received a vaccination offer and restrictions are fully lifted. In contrast, a severe wave during vaccine roll-out might either increase vaccine uptake, because of individuals looking to protect themselves, or reduce it, because of damaged credibility on vaccine efficacy among vaccine hesitant groups. Thus, to avoid any further wave, policymakers have to maintain low case numbers \textit{and} foster high vaccine uptake.
Besides vaccine uptake, the population's contact network also determines whether population immunity will be reached. We studied different real-world and theoretical possibilities for the contact matrices in Germany and other EU countries (cf.~\figref{fig:Contact_Structure}) and evaluated how our results depend on the connectivity among age groups. For the long-term success of the vaccination programs, there must be exceptionally sensible planning of measures to prevent contagion among school-aged children. Otherwise, they could become the drivers of a novel wave because they might remain mostly unvaccinated. Provided adequate vaccine uptake among the adult population, our results suggest that reducing either the intensity of contacts or the infectiousness in that age group by half would be sufficient for preventing a rebound wave. This reduction is attainable by implementing soft-distancing measures, plus systematic, preventive random screening with regular COVID-19 rapid tests in school settings or via vaccination \cite{sharma_understanding_2021}. Although at the time of writing some vaccines have been provisionally approved for use in children aged 12--15 years old, vaccine uptake among children remains highly uncertain because of their very low risk for severe illness from COVID-19. We therefore did not include their vaccination in our model.
One of the largest uncertainties regarding the dynamics after vaccine roll-out arises from the efficacies of the vaccines. First, the sterilizing immunity effect (i.e., blocking the transmission of the virus), is still not well quantified and understood \cite{levine2021decreased}. Second, the emergence of new viral variants that at least partially escape immune response is continuously under investigation \cite{altmann_immunity_2021, garcia-beltran_multiple_2021, tarke_negligible_2021}. Furthermore, there is no certainty about whether escape variants might produce a more severe course of COVID-19 or whether reinfections with novel variants of SARS-CoV-2 would be milder. Therefore, we cannot conclusively quantify the level of contact reductions necessary in the long term to avoid a further wave of infections or whether such wave would overwhelm ICUs. However, for our default parameters, moderate contact reductions and hygiene measures would be sufficient to prevent further waves.
Although most examples are presented for countries from the European Union, our results can also be generalized to other countries. Differences across countries come from i)~demographics, ii)~varying seroprevalence ---which originated from large differences in the severity of past waves---, iii)~vaccines (types, availability, delivery scheme, and uptake), as well as iv)~capacities of the health systems, including hospitals and TTI capabilities. For the EU, we find that during the mass vaccination phase, all these differences have only a minor effect on the pace at which restrictions can be lifted (cf. Supplementary~Fig~S1). However, differences become evident in the long term when most restrictions are lifted by the end of the vaccination campaigns. Demographics and contact patterns are qualitatively very similar across EU countries (cf.~\figref{fig:Contact_Structure}) and thus do not strongly change the expected outcome. On the contrary, we found the initial seroprevalence to significantly determine the minimum vaccine uptake required to guard against further waves after the vaccine roll-out (cf.~\figref{fig:after_vaccination_EU}).
Naturally acquired immunity, like vaccinations, contributes to reducing the overall susceptibility of the population and thus impedes viral spread. Notably, naturally acquired immunity can compensate for drops in vaccine uptake in specific age groups unwilling to vaccinate or that cannot access the vaccine, e.g. in children.
Furthermore, expected vaccine uptake considerably varies across EU countries (e.g., Serbia 38\%, Croatia 41\%, France 44\%, Italy 70\%, Finland 81\% \cite{wouters2021challenges}, Czech Republic 40\%\cite{hutt2021}, Germany 80\%\cite{covimo}). The risk of rebound waves after the mass vaccinations might thus be highly heterogeneous across the EU.
Since we neither know what kind of escape variants might still surface nor their potential impact on vaccine efficacies or viral spread, maintaining low case numbers is the safest strategy for long-term planning. This strategy i) prevents avoidable deaths during vaccine roll-out, ii) offers better preparedness should escape variants emerge, and iii) lowers the risk of further waves because local outbreaks are easier to contain with efficient TTI. Hence, low case numbers only have advantages for health, society, and the economy. Furthermore, a low case number strategy would greatly profit from an EU-wide commitment, and coordination \cite{Priesemann2020panEur}. Otherwise, strict border controls with testing and quarantine policies need to be installed as drastically different case numbers between neighboring countries or regions promote destabilization; infections could (and will) propagate between countries triggering a \textquote{ping-pong} effect, especially if restrictions are not jointly planned. Therefore, promoting a high vaccine uptake and low case numbers strategy should not only be a priority for each country but also for the whole European community.
In practice, there are several ways to lower case numbers to the capacity limit of TTI programs without the need to enact stringent NPIs immediately. For example, if restrictions are lifted gradually but marginally slower than the rate vaccination pace would allow, case numbers will still decline. Alternatively, restrictions could be relaxed initially to an intermediate level where case numbers do not grow exponentially while giving people some freedom. In such circumstances one can take advantage of the reduced susceptibility to drive case numbers down without the need of stringent NPIs (Supplementary Fig~S5 E--H).
To conclude, the opportunity granted by the progressing vaccination should not only be used to lift restrictions carefully but also to bring case numbers down. This will significantly reduce fatalities, allow to lift all major restrictions gradually moving into summer 2021, and guard against newly-emerging variants or potential further waves in the EU.
\section*{Methods}
\subsection*{Model overview}
We model the spreading dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 following a SEIRD-ICU deterministic formalism through a system of delay differential equations. Our model incorporates age-stratified dynamics, ICU stays, and the roll-out of a 2-dose vaccine. For a graphical representation of the infection and core dynamics, see~\figref{fig:WholeModelFlowchart}. The contagion dynamics include the effect of externally acquired infections as a non-zero influx $\ensuremath{\Phi_i}\xspace$ based on the formalism previously developed by our group \cite{contreras2021challenges,contreras2020low}: susceptible individuals of a given age group $i$ (\ensuremath{S_i}\xspace) can acquire the virus from infected individuals from any other age group $j$ and subsequently progress to the exposed ($\ensuremath{S_i}\xspace\to\ensuremath{E_i}\xspace$) and infectious ($\ensuremath{E_i}\xspace\to\ensuremath{I_i}\xspace$) compartments. They can also acquire the virus externally. However, in this case, they progress directly to the infectious compartment ($\ensuremath{S_i}\xspace\to\ensuremath{I_i}\xspace$), i.e., they get infected abroad, and by the time they return, the latent period is already over. Individuals exposed to the virus (\ensuremath{E_i}\xspace) become infectious after the latent period and thus progress from the exposed to the infectious compartments (\ensuremath{I_i}\xspace) at a rate \ensuremath{\rho}\xspace ($\ensuremath{E_i}\xspace\to\ensuremath{I_i}\xspace$). The infectious compartment has three different possible transitions: i) direct recovery ($\ensuremath{I_i}\xspace\to\ensuremath{R_i}\xspace$), ii) progression to ICU ($\ensuremath{I_i}\xspace\to\ensuremath{\ICU_i}\xspace$) or iii) direct death ($\ensuremath{I_i}\xspace\to\ensuremath{D_i}\xspace$). Individuals receiving ICU treatment can either recover ($\ensuremath{\ICU_i}\xspace\to\ensuremath{R_i}\xspace$) or decease ($\ensuremath{\ICU_i}\xspace\to\ensuremath{D_i}\xspace$).
A contact matrix weights the infection probability between age groups. We investigated three different settings for the contact structure to assess its impact on the spreading dynamics of COVID-19: i) Interactions between age groups are proportional to the group size, i.e., the whole population is mixed perfectly homogeneously, ii) interactions are proportional to pre-COVID contact patterns in the EU population \cite{mistry2021inferring}, and iii) interactions are proportional to ``almost'' pre-COVID contact patterns \cite{mistry2021inferring}, i.e., the contact intensity in the youngest age group (0--19 years) is halved. This accounts for some preventive measures kept in place in schools, e.g., regular rapid testing or smaller class sizes. Scenario iii) is the default scenario unless explicitly stated. However, figures for scenarios i) and ii) are provided in the Supplementary Information. We scale all the contact structures by a linear factor, which increases or decreases the stringency of NPIs so that the settings are comparable. However, the scaling above does not account for heterogeneous NPIs acting only on contacts between specific age groups, such as workplace or school restrictions.
Our model includes the effect of vaccination, where vaccines are administered with an age-stratified two-dosage delivery scheme. The scheme does not discriminate on serological status, i.e., recovered individuals with natural antibodies may also access the vaccine when offered to them. Immunization, understood as the development of proper antibodies against SARS-CoV-2, does not occur immediately after receiving the vaccination dose. Thus, newly vaccinated individuals get temporarily put into extra compartments (\ensuremath{\Vi^{0}}\xspace and \ensuremath{\Vi^{1}}\xspace for the first and second dose respectively) where, if infected, they would progress through the disease stages as if they would not have received that dose. For modeling purposes, we assume that a sufficient immune response is build up $\ensuremath{\tau}\xspace$ days after being vaccinated ($\ensuremath{\Vi^{0}}\xspace\to\ensuremath{\Si^{1}}\xspace$ and $\ensuremath{\Vi^{1}}\xspace\to\ensuremath{\Si^{2}}\xspace$), and that a fraction $\ensuremath{p_i(t)}\xspace$ of those individuals that received the dose acquire the infection before being immunized. Furthermore, there is some evidence that the vaccines partially prevent the infection with and transmission of the disease \cite{mallapaty_can_2021, hall_effectiveness_2021}. Our model incorporates the effectiveness against infection following an 'all-or-nothing' scheme, removing a fraction of those vaccinated individuals to the recovered compartments ($\ensuremath{\Vi^{0}}\xspace\to\ensuremath{\Ri^{1}}\xspace$ and $\ensuremath{\Vi^{1}}\xspace\to\ensuremath{\Ri^{2}}\xspace$), thus assuming that they would not participate in the spreading dynamics. However, we consider those vaccinated individuals with a breakthrough infection have a lower probability of going to ICU or to die than unvaccinated individuals, i.e., effectiveness against severe disease follows a 'leaky' scheme. Furthermore, we assume those individuals carry a lower viral load and thus are less infectious by a factor of two~\cite{harris2021impact}. All parameters and values are listed in~\tabref{tab:Parametros}.
We model the mean-field interactions between compartments by transition rates, determining the timescales involved. These transition rates can implicitly incorporate both the time course of the disease and the delays inherent to the case-reporting process. In the different scenarios analyzed, we include a non-zero influx $\ensuremath{\Phi_i}\xspace$, i.e., new cases that acquired the virus from outside. Even though this influx makes a complete eradication of SARS-CoV-2 impossible, different outcomes in the spreading dynamics might arise depending on both contact intensity and TTI \cite{contreras2021challenges}. Additionally, we include the effects of non-compliance and unwillingness to be vaccinated as well as the effects of the TTI capacities from health authorities, building on \cite{contreras2020low}. Throughout the manuscript, we do not make explicit differences between symptomatic and asymptomatic infections. However, we implicitly consider asymptomatic infections by accounting for their effect on modifying the reproduction number $\ensuremath{R_t}\xspace$ and all other epidemiological parameters. To assess the lifting of restrictions in light of progressing vaccinations, we use a Proportional-Derivative (PD) control approach to adapt the internal reproduction number \ensuremath{R_t}\xspace targeting controlled case numbers or ICU occupancy.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=15.5cm]{R1_Model_Diagram.pdf}
\caption{%
\textbf{Scheme of our age-stratified SEIRD-ICU+vaccination model.} The solid blocks in the diagram represent different SEIRD compartments. Solid black lines represent transition rates of the natural progression of the infection (contagion, latent period, and recovery). On the other hand, dashed lines account for external factors and vaccination. Solid gray lines represent non-linear transfers of individuals between compartments, e.\ g.\ through scheduled vaccination. From top to bottom, we describe the progression from unvaccinated to vaccinated, with stronger color and thicker edges indicating more protection from the virus. Subscripts $i$ indicate the age groups, while superscripts represent the number of vaccine doses that have successfully strengthened immune response in individuals receiving them. Contagion can occur internally, where an individual from age group $i$ can get infected from an infected person from any age group, or externally, e.\ g.\,, abroad on vacation. If the contagion happens externally, we assume that the latent period is already over when the infected returns and, hence, they are immediately put into the infectious compartments \ensuremath{\Ii^{\nu}}\xspace.}
\label{fig:WholeModelFlowchart}
\end{figure}
\subsection*{Model equations}
The contributions of the spreading dynamics and the age-stratified vaccination strategies are summarized in the equations below. They govern the infection dynamics between the different age groups, each of which is represented by their susceptible-exposed-infectious-recovered-dead-ICU (SEIRD+ICU) compartments for all three vaccination statuses. We assume a regime that best resembles the situation in Germany at the beginning of March 2021, and we estimate the initial conditions for the different compartments of each age group accordingly. Furthermore, we assume that neither post-infection immunity \cite{Daneab2021immunological} nor the immunization obtained through the different dosages of the vaccine vanish significantly in the considered time frames. The spreading parameters completely determine the resulting dynamics (characterized by the different age- and dose-dependent parameters, together with the hidden reproduction number $\ensuremath{R_t}\xspace$) and the vaccination logistics.
All of the following parameters and compartments are shortly described in \tabref{tab:Parametros} and \tabref{tab:Variables}. Some of these are additionally elaborated in more detail in the following sections. Subscripts $i$ in the equations denote the different age groups, while superscripts denote the vaccination status: unvaccinated ($^0$ or none), immunized by one dose ($^1$), or by two doses ($^2$).
\begin{align}
\frac{d\ensuremath{S_i}\xspace}{dt} &=
-\xunderbrace{\ensuremath{\bar{\gamma}}\xspace\ensuremath{R_t}\xspace\ensuremath{S_i}\xspace\ensuremath{\sum_{j,\nu}\contMatrix_{ji}\frac{\virload^{\nu}I^\nu_j}{M_j}}\xspace}%{\ensuremath{I^{\rm eff}}\xspace}_{\text{internal contagion}}
-\xunderbrace{\fvi{t}\frac{\ensuremath{S_i}\xspace}{\ensuremath{S_i}\xspace + \ensuremath{R_i}\xspace}}_{\substack{\text{administering} \\ \text{first dose}}}
-\xunderbrace{\frac{\ensuremath{S_i}\xspace}{M_i}\ensuremath{\Phi_i}\xspace}_{\substack{\text{external} \\ \text{contagion}}} \label{eq:dSdt}
\\
\frac{d\ensuremath{\Vi^{0}}\xspace}{dt} &=
-\xunderbrace{\ensuremath{\bar{\gamma}}\xspace\ensuremath{R_t}\xspace\ensuremath{\Vi^{0}}\xspace\ensuremath{\sum_{j,\nu}\contMatrix_{ji}\frac{\virload^{\nu}I^\nu_j}{M_j}}\xspace}%{\ensuremath{I^{\rm eff}}\xspace\hd}_{\text{internal contagion}}
+\xunderbrace{\fvi{t}\frac{\ensuremath{S_i}\xspace}{\ensuremath{S_i}\xspace + \ensuremath{R_i}\xspace}\hd}_{\substack{\text{administering} \\ \text{first dose}}}
-\xunderbrace{\ensuremath{\fvi{t-\ImDel}\frac{\Si}{\Si + \ensuremath{R_i}\xspace}\Bigg|_{t-\ImDel}}\xspace\left(1-\fraccont}%{\ensuremath{p_i^1(t)}\xspace\right)}_{\text{first dose showing effect}}
- \xunderbrace{\frac{\ensuremath{\Vi^{0}}\xspace}{M_i}\ensuremath{\Phi_i}\xspace\hd}_{\substack{\text{external} \\ \text{contagion}}} \\
\frac{d\ensuremath{\Si^{1}}\xspace}{dt} &=
- \xunderbrace{\ensuremath{\bar{\gamma}}\xspace\ensuremath{R_t}\xspace\ensuremath{\Si^{1}}\xspace\ensuremath{\sum_{j,\nu}\contMatrix_{ji}\frac{\virload^{\nu}I^\nu_j}{M_j}}\xspace}%{\ensuremath{I^{\rm eff}}\xspace\hd}_{\text{internal contagion}}
- \xunderbrace{\fvii{t}\frac{\ensuremath{\Si^{1}}\xspace}{\ensuremath{\Si^{1}}\xspace+\ensuremath{\Ri^{1}}\xspace}\hd}_{\substack{\text{administering}\\\text{second dose}}}
+ \xunderbrace{\left(1-\ensuremath{\eta_0}\xspace\right)\ensuremath{\fvi{t-\ImDel}\frac{\Si}{\Si + \ensuremath{R_i}\xspace}\Bigg|_{t-\ImDel}}\xspace\left(1-\fraccont}%{\ensuremath{p_i^1(t)}\xspace\right)}_{\text{first dose (not immune)}}
- \xunderbrace{\frac{\ensuremath{\Si^{1}}\xspace}{M_i}\ensuremath{\Phi_i}\xspace\hd}_{\substack{\text{external} \\ \text{contagion}}} \\
\frac{d\ensuremath{\Vi^{1}}\xspace}{dt} &=
- \xunderbrace{\ensuremath{\bar{\gamma}}\xspace\ensuremath{R_t}\xspace\ensuremath{\Vi^{1}}\xspace\ensuremath{\sum_{j,\nu}\contMatrix_{ji}\frac{\virload^{\nu}I^\nu_j}{M_j}}\xspace}%{\ensuremath{I^{\rm eff}}\xspace\hd}_{\text{internal contagion}}
+ \xunderbrace{\fvii{t}\frac{\ensuremath{\Si^{1}}\xspace}{\ensuremath{\Si^{1}}\xspace+\ensuremath{\Ri^{1}}\xspace}\hd}_{\substack{\text{administering}\\\text{second dose}}}
- \xunderbrace{\ensuremath{\fvii{t-\ImDel}\frac{\Sivi}{\Sivi + \ensuremath{\Ri^{1}}\xspace}\Bigg|_{t-\ImDel}}\xspace\left(1-\fraccont}%{\ensuremath{p_i^2(t)}\xspace\right)}_{\text{second dose showing effect}}
- \xunderbrace{\frac{\ensuremath{\Vi^{1}}\xspace}{M_i}\ensuremath{\Phi_i}\xspace\hd}_{\substack{\text{external} \\ \text{contagion}}} \\
\frac{d\ensuremath{\Si^{2}}\xspace}{dt} &=
- \xunderbrace{\ensuremath{\bar{\gamma}}\xspace\ensuremath{R_t}\xspace\ensuremath{\Si^{2}}\xspace\ensuremath{\sum_{j,\nu}\contMatrix_{ji}\frac{\virload^{\nu}I^\nu_j}{M_j}}\xspace}%{\ensuremath{I^{\rm eff}}\xspace\hd}_{\text{internal contagion}}
+ \xunderbrace{\left(1-\ensuremath{\eta_0}\xspace\right)\ensuremath{\fvii{t-\ImDel}\frac{\Sivi}{\Sivi + \ensuremath{\Ri^{1}}\xspace}\Bigg|_{t-\ImDel}}\xspace\left(1-\fraccont}%{\ensuremath{p_i^2(t)}\xspace\right)}_{\text{second dose (not immune)}}
- \xunderbrace{\frac{\ensuremath{\Si^{2}}\xspace}{M_i}\ensuremath{\Phi_i}\xspace\hd}_{\substack{\text{external} \\ \text{contagion}}} \\
\frac{d\ensuremath{E_i}\xspace}{dt} &=
\xunderbrace{\ensuremath{\bar{\gamma}}\xspace\ensuremath{R_t}\xspace\left(\ensuremath{S_i}\xspace+\ensuremath{\Vi^{0}}\xspace\right)\ensuremath{\sum_{j,\nu}\contMatrix_{ji}\frac{\virload^{\nu}I^\nu_j}{M_j}}\xspace}%{\ensuremath{I^{\rm eff}}\xspace}_{\text{internal contagion}}
- \xunderbrace{\ensuremath{\rho}\xspace\ensuremath{E_i}\xspace}_{\substack{\text{end of}\\\text{latency}}}\\
\frac{d\ensuremath{\Ei^{1}}\xspace}{dt} &=
\xunderbrace{\ensuremath{\bar{\gamma}}\xspace\ensuremath{R_t}\xspace\left(\ensuremath{\Si^{1}}\xspace+\ensuremath{\Vi^{1}}\xspace\right)\ensuremath{\sum_{j,\nu}\contMatrix_{ji}\frac{\virload^{\nu}I^\nu_j}{M_j}}\xspace}%{\ensuremath{I^{\rm eff}}\xspace}_{\text{internal contagion}}
- \xunderbrace{\ensuremath{\rho}\xspace\ensuremath{\Ei^{1}}\xspace}_{\substack{\text{end of}\\\text{latency}}}\\
\frac{d\ensuremath{\Ei^{2}}\xspace}{dt} &=
\xunderbrace{\ensuremath{\bar{\gamma}}\xspace\ensuremath{R_t}\xspace\ensuremath{\Si^{2}}\xspace\ensuremath{\sum_{j,\nu}\contMatrix_{ji}\frac{\virload^{\nu}I^\nu_j}{M_j}}\xspace}%{\ensuremath{I^{\rm eff}}\xspace}_{\text{internal contagion}}
-\xunderbrace{\ensuremath{\rho}\xspace\ensuremath{\Ei^{2}}\xspace}_{\substack{\text{end of}\\\text{latency}}}\\
\frac{d\ensuremath{I_i}\xspace}{dt} &= \xunderbrace{\ensuremath{\rho}\xspace \ensuremath{E_i}\xspace}_{\substack{\text{end of}\\\text{latency}}} - \xunderbrace{\hdf \ensuremath{\bar{\gamma}}\xspace \ensuremath{I_i}\xspace}_{\text{recovery, ICU admission, or death}}
+ \xunderbrace{\frac{\ensuremath{S_i}\xspace+\ensuremath{\Vi^{0}}\xspace}{M_i}\ensuremath{\Phi_i}\xspace}_{\substack{\text{external} \\ \text{contagion}}}\\
\frac{d\ensuremath{\Ii^{1}}\xspace}{dt} &= \xunderbrace{\ensuremath{\rho}\xspace \ensuremath{\Ei^{1}}\xspace}_{\substack{\text{end of}\\\text{latency}}} - \xunderbrace{\hdf \ensuremath{\bar{\gamma}}\xspace \ensuremath{\Ii^{1}}\xspace}_{\text{recovery, ICU admission, or death}}
+ \xunderbrace{\frac{\ensuremath{\Si^{1}}\xspace+\ensuremath{\Vi^{1}}\xspace}{M_i}\ensuremath{\Phi_i}\xspace}_{\substack{\text{external} \\ \text{contagion}}}\\
\frac{d\ensuremath{\Ii^{2}}\xspace}{dt} &= \xunderbrace{\ensuremath{\rho}\xspace \ensuremath{\Ei^{2}}\xspace}_{\substack{\text{end of}\\\text{latency}}} - \xunderbrace{\hdf \ensuremath{\bar{\gamma}}\xspace \ensuremath{\Ii^{2}}\xspace}_{\text{recovery, ICU admission, or death}} + \xunderbrace{\frac{\ensuremath{\Si^{2}}\xspace}{M_i}\ensuremath{\Phi_i}\xspace}_{\substack{\text{external} \\ \text{contagion}}} \\
\frac{d\ensuremath{\ICU_i}\xspace^{\nu}}{dt} &= -\xunderbrace{\left(\ensuremath{\dratei^{\ICU}}\xspace+\ensuremath{\recratei^{\rm ICU}}\xspace\right)\ensuremath{{\rm ICU}}\xspace^\nu}_{\text{recovery or death}} + \xunderbrace{\ensuremath{\alpha_i}\xspace^{\nu}\ensuremath{I_i}\xspace^\nu}_{\substack{\text{ICU}\\\text{admission}}} \\
\frac{d\ensuremath{D_i}\xspace}{dt} &= \xunderbrace{\sum_{\nu}\left(\ensuremath{\dratei^{\ICU}}\xspace \ensuremath{\ICU_i}\xspace^{\nu}+\ensuremath{\delta_i}\xspace^{\nu}\ensuremath{I_i}\xspace^\nu\right)}_{\text{total deaths}}\\
\frac{d\ensuremath{R_i}\xspace}{dt} &= \xunderbrace{\ensuremath{\recratei^{\rm ICU}}\xspace\ensuremath{\ICU_i}\xspace+\ensuremath{\gamma_i}\xspace \ensuremath{I_i}\xspace}_{\text{recovery}}
- \xunderbrace{\fvi{t}\frac{\ensuremath{R_i}\xspace}{\ensuremath{S_i}\xspace + \ensuremath{R_i}\xspace}}_{\text{first dose}} \\
\frac{d\ensuremath{\Ri^{1}}\xspace}{dt} &=
\xunderbrace{\ensuremath{\recratei^{\rm ICU}}\xspace\ensuremath{\ICUi^{1}}\xspace+\ensuremath{\gamma_i}\xspace^1 \ensuremath{\Ii^{1}}\xspace}_{\text{recovery}}
+ \xunderbrace{\fvi{t}\frac{\ensuremath{R_i}\xspace}{\ensuremath{S_i}\xspace + \ensuremath{R_i}\xspace}}_{\substack{\text{first dose}\\\text{after recovery}}}
- \xunderbrace{\fvii{t}\frac{\ensuremath{\Ri^{1}}\xspace}{\ensuremath{\Si^{1}}\xspace+\ensuremath{\Ri^{1}}\xspace}}_{\text{second dose}}
+ \xunderbrace{\ensuremath{\eta_0}\xspace\ensuremath{\fvi{t-\ImDel}\frac{\Si}{\Si + \ensuremath{R_i}\xspace}\Bigg|_{t-\ImDel}}\xspace\left(1-\ensuremath{p_i(t)}\xspace\right)}_{\text{first dose (sterilizing immunity))}}\\
\frac{d\ensuremath{\Ri^{2}}\xspace}{dt} &=
\xunderbrace{\ensuremath{\recratei^{\rm ICU}}\xspace\ensuremath{\ICUi^{2}}\xspace+ \ensuremath{\gamma_i}\xspace^2 \ensuremath{\Ii^{2}}\xspace}_{\text{recovery}}
+ \xunderbrace{\fvii{t}\frac{\ensuremath{\Ri^{1}}\xspace}{\ensuremath{\Si^{1}}\xspace+\ensuremath{\Ri^{1}}\xspace}}_{\substack{\text{second dose}\\\text{after recovery}}}
+ \xunderbrace{\ensuremath{\eta_0}\xspace\ensuremath{\fvii{t-\ImDel}\frac{\Sivi}{\Sivi + \ensuremath{\Ri^{1}}\xspace}\Bigg|_{t-\ImDel}}\xspace\left(1-\ensuremath{p_i(t)}\xspace\right)}_{\text{second dose (sterilizing immunity)}}.
\end{align}
\subsection*{Contact structure and the effect of NPIs on the contact levels}
We model the probability of a susceptible individual from age group $i$ to get infected from an individual from age group $j$ to be proportional to the --effective-- incidence in that group ($\sum_{\nu}I_j^{\nu}\ensuremath{\sigma}\xspace^{\nu}$) and the contact intensity between the two groups, given by the entries $\left(\ensuremath{C}\xspace\right)_{i j}$ of a contact matrix $\ensuremath{C}\xspace$ scaled with the gross reproduction number \ensuremath{R_t}\xspace. The contact matrices are normalized to force their largest eigenvalue (i.e., their spectral radius) to be 1, so that, when multiplied with \ensuremath{R_t}\xspace, their spectral radius equals \ensuremath{R_t}\xspace. The total contact levels for different levels of NPIs are then just linearly scaled with \ensuremath{R_t}\xspace. We thus neglect any inhomogeneities in the NPIs that might affect contact between specific age groups more than others.
As described previously, we study three different configurations for the contact matrix \ensuremath{C}\xspace: i) a perfectly homogeneously mixed population, ii) pre-COVID structure in the EU population \cite{mistry2021inferring}, and iii) "almost" pre-COVID contact structure \cite{mistry2021inferring}, but with reduced potentially-contagious contacts in the youngest age group (0--19 years) accounting for some preventive measures kept in place in schools. If not explicitly stated otherwise, the default contact matrix we use in the main text is always the intermediate "almost" pre-COVID contact structure matrix. For the three scenarios, we analyze the demographics and contact structures in Germany, Finland, the Czech Republic, and Italy as a sample for varying demographics across the EU.
\textbf{First scenario: homogeneous contact structure.} In this scenario, we consider that everyone has the same probability of meeting anyone from any other age group. The probability of meeting somebody from a given age group is thus proportional to the fraction of this age group within the whole population. Let $f$ be the column vector collecting these fractions, $f_i=\frac{M_i}{M}$, the contact matrix for the $n$ age-groups herein considered $\ensuremath{C}\xspace\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}$ is thus given by
\begin{equation}
\left(\ensuremath{C}\xspace\right)_{i j} = f_j,\forall j
\end{equation}
and can be seen in \figref{fig:Contact_Structure}~(A,D,G,J) for the chosen demographics.
Note that by this construction the largest eigenvalue of this \ensuremath{C}\xspace (i.e., its spectral radius) is automatically 1 for any demographics, i.e. for any $f$ that fulfills $\sum_j f_j=1$ (proof in Supplementary Information).
\textbf{Second scenario: pre-COVID contact intensity, real-world contact structure.} Here, we use the whole contact matrices from before the pandemic reported with one-year age resolution in \cite{mistry2021inferring}, converted into the age brackets that we chose. We normalize them by their spectral radius, leaving their internal contact structure intact. This scenario thus resembles completely homogeneous NPIs that affect every possible contact equally. The matrices are given in \figref{fig:Contact_Structure}~(B,E,H,K) for the chosen countries.
\textbf{Third scenario: "almost" pre-COVID contact intensity, real-world contact structure.} Finally, we again use the contact matrices from before the pandemic reported in \cite{mistry2021inferring} but adapt them to reduce the intensity of contacts of the youngest age group by half, accounting for those measures that remain in place to prevent contagion and mitigate outbreaks in school settings. Specifically, we halve the matrix element connecting the 0--19 age group with itself and normalize the obtained contact matrix \ensuremath{C}\xspace by its spectral radius. As can be seen in the resulting matrices, given in \figref{fig:Contact_Structure}~(C,F,I,L), this affects that the main contributions in the contacts are more evenly spread in the 0--59 year age groups. This serves as a first approximation to the contact structure with inhomogeneous NPIs targeting different age groups differently both in a complete lockdown, as well as some continued measures in schools.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\hspace*{-1cm}
\centering
\includegraphics[]{R1_Contact_Structure.pdf}
\caption{%
\textbf{Contact structures for different EU countries in the three scenarios.} The chosen contact matrices for i) homogeneous contact structure, ii) pre-COVID contact structure, and iii) "almost" pre-COVID structure with reduced potentially-contagious contacts in schools for Germany (\textbf{A-C}), Finland (\textbf{D-F}), Italy (\textbf{G-I}) and the Czech Republic (\textbf{J-L}). Entries of the matrices show the contact intensity between age groups normalized to give each matrix a spectral radius of 1.
}
\label{fig:Contact_Structure}
\end{figure}
\subsection*{Vaccination dynamics and logistics} \label{sec:vaccination_logistics}
In real-world settings, not every person accepts the vaccine when offered. Additionally, vaccine uptake is bounded because some vulnerable groups cannot be vaccinated because of health-related reasons. A systematic survey\cite{covimo} estimates the vaccine uptake to be approximately 80\% across the adult population in Germany, which we chose as our baseline. Due to a higher perception of the risk caused by an infection, we expect that the uptake is higher for the elderly population. Thus, we set the uptake \ensuremath{u_i}\xspace to be age-group dependent. Besides the default 80\%, we choose two more sets of uptakes averaging to a total of 70\% and 90\%, respectively. We suppose that an increase in the uptake is possible by education and information measures. They are listed in table \ref{tab:vaccine_uptake}. We linearly interpolate between the three to model arbitrary total vaccine uptakes.
\begin{table}[htp]\caption{Parameters for the three main different vaccine uptake scenarios for Germany. The averages are to be understood across the vaccinable (16+) population. Slightly rescaled uptakes for Finnish, Italian and Czech age-demographics can be found in the Supplementary Information Tables~S1--S3.}
\label{tab:vaccine_uptake}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{l p{1cm}p{1.5cm} llll p{1cm} p{1.5cm}}\toprule
& age& eligible & minimal uptake & mid uptake & maximal uptake & population fraction \cite{agestructure}\\
Group ID& group & fraction &\ensuremath{u_i}\xspace & \ensuremath{u_i}\xspace (default) &\ensuremath{u_i}\xspace & $M_i/M$ \\\midrule
1 & 0-19 & 0.2 (16+) &0.58 & 0.73 & 0.88 & \SI{0.18}{} \\
2 & 20-39 & 1.0 &0.64 & 0.76 & 0.89 & \SI{0.25}{} \\
3 & 40-59 & 1.0 &0.69 & 0.79 & 0.90 & \SI{0.28}{} \\
4 & 60-69 & 1.0 &0.74 & 0.82 & 0.91 & \SI{0.13}{} \\
5 & 70-79 & 1.0 &0.79 & 0.86 & 0.92 & \SI{0.09}{} \\
6 & $>$80 & 1.0 &0.85 & 0.89 & 0.93 & \SI{0.07}{} \\\midrule
average & & &0.70 & 0.80 & 0.90 & \\\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
Using official data of the German vaccine stock and stock projections \cite{rki_impfquotenmonitoring, spiegelDeliveries} we build up an estimated delivery function $w_T$ that models the weekly number of doses delivered as a function of time. We assume it takes a logistic form, as we assume the number of daily doses increases strongly at the beginning until it reaches a stable level. Adapting the logistic function to the German stock projection (see ~\figref{fig:vaccinationLogistics}) yields:
\begin{equation}
w_T(week) = \frac{\SI{11e6}{doses}}{1+\exp\left(-0.17(week-21)\right)},
\end{equation}
where the parameters were chosen to roughly match past and projected deliveries, taking into account that some delays in the projections might appear because of logistic or manufacturing issues. Since the vaccine deliveries and distributions are done collectively and uniformly in the EU, we scale this German projection by the respective population sizes for the other countries studied herein (Finland, Italy, Czech Republic). We further assume that because of logistic delays, the vaccination of the delivered doses occurs with some delay, which we model as a convolution with an empirical delay kernel given by $K = [0.6,\,0.3,\,0.1]$ (fraction of vaccines administered in the same, second and third week following delivery). With that, we get the total vaccination rates per week.
These doses are distributed among the age groups, taking into account that each individual requires two doses, spaced by at least four weeks, aware of the potential benefits of further delaying the two doses \cite{maier2021potential}.
The vaccine prioritization order is the following:
\begin{enumerate}
\item First, to meet the demand of second doses, $\ensuremath{\tau_{\rm{vac}}}\xspace$ weeks after the first dose.
\item Second, to distribute a fraction $\ensuremath{v_r}\xspace$ of the remaining doses uniformly among age groups, to model the earlier vaccination of exposed occupations (health sector, first responders, among others).
\item Last, to plan the rest of the doses for the oldest age group that has not been fully vaccinated yet.
\end{enumerate}
Exceptions to rule 3 are the low-risk groups 16--19, 20--39, and 40--59 that get vaccinated simultaneously. For each age group, only a fraction $\ensuremath{u_i}\xspace$ is vaccinated because of limited willingness to get vaccinated (\tabref{tab:vaccine_uptake}). In addition, the total number of vaccinations in the youngest age group 0--19 is further reduced since we consider only a fraction of around 20\% (fraction of 16--19 year-old individuals in the group) to be \textit{eligible} for vaccination (see \tabref{tab:vaccine_uptake}). The uptake $\ensuremath{u_i}\xspace$ in this age group is thus understood only among the eligible individuals.
This procedure results in the number of first $w^1_i(week)$ and second doses $w^2_i(week)$ vaccinated to the age group $i$ as function of the week. Dividing by 7 we obtain the daily administered first and second doses for age group $i$
\begin{align}
\fvi{t} &= w^1_i\left(\lfloor t/7\rfloor \right)/7\label{eq:doses1} \quad \text{and} \\
\fvii{t} &= w^2_i\left(\lfloor t/7\rfloor \right)/7\label{eq:doses2}.
\end{align}
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\hspace*{-1cm}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=18.5cm]{R1_Vaccination.pdf}
\caption{%
\textbf{Estimated vaccination rates for Germany.} From the announced vaccination stock, we estimate the vaccination delivery function. \textbf{A:} Total aggregated doses of different vaccine producers in Germany. \textbf{B:} Equivalent amount of 2-dose vaccines available per week in Germany, parameterized using a logistic function. \textbf{C:} Comparison between expected and observed vaccination progress in Germany.}
\label{fig:vaccinationLogistics}
\end{figure}
\subsection*{Age-stratified transition rates}
Here, we will introduce the transition rates used in the model equations; details about their estimation are presented in the later sections.
The recovery rate $\ensuremath{\gamma_i}\xspace$ of a given age group describes the recovery without the need for critical care. It is estimated from the literature. We expect this parameter to vary across age groups, mainly because of the strong correlation between the severity of symptoms and age. Age-resolved recovery rates estimated from data of the non-vaccinated population in Germany are listed in~\tabref{tab:age_dep_params}.
The ICU recovery rate $\ensuremath{\recratei^{\rm ICU}}\xspace$ is the rate of a given age group for leaving ICU care. This parameter varies across age groups, mainly because of the strong correlation between the severity of symptoms, age, and duration of ICU stay. Age-resolved ICU recovery rates estimated from data of the non-vaccinated population in Germany are listed in~\tabref{tab:age_dep_params}.
The ICU admission rate \ensuremath{\alpha_i}\xspace of a given age group describes the transition from the infected compartment to the ICU compartment. It accounts for those cases developing symptoms where intensive care is required and is estimated from the literature. We expect this parameter to vary across age groups, mainly because of the strong correlation between the severity of symptoms and age. Age-resolved ICU-transition rates estimated from data of the non-vaccinated population in Germany are listed in~\tabref{tab:age_dep_params}. Further, we assume that anyone requiring intensive care would have access to ICU beds and care.
The death rate $\ensuremath{\delta_i}\xspace$ also varies across age groups, mainly because of the strong correlation between the severity of symptoms and age. This parameter accounts for those individuals dying because of COVID-19, but without being treated in the ICU. In that way, it is expected to be even smaller than the infection fatality ratio (IFR). Age-resolved death rates (outside ICU) estimated from data of the non-vaccinated population in Germany are listed in~\tabref{tab:age_dep_params}.
The death rate in ICU $\ensuremath{\dratei^{\ICU}}\xspace$ also varies across age groups, mainly because of the strong correlation between the severity of symptoms and age. In addition, this parameter accounts for those individuals dying because of COVID-19 when being treated in the ICU. In that way, it is expected to be even larger than the case fatality ratio CFR. Age-resolved ICU death rates estimated from data of the non-vaccinated population in Germany are listed in~\tabref{tab:age_dep_params}.
\begin{table}\caption{Age-dependent parameters}
\label{tab:age_dep_params}
\begin{tabular}{ccccccc}\toprule
Group ID & \makecell[c]{ICU \\ admission rate \\\ensuremath{\alpha_i}\xspace$\left(\SI{}{days^{-1}}\right)$} & \makecell[c]{Death rate \\ in I \\\ensuremath{\delta_i}\xspace$\left(\SI{}{days^{-1}}\right)$} & \makecell[c]{Natural \\ recovery rate \\\ensuremath{\gamma_i}\xspace$\left(\SI{}{days^{-1}}\right)$} & \makecell[c]{Death rate \\ in ICU \\\ensuremath{\dratei^{\ICU}}\xspace$\left(\SI{}{days^{-1}}\right)$} & \makecell[c]{ICU \\ recovery rate \\\ensuremath{\recratei^{\rm ICU}}\xspace$\left(\SI{}{days^{-1}}\right)$}& \makecell[c]{Avg. duration \\ in ICU \\\ensuremath{T_{\rm res}^{\rm ICU}}\xspace$\left(\SI{}{days}\right)$} \\\midrule
1 & \num{0,000014} & \num{0,000002} & \num{0,09998} & \num{0,005560} & \num{0,194440} & \num{5} \\
2 & \num{0,000204} & \num{0,000014} & \num{0,09978} & \num{0,007780} & \num{0,192220} & \num{5} \\
3 & \num{0,001217} & \num{0,000111} & \num{0,09867} & \num{0,006164} & \num{0,084745} & \num{11} \\
4 & \num{0,004031} & \num{0,000317} & \num{0,09565} & \num{0,009508} & \num{0,081401} & \num{11} \\
5 & \num{0,005435} & \num{0,001422} & \num{0,09314} & \num{0,019756} & \num{0,091355} & \num{9} \\
6 & \num{0,007163} & \num{0,004749} & \num{0,08809} & \num{0,082433} & \num{0,084233} & \num{6} \\\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
We estimate these age-dependent rates by combining hospitalization data with published IFR data. A comparison of ICU transition rates $\ensuremath{\alpha_i}\xspace^\nu$ across the EU is difficult as the definition of stationary treatment differs with regard to \emph{hospitalization}, \emph{ICU low} and \emph{high-care}. In order to obtain sensible estimates for these rates, we need to consider the size of the unobserved pool in each age group. Our analysis of ICU transition rates is based on 14043 hospitalization reports collected in Germany between early 2020 and Oct. 26, 2020, as part of the official reporting data \cite{RKI_Krankheitsschwere}. Those reports contain 20-year wide age strata but only represent a small sub-sample of all ICU-admissions ($n=723$). A complete count of ICU-admissions is maintained by the \emph{Deutsche Interdisziplinäre Vereinigung für Intensiv- und Notfallmedizin} \cite{DIVI2020Tagesreport}, without additional patient-data, like age. 19250 ICU admissions were reported throughout the same time frame. We estimated the number of ICU admissions in each 20-year wide age group by combining both sources, matching well with German studies on the first wave~\cite{karagiannidis2020case}.
Throughout the first and second wave, the per age-group case-fatality rates (CFRs) in Germany are more than two times larger than the age-specific infection fatality rates (IFRs) estimated by \cite{Levin2020,odriscoll_age-specific_2021}. This difference indicates unobserved infections. Seroprevalence studies from Q3 2020 \cite{Seroepidemiological_study_RKI} confirm the existence of unobserved pools. The total number of infections in each age group is inferred from observed deaths assuming the age-specific IFR from \cite{odriscoll_age-specific_2021}. $\ensuremath{\alpha_i}\xspace^{\nu}$ (\emph{low-} and \emph{high-care}) is calculated by dividing estimated ICU-admissions in each age group by the estimated total infections in each of those groups. A similar method is applied for the ICU-death-rate $\ensuremath{\dratei^{\ICU}}\xspace$ by taking hospitalization-deaths from \cite{RKI_Krankheitsschwere} as a proxy for the age distribution.
The ICU-rates from the 10-year wide age-groups \cite{salje2020estimating} based on French data (\emph{high-care} only) were used to subdivide the 20-year wide Age-group 60-79, replicating the French rate-ratio between 60-69 and 70-79 for the German ICU-ratios, while maintaining the German age-agnostic ICU-rate. Noteworthy, there is great variability between the reported ICU rates among different countries, and it seems to be more a problem of reporting criteria rather than differences in virus and host response \cite{millar2020apples}. Furthermore, as treatments become more effective compared to the first wave, the residence times have decreased in the second wave \cite{karagiannidis2021major}, thus modifying the transition rates.
We also considered the influence of our decision to use the IFR of O'Driscoll et al.\cite{odriscoll_age-specific_2021} instead of Levin et al.\cite{Levin2020}. The IFR from Levin et al. is about 50\% larger and would lead to a lower level of infections overall in our scenarios, therefore reducing the fraction of natural immunity acquired at the end of the scenarios.
\subsection*{Estimation of general transition rates}
After listing all transition rates that we consider in our work, we will now explain how we estimate them.
Since we have to start somewhere, let us look at the \ensuremath{\ICU_i}\xspace compartment first (see~\figref{fig:WholeModelFlowchart} top right). The differential equation, without influx and including the initial condition ${\rm ICU}_0$, is given by
\begin{equation}
\ensuremath{\ICU_i}\xspace' = -\xunderbrace{\ensuremath{\dratei^{\ICU}}\xspace \ensuremath{\ICU_i}\xspace}_{\text{to }\ensuremath{D_i}\xspace}-\xunderbrace{\ensuremath{\recratei^{\rm ICU}}\xspace \ensuremath{\ICU_i}\xspace}_{\text{to }\ensuremath{R_i}\xspace},\qquad \ensuremath{\ICU_i}\xspace(0) = {\rm ICU}_0.
\end{equation}
The solution of this ODE is known to be
\begin{equation}
\ensuremath{\ICU_i}\xspace = {\rm ICU}_0\exp\left(-(\ensuremath{\dratei^{\ICU}}\xspace+\ensuremath{\recratei^{\rm ICU}}\xspace)t\right).
\end{equation}
If we know the average \ensuremath{\ICU_i}\xspace residence time \ensuremath{T_{\rm res}^{\rm ICU}}\xspace, we can obtain an expression for $(\ensuremath{\dratei^{\ICU}}\xspace+\ensuremath{\recratei^{\rm ICU}}\xspace)$:
\begin{equation}
\ensuremath{\dratei^{\ICU}}\xspace+\ensuremath{\recratei^{\rm ICU}}\xspace = \frac{1}{\ensuremath{T_{\rm res}^{\rm ICU}}\xspace}.
\end{equation}
Further, assuming that a fraction \ensuremath{f_{\delta}}\xspace of those individuals being admitted to ICUs would die, we obtain an expression linking all rates:
\begin{equation}
\ensuremath{f_{\delta}}\xspace =\frac{\# \text{ people dead by } t=\infty}{\text{people entering \ensuremath{\ICU_i}\xspace at } t = 0}= \frac{\ensuremath{\dratei^{\ICU}}\xspace \cancel{{\rm ICU}_0} \displaystyle\int_{0}^{\infty}\exp\left(-\frac{t}{\ensuremath{T_{\rm res}^{\rm ICU}}\xspace}\right)dt}{\cancel{{\rm ICU}_0}} = \ensuremath{\dratei^{\ICU}}\xspace\ensuremath{T_{\rm res}^{\rm ICU}}\xspace.
\end{equation}
Therefore, the transition rates are given by:
\begin{equation}
\ensuremath{\dratei^{\ICU}}\xspace = \frac{ \ensuremath{f_{\delta}}\xspace}{\ensuremath{T_{\rm res}^{\rm ICU}}\xspace} \qquad \text{and} \qquad \ensuremath{\recratei^{\rm ICU}}\xspace = \frac{\left(1-\ensuremath{f_{\delta}}\xspace\right)}{\ensuremath{T_{\rm res}^{\rm ICU}}\xspace}.
\end{equation}
Using this modeling approach, we implicitly assume the time scales at which people leave the ICU through recovery or death to be the same, i.\ e.,\ the average ICU stay duration is independent of the outcome of the course of the disease.
Similarly, we can estimate the infected-to-death rate ($\ensuremath{\delta_i}\xspace$), the infected-to-ICU transition rate (ICU admission rate $\ensuremath{\alpha_i}\xspace$) and the infected-to-recovered rate ($\ensuremath{\gamma_i}\xspace$) based on these fractions and average times. If we assume that all the relevant median times are the same, we obtain the following expressions for the rates:
\begin{equation}
\ensuremath{\delta_i}\xspace = \frac{\ensuremath{f_{\Ii\to\Di}}\xspace}{\ensuremath{T_{\rm res}^{\rm I}}\xspace},\qquad \ensuremath{\alpha_i}\xspace = \frac{ \ensuremath{f_{\ICU}}\xspace}{\ensuremath{T_{\rm res}^{\rm I}}\xspace},\qquad \ensuremath{\gamma_i}\xspace = \frac{\left(1-\left(\ensuremath{f_{\Ii\to\Di}}\xspace+\ensuremath{f_{\ICU}}\xspace\right)\right)}{\ensuremath{T_{\rm res}^{\rm I}}\xspace}.
\end{equation}
As the average residence time in the $I$ compartment is dominated by recoveries we assume $\ensuremath{T_{\rm res}^{\rm I}}\xspace=\SI{10}{days}$ \cite{he2020temporal,pan2020time,Ling2020Persistence}.
\subsection*{Modeling vaccine efficacies}
We assume the main effect of vaccinations on the individual to be twofold. A fraction \ensuremath{\eta}\xspace that has received both vaccine doses will develop total immunity and not contribute to the spreading dynamics. The rest may principally be infected with the virus but still have some protection against a severe course of the illness, resulting in a lower probability of dying or going to ICU. Both effects combined give the total protection against severe infections seen in vaccine studies, which we will denote with \ensuremath{\kappa}\xspace. For current COVID-19 vaccines, efficacies against severe disease \ensuremath{\kappa}\xspace ranging from 70--99\% \cite{mahase_covid-19_2021, dagan_bnt162b2_2021, bernal2021vaccineEffectiveness,polack2020safety,voysey2021safety, israel2021effectiveness,haas2021impact} and infection blocking potentials \ensuremath{\eta}\xspace of 60--90\% \cite{levine2021decreased,hall_effectiveness_2021,pritchard2021impact,thompson2021interim} are reported. The roughly uniform distribution of vaccine types in the European Union (see also \figref{fig:vaccinationLogistics}), consists to a larger part of mRNA-type vaccines for which comparatively high values \ensuremath{\kappa}\xspace of 97--99\% \cite{israel2021effectiveness, haas2021impact} and \ensuremath{\eta}\xspace of 80--90\% are reported. We thus chose the rather conservative 90\% for \ensuremath{\kappa}\xspace and 75\% for \ensuremath{\eta}\xspace as our default values. The explicit \ensuremath{\kappa}\xspace and \ensuremath{\eta}\xspace do not explicitly appear in our equations, but as parameters \ensuremath{\eta_0}\xspace and \ensuremath{\kappa_0}\xspace, which we derive from the reported numbers as follows.
Due to the lack of solid evidence on the effects of the first dose, we assume that the fraction of individuals developing total immunity already after the first dose is given by \ensuremath{\eta_0}\xspace. We further assume that of the $(1-\ensuremath{\eta_0}\xspace)$ people that do not develop the immunity after the first dose, the same fraction \ensuremath{\eta_0}\xspace acquires it after the second dose, i.\ e.\ the total vaccination path of the people that do not develop total immunity after both doses is given by $\ensuremath{S_i}\xspace\overset{1-\ensuremath{\eta_0}\xspace}{\longrightarrow}\ensuremath{\Si^{1}}\xspace\overset{1-\ensuremath{\eta_0}\xspace}{\longrightarrow}\ensuremath{\Si^{2}}\xspace$. \ensuremath{\eta_0}\xspace can thus be related to \ensuremath{\eta}\xspace by the formula
\begin{align}
\ensuremath{\eta}\xspace &= 1-\frac{\text{not fully protected}}{\text{total vaccinated}}\nonumber\\
&= 1 - \left(1-\ensuremath{\eta_0}\xspace\right)^2 = \ensuremath{\eta_0}\xspace\left(2-\ensuremath{\eta_0}\xspace\right).\label{eq:fracImmuni}
\end{align}
For individuals vaccinated with both doses without total immunity, i.\ e.,\ from \ensuremath{\Si^{2}}\xspace, we reduce the probabilities to die or go to ICU after infection to account for the reduced risk of severe symptoms due to the vaccine. Of the total number of people who get vaccinated the risk of going to ICU or dying is thus reduced by a factor
\begin{align}
(1-\ensuremath{\kappa}\xspace) &= (1-\ensuremath{\eta}\xspace)\cdot(1-\ensuremath{\kappa_0}\xspace), \label{eq:avProtectioni}
\end{align}
from which we can deduce the value of \ensuremath{\kappa_0}\xspace.
Again, due to lack of solid data on the first doses we assume the risk of severe COVID-19 is reduced to a factor $\sqrt{(1-\ensuremath{\kappa}\xspace)}$ when only a single dose has been received. From these assumptions we arrive at
\begin{align}
\ensuremath{\delta_i}\xspace^{\nu} & = (\sqrt{1-\ensuremath{\kappa_0}\xspace})^{\nu}\ensuremath{\delta_i}\xspace, \label{eq:dratei_nu} \\
\ensuremath{\alpha_i}\xspace^{\nu} & = (\sqrt{1-\ensuremath{\kappa_0}\xspace})^{\nu}\ensuremath{\alpha_i}\xspace, \label{eq:ICUratei_nu}\\
\ensuremath{\gamma_i}\xspace^{\nu}+\ensuremath{\delta_i}\xspace^{\nu}+\ensuremath{\alpha_i}\xspace^{\nu} & = \ensuremath{\bar{\gamma}}\xspace,\label{eq:recratei_nu}
\end{align}
where $\nu=\{1,2\}$ represents the dose of the vaccine for which an individual has successfully developed antibodies. Note that $\nu$ is used as a super-index on the left-hand side of the equation but as an exponent on the right-hand side. \autoref{eq:recratei_nu} enforces vaccination not to alter the total average timescale of the disease course.
The transition rates from ICU to death, \ensuremath{\dratei^{\ICU}}\xspace, and from ICU to recovered, \ensuremath{\recratei^{\rm ICU}}\xspace, are assumed to remain equal across doses. The reasons for this assumption are i) a lack of solid evidence for significant differences, and ii) once in ICU, it is reasonable to assume that the vaccine failed to work for this individual.
In addition to the effects of complete sterilizing immunity (\ensuremath{\eta}\xspace) and protection against severe disease (\ensuremath{\kappa}\xspace), we include a third effect of vaccines: Individuals that happen to have a breakthrough infection despite being vaccinated carry a lower viral load and are consequently less infectious than unvaccinated infected individuals. This has been shown already after the first dose \cite{harris2021impact,pritchard2021impact}. We include this effect by a factor \ensuremath{\sigma}\xspace in the contagion term (c.f. \eqref{eq:dSdt}).
\subsection*{Individuals becoming infectious while developing antibodies}
One special case that one has to consider is when individuals acquire the virus in the time frame between being vaccinated and developing an adequate antibody level. We assume that individuals share behavioral characteristics with the members of the corresponding susceptible compartment, so contagion follows the same dynamics. Let $X_i(s)$ be the fraction of susceptible individuals of a given age group vaccinated at time $s_0<s$ and are not infected until time $s$. Assuming they can only leave the compartment by getting infected, the differential equation governing their dynamics is:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:dXds}
\frac{d X_i}{ds} = -\ensuremath{R_t}\xspace X_i\ensuremath{\sum_{j,\nu}\contMatrix_{ji}\frac{\virload^{\nu}I^\nu_j}{M_j}}\xspace}%{\ensuremath{I^{\rm eff}}\xspace- \frac{X_i}{M_i}\ensuremath{\Phi_i}\xspace,\qquad \text{with } X_i(s_0) = 1.
\end{equation}
The solution of~\eqref{eq:dXds} is given by $X_i(s) = \exp\left(-\displaystyle\int_{s_0}^{s}\displaystyle\Ieffs{s'}ds'\right)\exp\left(-\displaystyle\frac{\ensuremath{\Phi_i}\xspace (s-s_0)}{M_i}\right)$. Following the same formalism for every batch of vaccinated individuals produced at time $t-\ensuremath{\tau}\xspace$, the ones that remain susceptible by time $t$ are given by:
\begin{equation}
X_i(t) = \exp\left(-\displaystyle\int_{t-\ensuremath{\tau}\xspace}^{t}\displaystyle\Ieffs{t'}dt'\right)\exp\left(-\frac{\ensuremath{\Phi_i}\xspace \ensuremath{\tau}\xspace}{M_i}\right).
\end{equation}
Therefore, we define the fraction of susceptible individuals acquiring the virus in the time-frame of antibodies development as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:fraccont}
\ensuremath{p_i(t)}\xspace= 1-\exp\left(-\displaystyle\int_{t-\ensuremath{\tau}\xspace}^{t}\displaystyle\Ieffs{t'}dt'\right)\exp\left(-\frac{\ensuremath{\Phi_i}\xspace \ensuremath{\tau}\xspace}{M_i}\right).
\end{equation}
This fraction is then subtracted in the transitions $\ensuremath{V_i}\xspace^\nu\to\ensuremath{S_i}\xspace^{\nu+1}$ from the vaccinated to the immunized pools in the differential equations.
\subsection*{Effect of test-trace-and-isolate}\label{sec:Rt_TTI}
At low case numbers and moderate contact reduction, the spreading dynamics can be mitigated through test-trace-and-isolate (TTI) policies \cite{contreras2021challenges,contreras2020low}. In such a regime, individuals can have slightly more contacts because the overall low amount of cases enables a diligent system to trace offspring infections and stop the contagion chain. In other words, efficient TTI would allow for having a larger gross reproduction number \ensuremath{R_t}\xspace without rendering the system unstable. The precise allowed increase in \ensuremath{R_t}\xspace is determined by i) the rate at which symptomatic individuals are tested, ii) the probability of being randomly screened, and iii) the maximum capacity and fraction of contacts that health authorities can manually trace. When the different components of this meta-stable regime break down, we observe a self-accelerating growth in case numbers.
In our age-stratified model, we do not explicitly include TTI, given all the uncertainties that arise from the age-related modifying factors. However, we use our previous results to estimate the gross reproduction number \ensuremath{R_t}\xspace that would produce the same observed reproduction number in the different regimes of i) no test or contact tracing, ii) strict testing criteria, iii) self-reporting, and iv) full TTI. Doing so, we build an empirical relation to evaluating the contextual stringency of the different strategies herein compared (namely, long-term stabilization at high or low case numbers).
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[]{R1_TTI_conversion.pdf}
\caption{%
\textbf{Test-trace-and-isolate (TTI) policies allow for greater freedom (quantified by the gross reproduction number \ensuremath{R_t}\xspace) while observing the same reproduction number \ensuremath{\hat{R}_t^\text{obs}}\xspace.} Systematic efforts to slow down the spread of the disease, such as mass testing (random screening) and contact tracing, allow decreasing the observed reproduction number of the disease. For observing the same outcome in \ensuremath{\hat{R}_t^\text{obs}}\xspace, the gross reproduction number \ensuremath{R_t}\xspace would increase, or, in other words, individuals would be allowed to increase their potentially contagious contacts. Therefore, we extrapolate the \ensuremath{R_t}\xspace allowed in a full TTI setting at low case numbers and determine the equivalent \ensuremath{R_t}\xspace trends required to reach the same \ensuremath{\hat{R}_t^\text{obs}}\xspace in different regimes, starting from the raw value considering no TTI (red curve). Assuming that the relationship between \ensuremath{R_t}\xspace and \ensuremath{\hat{R}_t^\text{obs}}\xspace is exponential (eq~\eqref{eq:Rtobs_f_RtH}), we can obtain the expected \ensuremath{R_t}\xspace trends in the low-case numbers TTI regime. Starting from the raw \ensuremath{R_t}\xspace curve (red, 1), we can obtain \ensuremath{R_t}\xspace in all the other possible regimes: under strict testing criteria (yellow, 2), self-reporting (green, 3), or full TTI (blue, 4). Adapted from \cite{contreras2021challenges}.
}
\label{fig:TTIRttransformation}
\end{figure}
In the phase diagram of~\figref{fig:TTIRttransformation} we illustrate the conversion methodology. Two different $\ensuremath{R_t}\xspace$ might produce the same observed reproduction number $\ensuremath{\hat{R}_t^\text{obs}}\xspace$, depending on the regime in which they operate. Fitting all curves to an exponential function, and assuming that the largest eigenvalue of the system (for all possibilities of testing and tracing) can be represented as a function of the gross reproduction number $\ensuremath{R_t}\xspace$, we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Rtobs_f_RtH}
\ensuremath{\hat{R}_t^\text{obs}}\xspace = a \exp\left(b\ensuremath{R_t}\xspace\right).
\end{equation}
We then want to evaluate how to translate the values we get from our control problem (which has no testing nor tracing) to the equivalent in other regimes. Assuming that all strategies have the same $\ensuremath{\hat{R}_t^\text{obs}}\xspace$ (as schematized in~\figref{fig:TTIRttransformation}), we can relate their gross reproduction numbers in each regime through a simple equation:
\begin{equation}
\ensuremath{R_t}\xspace^{i} = \frac{1}{b_{i}} \left(\ln\left(\frac{a_{0}}{a_{i}}\right)+b_{0}\ensuremath{R_t}\xspace\right),
\end{equation}
which corresponds to a line, and where the subscript 0 represents the base scenario (with no testing or contact tracing) and the subscript $i$ represents the other strategies. The exponential fit to the curves shown in~\figref{fig:TTIRttransformation} gives to the following line equations:
\begin{align}
\ensuremath{R_t}\xspace^{\rm test(ineff)} & = 1.0211\ensuremath{R_t}\xspace + 0.2229,\\
\ensuremath{R_t}\xspace^{\rm test(eff)} & = 1.0756\ensuremath{R_t}\xspace + 0.3272,\\
\ensuremath{R_t}\xspace^{\rm TTI} & = 1.6842\ensuremath{R_t}\xspace + 0.1805.
\end{align}
Assuming smooth transitions for these conversions in \ensuremath{R_t}\xspace, which are related to certain values the new daily cases $N$ ($N_{\rm TTI}<N_{\rm test(eff)}<N_{\rm test(ineff)}<N_{\text{no test}}$ respectively), we can define a general conversion $\ensuremath{R_t}\xspace(N)$:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Rt_conversion}
\ensuremath{R_t}\xspace(N) =
\begin{cases}
\displaystyle \ensuremath{R_t}\xspace^{\rm TTI}, &\qquad \text{if } N< N_{\rm TTI} \\
\ensuremath{R_t}\xspace^{\rm test(eff)} \phi_1 + \ensuremath{R_t}\xspace^{\rm TTI}\left(1-\phi_1\right) ,&\qquad \text{if } N_{\rm TTI}\leq N < N_{\rm test(eff)}\\
\ensuremath{R_t}\xspace^{\rm test(ineff)} \phi_2 + \ensuremath{R_t}\xspace^{\rm test(eff)}\left(1-\phi_2\right),&\qquad \text{if } N_{\rm test(eff)}\leq N < N_{\rm test(ineff)}\\
\ensuremath{R_t}\xspace \phi_3 + \ensuremath{R_t}\xspace^{\rm test(ineff)}\left(1-\phi_3\right),&\qquad \text{if } N_{\rm test(ineff)}\leq N < N_{\text{no test}}\\
\ensuremath{R_t}\xspace,&\qquad \text{else},\\
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
where the $\phi$ parameters of each convex combination depend on $N$:
\begin{equation}
\phi_1 = \frac{N-N_{\rm TTI}}{N_{\rm test(eff)}-N_{\rm TTI}}, \qquad \phi_2 = \frac{N-N_{\rm test(eff)}}{N_{\rm test(ineff)}-N_{\rm test(eff)}},\qquad \text{and} \quad \phi_3 = \frac{N-N_{\rm test(ineff)}}{N_{\text{no test}}-N_{\rm test(ineff)}}.
\end{equation}
Default reference values for the $N-$related set-points are $N_{\rm TTI} = 20$, $N_{\rm test(eff)} = 100$, and $N_{\rm test(ineff)} = 500$ and $N_{\text{no test}}=\SI{10000}{}$ new daily cases per million. When we plot and refer to the gross reproduction number \ensuremath{R_t}\xspace, it is always the value obtained from eq.\ \eqref{eq:Rt_conversion}.
\subsection*{Observed reproduction number}
In real-world settings, the full extent of the disease spread can only be observed through testing and contact tracing. While the \textit{true} number of daily infections $N$ is a sum of all new infections in the hidden and traced pools, the \textit{observed} number of daily infections $\ensuremath{\hat{N}^{\text{obs}}}\xspace$ is the number of new infections discovered by testing, tracing, and surveillance of the quarantined individuals' contacts. Thus, the observed number of daily infections is given by
\begin{equation}
\ensuremath{\hat{N}^{\text{obs}}}\xspace (t) = \Big[\xunderbrace{\sum_{i,\nu}\ensuremath{\rho}\xspace E_i^{\nu}(t)}_{\substack{\text{end of}\\\text{latency}}} + \xunderbrace{\sum_{i,\nu}\frac{\ensuremath{S_i}\xspace^{\nu}(t)+\ensuremath{V_i}\xspace^{\nu}(t)}{M_i}\ensuremath{\Phi_i}\xspace(t)}_{\text{ext. influx}} \Big]\circledast \xunderbrace{\mathcal{K}(t)}_{\substack{\text{delay}\\\text{kernel}}}
\label{eq:Nreport}
\end{equation}
where $\circledast$ denotes a convolution and $\mathcal{K}$ an empirical probability mass function that models a variable reporting delay, inferred from German data. As the Robert-Koch-Institute (RKI), the official body responsible for epidemiological control in Germany~\cite{anderHeiden2020Schatzung}, reports the date the test is performed, the delay until the appearance in the database can be inferred.
The laboratories obtain \SI{50}{\%} of the sample results on the next day, \SI{30}{\%} the second day, \SI{10}{\%} the third day, and further delays complete the remaining \SI{10}{\%}, which for simplicity we will truncate at day four. Considering that an extra day is needed for reporting the laboratory results, the probability mass function for days 0 to 5 is be given by $\mathcal{K}=[0,\,0,\,0.5,\,0.3,\,0.1,\,0.1]$.
The spreading dynamics are usually characterized by the observed reproduction number $\ensuremath{\hat{R}_t^\text{obs}}\xspace$, an estimator of the effective reproduction number, calculated from the observed number of new cases $\ensuremath{\hat{N}^{\text{obs}}}\xspace(t)$. We use the definition underlying the estimates that are published by the RKI, which defines the reproduction number as the relative change of daily new cases separated by 4 days (the assumed serial interval of COVID-19~\cite{lauer2020incubation})
\begin{equation}\label{Rt_obs}
\ensuremath{\hat{R}_t^\text{obs}}\xspace = \frac{\ensuremath{\hat{N}^{\text{obs}}}\xspace(t)}{\ensuremath{\hat{N}^{\text{obs}}}\xspace(t-4)}.
\end{equation}
In contrast to the original definition of $\ensuremath{\hat{R}_t^\text{obs}}\xspace$~\cite{anderHeiden2020Schatzung}, we do not need to remove real-world noise effects by smoothing this ratio.
It should be noted that calling \ensuremath{\hat{N}^{\text{obs}}}\xspace the observed case numbers is somewhat misleading since we do not model the hidden figure explicitly. However, as this is expected only to change slowly, it is still sufficiently accurate to obtain the observed reproduction number from eq.\ \eqref{Rt_obs}.
\subsection*{Keeping a steady number of daily infections with a PD control approach}
With increasing immunity from the progressing vaccination program, keeping the spread of COVID-19 under control will require less and less effort by society. We can use this positive effect to lower the infections by upholding the same NPIs or gradually lifting restrictions to keep daily case numbers or ICU occupancy constant.
We model the optimal lifting of restrictions in the latter strategy using a Proportional Derivative (PD) control approach. The hidden reproduction number $\ensuremath{R_t}\xspace$ is changed at every day of the simulation depending on either the daily case numbers $\ensuremath{\hat{N}^{\text{obs}}}\xspace$ or the total ICU occupancy $\sum_{i,\nu}\ensuremath{\ICUi^{\nu}}\xspace$ such that the system is always driven towards a given set point. The change in $\ensuremath{R_t}\xspace$ is negatively proportional to both the difference between the state and the setpoint as well as the change of that difference in time. The former dependence increases the number of infections if the case numbers drift down while the latter punishes rapid increases of the case numbers, keeping the system from overshooting the target value. We omit a dependence on the cumulative error, as is usually done in a PID controller, as that would enforce oscillations around the setpoint and because the PD has proven to be sufficient for our purposes.
Since both the case numbers and the ICU occupancy inherently only react to changes in $\ensuremath{R_t}\xspace$ after a few days of delay, we can further improve the stability of the control by \enquote{looking into the future}. The full procedure for every day $t$ of the simulation then follows:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Run the system for a time span $T$ using the current $\ensuremath{R_t}\xspace$.
\item Quantify the relative error $\Delta(t+T)$ of the system state at the end by the difference between the observed case numbers or the total ICU occupancy and the chosen set point divided by said set point.
\item Calculate $\ensuremath{R_t}\xspace$ for the next day according to
\begin{equation*}
\ensuremath{R_t}\xspace\!\,_{+\SI{1}{day}} = \ensuremath{R_t}\xspace - \left(k_p\cdot\Delta(t+T) + k_d\cdot \frac{d\Delta}{dt}(t+T)\right) ,
\end{equation*}
where $k_p$ and $k_d$ denote constant control parameters listed in table \ref{tab:control_parameters}.
\item Revert the system from the state at $t+T$ to $t+\SI{1}{day}$ and start again at 1.
\end{enumerate}
We use the same control system to uphold the setpoint as we use to drive the system towards that state from the initial conditions. In a staged-control-like manner, we make the system more reactive to high slopes near the setpoint, i.\ e.\ increase $k_d$ when within \SI{10}{\%} of the target. In this way, the system can drive up quickly to the target while preventing overreactions to the gradual immunization changes while hovering at the fixed value.
Scenarios 2-4 in the main text consist of a chain of these control problems, changing from controlled case numbers to controlled ICU occupancy at one of the vaccination milestones (\figref{fig:lifting_restrictions}).
\begin{table}[htp]\caption{The PD control parameters depending on the objective}
\label{tab:control_parameters}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{l p{3cm} lll p{2cm}}\toprule
& preview time span & proportional & derivative\\
control problem & $T$ & $k_p$ & $k_d$ \\\midrule
$\ensuremath{\hat{N}^{\text{obs}}}\xspace$ (close to set point) & 14 \SI{}{days} & 0.06 & 3.0 \\
$\ensuremath{\hat{N}^{\text{obs}}}\xspace$ (away from set point) & 14 \SI{}{days}& 0.06 & 1.2 \\
$\sum_{i,\nu}\ensuremath{\ICUi^{\nu}}\xspace$ (close to set point) & 14 \SI{}{days} & 0.2 & 15.0 \\
$\sum_{i,\nu}\ensuremath{\ICUi^{\nu}}\xspace$ (away from set point) & 14 \SI{}{days} & 0.2 & 7.0 \\ \bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\subsection*{Parameter choices}\label{sec:parameters}
For the age stratification of the population and the ICU rates, we used numbers published for Germany (\tabref{tab:vaccine_uptake}). We suppose that the quantitative differences to other countries are not so large that the result would differ qualitatively. When comparing ICU rates across countries, one has to bear in mind that the definition of what constitutes an intensive care unit can differ between countries. We chose our ICU limit of 65 per million as a conservative limit so that in Germany, around three-quarters of the capacity would still be available for non-COVID patients. This limit was reached during the second wave in Germany. Other countries in the EU might have fewer remaining beds for non-COVID patients at this limit, as Germany has a comparatively high \textit{per capita} number of ICU beds available.
ICU-related parameters are calculated from 14043 hospitalizations reported by German institutions until October 26, 2020 \tabref{tab:age_dep_params}, converted to transitions rate from \tabref{tab:age_dep_ICU_rates}. All other epidemiological parameters, their sources, values, ranges, and units are listed in detail in~\tabref{tab:Parametros}.
The vaccine efficacy, as discussed previously, is modeled as a multiplicative factor of the non-vaccinated reference parameter. The dose-dependent multiplicative factor is chosen to be $\SI{90}{\%}$ in the default scenario, which is in the range of the 70 to $\SI{95}{\%}$ efficacy measured in phase 3 studies \cite{mahase_covid-19_2021} of approved vaccines and in accordance to the 92\% efficacy of the Pfizer vaccine found in a population study in Israel \cite{dagan_bnt162b2_2021}. In addition, we analyzed different scenarios of vaccine uptake (namely, the overall compliance of people to get vaccinated according to the vaccination plan) because of its relevance to policymakers and different scenarios of the protection the vaccine grants against infections \ensuremath{\eta}\xspace. The latter has great relevance for assessing risks when evaluating restriction lifting.
\subsection*{Initial conditions}\label{sec:initial_conditions}
The initial conditions are chosen corresponding to the situation in Germany at the beginning of March 2021. We assume a seroprevalence of $10\%$ because of post-infection immunity across all age groups, i.e., $R_i(0)=0.1 \cdot M_i \, \forall i$. The vaccination at the beginning is according to the vaccination schedule introduced before, which leaves 5.1 million doses administered initially and an initial vaccination rate of 168 thousand doses per day. This compares to the 6.2 million total and the around 150 thousand daily administered doses at the time \cite{covimo}. The initial number of daily new infections is at 200 per million, and the number of individuals treated in ICU is at 30 per million with an age distribution as observed during the first wave in Germany (taken from \cite{RKI_Krankheitsschwere}). From these conditions and the total population sizes of the age groups (\tabref{tab:vaccine_uptake}) we infer the initial size of each compartment.
\subsection*{Numerical calculation of solutions}
The system of delay differential equations governing our model were numerically solved using a Runge-Kutta 4th order algorithm, implemented in Rust (version 1.48.0). The source code is available on GitHub \url{https://github.com/Priesemann-Group/covid19_vaccination}.
\begin{table}[htp]\caption{Model parameters. The range column either describes the range of values used in the various scenarios, or if values depend on the age group (indexed by $i$), the lowest and highest value across age-groups.}
\label{tab:Parametros}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{l p{4cm} lll p{3cm}}\toprule
Parameter & Meaning & \makecell[l]{Value \\ (default)} & \makecell[l]{Range\\ } & Units & Source \\\midrule
$\ensuremath{R_t}\xspace$ & Reproduction number (gross) & 1.00 & 0--3.5 & \SI{}{-} & Assumed \\\midrule
$\ensuremath{\eta}\xspace$ & Vaccine protection against transmission & 0.75 & 0.5--0.85 & \SI{}{-} & \cite{levine2021decreased,mallapaty_can_2021,hall_effectiveness_2021}\\
\ensuremath{\kappa}\xspace & Vaccine efficacy (against severe disease) & 0.9 & 0.7--0.95 & \SI{}{-} & \cite{mahase_covid-19_2021, dagan_bnt162b2_2021}\\
$\ensuremath{\sigma}\xspace^{\nu}$ & Relative virulence of unvaccinated and vaccinated individuals & [1.0, 0.5, 0.5] & 0.5 -- 1 & \SI{}{-} & \cite{harris2021impact}\\
$\ensuremath{\tau}\xspace$ & Immunization delay & 7 & & \SI{}{days} & \cite{polack2020safety,levine2021decreased}\\
$\ensuremath{v_r}\xspace$ & Random vaccination fraction & 0.35 & & & \cite{bundesregierung_impfverordnung, stiko_empfehlung} \\\midrule
$M_i$ & Population group size & \tabref{tab:vaccine_uptake} & & people & \cite{agestructure}\\
$\ensuremath{u_i}\xspace$ & Vaccine uptake & \tabref{tab:vaccine_uptake} & & -- & \cite{wouters2021challenges}\\
$\ensuremath{\rho}\xspace$ & Transition rate $E\to I$ & 0.25 & & \SI{}{day^{-1}} & \cite{bar2020science,li2020substantial}\\
$\ensuremath{\gamma_i}\xspace^{\nu}$ & Recovery rate from \ensuremath{\Ii^{\nu}}\xspace & \tabref{tab:age_dep_params} & 0.088 -- 0.1& \SI{}{day^{-1}} & \cite{he2020temporal,pan2020time,Ling2020Persistence} \\
$\ensuremath{\recratei^{\rm ICU}}\xspace$ & Recovery rate from \ensuremath{\ICUi^{\nu}}\xspace & \tabref{tab:age_dep_params} & 0.08 -- 0.2& \SI{}{day^{-1}} & \cite{Levin2020,Linden2020DAE,salje2020estimating} \\
$\ensuremath{\delta_i}\xspace^{\nu}$ & Death rate from \ensuremath{\Ii^{\nu}}\xspace & \tabref{tab:age_dep_params} &$10^{-6}$ -- 0.005 & \SI{}{day^{-1}} & \cite{Levin2020,Linden2020DAE,salje2020estimating} \\
$\ensuremath{\dratei^{\ICU}}\xspace$ & Death rate from \ensuremath{\ICUi^{\nu}}\xspace & \tabref{tab:age_dep_params} & 0.0055 -- 0.083 & \SI{}{day^{-1}} & \cite{Levin2020,Linden2020DAE,salje2020estimating}\\
$\ensuremath{\alpha_i}\xspace^{\nu}$ & Transition rate $I\to\ensuremath{{\rm ICU}}\xspace$ & \tabref{tab:age_dep_params} & $10^{-5}$ -- 0.007 & \SI{}{day^{-1}} & \cite{Levin2020,Linden2020DAE,salje2020estimating} \\
$\ensuremath{\Phi_i}\xspace$ & Infections from external sources & 1 & & \makecell{\SI{}{cases\, day^{-1}}\\ per million} & Assumed \\\midrule
$\ensuremath{p_i(t)}\xspace$ & Fraction of individuals getting infected before acquiring antibodies & -- & -- & \SI{}{-} & Eq.~\eqref{eq:fraccont} \\
$\ensuremath{\bar{\gamma}}\xspace$ & Effective removal rate from infectious compartment & -- & -- & \SI{}{day^{-1}} & $\left(\ensuremath{\gamma_i}\xspace^{\nu}+\ensuremath{\alpha_i}\xspace^\nu+\ensuremath{\delta_i}\xspace^{\nu}\right)$\\
$\fvi{t}, \fvii{t}$ & Administered $1^\text{st}$ and $2^\text{nd}$ vaccine doses & - & -- & \SI{}{doses/day} & Eq.~\eqref{eq:doses1}, \eqref{eq:doses2}
\\\bottomrule
\end{tabular}%
\end{table}
\begin{table}[htp]\caption{Model variables, Subscripts $i$ denote the $i$th age group, superscripts the vaccination status (Unvaccinated, immunized by one dose, by two doses).}
\label{tab:Variables}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{l p{4cm} l p{7cm} }\toprule
Variable & Meaning & Units & Explanation\\\midrule
$\ensuremath{S_i}\xspace,\, \ensuremath{\Si^{1}}\xspace,\, \ensuremath{\Si^{2}}\xspace$ & Susceptible pools & \SI{}{people} & Non-infected people that may acquire the virus. \\
$\ensuremath{\Vi^{0}}\xspace,\, \ensuremath{\Vi^{1}}\xspace$ & Vaccinated pools & \SI{}{people} & Non-infected people that have been vaccinated but have not developed antibodies yet, thus may acquire the virus. \\
$\ensuremath{E_i}\xspace,\, \ensuremath{\Ei^{1}}\xspace,\, \ensuremath{\Ei^{2}}\xspace$ & Exposed pools & \SI{}{people} & Infected people in latent period. Can not spread the virus. \\
$\ensuremath{I_i}\xspace,\, \ensuremath{\Ii^{1}}\xspace,\, \ensuremath{\Ii^{2}}\xspace$ & Infected pools & \SI{}{people} & Currently infectious people. \\
$\ensuremath{\ICU_i}\xspace,\, \ensuremath{\ICUi^{1}}\xspace,\, \ensuremath{\ICUi^{2}}\xspace$ & ICU pools & \SI{}{people} & Infected people receiving ICU treatment, isolated. \\
$\ensuremath{D_i}\xspace,\, \ensuremath{\Di^{1}}\xspace,\, \ensuremath{\Di^{2}}\xspace$ & Dead pools & \SI{}{people} & Dead people. \\
$\ensuremath{R_i}\xspace,\, \ensuremath{\Ri^{1}}\xspace,\, \ensuremath{\Ri^{2}}\xspace$ & Recovered pools & \SI{}{people} & Recovered/immune people that have acquired post-infection or sterilizing vaccination immunity. \\
$\ensuremath{\hat{N}^{\text{obs}}}\xspace$ & Observed new infections & \SI{}{people\, day^{-1}} & Daily new infections, including reporting delays. eq.~\eqref{eq:Nreport} \\
$\ensuremath{\hat{R}_t^\text{obs}}\xspace$ & Observed reproduction number& \SI{}{-} & The reproduction number that can be estimated only from the observed cases: $\ensuremath{\hat{R}_t^\text{obs}}\xspace = \ensuremath{\hat{N}^{\text{obs}}}\xspace(t)/\ensuremath{\hat{N}^{\text{obs}}}\xspace(t-4)$. \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}%
\end{table}
\section*{Author Contributions}
S.B, S.C, J.D, and V.P. designed the research. S.B., S.C., and M.L. conducted the research. All authors analyzed the data. S.B. and S.C. created the figures. All authors wrote the paper.
\section*{Data availability}
The source code for data generation and analysis is available online on GitHub \url{https://github.com/Priesemann-Group/covid19_vaccination}.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
We thank the Priesemann group for exciting discussions and for their valuable input. We thank Christian Karagiannidis for fruitful discussions about the age-dependent hospitalization, ICU and fatality rates. All authors with affiliation (1) received support from the Max-Planck-Society. \'AO-N received funding from PIA-FB0001, ANID, Chile. ML, JD, SM received funding from the "Netzwerk Universitätsmedizin" (NUM) project egePan (01KX2021).
|
\section{More related work}
\label{sec:more related work}
\subsection{Preliminaries: two kinds of questions generalization and two types of inductive bias}
In this supplementary section we expand on our briefer discussion of related work in the Introduction of the main paper.
The question of why and how DNNs generalize in the overparameterized regime has generated a vast literature.
To organize our discussion, we follow~\citep{mingard2020sgd} and first distinguish two kinds of questions about generalization in overparameterized DNNs:
\textbf{1) The question of over-parameterized generalization}: Why do DNNs generalize at all in the overparameterized regime, where classical learning theory suggests they should heavily overfit.
\textbf{2) The question of fine-tuned generalization}:
Given that a DNN already generalizes reasonably well, how can detailed architecture choice, optimizer choice, and hyperparameter tuning further improve generalization?
\medskip
Question 2) is the main focus of a large tranche of the literature on generalization, and for good reason. In order to build state-of-the-art (SOTA) DNNs, even a few percent accuracy improvement (taking image classification as an example) is important in practice. Improved generalization performance can be achieved in many ways, including local adjustments of the DNNs structure (e.g. convolutional layers, pooling layers, shortcut connections etc.),
hyperparameter tuning (learning rate, batch size etc.),
or choosing different optimizers (e.g.\ vanilla SGD versus entropySGD~\citep{chaudhari2019entropy} or Adam~\cite{kingma2014adam}.
In this paper, however, we are primarily interested in question 1). As pointed out, for example famously in \citep{zhang2016understanding}, but also by many researchers before that~\footnote{For example, Leo Breiman, included the question of overparameterised generalization in DNN back in in 1995 as one of the main issues raised by his reflections on 20 years of refereeing for Neurips~\citep{breiman1995reflections}),}, DNNs can be proven to be highly expressive, so that the number of hypotheses that can fit a training data set $S$, but generalize poorly, is typically
many orders of magnitude larger than the number that can actually generalize.
And yet in practice DNNs do not tend to overfit much, and can generalize well, which implies that DNNs must have some kind of \emph{inductive bias}~\citep{shalev2014understanding} toward hypotheses that generalise well on unseen data.
Following the framework of ~\citep{mingard2020sgd}, we use the language of functions (rather than that of hypotheses, see also \cref{sec:p-f map and neutral set}.)
to distinguish two major potential types of inductive bias.
\textbf{A) The inductive bias upon upon random sampling of parameters over a parameter distribution $P_w(\textrm{w})$}. In other words, given a DNN architecture, loss function etc. and a measure over parameters $P_w(\textrm{w})$ (which can be taken to be the initial parameter distribution for an optimiser, but is more general), this bias occurs when certain types of functions more likely to appear upon random sampling of parameters than others. This inductive bias can be expressed in terms of a prior over functions $P(f)$, or in terms of a posterior $P_B(f|S)$ when the functions are conditioned, for example, on obtaining zero error on training set $S$.
\textbf{B) The inductive bias induced by optimizers
during a training procedure.} In other words, given an inductive bias upon initialization (from \textbf{A)}, does the training procedure induce a further inductive bias on what functions a DNN expresses? One way of measuring this second form of inductive bias is to calculate the probability $P_{opt}(f|S)$ that an DNN trained to zero error on training set $S$ with optimizer $opt$ (typically a variant of SGD) expresses function $f$, and to then compare it to the Bayesian posterior probability $P_B(f|S)$ that this function obtains upon random sampling of parameters~\cite{mingard2020sgd}. In principle $P_B(f|S)$ expresses the inductive bias of type A), so any differences between $P_{opt}(f|S)$ and $P_{B}(f|S)$ could be due to inductive biases of type B>
These two sources of inductive bias can be relevant to both questions above about generalization. Wwe emphasise that our taxonomy of two questions about generalization, and two types of inductive bias is just one way of parsing these issues. We make these first order distinctions to help clarify our discussion of the literature, and are aware that there are other ways of teasing out these distinctions.
\subsection{Related work on flatness}
The concept "flatness" of the loss function of DNNs can be traced
back to \citet{hinton1993keeping} and \citet{hochreiter1997flat}.
Although these authors did not provide a completely formal mathematical
definition of flatness, \citet{hochreiter1997flat} described flat minima as ``a large connected region in parameter space where the loss remains approximately constant'', which requires lower
precision to specify than sharp minima.
They linked this idea to
the minimum
description length (MDL) principle \citep{rissanen1978modeling},
which says that the best performing model is the one with shortest description length,
to argue that flatter minima should generalize better than sharp minima. More generally, flatness can be interpreted as a complexity control of the hypotheses class introduced by algorithmic choices.
The first thing to note is that flatness is a property of the functions that a DNN converges on. In other words, the basic argument above is that flatter functions will generalize better, which can be relevant to both questions 1) and 2) above.
It is a different question to ask whether a certain way of finding functions (say by optimising a DNN to zero error on a training set) will generate an inductive bias towards flatter functions.
In \citet{hochreiter1997flat}, the authors proposed an algorithm to bias towards
flatter minima by minimizing the training loss while maximizing the log volume of a connected region of the parameter space. This idea is similar to the recent suggestion of entropy-SGD \citet{chaudhari2019entropy}, where the authors also introduced an extra regularization to bias the optimizer into wider valleys by maximizing the ``local entropy''.
In an influential paper,
\citet{keskar2016large} reported that the solutions found by SGD with small batch sizes generalize
better than those found with larger batch sizes, and showed that this behaviour correlated with a measure of ``sharpness'' (sensitivity of the training loss to
perturbations in the parameters). Sharpness can be viewed as a measure which is the inverse of the flatness introduced by ~\citet{hinton1993keeping} and \citet{hochreiter1997flat}.
This work helped to popularise the notion that SGD itself plays an important role in providing inductive bias, since differences in generalization performance and in sharpness correlated with batch size. In follow-on papers others have showed that the correlation with batch size is more complex, as some of the improvements can be mimicked by changing learning rates or number of optimization steps for example, see \citep{hoffer2017train, goyal2017accurate, smith2017don, neyshabur2017exploring}.
Nevertheless, these changes in generalization as a function of optimizer hyperparameters are important things to understand because they are fundamentally type B inductive bias. Because the changes in generalization performance in these papers tend to be relatively small, they mainly impinge on question 2) for fine-tuned generalization. Whether these observed effects are relevant for question 1) is unclear from this literature.
Another strand of work on flatness has been through the lens of generalization bounds. For example, \citet{neyshabur2017exploring} showed that sharpness by itself is not sufficient for ensuring generalization, but can be combined,
through PAC-Bayes analysis, with the norm of the weights to obtain an appropriate complexity
measure. The connection between sharpness and the PAC-Bayes framework was also investigated by \citet{dziugaite2017computing}, who numerically optimized
the overall PAC-Bayes generalization bound over a series of multivariate Gaussian distributions
(different choices of perturbations and priors) which describe the KL-divergence term appearing in the second term in the combined generalization bound by \citet{neyshabur2017exploring}. For more discussion of this literature on bounds and flatness, see also the recent review~\citet{valle2020generalization}.
\citet{rahaman2018spectral} also draw a connection to flatness through the lens of Fourier analysis, showing that DNNs typically learn low frequency components faster than high frequency components. This frequency argument is related to the input-output sensitivity picture, which is systematically investigated in \citet{novak2018sensitivity}.
There is also another wide-spread belief that SGD trained DNNs are implicitly biased towards having small parameters norms or large margin, intuitively inspired by classical ridge regression and SVMs. \citet{bartlett2017spectrally} presented a margin-based generalization bound that depends on spectral and $L_{2,1}$ norm of the layer-wise weight matrices of DNNs. \citet{neyshabur2017pac} later proved a similar spectral-normalized margin bound using PAC-Bayesian approach rather than the complex covering number argument used in \citet{bartlett2017spectrally}.
\citet{liao2018surprising} further strengthen the theoretical arguments that an appropriate measure of complexity for DNNs should be based on a product norm by showing the linear relationship between training/testing cross entropy loss of normalized networks.
\citet{jiang2018predicting} also empirically studied the role of margin bounds.
In a recent important large-scale empirical work on different complexity measures by \citet{jiang2019fantastic}, 40 different complexity measures are tested when varying 7 different hyperparameter types over two image classification datasets. They do not introduce random labels so that data complexity is not thoroughly investigated. Among these measures, the authors found that sharpness-based measures outperform their peers, and in particular outperform norm-based measures. It is worth noting that their definition of ``worst case'' sharpness is similar to \cref{def:sharpness} but normalized by weights, so they are not directly comparable. In fact, their definition of worst case sharpness in the PAC-Bayes picture is more close to the works by \citet{petzka2019reparameterization, rangamani2019scale,tsuzuku2019normalized} which focus on finding scale-invariant flatness measure.
Indeed enhanced performance are reported in these works. However, these measures are only scale-invariant when the scaling is layer-wise. Other methods of re-scaling (e.g. neuron-wise re-scaling) can still change the metrics. Moreover, the scope of \citet{jiang2019fantastic} is concentrated on the practical side (e.g.
inductive bias of type B) and does not consider data complexity, which we believe is a key ingredient to understanding the inductive bias needed to explain question 1) on generalization.
Finally, in another influential paper,
\citet{dinh2017sharp} showed that many measures of flatness, including the sharpness used in~\cite{keskar2016large}, can be made to vary arbitrarily by re-scale parameters while keeping the function unchanged. This work has called into question the use of local flatness measures as reliable guides to generalization, and stimulated a lot of follow on studies, including the present paper where we explicitly study how parameter-rescaling affects measures of flatness as a function of epochs.
\subsection{Related work on the infinite-width limit}
A series of important recent extensions
of the seminal proof in \citet{neal1994priors} - that a single-layer DNN with random iid weights
is equivalent to a Gaussian process (GP) \citep{mackay1998introduction} in the infinite-width limit - to multiple layers and architectures (NNGPs) have recently appeared \citep{lee2017deep,matthews2018gaussian, novak2018bayesian,garriga-alonso2018deep,NEURIPS2019_5e69fda3}.
These studies on NNGPs have used this correspondence
to effectively perform a very good approximation to exact Bayesian inference in DNNs.
When they have compared NNGPs to SGD-trained DNNs the generalization performances have generally shown a remarkably close agreement.
These facts require rethinking the role SGD plays in question 1) about generalization, given that NNGPs can already generalize remarkably well without SGD at all.
\subsection{Relationship to previous papers using the function picture}
The work in this paper builds on a series of recent papers that have explored the function based picture in random neural networks. We briefly review these works to clarify their connection to the current paper.
Firstly, in \citep{valle2018deep},
the authors demonstrated empirically that
upon random sampling of parameters, DNNs are highly biased towards functions with low complexity. This behaviour does not depend very much on $P_w(\textbf{w})$ for a range of initial distributions typically used in the literature. Note that this behaviour does start to deviate from what was found in \citep{valle2018deep}, when the system enters a chaotic phase, which can be reached with for tanh or erf non-linearities and for $P_w(\textbf{w})$ with a relatively large variance~\cite{yang2019fine}.
They show more specifically that the bias towards simple functions is consistent with the ``simplicity bias'' from \citet{dingle2018input,dingle2020generic}, which was inspired by the coding theorem from algorithmic information theory (AIT) \citep{li2008introduction}, first derived by \citet{levin1974laws} .
The idea of simplicity bias in DNNs states that if the
parameter-function map is sufficiently biased, then the probability of the DNN producing a
function $f$
on input data drops exponentially with increasing Kolmogorov complexity $K(f)$ of the function
$f$. In other words, high $P(f)$ functions have low $K(f)$, and high $K(f)$ functions have low $P(f)$. A key insight from~\citep{dingle2018input,dingle2020generic} is that $K(f)$ can be approximated by an appropriate measure $\tilde{K}(f)$ and still be used to make predictions on $P(f)$, even if the true $K(f)$ is formally incomputable.
Recently \citet{mingard2019neural} and \citet{de2018random} gave two separate non-AIT based theoretical justifications for the existence of simplicity bias in DNNs.
In other words, this line of work suggests that DNNs have an intrinsic bias towards simple functions upon random sampling of parameters, and in our taxonomy, that is bias of type A).
If simplicity bias in DNNs matches ``natural'' data distributions, then, at least upon random sampling of parameters, this should help facilitate good generalization.
Indeed, it has been shown that data such as MNIST or CIFAR-10 is relatively simple~\citep{lin2017does,goldt2019modelling,spigler2019asymptotic}, suggesting that an inductive bias toward simplicity will assist with good generalization.
A second paper upon which the current one builds is~\citep{mingard2020sgd}, where extensive empirical test (for a range of architectures (FCN, CNN, LSTM), datasets (MNIST, Fashion-MNIST, CIFAR-10,ionosphere, IMDb moviereview dataset), and SGD variants (vanilla SGD, Adam, Adagrad, RMSprop, Adadelta), as well as for different batch sizes and learning rates) were done of the hypothesis that:
\begin{equation}
P_{opt}(f|S) \approx P_{B}(f|S).
\end{equation}\label{eq:pb}
Here $P_{opt}(f|S)$ is the probability that an optimiser (SGD or one of its variants) converges upon a function $f$ after training to zero training error on a training set $S$. By training over many different parameter initializations, $P_{opt}(f|S)$ can be calculated. Similarly, the Bayesian posterior probability $ P_{B}(f|S)$ is defined as the probability that upon random sampling of parameters, a DNN expresses function $f$, conditioned on zero error on $S$.
The functions were, as in the current paper, a restriction to a given training set $S$ and test set $E$. Since the systems always had zero error on the training set, functions could be compared by what they produced on the test set (for example, the set of labels on the images for image classification). It was found that the hypothesis~(\ref{eq:pb}) held remarkably well to first order, for a wide range of systems. At first sight this similarity is surprising, given that the procedures to generate $P_{opt}(f|S)$ (training with an optimiser such as SGD) is completely different from those for $P_{B}(f|S)$ (where GP techniques and direct sampling were used), which knows nothing of optimisers at all. The fact that these two probabilities are so similar suggests that any inductive bias of type B, which would be a bias beyond what is already present in $P_B(f|S)$, is relatively small. While this conclusion does not imply that there are no induced biases of type B), and clearly there are since hyperparameter tuning affects fine-tuned generalization, it does suggest that the main source of inductive bias needed to explain 1), the question of why DNNs generalize in the first place, is found in the inductive biases of type A), which are already there in $P_B(f|S)$. In ~\citep{mingard2020sgd}, the authors propose that, for highly biased priors $P(f)$, that SGD is dominated by the large differences in basin size for the different functions $f$, and so finds functions with probabilities dominated by the initial distribution. A similar effect was seen in evolutionary systems~~\cite{schaper2014arrival,dingle2015structure} where it was called the arrival of the frequent.
In addition, in~\citep{mingard2020sgd}, the authors observed for one system that $-\log (P_B(f|S))$ scaled linearly with the generalization error on $E$ for a wide range of errors. This preliminary result provided inspiration for the current paper where we directly study the correlation between the prior $P(f)$ and the generalization error.
The third main function based paper that we build upon is~\citep{valle2020generalization} which provides a comprehensive analysis of generalization bounds. In particular, it studies in some detail the Marginal Likelihood PAC-Bayes bound, first presented in~\cite{valle2018deep}, which is predicts a direct link between the generalization error and the log of the marginal likelihood $P(S)$. $P(S)$ can be interpreted as the total prior probability that a function is found with zero error on the training set $S$, upon random sampling of parameters of the DNN.
The performance of the bound was tested for challenges such as varying amounts of data complexity, different kinds of architectures, and different amounts of training data (learning curves). For each challenge it works remarkably well, and to our knowledge no other bound has been tested this comprehensively. Again, the good performance of this bound, which is agnostic about optimisers, suggest that a large part of the answer to question 1) can be found in the inductive bias of type A), e.g.\ that found upon initialization. The bound is not accurate enough to explain smaller effects relevant for fine-tuning generalization, which can originate from other sources such as a difference in optimiser hyperparameters. These conclusions are consistent with the different approach in this paper, where we use the prior $P(f)$ (which knows nothing about SGD) and show that it also correlates with predicted test error for DNNS trained with SGD and its variants. We do propose a simpler bound that is consistent with the observed scaling, but more work is needed to get anywhere near the rigour found in ~\citep{valle2020generalization} for the full marginal likelihood bound.
Finally, we note that in all three of these papers, GPs are used to calculate marginal likelihoods, posteriors, and priors. Technical details of how to use GPs can be found clearly explained there.
The current paper \textit{builds} on this body of work and uses some of the techniques described therein, but it is distinct. Firstly, our measurements on flatness are new, and our claim that the prior $P(f)$ correlates with generalization, while indirectly present in~\citep{mingard2020sgd} was not developed there at all as that paper focuses on the posterior $P_B(f|S)$, and did not use the attack set trick to vary functions that are consistent with $S$, and so is tackling a different question (namely how much extra inductive bias comes from using SGD over the inductive bias already present in the Bayesian posterior). The attack set trick means that $P(S)$ does not change, while clearly the generalisation error (or expected test error) does change, so the marginal likelihood bound is not predictive here.
\section{Parameter-function map and neutral space}
\label{sec:p-f map and neutral set}
The link between the parameters of a DNN and the function it expresses is formally described by the parameter-function map:
\theoremstyle{definition}
\begin{definition}[Parameter-function map]
Consider the model defined in \cref{def:restriction},
if the model takes parameters within a set
$W \subseteq \mathbb{R}^{n}$,
then the parameter-function map $\mathcal{M}$ is defined as
$$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{M}: W & \rightarrow \mathcal{F} \\
\mathbf{w} & \mapsto f_\mathbf{w}.
\end{aligned}$$
where $f_\mathbf{w}$ denotes the function parameterized by $\mathbf{w}$.
\label{def:para-func map}
\end{definition}
The parameter-function map, introduced in~\citep{valle2018deep}, serves as a bridge between a parameter searching algorithm (e.g.\ SGD) and the behaviour of a DNN in function space. In this context we can also define the:
\begin{definition}[Neutral space]
For a model defined in Definition \ref{def:para-func map},
and a given function $f$, the neutral space $\mathcal{N}_f \subseteq W$ is defined as
$$
\mathcal{N}_f := \{ \mathbf{w} \in W :
\mathcal{M}(\mathbf{w}) = f \}.
$$
\label{def:neutral space}
\end{definition}
The nomenclature comes from genotype-phenotype maps in the evolutionary literature~\citep{manrubia2020genotypes}, where the space is typically discrete, and a neutral set refers to all genotypes that map to the same phenotype.
In this context, the Bayesian prior $P(f)$ can be interpreted as the probabilistic volume of the corresponding neutral space.
\section{Clarification on definition of functions and prior}
\label{sec:function definition}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{pics/functions_diagram.png}
\caption{The diagram of different definitions for functions represented by DNNs.
}
\label{fig:function diagram}
\end{figure}
The discussion of ``functions'' represented by DNNs can be confusing without careful definition. In \cref{fig:function diagram} we list four different interpretations of ``functions'' commonly seen in literature which also are directly related to our work. These interpretations cover both regression and classification settings.
Let $\mathcal{X}$ be an arbitrary input domain and $\mathcal{Y}$ be the output space.
According to different interpretations of the function represented by a DNN, $\mathcal{Y}$ will be different, for the same choice of $\mathcal{X}$ and DNN.
\begin{definition}[$f_{\mathrm{DNN}}$]
\label{def:f_dnn}
Consider a DNN whose input domain is $\mathcal{X}$. Then $f_{\mathrm{DNN}}$ belongs to a class of functions $\mathcal{F}_\mathrm{DNN}$ which define the mapping between $\mathcal{X}$ to the pre-activation of the last layer of DNN, which lives in $\mathbb{R}^d$:
$$
f_{\mathrm{DNN}} \in \mathcal{F}_\mathrm{DNN}: \mathcal{X} \to \mathbb{R}^d
$$
$d$ is the width of the last layer of DNN.
\end{definition}
In standard Gaussian process terminology, $f_{\mathrm{DNN}}$ is also called \emph{latent function}~\citep{rasmussen2003gaussian}. This is the function we care about in regression problems.
In the context of supervised learning, we have to make some assumptions about the characteristics of $\mathcal{F}_\mathrm{DNN}$, as otherwise we would not know how to choose between functions which are all consistent with the training sample but might have hugely different generalization ability. This kind of assumptions are called \emph{inductive bias}.
One common approach of describing the inductive bias is to give a prior probability distribution to $\mathcal{F}_\mathrm{DNN}$, where
higher probabilities are given to functions that we consider to be more likely.
For DNNs, $\mathcal{F}_\mathrm{DNN}$ is a set of functions over an (in general) uncountably infinite domain $\mathcal{X}$. There are several approaches to define probability distributions over such sets. Gaussian processes represent one approach, which generalizes Gaussian distributions to function spaces.
If we
ask only for the properties of the functions at a finite number of points, i.e. restriction of $\mathcal{F}_\mathrm{DNN}$ to
$C:\left\{c_{1}, \ldots, c_{m}\right\} \subset \mathcal{X}$
(see \cref{def:restriction}),
then inference with a Gaussian process, reduces to inference with a standard multidimensional Gaussian distribution. This is an important property of Gaussian process called \emph{consistency}, which helps in making computations with Gaussian processes feasible.
As shown in \cref{sec:GP},
we can readily compute with this GP prior over $\mathcal{F}_\mathrm{DNN}$ as long as it is restricted on a finite data set.
Later in \cref{def:f_res} we will formally define the restricted function $f_{\mathrm{RES}}$.
In classification tasks, we typically get
a data sample from $\mathcal{X} \times \mathcal{Y}$, where without loss of generality $\mathcal{Y}$ has the form of $\mathcal{Y}=\{1, \ldots, k\}$ where $k$ is the number of classes. For simplicity, we further assume binary classification where $\mathcal{Y} = \{0,1\}$
Note in the scope of binary classification we have the last layer width of $d=1$.
To grant the outputs of the function represented by a DNN a probability interpretation, we need the outputs lie in the interval $(0,1)$.
One way of doing so is to ``squash'' the outputs of $f_{\mathrm{DNN}}$ to $(0,1)$ by using a final \emph{activation}, typically a logistic or sigmoid function $\lambda(z)=(1+\exp (-z))^{-1}$. Subsequently we have the definition of $f_{\mathrm{ACT}}$ in \cref{fig:function diagram}:
\begin{definition}[$f_{\mathrm{ACT}}$]
\label{def:f_act}
Consider the setting and $f_{\mathrm{DNN}}$ defined in \cref{def:f_dnn} where $d=1$, and a logistic activation $\lambda(z)=(1+\exp (-z))^{-1}$. Then $f_{\mathrm{ACT}}$ is defined as :
$$
f_{\mathrm{ACT}} := f_{\mathrm{DNN}} \circ \lambda: \mathcal{X} \to (0,1)
$$
where $\circ$ denotes function composition. we also define the space of $f_{\mathrm{ACT}}$ as
$$
\mathcal{F}_{\mathrm{ACT}} = \{f_{\mathrm{ACT}}\textrm{ for every }f_{\mathrm{DNN}}\in\mathcal{F}_{\mathrm{DNN}}\}
$$
\end{definition}
In real life classification datasets, we typically do not have access to the probability of an input classified as one certain label, but the labels instead. When we discuss functions represented by DNNs in classification, we usually mean the \emph{coarse-grained} version of $f_{\mathrm{ACT}}\in\mathcal{F}_{\mathrm{ACT}}$, meaning we group all outputs to $1$ if the probability of predicting the inputs as being label ``$1$'' is greater or equal than $0.5$, and $0$ otherwise.
Mathematically, we define $f_{\mathrm{LAB}}$ as:
\begin{definition}[$f_{\mathrm{LAB}}$]
\label{def:f_lab}
Consider the setting and $f_{\mathrm{ACT}}$ defined in \cref{def:f_act} and a threshold function
$$
\tau(z) = \begin{cases} 1 \textrm{ if } z \geq 0.5 \\
0\textrm{ otherwise }.
\end{cases}
$$
Then we define $f_{\mathrm{LAB}}$ and the space $\mathcal{F}_{\mathrm{LAB}}$ as:
$$
f_{\mathrm{LAB}} = f_{\mathrm{ACT}} \circ \tau: \mathcal{X} \to \{0,1\}
$$
$$
\mathcal{F}_{\mathrm{LAB}} = \{f_{\mathrm{LAB}}\textrm{ for every }f_{\mathrm{ACT}}\in\mathcal{F}_{\mathrm{ACT}}\}
$$
\end{definition}
The \cref{def:f_lab} allows us to describe the function represented by a DNN in binary classification as a binary string consisting of ``0'' and ``1'', whose length is equal to the size of input domain set $|\mathcal{X}|$.
As explained earlier, in classification we also want to put a prior over $\mathcal{F}_{\mathrm{LAB}}$ and use this prior as our belief about the task before seeing any data.
Finally, as we mentioned above, to make computations tractable, we restrict the domain to a finite set of inputs. We use the definition of restriction in \cref{def:restriction} to formally define the ``functions'' we mean and practically use in our paper:
\begin{definition}[$f_{\mathrm{RES}}$]
\label{def:f_res}
Consider a DNN whose input domain is $\mathcal{X}$ with a last layer width $d=1$ . Let $C=\left\{c_{1}, \ldots, c_{m}\right\} \subset \mathcal{X}$ be any finite subset of $\mathcal{
X}$ with cardinality $m \in \mathbb{N}$. The restriction of function space $\mathcal{F} \in \{\mathcal{F}_{\mathrm{DNN}}, \mathcal{F}_{\mathrm{LAB}}\}$ to $C$ is denoted as $\mathcal{F}^C$, and is defined as the space of all functions from $C$ to $\mathcal{Y}$ realizable by functions in $\mathcal{F}$. We denote with $f_{\mathrm{RES}}$ elements of their corresponding spaces of restricted functions. Specifically, in regression:
$$
f_{\mathrm{RES}} \in \mathcal{F}_{\mathrm{DNN}}^C : C \to \mathbb{R}
$$
and in binary classification:
$$
f_{\mathrm{RES}} \in \mathcal{F}_{\mathrm{LAB}}^C : C \to \{0,1\}
$$
\end{definition}
Note that in \cref{def:f_res} we only consider scalar outputs in the regression setting. For multiple-output functions, one approach is to consider $d$ Gaussian processes and compute the combined kernel~\citep{alvarez2011kernels}.
In statistical learning theory, the function spaces $\mathcal{F}_{\mathrm{DNN}}$ and $\mathcal{F}_{\mathrm{LAB}}$ are also called \emph{hypotheses classes}, with their elements called \emph{hypotheses}~\citep{shalev2014understanding}.
It is important to note that our definition of prior and its calculation is based on the restriction of the hypotheses class
to the concatenation of training set and test set $S+E$. Mathematically, this means the prior of a function $P(f)$ we calculated in the paper is precisely $P(f_{\mathrm{RES}})$, except for the Boolean system in \cref{sec:Boolean system}, where the input domain $\mathcal{X}$ is discrete and small enough to enumerate (this can also be thought of as the trivial restriction).
As explained above, this restriction is inevitable if we want to compute the prior over $\mathcal{F}_{\mathrm{DNN}}$ or $\mathcal{F}_{\mathrm{LAB}}$.
A simple example on MNIST~\citep{lecun1998gradient} can also help to gain a intuition of the necessity of such restriction, where
all inputs would include the set of 28x28 integer matrices whose entries take values from 0-255, which gives $256^{784}$ possible inputs.
This indicates that
for real-life data distributions the number of all possible inputs is hyper-astronomically large, if not infinite.
Nevertheless,
In some cases, such as the Boolean system described in~\citet{valle2018deep} and treated in section~\ref{sec:Boolean system}, there is no need for such restriction because it is feasible to enumerate all possible inputs: there are only $7$ Boolean units which give $2^7=128$ possible data sample. However, even in such cases, the number of possible functions is still large ($2^{128} \approx 10^{38}$).
\iffalse
\subsection{A note on Bayesian prior with continuous setting}
The definition of functions and their prior in our work is currently based on discrete outputs, i.e. the output space $\mathcal{Y} = \{0,1\}$.
However our notion of prior can be easily generalized to continuous outputs for regression tasks.
In this regime, although the exact probability of finding a particular function $f$ \textit{a priori} is zero because of the infinite function class, we can still define the prior of the function to be the \textit{probability density} at given function, without the coarse-graining process.
\fi
\section{Gaussian process approximation of the prior}
\label{sec:GP}
In this section, we sketch out how we calculated the prior of a function $P(f)$~\citep{valle2018deep,mingard2020sgd}. As in those papers, we use Gaussian processes, which have been shown to be equivalent to DNNs in the limit of infinite layer width \citep{neal1994priors,lee2017deep, matthews2018gaussian, tanexpectation, rasmussen2003gaussian}.
These neural network GPs (NNGPs) have been shown to accurately approximate the prior over
functions $P(f)$ of finite-width Bayesian DNNs \citep{valle2018deep, matthews2018gaussian,mingard2020sgd}.
For the NNGPs, a GP prior is placed on the pre-activations $z$ of the last
layer of the neural network (before a final non-linearity, e.g. softmax, is
applied),
meaning that for any finite
inputs set $\mathbf{x}=\left\{x_{1}, \ldots, x_{m}\right\}$, the random output vector (pre-activations)
$\boldsymbol{z}=\left[z\left(x_{1}\right), \ldots, z\left(x_{m}\right)\right]^{T}$ has a Gaussian distribution. Note that in this paper, the the last layer has a single activation since we only focus on binary classification.
This setting is corresponding to the definition of function restriction is \cref{def:f_res}, with $\mathbf{z} \in \mathbb{R}^m$.
Without loss of generality, we can assume such a process has a zero mean.
The prior probability of the outputs $\boldsymbol{z}$ can be calculated as:
\begin{equation}
P(\boldsymbol{z})=\frac{1}{(2 \pi)^{\frac{m}{2}} \Sigma^{\frac{1}{2}}} \exp \left(-\frac{1}{2} \boldsymbol{z}^{T} \Sigma^{-1} \boldsymbol{z}\right)
\end{equation}
$\Sigma$ is the covariance matrix (often called kernel), whose entries are defined as
$\Sigma(x_i,x_j) \equiv \mathbb{E}[z(x_i),z(x_j)]$.
\citet{neal1994priors} gave the basic form of kernel $\Sigma$ in single hidden layer case,
where $\Sigma$ depends on the variance of weights and biases ($\sigma_w$ and $\sigma_b$).
In DNNs with multiple hidden layers, the kernel for layer $l$ can be calculated recursively by induction, assuming the layer $l-1$ is a GP \citep{lee2017deep,matthews2018gaussian}.
The kernel for fully connected ReLU-activated networks has a well known \emph{arc-cosine kernel} analytical form
\citep{cho2009kernel}, which we used in all FCNs in our work.
\iffalse
We demonstrate the effectiveness of GP-estimated prior in \cref{fig:empirical-GP_volume}, which shows the correlation between empirical prior and GP estimation of the first 1000 most frequent functions in Boolean system (see \cref{sec:Boolean system}). Note that even in this small toy system, there are $\sim10^{34}$ functions, but since the input space is relatively small, some functions will occur more than once over random initialization of parameters. Thus we can calculate the empirical prior as the fraction of the number one function occurs divided by total sampling times.
In \cref{fig:empirical-GP_volume}, we observe a strong correlation between empirical and GP-estimated prior, although it seems GP has a systematic tendency of underestimating the probability.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.6\linewidth]{pics/empirical-GP_volume.png}
\caption{The correlation between GP-estimated prior and empirical prior is strong,
even for this small Boolean system. The prior $P(f)$ are shown for the 1000 most frequently found functions upon random initialization of a 7-40-40-1 fully connected ReLU network.
}
\label{fig:empirical-GP_volume}
\end{figure}
\fi
For ResNet50, the analytical form of GP kernel is intractable. Instead, we use a Monte Carlo empirical kernel \citep{novak2018bayesian},
and apply one step of the fully connected GP recurrence relation \citep{lee2017deep}, taking advantage of the fact that the last layer of ResNet50 is fully connected. Mathematically, the empirical kernel can be expressed as:
\begin{equation}
\tilde{\Sigma}\left(x_i, x_j\right):=\frac{\sigma_{w}^{2}}{M n} \sum_{m=1}^{M} \sum_{c=1}^{n}\left(h_{\mathbf{w}_{m}}^{L-1}(x_i)\right)_{c}\left(h_{\mathbf{w}_{m}}^{L-1}\left(x_j\right)\right)_{c}+\sigma_{b}^{2}
\end{equation}
where $\left(h_{\mathbf{w}_{m}}^{L-1}(x)\right)_{c}$ is the activation of $c$-th neuron in the last hidden layer ($L$ is the total number of layers) for the network parameterized by the $m$-th sampling of parameters $\mathbf{w}_m$, $M$ is the number of total Monte Carlo sampling, $n$ is the width of the final hidden layer, and $\sigma_w$, $\sigma_b$ are the weights and biases variance respectively.
In our experiments, $M$ is set to be $0.1\times (|S|+|E|)$.
After calculating $P(\boldsymbol{z})$ with the corresponding kernel, the prior over (coarse-grained) restriction of functions $P(f)$ can be calculated through likelihood $P(f|\boldsymbol{z})$, which in our case is just a Heaviside function representing a hard sign nonlinearity. As non-Gaussian likelihood produces an intractable $P(f)$, we used Expectation Propagation (EP) algorithm for the approximation of $P(f)$ \citep{rasmussen2003gaussian}. This same EP approximation was used in ~\citet{mingard2020sgd} where it is discussed further.
We represent the function $f$ by the input-output pairs on the concatenation of training set and test set $S+E$.
\section{Comparing flatness metrics}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.6\linewidth]{pics/Boolean-sharpness-top_1.png}
\caption{
The direct correlation between sharpness and spectral norm of Hessian for the 1000 most frequently found functions found after SGD runs for a two hidden layer FCN, in the $\mathbf{n=7}$ Boolean system
(Same system as in \cref{fig:bool}) .
}
\label{fig:boolean sharpness top1}
\end{figure}
As mentioned in \cref{sec:flatness measures} of the main text, the sharpness metric in \cref{def:sharpness} can be directly linked to spectral norm of the Hessian by
considering the second order Taylor expansion of $L(\mathbf{w})$ around a critical point in powers of $\zeta$~\citep{dinh2017sharp}.
We empirically confirm this relationship by showing in \cref{fig:boolean sharpness top1} the direct correlation between sharpness and spectral norm of Hessian, as well as in
\cref{fig:sepctral norm boolean} the correlation between Hessian spectral norm and prior in Boolean system described in \cref{sec:Boolean system}.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.6\linewidth]{pics/spectral_norm_volume_bool-log10-prior.png}
\caption{The correlation between prior and flatness in Boolean system where the flatness is measured by spectral norm of Hessian, for the 1000 most frequently occurring functions found by SGD runs with a two hidden layer FCN. The system is the same $\mathbf{n=7}$ Boolean system as in \cref{fig:bool} except that we use a different metric of flatness.
}
\label{fig:sepctral norm boolean}
\end{figure}
In addition to the spectral norm, another widely used flatness measure is the product of a subset of the positive Hessian eigenvalues, typically say the product of the top-50 largest eigenvalues
\citep{wu2017towards,zhang2018energy}. We measured the correlation of these Hessian-based flatness metrics with sharpness as well as with generalization for the FCN/MNIST system in \cref{fig:self-similarity}.
Since they correlate well with the sharpness, these flatness measures show very similar correlations with generalization as sharpness does in~\cref{fig:MNIST} and \cref{fig:optimizers}. In other words, the Hessian-based flatness metrics also capture the loose correlation with generalization when the neural network is trained by SGD and the deterioration of this correlation when we change the optimizer to Adam.
\begin{figure*}[h]
\centering
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.24\linewidth]{pics/top_1-generalization.png}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.24\linewidth]{pics/top_50-generalization.png}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.24\linewidth]{pics/sharpness-top_1.png}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.24\linewidth]{pics/sharpness-top_50.png}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.24\linewidth]{pics/top_1-generalization-adam.png}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.24\linewidth]{pics/top_50-generalization-adam.png}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.24\linewidth]{pics/sharpness-top_1-adam.png}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.24\linewidth]{pics/sharpness-top_50-adam.png}}
\caption{Two Hessian-based flatness metrics show analogous behavior to sharpness defined in (\cref{def:sharpness}). The architecture and dataset are FCN/MNIST, with training set size $|S|=500$, and test set size $|E|=1000$; which are the same settings as \cref{fig:MNIST} (d) and \cref{fig:optimizers} (e).
\textbf{Optimizer: SGD}
(a) - (b):
The correlation between
Hessian-based flatness metrics and generalization.
(c) - (d):
Sharpness and
Hessian-based flatness metrics correlate well with one another.
\textbf{Optimizer: Adam}
(e) - (f):
The correlation between
Hessian-based flatness metrics and generalization breaks down, just as it does for sharpness in \cref{fig:optimizers}.
(g) - (h):
Sharpness and
Hessian-based flatness metrics correlate well with one another, even though they don't correlate well with generalization.
}
\label{fig:self-similarity}
\end{figure*}
Another detail worth noting is that
\citet{keskar2016large} used the L-BFGS-B algorithm~\citep{byrd1995limited} to perform the
maximization of $L(\mathbf{w})$ in $\mathcal{C}_{\zeta}$, which is the box boundary around the minimum of interest:
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{C}_{\zeta}=\left\{\Delta \mathbf{w} \in \mathbb{R}^{n}:-\zeta\left(\left| w_{i}\right|+1\right) \leq \Delta w_{i} \leq \zeta\left(\left| w_{i}\right|+1\right) \quad \forall i \in\{1,2, \cdots, n\}\right\}
\end{equation}
However, as a quasi-Newton method, L-BFGS-B is not scalable when there are tens of millions of parameters in modern DNNs. To make Keskar-sharpness applicable for large DNNs (e.g. ResNet50), we use vanilla SGD for the maximization instead. The hyperparameters for the sharpness calculation are listed in \cref{table:hyperparameters-sharpness}. Note that the entries batch size, learning rate and number of epochs all refer to the SGD optimizer which does the maximization in the sharpness calculation process.
The number of epochs is chosen such that the max value of loss function found at each maximization step converges.
An example of the convergence of sharpness is shown in \cref{fig:max value}.
As a check, we also compared our SGD-sharpness with the original L-BFGS-B-sharpness, finding similar results.
\begin{table}[t]
\caption{Hyperparameters for sharpness calculation}
\label{table:hyperparameters-sharpness}
\vskip 0.15in
\begin{center}
\begin{small}
\begin{sc}
\begin{tabular}{lccccc}
\toprule
Data set & Architecture & Box size ($\zeta)$ & Batch size & Learning rate & Number of epochs \\
\midrule
BOOLEAN & FCN & $10^{-4}$ & $16$ & $10^{-3}$ & 10 \\
MNIST & FCN & $10^{-4}$ & $32$ & $10^{-3}$ & 100 \\
CIFAR10 & FCN & $10^{-5}$ & $128$ & $5\times10^{-5}$ & 100 \\
CIFAR10 & ResNet50 & $10^{-5}$ & $128$ & $10^{0}$ & 100 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{sc}
\end{small}
\end{center}
\vskip -0.1in
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
{\includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{pics/max_value.png}}
\caption{
The max value of loss function $L(\mathbf{w})$ at each iteration in the process of maximization, when calculating the sharpness using SGD instead of L-BFGS-B. The plot shows the max loss value found by SGD in the box limit $\mathcal{C}_{\zeta}$ will converge after given number of epochs. For this plot the hyperparameters are listed in the second line of \cref{table:hyperparameters-sharpness} (MNIST).
}
\label{fig:max value}
\end{figure}
\section{Implementing parameter re-scaling}
In this section we describe in detail how we implement the alpha scaling in DNNs first proposed by~\citet{dinh2017sharp}.
The widely used rectified linear activation
(ReLU) function
$$
\phi_{\text {rect}}(x)=\max (x, 0)
$$
exhibits the
so-called ``non-negative homogeneity'' property:
$$
\forall(z, \alpha) \in \mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}^{+}, \phi_{\text {rect}}(z \alpha)=\alpha \phi_{\text {rect}}(z)
$$
The action of a $L$-layered deep feed-forward neural network can be
written as:
$$
y=\phi_{\text {rect}}\left(\phi_{\text {rect}}\left(\ldots \phi_{\text {rect}}\left(x \cdot W_{1}+b_{1}\right) \ldots\right) \cdot W_{L-1}+b_{L-1}\right) \cdot W_{L}+b_{L}
$$
in which
\begin{itemize}
\item $x$ is the input vector
\item $W_L$ is the weight matrix of the $L$-th layer
\item $b_L$ is the bias vector of the $L$-th layer
\end{itemize}
To simplify notation, we have not included the final activation function, which may take any form (softmax or sigmoid etc.) without modification of the proceeding arguments.
Generalizing the original arguments from~\citet{dinh2017sharp} slightly to include bias terms, we exploit the non-negative
homogeneity of the ReLU function to find that a so-called ``$\alpha$-scaling'' of one of the layers will not change its behaviour. Explicitly applying this to the $i$-th layer yields:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:alpha scaling}
\left(\phi_{\text {rect}}\left(x \cdot \alpha W_{i}+\alpha b_{i}\right)\right) \cdot \frac{1}{\alpha} W_{i+1}=\left(\phi_{\text {rect}}\left(x \cdot W_{i}+b_{i}\right)\right) \cdot W_{i+1}
\end{equation}
Clearly, the transformation described by
$\left(W_{i}, b_{i}, W_{i+1}\right) \rightarrow\left(\alpha W_{i}, \alpha b_{i}, \frac{1}{\alpha} W_{i+1}\right)$
will lead to an observationally equivalent network (that is, a network whose output is identical for any given input, even
if the weight and bias terms differ).
Since the $\alpha$ scaling transformation does not change the function, it does not change the prior of the function. However, for large enough $\alpha$, as shown for example in \cref{fig:evolve}, we see that SGD can be ``knocked'' out of the current neutral space because of the large gradients that are induced by the $\alpha$ scaling. This typically leads to the prior suddenly surging up, because the random nature of the perturbation means that the system is more likely to land on large volume functions. However, we always observe that the prior then drops back down quite quickly as SGD reaches zero training error again. On the other hand, as shown in \cref{fig:volume doesnot change upon scaling}, when the value of $\alpha$ is smaller it does not knock SGD out of the neutral space, and so the prior does not change at all. Nevertheless, the sharpness still exhibits a strong spike due to the the alpha scaling.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.6\linewidth]{pics/sharpness-volume-evolve-volume-doesnot-change-log10-prior.png}
\caption{\textbf{The effect of alpha scaling on prior and sharpness.}
At each epoch we calculate the sharpness and the prior for our FCN on MNIST system with $|S|=500$. The green dashed line denotes where zero-training error is reached and post-training starts. The
red dashed line denotes the epoch where $\alpha$-scaling takes place with $\alpha=5.0$.
Here the value of $\alpha$ is not big enough to ``knock'' the optimizer out of the neutral space,
upon alpha scaling, in contrast to \cref{fig:evolve}. As expected, we observe no change in prior upon alpha scaling (note that prior can change on overtraining if a slightly different function is found by SGD). The sharpness shows a larger peak upon alpha-scaling, as expected.
See \cref{sec:temporal appendix}.
}
\label{fig:volume doesnot change upon scaling}
\end{figure}
Although not in the scope of this work, it is worth noting that the alpha scaling process in Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) with batch normalization \citep{ioffe2015batch} layer(s) is somewhat different. Because a batch normalization layer will eliminate all affine transformations applied on its inputs, one can arbitrarily alpha scale the layers before a batch normalization layer without needing to of compensate in following layer, provided the scaling is linear.
\section{Flatness and prior correlation}
\label{sec:flatness volume correlation}
In the main text, we showed the correlation of the Bayesian prior and of sharpness with generalization in \cref{fig:MNIST} and \cref{fig:optimizers}. Here, in~\cref{fig:sharpness volume correlation}, we show the direct correlation of the prior and sharpness. As expected from the figures in the main text, sharpness correlates with prior roughly as it does with generalization - i.e. reasonably for vanilla SGD but badly for entropy-SGD~\citep{chaudhari2019entropy} or Adam~\citep{kingma2014adam}. We note that, as shown in \cref{fig:self-similarity}, sharpness also correlates relatively well with the spectral norm of the Hessian and log product of its 50 largest eigenvalues for all the optimizers. So the correlation of flatness with prior/generalization does not depend much on which particular flatness measure is used.
Overall, it is perhaps unsurprising that a local measure such as flatness varies in how well it approximates the global prior. What is unexpected (at least to us) is that Adam and Entropy-SGD break the correlation for this data set. In \cref{sec:moreSGD}, we show that this correlation also breaks down for other more complex optimizers, but, interestingly, not for full-batch SGD. Further empirical and theoretical work is needed to understand this phenomenon. For example, is the optimizer dependence of the correlation between flatness and prior a general property of the optimizer, or is it specific to certain architectures and datasets? One hint that these results may have complex dependencies on architecture and dataset comes from our observation that for ResNet50 on Cifar10, we see less difference between SGD and Adam than we see for the FCN on MNIST. More work is needed here.
\begin{figure*}[h!]
\centering
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.3\linewidth]{pics/MNIST-sharpness-volume-log10-prior.png}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.3\linewidth]{pics/cifar10-sharpness-volume-log10-prior.png}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.3\linewidth]{pics/sharpness-volume-resnet50-SGD-prior.png}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.3\linewidth]{pics/sharpness-volume-entropy-sgd-log10-prior.png}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.3\linewidth]{pics/sharpness-volume-adam-log10-prior.png}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.3\linewidth]{pics/sharpness-volume-cifar10-adam-log10-prior.png}}
\caption{The direct correlation between prior $P(f)$ and sharpness over different datasets and optimizers. The correlation between prior and sharpness closely resembles the correlation between sharpness and generalization, mainly because prior and generalization are very closely correlated, as seen in our experiments (\cref{fig:MNIST}, \cref{fig:optimizers}).
}
\label{fig:sharpness volume correlation}
\end{figure*}
\iffalse
\section{Input sensitivity and parameter robustness}
We further investigated the correlation between input sensitivity, parameter robustness and generalization. While very cheap to calculate, input sensitivity and parameter robustness nevertheless show strong correlation with generalization, even when local flatness loses its merit as we seen in \cref{sec:change optimizers}.
The input sensitivity has been pre-defined by \citet{novak2018sensitivity} as the expectation of Jacobian norm of DNN outputs w.r.t. inputs.
We then define parameter robustness analogously as the average jacobian norm of DNN outputs w.r.t. parameters:
\begin{definition}[Input sensitivity and Parameter robustness]
Consider the function $f$ that s DNN expresses, training set $S$ and test set $E$, $\mathbf{w}$ are the parameters of the DNN.
The input sensitivity is defined as:
$$
\mathrm{sensitivity} := \mathbb{E}_{\mathbf{x}_{D}}\left[\left\|\mathbf{J}_\mathbf{x}\left(\mathbf{x}_{D}\right)\right\|_{F}\right]
$$
The parameter robustness is defined as:
$$
\mathrm{robustness} := \mathbb{E}_{\mathbf{x}_{D}}\left[\left\|\mathbf{J}_\mathbf{w}\left(\mathbf{x}_{D}\right)\right\|_{F}\right]
$$
$\mathbf{J}_\mathbf{x}$ is the Jacobian of model output(s) w.r.t. inputs $\mathbf{x}$:
$\mathbf{J}_\mathbf{x}(\mathbf{x})=\partial f_{\sigma}(\mathbf{x}) / \partial \mathbf{x}^{\mathbf{T}}$;
$\mathbf{J}_\mathbf{w}$ is the Jacobian of model output(s) w.r.t. parameters $\mathbf{w}$:
$\mathbf{J}_\mathbf{w}(\mathbf{x})=\partial f_{\sigma}(\mathbf{x}) / \partial \mathbf{w}^{\mathbf{T}}$.
where $\sigma$ is the final activation and $\mathbf{x}_D$ denotes the \emph{inputs} of dataset $D$, which
can be either $S$ or $E$.
\label{def:sensitivity and robustness}
\end{definition}
In \cref{fig:sensitivity-SGD} to \cref{fig:sensitivity-Entropy-resnet50-Adam} we show the empirical results on the correlation between input sensitivity, parameter robustness and generalization, featuring different measuring methods: on training/testing set, or before/after final activation.
It is worth noting that generalization only stably correlates across different dataset/optimizer/architecture with
input sensitivity (activation) measured on test set, which is in line with \citet{novak2018sensitivity}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{pics/sen_rob_MNIST_optimizers-combined.png}
\caption{The correlation between input sensitivity, robustness and generalization on MNIST, $|S|=500, |E|=1000$.
Here ``logits'' means that we use the output before the final activation (softmax or sigmoid in binary dataset). The optimizer/architecture/measuring dataset has been labelled in individual plot.
``Train'' and ``test'' means the metrics (sensitivity and robustness) are measured on training set/test set, respectively.}
\label{fig:sensitivity-SGD}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}[h!]
\centering
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.24\linewidth]{pics/sensitivity_logits-generalization-cifar10.png}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.24\linewidth]{pics/sensitivity_sigmoid-generalization-cifar10.png}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.24\linewidth]{pics/robustness_logits-generalization-cifar10.png}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.24\linewidth]{pics/robustness_sigmoid-generalization-cifar10.png}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.24\linewidth]{pics/sensitivity_logits-generalization-cifar10-on-test.png}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.24\linewidth]{pics/sensitivity_sigmoid-generalization-cifar10-on-test.png}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.24\linewidth]{pics/robustness_logits-generalization-cifar10-on-test.png}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.24\linewidth]{pics/robustness_sigmoid-generalization-cifar10-on-test.png}}
\caption{The correlation between input sensitivity, robustness and generalization on CIFAR-10, $|S|=5000, |E|=2000$. The optimizer is SGD. Architecture: FCN.
Here ``logits'' means the we use the output before the final activation (softmax or sigmoid in binary dataset).
(a)-(d): The metrics (sensitivity and robustness) are measured on training set, whereas
(e)-(h): The metrics are measured on test set.
}
\label{fig:sensitivity-CIFAR10-SGD}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[h!]
\centering
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.24\linewidth]{pics/sensitivity_logits-generalization-cifar10-adam.png}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.24\linewidth]{pics/sensitivity_sigmoid-generalization-cifar10-adam.png}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.24\linewidth]{pics/robustness_logits-generalization-cifar10-adam.png}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.24\linewidth]{pics/robustness_sigmoid-generalization-cifar10-adam.png}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.24\linewidth]{pics/sensitivity_logits-generalization-cifar10-on-test-adam.png}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.24\linewidth]{pics/sensitivity_sigmoid-generalization-cifar10-on-test-adam.png}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.24\linewidth]{pics/robustness_logits-generalization-cifar10-on-test-adam.png}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.24\linewidth]{pics/robustness_sigmoid-generalization-cifar10-on-test-adam.png}}
\caption{The correlation between input sensitivity, robustness and generalization on CIFAR-10, $|S|=5000, |E|=2000$. The optimizer is Adam. Architecture: FCN.
Here ``logits'' means the we use the output before the final activation (softmax or sigmoid in binary dataset).
(a)-(d): The metrics (sensitivity and robustness) are measured on training set, whereas
(e)-(h): The metrics are measured on test set.
}
\label{fig:sensitivity-CIFAR10-Adam}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[h!]
\centering
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.24\linewidth]{pics/sensitivity_logits-generalization-resnet50-SGD.png}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.24\linewidth]{pics/sensitivity_sigmoid-generalization-resnet50-SGD.png}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.24\linewidth]{pics/robustness_logits-generalization-resnet50-SGD.png}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.24\linewidth]{pics/robustness_sigmoid-generalization-resnet50-SGD.png}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.24\linewidth]{pics/sensitivity_logits_test-generalization-resnet50-SGD.png}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.24\linewidth]{pics/sensitivity_sigmoid_test-generalization-resnet50-SGD.png}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.24\linewidth]{pics/robustness_logits_test-generalization-resnet50-SGD.png}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.24\linewidth]{pics/robustness_sigmoid_test-generalization-resnet50-SGD.png}}
\caption{The correlation between sensitivity, robustness and generalization on CIFAR-10, $|S|=5000, |E|=2000$. The optimizer is SGD. Architecture: ResNet50.
(a)-(d): The metrics (sensitivity and robustness) are measured on training set, whereas
(e)-(h): The metrics are measured on test set.
}
\label{fig:sensitivity-Entropy-resnet50-SGD}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[h!]
\centering
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.24\linewidth]{pics/sensitivity_logits-generalization-resnet50.png}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.24\linewidth]{pics/sensitivity_sigmoid-generalization-resnet50.png}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.24\linewidth]{pics/robustness_logits-generalization-resnet50.png}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.24\linewidth]{pics/robustness_sigmoid-generalization-resnet50.png}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.24\linewidth]{pics/sensitivity_logits_test-generalization-resnet50.png}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.24\linewidth]{pics/sensitivity_sigmoid_test-generalization-resnet50.png}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.24\linewidth]{pics/robustness_logits_test-generalization-resnet50.png}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.24\linewidth]{pics/robustness_sigmoid_test-generalization-resnet50.png}}
\caption{The correlation between sensitivity, robustness and generalization on CIFAR-10, $|S|=5000, |E|=2000$. The optimizer is Adam. Architecture: ResNet50.
(a)-(d): The metrics (sensitivity and robustness) are measured on training set, whereas
(e)-(h): The metrics are measured on test set.
}
\label{fig:sensitivity-Entropy-resnet50-Adam}
\end{figure*}
To understand why input sensitivity works better than parameter robustness, we look into the temporal behavior of these metrics.
As shown in \cref{fig:sensitivity-robustness-temporal} { (a)}-{ (d)}, at the epoch where alpha scaling is applied, the parameter robustness changes immediately and forms a gap, similar to flatness. This is not surprising, given the fact that both parameter robustness and flatness are measures based on the
(1st and 2nd order) gradients of neural network parameters. Based on analogous analysis as \citet{dinh2017sharp}, it is easy to see that alpha scaling can also change the jacobian norm of parameters arbitrarily without changing the function. This makes parameter robustness no better than flatness as a measure of stability in terms of re-parameterization immunity.
The input sensitivity, however, works in a way slightly closer to prior, in that it is ``immune'' to alpha scaling. In \cref{fig:sensitivity-robustness-temporal} { (e)}, it is shown that input sensitivity will not change right after alpha scaling. The reason in simple: by \cref{def:sensitivity and robustness},
$$
\mathbf{J}_\mathbf{x}(\mathbf{x})=\partial f_{\sigma}(\mathbf{x}) / \partial \mathbf{x}^{\mathbf{T}}
= \lim_{\mathbf{\Delta}\to 0} [f_{\sigma}(\mathbf{x+\Delta})- f_{\sigma}(\mathbf{x)}]\mathbf{\Delta}^{-1}
$$
in above equation no term will be changed by alpha scaling. This immunity makes input sensitivity a better metric than flatness.
In fact, generalization, when interpreted as the accuracy on test set, is a metric lying in function space instead of parameter space; input sensitivity works well because it takes a viewpoint from function space instead of from only parameter space. Once has accepted this philosophy, one will realize that any generalization measure which only considers parameter space without taking the structure of parameter-function mapping into consideration will eventually fail.
\begin{figure*}[h!]
\centering
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.24\linewidth]{pics/sensitivity_logits-epochs-5-1e-3.png}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.24\linewidth]{pics/sensitivity_sigmoid-epochs-5-1e-3.png}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.24\linewidth]{pics/robustness_logits-epochs-5-1e-3.png}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.24\linewidth]{pics/robustness_sigmoid-epochs-5-1e-3.png}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.24\linewidth]{pics/sensitivity_logits-epochs-5.9-1e-3.png}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.24\linewidth]{pics/sensitivity_sigmoid-epochs-5.9-1e-3.png}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.24\linewidth]{pics/robustness_logits-epochs-5.9-1e-3.png}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.24\linewidth]{pics/robustness_sigmoid-epochs-5.9-1e-3.png}}
\caption{The temporal behavior of input sensitivity and parameter robustness, measured on MNIST ($|S|=500, |E|=100$) with FCN. The optimizer is SGD. The neural net is trained to zero training error (green dashed line), kept overtraining for another 1000 epochs, in which alpha scaling is applied at 500-th overtraining epoch (red dashed line).
{ (a)}-{ (d)}: Smaller scaling parameter ($\alpha=5$) case, where the optimizer does not leave its neutral space upon alpha scaling (the prior does not change).
{ (e)}-{ (h)}: Bigger scaling parameter ($\alpha=5.9$) case, where the optimizer leaves its current neutral space but comes back quickly (the prior changes dramatically but then comes back to same level soon).
}
\label{fig:sensitivity-robustness-temporal}
\end{figure*}
\fi
\section{Temporal behavior of sharpness}
\label{sec:temporal appendix}
When using sharpness in \cref{def:sharpness} as the metric of flatness, there are several caveats. First is the hyperparameters (see \cref{table:hyperparameters-sharpness}): the value of sharpness is only meaningful under specified hyperparameters, and in different experiments the sharpnesses are only comparable when the hyperparameters are the same. This renders sharpness less convenient to use (but still much more efficient than Hessian calculation). Second is the time evolving behavior of sharpness: For the classification problems we study, and for cross-entropy loss, it can continue to change even when the function (and hence generalization) is unchanged.
Before reaching zero training error, gradients can be large, and the behavior of sharpness (\cref{def:sharpness}) can be unstable under changes of box size $\zeta$. This effect is likely the cause of some unusual fluctuations in the sharpness that can be observed in \cref{fig:evolve} and \cref{fig:volume doesnot change upon scaling} around epoch 100. In \cref{fig:sharpness changing epsilon} we show that this artefact disappears for larger $\zeta$. Similarly, when the gradients are big (typical in training), sharpness may no longer link to spectral norm of Hessian very well.
\begin{figure*}[h!]
\centering
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.3\linewidth]{pics/sharpness-volume-5-1e-3-prior.png}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.3\linewidth]{pics/sharpness-volume-5-1e-4-prior.png}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.3\linewidth]{pics/sharpness-volume-5-1e-5-prior.png}}
\caption{
Different temporal behavior of sharpness, prior and accuracy when using different box size $\zeta$.
The dataset is MNIST with $|S|=500$ and $|E|=100$. The architecture is FCN. SGD optimizer is used.
Scaling parameter $\alpha=5.0$. Green and red dashed line denote reaching zero training error and alpha scaling, respectively.
(a) $\zeta=10^{-3}$,
(b) $\zeta=10^{-4}$,
(c) $\zeta=10^{-5}$.
While there are quantitative differences between the values of $\zeta$ used, qualitatively we observe similar behaviour.
}
\label{fig:sharpness changing epsilon}
\end{figure*}
In \cref{fig:post 5000 epochs}, we first train the FCN to zero error, then ``alpha scale'' after 500 epochs, and then keep post-training for another 5000 epochs, much longer than in \cref{fig:evolve}. The behaviour of sharpness and prior upon ``alpha scaling'' (not surprisingly) follows our discussion in \cref{sec:temporal}. What is interesting to see here is that after enough overtraining, the effect of the alpha scaling spike appears to disappear, and the overall curve looks like a continuation of the curve prior to alpha scaling. What this suggests is that alpha-scaling brings the system to an area of parameter space that is somehow ``unnatural''. Again, this is a topic that deserves further investigation in the future.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.6\linewidth]{pics/sharpness-volume-evolving-5000-post-training-prior.png}
\caption{The temporal behavior of sharpness and prior after 5000 epochs of reaching zero training error. The dataset is MNIST with $|S|=500$ and $|E|=100$. The architecture is FCN. SGD optimizer is used. The magnitude of scaling $\alpha = 6.0$. }
\label{fig:post 5000 epochs}
\end{figure}
Finally, we show the temporal behavior of a Hessian-based flatness measure in \cref{fig:top_50_temporal}.
Because of the large memory cost when calculating the Hessian, we use a smaller FCN on MNIST, with the first hidden layer having 10 units. We find that the Hessian based flatness exhibit similar temporal behavior to sharpness.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{pics/top_50-epochs-10-40.png}
\caption{The temporal behavior of one Hessian based flatness metric.
The dataset is MNIST with $|S|=500$ and $|E|=100$. The architecture is a smaller FCN (784-10-40-1), the optimizer is SGD. The green dashed line denotes the epoch where the system reaches zero training error. No alpha scaling is applied here. The Hessian based flatness metric shows similar temporal behaviour to the sharpness measure.}
\label{fig:top_50_temporal}
\end{figure}
\section{The correlation between generalization, prior, and sharpness upon overtraining}
As shown in ~\cref{fig:evolve} of the main text, and further discussed in \cref{sec:temporal appendix}, flatness measures keep decreasing upon overtraining even when the function itself does not change. In this section, we revisit the correlation between prior, flatness and generalization at different numbers of overtraining epochs, i.e.\ \textit{after} reaching zero training error
As can be seen in \cref{fig:overtraining-SGD}~to~\cref{fig:overtraining-Adam-top_50}, overtraining does not meaningfully affect the correlation between sharpness, prior, and generalization we observed at the epoch where zero error is first reached in \cref{fig:MNIST} and \cref{fig:optimizers}. When the optimizer is SGD, the flatness, no matter if it is measured by sharpness or Hessian based metrics, correlates well with prior and (hence) generalization across difference overtraining epochs; whereas when using Adam, the poor correlation also persist in overtraining.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{pics/100-500-epochs-SGD-prior.png}
\caption{The correlation between sharpness, prior and generalization upon overtraining. The dataset is MNIST ($|S|=500,|E|=1000$), the optimizer is SGD.
For the range of (100-500) overtraining epoch tested here, the overall values of sharpness drop with overtraining. By contrast, the priors remain largely the same. For each quantity, the correlations remain remarkably similar with overtraining.
}
\label{fig:overtraining-SGD}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{pics/100-500-epochs-Adam-prior.png}
\caption{The correlation between sharpness, prior and generalization when over-trained (keep training after reaching zero training error). The dataset is MNIST ($|S|=500,|E|=1000$), the optimizer is Adam.
The correlations are similar across different overtraining epochs.
}
\label{fig:overtraining-Adam}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{pics/100-500-epochs-SGD-top_1-prior.png}
\caption{The correlation between Hessian spectral norm, prior and generalization when over-trained (keep training after reaching zero training error). The dataset is MNIST ($|S|=500,|E|=1000$), the optimizer is SGD. The correlations are similar across different overtraining epochs.
}
\label{fig:overtraining-SGD-top_1}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{pics/100-500-epochs-SGD-top_50-prior.png}
\caption{The correlation between Hessian based flatness (product of the top 50 largest Hessian eigenvalues), prior and generalization when over-trained (keep training after reaching zero training error). The dataset is MNIST ($|S|=500,|E|=1000$), the optimizer is SGD. The correlations are similar across different overtraining epochs.
}
\label{fig:overtraining-SGD-top_50}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{pics/100-500-epochs-Adam-top_1-prior.png}
\caption{The correlation between Hessian spectral norm, prior and generalization when over-trained (keep training after reaching zero training error). The dataset is MNIST ($|S|=500,|E|=1000$), the optimizer is Adam. The correlations are similar across different overtraining epochs.
}
\label{fig:overtraining-Adam-top_1}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{pics/100-500-epochs-Adam-top_50-prior.png}
\caption{The correlation between Hessian based flatness (product of the top 50 largest Hessian eigenvalues), prior and generalization when over-trained (keep training after reaching zero training error). The dataset is MNIST ($|S|=500,|E|=1000$), the optimizer is Adam. The correlations are similar across different overtraining epochs.
}
\label{fig:overtraining-Adam-top_50}
\end{figure}
\section{Further experiments}
\subsection{ResNet50 trained with Adam}
When training ResNet50 on CIFAR-10, we use training set size $|S|=5000$, attack set size $|A|=5000$, test set size $|E|=2000$. In each experiment, we mix the whole training set with different size of subset of attack set. The size of $|A|$ ranges as $(0,500,1000,1500,...,5000)$. For each subset of attack set we sample $5$ times.
When training ResNet50 with Adam,
we empirically found it is hard to train the neural net to zero training error with attack set size $|A|>2500$. So we only show the results for those functions found with $|A|\leq 2500$.
In \cref{fig:resnet50 with adam} we show the results of correlation between sharpness and prior with generalization with limited data. The prior, as usual, correlates tightly with generalization, while the
flatness-generalization correlation is much more scattered, although it is slightly better than the correlation seen for the FCN on MNIST, and closer to the behaviour we observed for SGD in the main text.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{pics/sharpness-generalization-resnet50.png}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{pics/volume-generalization-resnet50-prior.png}}
\caption{ The correlation between generalization and
{ (a)} sharpness
{ (b)} prior for ResNet50 with $|S|=5000$, $|E|=2000$, and $|A|$ ranging from $0$ to $2500$, all on CIFAR-10.
}
\label{fig:resnet50 with adam}
\end{figure}
\subsection{More SGD-variant optimizers}
\label{sec:moreSGD}
In \cref{fig:more-optimizers} we provide further empirical results for the impact of choice of optimizer on the sharpness-generalization correlation by studying three common used SGD variants: Adagrad~\citep{duchi2011adaptive}, Momentum~\citep{rumelhart1986learning} (momentum=$0.9$) and RMSProp~\citep{tieleman2012lecture}, as well as full batch gradient descent.
Interestingly, full batch gradient descent (or simply gradient descent) shows behaviour that is quite similar to vanilla SGD. By contrast,
for the other three optimizers, the correlation between sharpness and generalization breaks down, whereas the correlation between prior and generalization remains intact, much as was observed in the main text for Adam and Entropy-SGD.
.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{pics/SGD-variants-combined-prior.png}
\caption{More results on the correlation between sharpness, prior and generalization when using other SGD-variant optimizers. The dataset is MNIST, $|S|=500,|E|=1000$. The architecture is FCN.
The optimizers are full-batch gradient descent, Adagrad, Momentum (momentum=$0.9$) and RMSProp.
All correlations are measured upon reaching zero training error.
}
\label{fig:more-optimizers}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Larger training set}
\label{appendix:larger training set}
In order to rule out any potential training size effect on our main argument of the flatness, prior and generalization relationship,
we further performed the experiments on MNIST with 10k training examples. Larger training sets are hard because of the
GP-EP calculation of the prior scales badly with size.
The results are shown in \cref{fig:10k}. It is clear that the correlations between sharpness, prior and generalization follow the same pattern as we see in \cref{fig:MNIST}, in which there are only $|S|=500, |E|=1000$ images. If anything, the correlation with prior is tighter.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.3\linewidth]{pics/sharpness-generalization-10k-SGD.png}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.3\linewidth]{pics/volume-generalization-10k-SGD-prior.png}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.3\linewidth]{pics/sharpness-volume-10k-SGD-prior.png}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.3\linewidth]{pics/sharpness-generalization-10k-Adam.png}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.3\linewidth]{pics/volume-generalization-10k-Adam-prior.png}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.3\linewidth]{pics/sharpness-volume-10k-Adam-prior.png}}
\caption{The correlation between sharpness, prior and generalization on MNIST with $|S|=10000, |E|=1000$.
The attack set size ranges from 1000 to 9000.
The architecture is FCN.
(a)-(c): The FCN is trained with SGD;
(d)-(f): The FCN is trained with Adam.
}
\label{fig:10k}
\end{figure}
\section{Experimental results}
In order to investigate the relationship between local flatness, volume and generalization,
we trained DNNs on a variety of datasets including the Boolean system (see Section \ref{sec:Boolean system}),
binarized MNIST \citep{lecun1998gradient} and CIFAR-10 \citep{krizhevsky2009learning}.
The work-flow is:
we randomly initialize the DNN, train it
until it reaches zero error on the training set, then
calculate the flatness of minima (using several different metrics described in section \ref{sec:metric of flatness}), volume of the function and generalization performance and tested their correlations
(In Boolean system we use all samples as training set so generalization is not involved).
For volume calculation, there are two cases:
(a) on Boolean system, we randomly sample the parameters and count the empirical frequency of each functions to get their volume;
(b) on binarized MNIST and CIFAR-10, we used neural network Gaussian Process (GP) with Expectation Propagation (EP) approximation. The detailed methodology of GP is given in section \ref{sec:GP}.
Considering the large expense of computing flatness and volume, we adopted a two hidden-layer fully connected network (FCN) with 40 ReLU units each.
In all binary classification tasks cross entropy (CE) loss was used.
\subsection{Gaussian Process Approximation of the Volume}
\label{sec:GP}
First we introduce the methodology of using neural network Gaussian Process \citep{lee2017deep, matthews2018gaussian, tanexpectation, rasmussen2003gaussian}
to calculate the volume of a function $V_f$.
Neural network GPs have been shown to accurately approximate the prior over
functions $P(f)$ of finite-width Bayesian DNNs \citep{valle2018deep, matthews2018gaussian}.
In the GP limit of DNNs, we can place a GP prior on the pre-activations $z$ of the last
layer of the neural network (before a final non-linearity, e.g. softmax, is
applied),
meaning that for any finite
inputs set $X=\left\{x_{1}, \ldots, x_{m}\right\}$, the random output vector (pre-activations)
$\boldsymbol{z}=\left[z\left(x_{1}\right), \ldots, z\left(x_{m}\right)\right]^{T}$ has a Gaussian distribution.
Without loss of generality, we can assume such a process has a zero mean.
The prior probability of the outputs $\boldsymbol{z}$ can be calculated as:
\begin{equation}
P(\boldsymbol{z})=\frac{1}{(2 \pi)^{\frac{d}{2}} \Sigma^{\frac{1}{2}}} \exp \left(-\frac{1}{2} \boldsymbol{z}^{T} \Sigma^{-1} \boldsymbol{z}\right)
\end{equation}
$\Sigma$ is the covariance matrix (often called as kernel), whose entries are defined as
$\Sigma(x_i,x_j) \equiv \mathbb{E}[z(x_i),z(x_j)]$. $d$ is the dimension of the pre-activations.
\citet{neal1994priors} gave the basic form of kernel $\Sigma$ in single hidden layer case,
where $\Sigma$ depends on the variance of weights and biases ($\sigma_w$ and $\sigma_b$).
In DNNs with multiple hidden layers, the kernel for layer $l$ can be calculated recursively by induction, assuming the layer $l-1$ is a GP \citep{lee2017deep}.
Particularly, the kernel for fully connected ReLU-activated networks has a well known analytical form
known as the \emph{arc-cosine kernel}
\citep{cho2009kernel}, which is the one we used in our work.
After calculating $P(\boldsymbol{z})$ with the arc-cosine kernel, the prior over (coarse-grained) functions $P(f)$ can be calculated through likelihood $P(f|\boldsymbol{z})$. We used Expectation Propagation (EP) algorithm for the approximation of $P(f|\boldsymbol{z})$ \citep{rasmussen2003gaussian}.
We represent the function $f$ by the input-output pairs on the concatenation of training set and test set $(|S|+|E|)$.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{pics/Sharpness-volume_bool-log10.png}
\caption{The correlation between flatness/sharpness and volume in Boolean system.
The neural network has 7 Boolean inputs, two hidden layers of 40 ReLU units each, and a
single Boolean output.
We first built the 128-string function dataset by random sampling the parameters under initialization
$\sigma_w = 1.0, \sigma_b = 0.1$ for $10^8$ times.
Then we
train the network to reach zero training error using SGD and
calculated the \textbf{logarithm} of
Keskar-sharpness
as well as the corresponding
probability of the top-1000 most frequently-appearing functions. The volume $V_f$ here is exactly what we defined in definition \ref{def:volume}, without coarse-graining.
Note that the reason why we have two bands is because of the flatness discontinuity of Boolean functions, i.e. functions which have $n$ and $n+1$ outliers will show a discontinuity of flatness. We say there is 1 outlier if there is a single "1" with 127 "0"s or a single "0" with 127 "1"s.
}
\label{fig:bool}
\end{figure}
\subsection{The correlation between flatness and volume}
\label{flatness-volume correlation}
In this subsection, we provide numerical evidence to show that flatness and volume can be related.
When they do correlate, the flatness serves as local approximation to volume. This possible correlation is what behind the common (but rough) belief that flat minima generalize better.
\begin{figure*}[t!]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}{0.33\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.1\linewidth]{pics/MNIST-sharpness-generalization-log10.png}
\caption{}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.33\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.1\linewidth]{pics/MNIST-volume-generalization-log10.png}
\caption{}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.33\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.1\linewidth]{pics/MNIST-sharpness-volume-log10.png}
\caption{}
\end{subfigure}
\caption[Caption for LOF]{The correlation between Keskar-sharpness, volume $V_f$ and generalization accuracy on binarized-MNIST.
The training set size is 500; the attack-samples size range from (0 - 500) in order to get different generalization performance. Test set size is 1000. A 784-40-40-1 FCN\footnotemark~with He-normal initialization and SGD optimizer was used.
We trained neural networks with different size of attack set till reaching zero training error and calculated corresponding metrics.
{\em (a)} Sharpness v.s. generalization performance.
{\em (b)} Volume v.s. generalization performance. Here the volume is calculated using the GP-EP approximated volume on the concatenation of genuine training set and test set.
{\em (c)} The correlation between local sharpness and volume.
}
\label{fig:MNIST}
\end{figure*}
\subsubsection{Boolean system}
\label{sec:Boolean system}
We first build a prototypical neural network consisting of 7 Boolean inputs, 2 hidden layers with 40 ReLU
neurons each and a single Boolean output.
This architecture has been found to be sufficiently
expressive to represent almost all possible output functions \citep{valle2018deep}. We randomly sample the network’s weights and biases for $10^8$ times and measure the output (denoted as 0 or 1).
The initial standard deviation is $1$ for weights and $0.1$ for biases ($\sigma_w =1, \sigma_b = 0.1$).
By this process, the function that the DNN is expressing
can be represented as a 128 bit string, with each bit corresponding to the Boolean output for
one of the $2^7$ possible inputs.
By using equation \ref{equation:volume},
we can
estimate the volume each function.
Next, we train our network with SGD using the same initialization to produce the top-1000 most commonly appearing output functions (with zero training error) and then evaluate two kinds of flatness measure: {\em (a)} the spectral norm of Hessian $\lambda_H^1$
and {\em (b)} logarithm of Keskar-sharpness in equation \ref{equ:keskar-sharpness} with an $\epsilon$ of $10^{-4}$.
For the maximization process in calculating Keskar-Sharpness, we run SGD for 100 epochs and make sure the max value ceases to improve.
As
Figure \ref{fig:bool} demonstrates, both flatness metrics are strongly correlated with the volume
$V_f$. It appears that flatness, the conventional explanation of DNN generalization properties, is
serving as a proxy for the more fundamental and theoretically corroborated quantity of volume.
\subsubsection{MNIST and CIFAR-10}
\label{sec:MNIST and CIFAR-10}
Now we want to see how flatness and volume correlate with generalization performance on real-life dataset.
We use a feed-forward network with 784 input nodes (corresponding to each
of the image pixels) and two further hidden layers with 40 ReLU nodes each.
For simplicity, We use binarized-MNIST by simply marking class (0-4) as ``0" and (5-9) as ``1". As for CIFAR-10 we choose two categories out of ten: cars and cats. We restrict our training set to be small (500/5000 for MNIST/CIFAR-10). Experiments with bigger training set are
done but not shown in this report.
In order to compare solutions with very diverse generalization
performances (i.e. from solutions that as good as above $90\%$ accuracy to solutions as
poor as a random guess), we borrowed the attack-set trick implemented by \citet{wu2017towards}:
The attack-set consists of attack-samples which are normal pictures but labelled wrongly deliberately.
The system with corrupted training set is then trained to zero error.
It is straightforward that the more attack-samples get mixed into genuine training set, the worse the DNN generalizes. Thus
we can tune the generalization performance by adding different size of attack-set.
After training the corrupted training set to $100\%$ accuracy, we calculate the flatness and volume while testing the generalization performance on the test sets. Given the similarity between Hessian-based metrics and Keskar-sharpness,
we only present the latter one because of the $O(n^2)$ heavy computing cost for the Hessian.
The same setting of $\epsilon$ and maximizing epochs as in section \ref{sec:Boolean system} are used.
The volume is calculated with GP-EP approximation using the \texttt{GPy} package \citep{gpy2014}, while the inputs and outputs (labels) being
$(\mathtt{concat}(X_{genuine}, X_{test}), \mathtt{concat}(\mathbf{y}_{genuine}, f(X_{test})))$.
Here $\mathtt{concat}$ means concatenation.
As demonstrated in Figure \ref{fig:MNIST} (MNIST) and \ref{fig:cifar10} (CIFAR-10), volume is a loyal predictor of the generalization performance; sharpness keeps its correlation with volume (hence generalization). Again, SGD optimizer was used here.
\footnotetext{Here the four digits are number of input nodes, first hidden layer nodes, second hidden layer nodes, output nodes, respectively.}
\begin{figure*}[p]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}{0.33\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.1\linewidth]{pics/cifar10-sharpness-generalization-log10.png}
\caption{}
\label{fig:mnist-sharpness-generalization}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.33\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.1\linewidth]{pics/cifar10-volume-generalization-log10.png}
\caption{}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.33\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.1\linewidth]{pics/cifar10-sharpness-volume-log10.png}
\caption{}
\end{subfigure}
\caption[Caption for LOF]{
The correlation between Kerkar-sharpness, volume $V_f$ and generalization accuracy on two categories of CIFAR-10: cat and car.
There are 10000 pictures in these two categories, in which 5000 pictures have been chosen as training samples; we flipped the labels of the other 5000 pictures and used them at attack-set. Test set size is 2000. A 3072-40-40-1 FCN\footnotemark~with He-normal initialization and SGD optimizer was used.
{\em (a)} Sharpness v.s. generalization performance.
{\em (b)} GP-EP approximated volume v.s. generalization performance.
{\em (c)} The correlation between local sharpness and volume.
}
\label{fig:cifar10}
\end{figure*}
\footnotetext{3072 is the number of input nodes.}
\subsection{Time evolving behavior of sharpness and volume}
In experiments above, flatness and volume metrics are calculate one-off upon reaching $100\%$ training accuracy. However, in order to show that volume is a robust global metric and hence superior than flatness, we need to know how they evolve with epochs. To this end, we run the same FCN as in Figure \ref{fig:MNIST} on binarized-MNIST again, but this time we calculate sharpness and volume at each epoch.
As described in section \ref{sec:re-scaling}, the function found by the DNN should be unchanged under reparameterization such as $\alpha$-scaling. To test what this means for volume and flatness measures, we first wait for 500 epochs after achieving $100\%$ training accuracy, and then we manipulate the weights and biases of the two hidden layers to trigger the $\alpha$-scaling.
As shown in Figure \ref{fig:evolve}, sharpness drops and plateaus once reaching $100\%$ training accuracy, shoots up upon $\alpha$-scaling, then relaxes back down again. By contrast, volume remains stable throughout, and particularly does not change when the $\alpha$-scaling happens because the optimizer does not leave the neutral
space in Figure \ref{fig:5.1};
Or, as can be seen in Figure \ref{fig:5.9}, if the perturbation is large enough, then the volume temporarily changes because SGD acts on gradients, and right after $\alpha$-scaling these can be large enough to "knock" the optimiser to a different function. However, in just a few steps, the system converges back to the original function and volume.
It is clear that
$\alpha$-scaling can change the flatness nearly arbitrarily, and it keeps changed onward.
However, even if the re-scaling parameter is big enough to drive the optimizer out of current neutral space, it will still come back very quickly.
Here we need to clarify that after reaching 100\% accuracy on training set, the training loss, on which SGD is trained on, can still drop.
As an example, consider an output unit with value $0.6$ and $0.8$ while the true label being $1$: they both correctly predict the label (same accuracy), but the $0.8$ case has lower cross entropy loss.
Moreover, the sharpness is also dropping after reaching 100\% training accuracy, meaning the optimizer generally keeps finding flatter region even in the same basin of function.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}{.48\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{pics/sharpness-volume-evolve-volume-doesnot-change-log10.png}
\caption{}
\label{fig:5.1}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{.48\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{pics/sharpness-volume-evolving-log10.png}
\caption{}
\label{fig:5.9}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{The sharpness and volume evolving with epochs in the post-training regime. Green dashed line means zero-training error is reached and post-training starts;
\textbf{red dashed line means $\alpha$-scaling takes place
($\sim$ 620th epoch)
.} The architecture is 2 hidden-layer FCN, trained on binarized-MNIST with train/test set size being 500/100. He-normal initialization was used.
GP-EP approximated volume $V_f$ and Keskar-sharpness are calculated as the end of each epoch.
{\em (a)} When the re-scaling parameter $\alpha$ is not ``big enough" ($\alpha = 5.0$), an instant change of sharpness can be seen when re-scaling takes place, but the optimizer does not jump out of the neutral space, thus there is no change in volume on the epoch where re-scaling happens.
{\em (b)} When $\alpha$ is ``big enough" ($\alpha = 5.9$), the re-scaling manipulation not only changes the sharpness immediately, but also introduces big gradients for the optimizer to jump out of the neutral space. It then goes back to the same level of volume very quickly.
}
\label{fig:evolve}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Comparison between optimizers}
\label{sec:comparison between optimizers}
A lot of algorithms are designed to bias the optimizer into flatter regions explicitly (encoded in the loss function) \citep{hochreiter1997flat,chaudhari2019entropy} or implicitly
(encoded in the learning dynamic)
\citep{kingma2014adam}. However, recent works have shown that these imposed flatness preference not necessarily bring in better generalization \citep{keskar2017improving,wilson2017marginal}.
Intuitively, we assume that SGD samples parameters close to uniformly within the neutral space, i.e. it has no preference for flatter weight configurations when expressing the same function. Under this assumption, from Figure \ref{fig:MNIST} we can see that on average, local sharpness correlates well with generalization accuracy.
A question we then want to ask is \textbf{``Does that mean flatness-generalization correlation breaks down when using these biased SGD-variants?"} The answer is yes.
In order to see this, we choose two SGD-variants: Entropy-SGD
(with explicit bias towards flatter minima) \citep{chaudhari2019entropy}
and Adam.
We then use these optimizers to train our FCN into $100\%$ training accuracy. We then calculate the sharpness and volume upon reaching target accuracy and observe their correlation with generalization. Figure \ref{fig:comprasion-a},\ref{fig:comprasion-b},
\ref{fig:comprasion-d}
,\ref{fig:comprasion-e} are under the exact same conditions (on MNIST with same architectures, hyperparameters etc.) as Figure \ref{fig:MNIST} except for the optimizer, so are Figure \ref{fig:comprasion-c}, \ref{fig:comprasion-f} and Figure \ref{fig:cifar10} on CIFAR-10. As seen in Figure \ref{fig:optimizers}, when the optimizer has inherent bias for the characteristic of minima it finds, the correlation between flatness and generalization severely deteriorates.
As an example,
compared with vanilla SGD in Figure \ref{fig:mnist-sharpness-generalization},
the Entropy-SGD and Adam optimizer in Figure \ref{fig:comprasion-a},\ref{fig:comprasion-b} will always try to find flatter minima, even for those poorly generalized functions. The volume, however, always correlates nicely with generalization no matter if the optimizer is biased or not.
These results have further shown that as a local quantity, flatness does not necessarily correlate with generalization ability, but volume always does.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{subfigure}{.33\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{pics/sharpness-generalization-entropy-sgd-log10.png}
\caption{}
\label{fig:comprasion-a}
\end{subfigure}%
\begin{subfigure}{.33\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{pics/sharpness-generalization-adam-log10.png}
\caption{}
\label{fig:comprasion-b}
\end{subfigure}%
\begin{subfigure}{.33\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{pics/sharpness-generalization-cifar10-adam-log10.png}
\caption{}
\label{fig:comprasion-c}
\end{subfigure}%
\\
\begin{subfigure}{.33\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{pics/volume-generalization-entropy-sgd-log10.png}
\caption{}
\label{fig:comprasion-d}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{.33\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{pics/volume-generalization-adam-log10.png}
\caption{}
\label{fig:comprasion-e}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{.33\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{pics/volume-generalization-cifar10-adam-log10.png}
\caption{}
\label{fig:comprasion-f}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{
SGD-variants break down the flatness-generalization correlation.
When using these biased-towards-flatter-minima optimizers, the correlation between sharpness and generalization performance can no longer exist, but the volume $V_f$ keep correlating with generalization. \\
{\em (a)} and {\em (d)}: Shaprness v.s. generalization and volume v.s. generalization with Entropy-SGD on binarized-MNIST. The setting is the same with Fig.~\ref{fig:MNIST} except for the optimizer. \\
{\em (b)} and {\em (e)}: Adam optimizer on binarized-MNIST. The setting is the same with Fig.~\ref{fig:MNIST} except for the optimizer. \\
{\em (c)} and {\em (f)}: Adam optimizer on CIFAR-10. The setting is the same with Fig.~\ref{fig:cifar10} except for the optimizer.
}
\label{fig:optimizers}
\end{figure}
\section{Introduction}
Among the most important theoretical questions in the field of deep learning are: 1) What characterizes functions that exhibit good generalization?, and 2) Why do overparameterized deep neural networks (DNNs) converge to this small subset of functions that do not overfit?
Perhaps the most popular hypothesis is that good generalization performance is linked to flat minima. In pioneering works~\citep{hinton1993keeping,hochreiter1997flat},
the minimum
description length (MDL) principle \citep{rissanen1978modeling} was invoked
to argue that since flatter minima require less information to describe, they should generalize better than sharp minima.
Most measures of flatness approximate the local curvature of the loss surface, typically defining flatter minima to be those with smaller values of the Hessian eigenvalues~\citep{keskar2016large,wu2017towards,zhang2018energy,sagun2016eigenvalues, yao2018hessian}.
Another commonly held belief is that stochastic gradient descent (SGD) is itself biased towards flatter minima, and that this inductive bias helps explain why DNNs generalize so well~\citep{keskar2016large,jastrzebski2018finding,wu2017towards,zhang2018energy,yao2018hessian,wei2019noise,maddox2020rethinking}.
For example ~\citet{keskar2016large} developed a measure of flatness that they found correlated with improved generalization performance when decreasing batch size, suggesting that SGD is itself biased towards flatter minima.
We note that others \citep{goyal2017accurate,hoffer2017train,smith2017don,mingard2020sgd} have argued that the effect of batch size can be compensated by changes in learning rate, complicating some conclusions from~\citet{keskar2016large}.
Nevertheless, the argument that SGD is somehow itself biased towards flat minima remains widespread in the literature.
In an important critique of local flatness measures,~\citet{dinh2017sharp} pointed out that DNNs with ReLU activation can be re-parameterized through a simple parameter-rescaling transformation.
\begin{equation}
T_{\alpha}:\left(\mathbf{w}_{1}, \mathbf{w}_{2}\right) \mapsto\left(\alpha \mathbf{w}_{1}, \alpha^{-1} \mathbf{w}_{2}\right)
\label{eq:alpha}
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{w}_{1}$ are the weights between an input layer and a single hidden layer, and $\mathbf{w}_{2}$ are the weights between this hidden layer and the outputs. This transformation can be extended to any architecture having at least one single rectified network layer.
The function that the DNN represents, and thus how it generalizes, is invariant under parameter-rescaling transformations, but the derivatives w.r.t.\ parameters, and therefore many flatness measures used in the literature, can be changed arbitrarily. \textit{Ergo}, the correlation between flatness and generalization can be arbitrarily changed.
Several recent studies have attempted to find ``scale invariant'' flatness metrics
\citep{petzka2019reparameterization,rangamani2019scale,tsuzuku2019normalized}.
The main idea is to multiply layer-wise Hessian eigenvalues by a factor of $\|\mathbf{w_i}\|^{2}$, which renders the metric immune to layer-wise re-parameterization. While these new metrics look promising experimentally, they are only scale-invariant when the scaling is layer-wise. Other methods of rescaling (e.g. neuron-wise rescaling) can still change the metrics, so this general problem remains unsolved.
\subsection{Main contributions}
\begin{enumerate}
\item
For a series of classic image classification tasks (MINST and CIFAR-10) we show that flatness measures change substantially as a function of epochs. Parameter re-scaling can arbitrarily change flatness, but it quickly recovers to a more typical value under further training. We also demonstrate that some variants of SGD exhibit significantly worse correlation of flatness with generalization than found for vanilla SGD. In other words popular measures of flatness sometimes do and sometimes do not correlate with generalization. This mixed performance problematizes a widely held intuition that DNNs generalize well fundamentally because SGD or its variants are themselves biased towards flat minima.
\item We next study the correlation of the Bayesian prior $P(f)$ with the generalization performance of a DNN that converges to that function $f$. This prior is the weighted probability of obtaining function $f$ upon random sampling of parameters. Motivated by a theoretical argument derived from a non-uniform convergence generalization bound, we show empirically that $\log P(f)$ correlates robustly with test error, even when local flatness measures miserably fail, for example upon parameter re-scaling. For discrete input/output problems (such as classification),
$P(f)$ can also be interpreted as the weighted ``volume'' of parameters that map to $f$.
Intuitively, we expect local flatness measures to typically be smaller (flatter) for systems with larger volumes. Nevertheless, there may also be regions of parameter space where local derivatives and flatness measures vary substantially, even if on average they correlate with the volume. Thus flatness measures can be viewed as (imperfect) local measures of a more robust predictor of generalization, the volume/prior $P(f)$.
\end{enumerate}
\section{Definitions and notation}
\subsection{Supervised learning}
For a typical supervised learning problem, the \emph{inputs} live in an input domain $\mathcal{X}$, and the \emph{outputs} belong to an output space $\mathcal{Y}$. For a \emph{data distribution} $\mathcal{D}$ on the set of input-output pairs $\mathcal{X}\times\mathcal{Y}$, the \emph{training set} $S$ is a sample of $m$ input-output pairs sampled i.i.d.\ from $\mathcal{D}$, $S=\{(x_i,y_i)\}_{i=1}^m \sim \mathcal{D}^m$, where $x_i \in \mathcal{X}$ and $y_i \in \mathcal{Y}$.
The output of a DNN on an input $x_i$ is denoted as $\hat{y_i}$. Typically a DNN is trained by minimising a \emph{loss function} $L: \mathcal{Y}\times\mathcal{Y} \to \mathbb{R}$, which measures differences between the output $\hat{y}\in \mathcal{Y}$ and the observed output $y\in \mathcal{Y}$, by assigning a score $L(\hat{y}, y)$ which is typically zero when they match, and positive when they don't match.
DNNs are typically trained by using an optimization algorithm such as SGD to minimize the loss function on a training set $S$. The generalization performance of the DNN,
which is theoretically defined over the underlying (typically unknown) data distribution $\mathcal{D}$
but
is practically measured on a \emph{test set} $E=\{(x'_i,y'_i)\}_{i=1}^{|E|} \sim \mathcal{D}^{|E|}$. For classification problems, the \emph{generalization error} is practically measured as
$\epsilon(E)=\frac{1}{|E|}\sum_{x'_i\in E}\mathbbm{1}[\hat{y_i}\neq y'_i]$, where $\mathbbm{1}$ is the standard indicator function which is one when its input is true, and zero otherwise.
\subsection{Flatness measures}
\label{sec:flatness measures}
Perhaps the most natural way to measure the flatness of minima is to consider the eigenvalue distribution of the Hessian $H_{ij} = \partial^2L(\mathbf{w}) / \partial w_i \partial w_j$ once the learning process has converged (typically to a zero training error solution). Sharp minima are characterized by a significant number of large positive eigenvalues $\lambda_i$ in the Hessian, while flat minima are dominated by small eigenvalues. Some care must be used in this interpretation because it is widely thought that DNNs converge to stationary points that are not true minima, leading to negative eigenvalues and complicating their use in measures of flatness. Typically, only a subset of the positive eigenvalues are used~\citep{wu2017towards,zhang2018energy}.
Hessians are typically very expensive to calculate. For this reason,
\citet{keskar2016large} introduced a computationally more tractable measure called "sharpness":
\begin{definition}[Sharpness]
\label{def:sharpness}
Given parameters $\mathbf{w}'$ within a box in parameter space $\mathcal{C}_{\zeta}$ with sides of length $\zeta > 0$, centered around a minimum of interest at parameters $\mathbf{w}$,
the sharpness of the loss $L(\mathbf{w})$ at $\mathbf{w}$ is defined as:
\begin{equation*}
\mathrm{sharpness}:=\frac{\mathrm{max} _{\mathbf{w}' \in \mathcal{C}_{\zeta}} \left( L(\mathbf{w}') -L(\mathbf{w}) \right)}{1+L(\mathbf{w})} \times 100.
\label{equ:keskar-sharpness}
\end{equation*}
\end{definition}
In the limit of small $\zeta$, the sharpness relates to the spectral norm of the Hessian~\citep{dinh2017sharp}:
\begin{equation*}
\mathrm{sharpness} \approx \frac{\left\|\left|\left(\nabla^{2} L(\mathbf{w})\right)\right|\right\|_{2} \zeta^{2}}{2(1+L(\mathbf{w}))} \times 100.
\end{equation*}
The general concept of flatness can be defined as $1/sharpness$, and that is how we will interpret this measure in the rest of this paper.
\subsection{Functions and the Bayesian prior}
\label{sec:metric of flatness}
We first clarify how we represent functions in the rest of paper using the notion of \emph{restriction of functions}.
A more detailed explanation can be found in \cref{sec:function definition}.
Here we use binary classification as an example:
\iffalse
\begin{definition}[Representation of Functions]
Consider a DNN, a training set $S$=$\{(x_i,y_i)\}_{i=1}^m$ and test set $E$=$\{(x'_i,y'_i)\}_{i=1}^{|E|}$.
We \emph{represent} the function $f(\mathbf{w})$
for a set of DNN parameters $\mathbf{w}$ as a string
of length $(|S|+|E|)$, where the values are the labels $\hat{y}_i$ and $\hat{y}'$ that the DNN produces on the concatenation of training and testing inputs.
\label{def:representation of functions}
\end{definition}
\fi
\begin{definition}[Restriction of functions to $C$]~\citep{shalev2014understanding}
\label{def:restriction}
Consider a parameterized supervised model, and
let the input space be $\mathcal{X}$ and the output space be
$\mathcal{Y}$, noting $\mathcal{Y}=\{0,1\}$ in binary classification setting.
The space of functions the model can
express is a (potentially uncountably infinite) set
$\mathcal{F} \subseteq \mathcal{Y}^{|\mathcal{X}|}$.
Let $C=\left\{c_{1}, \ldots, c_{m}\right\} \subset \mathcal{X}$.
The restriction of $\mathcal{F}$ to $C$ is the set of functions from $C$ to $\mathcal{Y}$ that can be derived from functions in $\mathcal{F}$:
$$
\mathcal{F}_{C}=\left\{\left(f\left(c_{1}\right), \ldots, f\left(c_{m}\right)\right): f \in \mathcal{F}\right\}
$$
where we represent each function from $C$ to $\mathcal{Y}$ as a vector in $\mathcal{Y}^{|C|}$.
\end{definition}
For example, for binary classification, if we restrict the functions to $S+E$, then each function in $\mathcal{F}_{S+E}$ is represented as a binary string of length $|S| + |E|$.
In the rest of paper, we simply refer to ``functions'' when we actually mean the restriction of functions to $S+E$, except for the Boolean system in \cref{sec:Boolean system} where no restriction is needed.
See \cref{sec:function definition} for a thorough explanation.
For discrete functions, we next define the prior probability $P(f)$ as
\begin{definition}[Prior of a function]
Given a prior parameter distribution $P_w(\mathbf{w})$ over the parameters, the \emph{prior of function $f$} can be defined as:
\begin{equation}
P(f) :=\int \mathbbm{1}[\mathcal{M}(\mathbf{w})=f] P_w(\mathbf{w}) d \mathbf{w}.
\label{equation:volume}
\end{equation}
\label{def:volume}
\end{definition}
where $\mathbbm{1}$ is an indicator function:$\mathbbm{1}[arg] = 1$ if its argument is true or $0$ otherwise; $\mathcal{M}$ is the parameter-function map whose formal definition is in \cref{sec:p-f map and neutral set}. Note that $P(f)$ could also be interpreted as a weighted volume $V(f)$ over parameter space. If $P_w(\mathbf{w})$ is the distribution at initialization, the $P(f)$ is the prior probability of obtaining the function at initialization. We normally use this parameter distribution when interpreting $P(f)$.
\begin{remark}
\label{remark1}
Definition \ref{def:volume} works in the situation where the space $\mathcal{X}$ and $\mathcal{Y}$ are discrete, where $P(f)$ has a prior probability mass interpretation. This is enough for most image classification tasks.
Nevertheless, we can easily extend this definition to the
continuous setting, where we can also define a \emph{prior density} over functions upon random initialization, with the help of Gaussian Process~\citep{rasmussen2003gaussian}. For the Gaussian Process prior see \cref{sec:GP}. However, in this work, we focus exclusively on the classification setting, with discrete inputs and outputs.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Link between the prior and the Bayesian posterior}
Due to their high expressivity, DNNs are typically trained to zero training error on the training set $S$. In this case the Bayesian picture simplifies~\citet{valle2018deep,mingard2020sgd} because if functions are conditioned on zero error on $S$, this leads to a simple $0$-$1$ \textit{likelihood} $P(S|f)$, indicating whether the data is consistent with the function.
Bayesian inference can be used to calculate a Bayesian \emph{posterior probability} $P_B(f|S)$ for each $f$ by conditioning on the data according to Bayes rule. Formally, if
$S=\{(x_i,y_i)\}_{i=1}^m$ corresponds to the set of training pairs, then
\begin{equation*}
\label{01likelihood}
P_B(f|S) = \begin{cases} P(f)/P(S) \textrm{ if } \forall i,\;\; f(x_i)=y_i \\
0\textrm{ otherwise }.
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
where $P(f)$ is the Bayesian prior and $P(S)$ is called the \emph{marginal likelihood} or \emph{Bayesian evidence}. If we define,
the training set neutral space $\mathcal{N}_S$ as all parameters that lead to functions that give zero training error on $S$, then $P(S) = \int_{\mathcal{N}_S} P_{\mathbf{w}}(\mathbf{w}) d\mathbf{w}$. In other words, it is the total prior probability of all functions compatible with the training set $S$~\citep{valle2018deep,mingard2020sgd}. Since $P(S)$ is constant for a given $S$, $P_B(f|S) \propto P(f)$ for all $f$ consistent with that $S$.
\section{The correlation between the prior and generalization} \label{sec:correlation}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.6\linewidth]{pics/volume_and_flatness_scheme_plot.png}
\caption{\textbf{Schematic loss landscape for three functions that have zero-error on the training set.} It illustrates how the relative sizes of the volumes of their basins of attraction $V_{\mathrm{SGD}}(f_i)$ correlate with the volumes $V(f_i)$ (or equivalently their priors $P(f_i)$) of the basins, and that, on average, larger $V(f_i)$ or $P(f_i)$ implies flatter functions, even if flatness can vary locally. Note that the loss $L(\mathbf{w})$ can vary within a region where the DNN achieves zero classification error on $S$.
}
\label{fig:volume-sharpness-scheme-plot}
\end{figure}
This link between the prior and the posterior is important, because it was empirically found in an extensive set of experiments by~\citep{mingard2020sgd} that, for popular architectures and data sets,
\begin{equation}
P_B(f|S) \approx P_{\textrm{SGD}}(f|S),
\end{equation}
where $P_{\textrm{SGD}}(f|S)$ is the probability that a DNN trained with SGD converges on function $f$, when trained to zero error on $S$. In other words, to first order, SGD appears to find functions with a probability predicted by the Bayesian posterior, and thus with probabilities directly proportional to $P(f)$. The authors traced this behaviour to the geometry of the loss-landscape, as follows. Some general observations from algorithmic information theory (AIT)~\citep{valle2018deep} as well as direct calculations~\citep{mingard2019neural} predict that the priors of functions should vary over many orders of magnitude. When this is the case, it is reasonable to expect that the probabilities by which an optimizer finds different functions is affected by these large differences. This is related to a mechanism identified previously in evolutionary dynamics, where it is called the arrival of the frequent~\citep{schaper2014arrival}. We illustrate this principle in \cref{fig:volume-sharpness-scheme-plot} where we intuitively use the language of "volumes". We expect that the relative sizes of the basins of attraction $V_{SGD}(f)$, defined as the set of initial parameters for which a DNN converges to a certain function $f$, is proportional, to first order, to those of the priors $P(f)$ (or equivalently the ``volumes''). To second order there are, of course, many other features of a search method and a landscape that affect what functions a DNN converges on, but when the volumes/priors vary by so many orders of magnitude then we expect that to first order $P_{SGD}(f) \approx P_B(f|S) \propto P(f)=V(f)$.
Given that the $P(f)$ of a function helps predict how likely SGD is to converge on that function, we can next ask how $P(f)$ correlates with generalization. Perhaps the simplest argument is that if DNNs trained to zero error are known to generalize well on unseen data, then the probability of converging on functions that generalize well must be high. The $P(f)$ of these functions must be larger than the priors of functions that do not generalize well.
Can we do better than this rather simplistic argument?
One way forward is empirical. \citet{mingard2020sgd} showed that $\log\left(P_B(f|S)\right)$ correlates quite tightly with generalization error. These authors also made a theoretical argument based on the Poisson-Binomial nature of the error distribution to explain this log-linear relationship, but this approach needs further work.
One of the best overall performing predictors in the literature for generalization performance on classification tasks is the marginal likelihood PAC-Bayes bound from~\citep{valle2018deep,valle2020generalization}. It is non-vacuous, relatively tight, and can capture important trends in generalization performance with training set size (learning curves), data complexity, and architecture choice (see also~\citep{liu2021learning}). However, the prediction uses the marginal likelihood $P(S)$ defined through a sum over all functions that produce zero error on the training set. Here we are interested in the generalization properties of single functions.
One way forward is to use a simple nonuniform bound which to the best of our knowledge was first published in~\citep{mcallester1998some} as a preliminary theory to the full PAC-Bayes theorems. For any countable function space $\mathcal{F}$, any distribution $\tilde{P}$, and for any selection of a training set $S$ of size $m$ under probability distribution $\mathcal{D}$, it can be proven that for all functions $f$ that give zero training error:
\begin{equation}
\forall \mathcal{D}, \mathbf{P}_{S \sim \mathcal{D}^{m}}\left[\epsilon_{S,E}(f) \leq \frac{\ln \frac{1}{\tilde{P}(f)}+\ln \frac{1}{\delta}}{m}\right] \geq 1-\delta
\label{eq:bound}
\end{equation}
for $\delta \in (0,1)$. Here we consider a space $\mathcal{F}_{S,E}$ of functions with all possible outputs on the inputs of a specific $E$ and zero error on a specific $S$; $\epsilon_{S,E}(f)$ is the error measured on $E+S$, which as the error on $S$ is $0$, equals the error on the test set $E$. This error will converge to the true generalization error on all possible inputs as $|E|$ increases.
\citet{valle2020generalization} showed this bound has an optimal average generalization error when $\tilde{P}(f)$ mimics the probability distribution over functions of the learning algorithm. If $P_{SGD}(f) \approx P_B(f|S) \propto P(f)$, then the best performance of the bound is approximately when $\tilde{P}(f)$ in \cref{eq:bound} is the Bayesian prior $P(f)$. Thus this upper bound on $\epsilon_{S,E}(f)$ scales as $-\log\left(P(f)\right)$
\section{Flatness, priors and generalization}
The intuition that larger $P(f)$ correlates with greater flatness is common in the literature,
see e.g.~\citet{hochreiter1997flat,wu2017towards}, where the intuition is also expressed in terms of volumes. If volume/$P(f)$ correlates with generalization, we expect flatness should too.
Nevertheless, local flatness may still vary significantly across a volume.
For example~\citet{izmailov2018averaging} show explicitly that even in the same basin of attraction, there can be flatter and sharper regions. We illustrate this point schematically in \cref{fig:volume-sharpness-scheme-plot}, where one function clearly has a larger volume and on average smaller derivatives of the loss w.r.t.\ the parameters than the others, and so is flatter on average. But, there are also local areas within the zero-error region where this correlation does not hold. One of the main hypotheses we will test in this paper is that the correlation between flatness and generalization can be broken even when the generalization-prior correlation remains robust.
\section{Experimental Results}
\label{sec:experiments}
\subsection{Prior/volume - flatness correlation for Boolean system}
\label{sec:Boolean system}
We first study a model system for Boolean functions of size $n=7$, which is small enough to directly measure the prior by sampling~\citep{valle2018deep}. There are $2^7=128$ possible binary inputs. Since each input is mapped to a single binary output, there are $2^{128} = 3.4 \times 10^{34}$ possible functions $f$. It is only practically possible to sample the prior $P(f)$ because it is highly biased~\citep{valle2018deep,mingard2019neural}, meaning a subset of functions have priors much higher than average.
For a fully connected network (FCN) with two hidden layers of 40 ReLU units each (which was found to be sufficiently expressive to represent almost all possible functions) we empirically determined $P(f)$ using $10^8$ random samples of the weights $\mathbf{w}$ over an initial Gaussian parameter distribution $P_w(\mathbf{w})$ with standard deviation $\sigma_w = 1.0$ and offset $\sigma_b=0.1$.
We also trained our network with SGD using the same initialization and recorded the top-1000 most commonly appearing output functions with zero training error on all 128 outputs, and then evaluated the sharpness/flatness using~ \cref{equ:keskar-sharpness} with an $\epsilon=10^{-4}$.
For the maximization process in calculating sharpness/flatness, we ran SGD for 10 epochs and make sure the max value ceases to change.
As~\cref{fig:bool} demonstrates, the flatness and prior correlate relatively well; \cref{fig:sepctral norm boolean} in the appendix shows a very similar correlation for the spectral norm of the Hessian. Note that since we are studying the function on the complete input space, it is not meaningful to speak of correlation with generalization. However, since for this system the prior $P(f)$ is known to correlate with generalization~\citep{mingard2020sgd}, the correlation in~\cref{fig:bool} also implies that these flatness measures will correlate with generalization, at least for these high $P(f)$ functions.
\subsection{Priors, flatness and generalization for MNIST and CIFAR-10 }
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.4\linewidth]{pics/Sharpness-volume_bool-log10-prior.png}
\caption{
\textbf{The correlation between flatness and the Bayesian prior for the $\bf n=7$ Boolean system.} The functions are defined on the full space of 128 possible inputs.
The priors $P(f)$ are shown for the 1000 most frequently found functions by SGD from random initialization for a two hidden layer FCN, and correlate well with $\log$(flatness).
The function the largest prior, which is the most ``flat'' is the trivial one of all $0$s or all $1$s. An additional feature is two offset bands caused by a discontinuity of Boolean functions. Most functions shown are mainly $0$s or mainly $1$s, and the two bands correspond to an even or odd number of outliers (e.g.\ 1's when the majority is 0s).
}
\label{fig:bool}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}[t!]
\centering
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.3\linewidth]{pics/MNIST-volume-generalization-log10-prior.png}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.3\linewidth]{pics/cifar10-volume-generalization-log10-prior.png}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.3\linewidth]{pics/volume-generalization-resnet50-SGD-prior.png}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.3\linewidth]{pics/MNIST-sharpness-generalization-log10.png}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.3\linewidth]{pics/cifar10-sharpness-generalization-log10.png}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.3\linewidth]{pics/sharpness-generalization-resnet50-SGD.png}}
\caption{\textbf{The correlation between $\log P(f)$, sharpness and generalization accuracy on MNIST and CIFAR-10.}
For MNIST $|S|$=500, $|E|$=$1000$; for CIFAR-10 $|S|$=5000, $|E|$=$2000$.
The attack set size $|A|$ varies from 0 to $|S|$ and generates functions with different generalization performance.
(a)-(c) depicts the correlation between generalization and $\log P(f)$ for FCN on MNIST, FCN on CIFAR-10 and Resnet-50 on CIFAR-10, respectively. (d)-(f) show the correlation between generalization and flatness for
FCN on MNIST, FCN on CIFAR-10, and Resnet50 on CIFAR-10, respectively.
In this experiment, all DNNs are trained with vanilla SGD.
}
\label{fig:MNIST}
\end{figure*}
We next study the correlation between generalization, flatness and $\log P(f)$ on the real world datasets MNIST~\citep{lecun1998gradient} and CIFAR-10~\citep{krizhevsky2009learning}.
Because we need to run many different experiments, and measurements of the prior and flatness are computationally expensive, we simplify the problem by binarizing MINST (one class is 0-4, the other is 5-9) and CIFAR-10 (we only study two categories out of ten: cars and cats). Also, our training sets are relatively small (500/5000 for MNIST/CIFAR-10, respectively) but we have checked that our overall results are not affected by these more computationally convenient choices. In Appendix \cref{fig:10k} we show results for MNIST with $|S|=10000$.
We use two DNN architectures: a relatively small vanilla two hidden-layer FCN with 784 inputs and 40 ReLU units in each hidden layer each, and also Resnet-50~\citep{he2016deep}, a 50-layer deep convolutional neural network, which is much closer to a state of the art (SOTA) system.
We measure the flatness on cross-entropy (CE) loss at the epoch where SGD first obtains zero training error. Because the Hessian is so expensive to calculate, we mainly use the sharpness/flatness measure~(\cref{equ:keskar-sharpness}) which is proportional to the Frobenius norm of the Hessian. The final error is measured in the standard way, after applying a sigmoid to the last layer to binarize the outputs.
To measure the prior, we use the Gaussian processes (GPs) to which these networks reduce in the limit of infinite width~\citep{lee2017deep,matthews2018gaussian,novak2018bayesian}. As demonstrated in~\citet{mingard2020sgd}, GPs can be used to approximate the Bayesian posteriors $P_B(f|S)$ for finite width networks.
For further details, we refer to the original papers above and to~\cref{sec:GP}.
In order to generate functions $f$ with zero error on the training set $S$, but with diverse generalization performance, we use the attack-set trick from~\citet{wu2017towards}. In addition to training on $S$, we add an attack set $A$ made up of incorrectly labelled data. We train on both $S$ and $A$, so that the error on $S$ is zero but the generalization performance on a test set $E$ is reduced. The larger $A$ is w.r.t.\ $S$, the worse the generalization performance.
As can be seen in \cref{fig:MNIST}(a)-(c), this process allows us to significantly vary the generalization performance. The correlation between $\log P(f)$ and generalization error is excellent over this range, as expected from our arguments in \cref{sec:correlation}.
Figs.\ref{fig:MNIST}(d)-(f) show that the correlation between flatness and generalization is much more scattered than for $\log P(f)$. In \cref{sec:flatness volume correlation} we also show the direct correlation between $\log P(f)$ an flatness which closely resembles \cref{fig:MNIST}(d)-(f) because $V(f)$ and $\epsilon$ correlate so tightly.
\subsection{The effect of optimizer choice on flatness }
\label{sec:change optimizers}
\begin{figure*}[h]
\centering
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.3\linewidth]{pics/volume-generalization-entropy-sgd-log10-prior.png}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.3\linewidth]{pics/volume-generalization-adam-log10-prior.png}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.3\linewidth]{pics/volume-generalization-cifar10-adam-log10-prior.png}} \\
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.3\linewidth]{pics/sharpness-generalization-entropy-sgd-log10.png}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.3\linewidth]{pics/sharpness-generalization-adam-log10.png}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.3\linewidth]{pics/sharpness-generalization-cifar10-adam-log10.png}}
\caption{
\textbf{SGD-variants can break the flatness-generalization correlation, but not the $\log P(f)$-generalization correlation.}
The figures show generalization v.s.\ $\log P(f)$ or flatness for the FCN trained on
(a) and (d) -- MNIST with Entropy-SGD;
(b) and (e) -- MNIST with Adam;
(c) and (f) -- CIFAR-10 with Adam.
for the same $S$ and $E$ as in \cref{fig:MNIST}. Note that the correlation with the prior is virtually identical to vanilla SGD, but that the correlation with flatness measures changes significantly.
}
\label{fig:optimizers}
\end{figure*}
Given that we test the effect of changing the optimizer from the vanilla SGD we used in \cref{fig:MNIST}. We use Adam~\citep{kingma2014adam}, and entropy-SGD~\citep{chaudhari2019entropy} which includes an explicit term to maximize the flatness. Both SGD variants show good \textrm{optimization} performance for the standard default Tensorflow hyperparameters we use.
Their generalization performance, however, does not significantly vary from plain SGD, and this is reflected in the priors of the functions that they find. More importantly, fig.~\ref{fig:optimizers} shows that the generalization-flatness correlation can be broken by using these optimizers, whereas the $\log P(f)$-generalization correlation remains intact. A similar breakdown of the correlation persists upon overtraining and can also be seen for flatness measures that use Hessian eigenvalues (\cref{fig:overtraining-SGD} to \cref{fig:overtraining-Adam-top_50}).
Changing optimizers or changing hyperparameters can, of course, alter the generalization performance by small amounts, which may be critically important in practical applications. Nevertheless, as demonstrated in ~\citet{mingard2020sgd}, the overall effect of hyperparameter or optimizer changes is usually quite small on these scales. The large differences in flatness generated simply by changing the optimizer suggests that flatness measures may not always reliably capture the effects of hyperparameter or optimizer changes. Note that we find less deterioration when comparing SGD to Adam for Resnet50 on CIFAR-10, (\cref{fig:resnet50 with adam}). The exact nature of these effects remains subtle.
\subsection{Temporal behavior of sharpness and $\log P(f)$}
\label{sec:temporal}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.6\linewidth]{pics/sharpness-volume-evolving-log10-prior.png}
\caption{\textbf{How flatness evolves with epochs.} At each epoch we calculate the sharpness measure from Definition 2.1 (sharpness is the inverse of flatness) and the prior for our FCN on MNIST with $|S|=500$. The green dashed line denotes epoch 140 where zero-training error is reached and post-training starts. The
red dashed line denotes epoch 639 where $\alpha$-scaling takes place with $\alpha=5.9$. Upon parameter-rescaling, the sharpness increases markedly, but then quickly decreases again. The inset shows that the prior is initially unchanged after parameter-rescaling. However, large gradients mean that in subsequent SGD steps, the function (and its prior) changes, before recovering to (nearly) the same function and $\log P(f)$.
}
\label{fig:evolve}
\end{figure}
In the experiments above, the flatness and $\log P(f)$ metrics are calculated at the epoch where the system first reaches $100\%$ training accuracy. In \cref{fig:evolve}, we measure the prior and the flatness for each epoch for our FCN, trained on MNIST (with no attack set). Zero training error is reached at epoch 140, and we overtrain for a further 1000 epochs. From initialization, both the sharpness measure from Definition 2.1, and $\log P(f)$ reduce until zero-training error is reached. Subsequently, $\log P(f)$ stays constant, but the cross-entropy loss continues to decrease, as expected for such classification problems. This leads to a reduction in the sharpness measure (greater flatness) even though the function, its prior, and the training error don't change.
This demonstrates that flatness is a relative concept that depends, for example, on the duration of training. In \cref{fig:overtraining-SGD,fig:overtraining-Adam} we show for an FCN on MNIST that the quality of flatness-generalization correlations are largely unaffected by overtraining, for both SGD and Adam respectively, even though the absolute values of the sharpness change substantially
One of the strong critiques of flatness is that re-parameterisations such as the parameter-rescaling transformation defined in~\cref{eq:alpha} can arbitrarily change local flatness measures~\citep{dinh2017sharp}. Fig.~\ref{fig:evolve} shows that parameter-rescaling indeed leads to a spike in the sharpness measure (a strong reduction in flatness). As demonstrated in the inset, the prior is initially invariant upon parameter-rescaling because $f(\mathbf{w})$ is unchanged. However, parameter-rescaling can drive the system to unusual parts of the volume with steep gradients in the loss function, which mean that SGD falls off the zero training error manifold. $\log P(f)$ goes up because it is more likely to randomly fall onto large $V(f)$ functions. However, the system soon relaxes to essentially the same function and $\log P(f)$.
In \cref{fig:volume doesnot change upon scaling}, we show that it is possible to obtain a spike in the sharpness measure without the prior changing. In each case, the sharpness measure rapidly decays after the spike, suggesting that parameter-rescaling brings the system into a parameter region that is "unnatural".
\section{Discussion and future work}
The notion that flatness correlates with generalization is widely believed in the community, but the evidential basis for this hypothesis has always been mixed.
Here we performed extensive empirical work showing that flatness can indeed correlate with generalization. However, this correlation is not always tight, and can be easily broken by changing the optimizer, or by parameter-rescaling. By contrast, the $P(f)$ which is directly proportional to the Bayesian posterior $P_B(f|S)$ for functions that give zero error on the training set, is a much more robust predictor of generalization.
While the generalization performance of a DNN can be successfully predicted by the marginal likelihood PAC-Bayes bound~\citep{valle2018deep, valle2020generalization}, no such tight bound exists (to our knowledge) linking generalization and the Bayesian prior or posterior at the level of individual functions.
Further theoretical work in this direction is needed
Moreover, it is natural to further extend current work towards linking flatness and the prior to other quantities which correlate with generalization such as frequency \citep{rahaman2018spectral,xu2019frequency}, or the sensitivity to changes in the inputs \citep{arpit2017closer-arxiv,novak2018sensitivity}. Improvements to the GP approximations we use are an important technical goal. $P(f)$ can be expensive to calculate, so finding reliable local approximations related to flatness may still be a worthy endeavour. Finally, our main result -- that $\log P(f)$ correlates so well with generalization -- still requires a proper theoretical underpinning, notwithstanding the bound in Eq.(4). Such explanations will need to include not just the networks and the algorithms, but also the data~\citep{zdeborova2020understanding}. We refer readers to \cref{sec:more related work} for more discusion on related works.
\iffalse
\citet{valle2018deep} used an algorithmic information theory (AIT) inspired coding theorem~\citep{dingle2018input,dingle2020generic}, and ~\citet{de2018random,mingard2019neural} used direct analytic approaches to argue that DNNs are intrinsically biased towards functions with low Kolmogorov complexity $K(f)$. This \emph{simplicity bias} means that high $P(f)$ functions have low $K(f)$, and high $K(f)$ functions have low $P(f)$. Since it is widely thought that data such as MNIST and CIFAR-10 are simple~\citep{lin2017does,goldt2019modelling,spigler2019asymptotic}, an inbuilt inductive bias towards low $K(f)$ functions, which is a kind of built in \textit{ Occam's razor}, should help facilitate good generalization, as is indeed observed for DNNs. The AIT arguments above further suggest a general scaling of the form: $-\log(V(f)) \propto K(f)$.
A simple reason flatness measures correlate with generalization is because they correlate with volume.
There may be independent arguments for why flatness correlates with generalization, even if only imperfectly. Sketches in the literature~\citep{hinton1993keeping,schmidhuber1997discovering} based for example on MDL~\citep{rissanen1978modeling} or linking flatness to smoothness of functions~\citep{wu2017towards} suggest potential deep links to the AIT arguments for simplicity bias in DNNs~\citep{valle2018deep}.
There is a rich literature deriving generalization bounds based on concepts related to flatness in parameter space, see e.g.~\citet{jiang2019fantastic,dziugaite2020search,valle2020generalization} for recent reviews of this voluminous literature. Links between local volume and generalization have been explored in the context of bounds, at least since~\citet{shawe1997pac}, if not earlier.
Flatness measures are parameter dependent, whereas we approximate our volumes, which correlate better with generalization, using the non-parameteric GP approximation. \citet{valle2020generalization} showed that the function based marginal-likelihood PAC-Bayes bound should always be tighter than parameter based versions of the same PAC-Bayes bound, again suggesting that parameter based approaches may not be the best avenue for deriving predictors of generalization.
The fact that volume, which is calculated without reference to SGD, works so well as a predictor for the generalization error of SGD trained DNNs strongly suggests that any extra inductive bias of SGD, beyond that already present in the parameter-function map, is small on these scales. SGD is indeed biased towards flat minima, but primarily because these have a larger volume. These results are consistent with those of \citet{mingard2020sgd} who showed that the probability that SGD converges on a particular function $f$ is predicted by the posterior $P_B(f|S) \propto P(f)$.
\fi
\medskip
\small
\section{Overview for the concept "flatness"}
The concept "flatness" of loss function of neural networks can be traced
back to \citet{hinton1993keeping} and \citet{hochreiter1997flat}.
Although they did not provide a formal mathematical
definition of flatness, \citet{hochreiter1997flat} described a flat minima as "a large connected region in parameter space where the loss remains approximately constant", which requires low
precision to specify than a sharp minima.
They linked to
the minimum
description length (MDL) principle \citep{rissanen1978modeling},
which says the best performing model is the one with shortest description length,
to argue that flatter minima should generalise better than sharp minima.
To take this into account, they suggested
adding a extra regularization term to the original loss function in order to drive the optimizer into finding those minima that need less information to specify (i.e. flatter minima).
The new loss function can be formalized as:
\begin{equation}
L^\prime \left(\mathbf{w}\right)=L\left( \mathbf{w} \right)+ \lambda \sum_{x_{i} \in X} B\left(\mathbf{w}, x_{i}\right).
\end{equation}
where the regularization terms $B\left(\mathbf{w}, x_{i}\right)$ can be naively understood as the "bits of information" needed to encode the minima, $\lambda$ is the hyperparameter which controls the trade-off between training error and regularization. They empirically showed that working on this modified loss function would outperformed vanilla loss.
\iffalse
A similar work done by \citet{chaudhari2019entropy} also introduced an extra regularization to bias the optimizer into wider valleys. Instead of minimizing the original loss, they proposed to maximize the "local entropy":
\begin{equation}
L^\prime(\mathbf{w})=\log \int_{\mathbf{w}^{\prime} \in \mathbb{R}^{n}} \exp \left(-L\left(\mathbf{w}^{\prime}\right)-\frac{\lambda}{2}\left\|\mathbf{w}-\mathbf{w}^{\prime}
\right\|_{2}^{2}\right) d \mathbf{w}^{\prime}
\label{eq:local-entropy}
\end{equation}
in which $\mathbf{w^\prime}$ is also parameter vector but needs to be integrated out.
The "local entropy" smooth the loss landscape and penalize those minima which have low loss but their neighbors have high loss, i.e. sharp minima.
\fi
The first detailed practical measurements of flatness was given in an influential paper \citep{keskar2016large}, in the context of investigating the generalization gap between large-batch and small-batch training.
The batch size refers to the number of training examples utilized in a single iteration of stochastic gradient descent (SGD), the most used optimisation method for DNNs. As opposed to simple gradient descent (GD), in SGD a stochastically chosen subset of training data (the batch) is used to set the gradients at each time-step.
The generalization gap here refers to the phenomenon that large-batch training
tends to have slightly worse generalization ability (from $\sim 0.2 \% $ to $\sim 5 \%$) compared to small-batch training, even if they can achieve similar performance on training set.
\citet{keskar2016large} claim that the generalization gap arises because large-batch methods tend to converge
to sharp minima of the training loss function, while small-batch methods are more prone to flat minima.
\label{fig:keskar-flat-minima}
Perhaps the most natural way to measure the flatness of minima is to consider the eigenvalue distribution of the $H_{ij} = \partial^2L(\mathbf{w}) / \partial w_i \partial w_j$ once the learning process has converged (typically to a zero training error solution). Sharp minima are characterized by a significant number of large positive eigenvalues in the Hessian, while flat minima have numerous small eigenvalues (Note that some care must be used in this interpretation because it is widely thought that DNNs converge to stationary points that are not true minima). However, Hessians are typically very expensive to calculate. Thus \citet{keskar2016large} used a computationally more tractable measure they call "sharpness".
It is based on exploring a small neighborhood
of a minimum and computing the largest value that the loss function $L(\mathbf{w})$ can attain in that neighborhood.
Let $\mathcal{C}_{\epsilon}$ denote the box around the minimum of interest where the maximization of $L(\mathbf{w})$ is performed; $\epsilon$ is a hyperparameter that controls the size of the box.
The box boundary $\mathcal{C}_{\epsilon}$ is defined as:
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{C}_{\epsilon}=\left\{\Delta \mathbf{w} \in \mathbb{R}^{n}:-\epsilon\left(\left| w_{i}\right|+1\right) \leq \Delta w_{i} \leq \epsilon\left(\left| w_{i}\right|+1\right) \quad \forall i \in\{1,2, \cdots, n\}\right\}
\end{equation}
With the box boundary, the measure of sharpness can be defined:
\begin{definition}{Keskar-sharpness:}
Given $\mathbf{w} \in \mathbb{R}^{n}$ and $\epsilon>0$, define the $\mathcal{C}_{\epsilon}$-sharpness of $L(\mathbf{w})$ at parameter $\mathbf{w}$ as:
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{sharpness}:=\frac{\left(\max _{\Delta \mathbf{w} \in \mathcal{C}_{\epsilon}} L(\mathbf{w}+\Delta \mathbf{w} )\right)-L(\mathbf{w})}{1+L(\mathbf{w})} \times 100
\label{equ:keskar-sharpness}
\end{equation}
\end{definition}
\par \noindent
This measure of sharpness is closely related to the spectral norm of $\nabla^{2} L(\mathbf{w})$: assuming $\epsilon$ to be small enough, consider the second order Taylor expansion of $L(\mathbf{w})$ around a critical point minima $\mathbf{w}$
\begin{equation}
L\left(\mathbf{w}^{\prime}\right)= L(\mathbf{w})+\frac{1}{2}\left(\mathbf{w}^{\prime}-\mathbf{w}\right)^{T}\left(\nabla^{2} L(\mathbf{w})\right)\left(\mathbf{w}^{\prime}-\mathbf{w}\right) \\
+o\left(\left\|\mathbf{w}^{\prime}-\mathbf{w}\right\|_{2}^{2}\right)
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{w}^\prime$ is the updated parameter found by the maximizing process. The sharpness metric in equation \ref{equ:keskar-sharpness} at the critical point can be written using the spectral norm:
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{sharpness} = \frac{\left\|\left|\left(\nabla^{2} L(\mathbf{w})\right)\right|\right\|_{2} \epsilon^{2}}{2(1+L(\mathbf{w}))} \times 100
\end{equation}
\citet{keskar2016large} used the L-BFGS-B algorithm~\citep{byrd1995limited} to perform the
maximization of $L(\mathbf{w})$ in $\mathcal{C}_{\epsilon}$. However, as a quasi-Newton method, L-BFGS-B is not scalable when there are tens of millions of parameters in modern DNNs. To make Keskar-sharpness applicable for large DNNs, we will use SGD for the maximization instead.
Some researchers adopted eigenvalue-based measure for flatness.
\citet{wu2017towards} argue that local flatness described by Hessian eigenvalues is a proxy for the volume of basin of attractor; the latter one they claimed to be decisive of whether the attractor leads to good generalization.
For the local flatness measure, they used either the log-product of top-$k$ Hessian eigenvalues
if the size of DNN is manageable,
or statistical estimate of the Frobenius
norm of Hessian if direct calculation of Hessian is out of reach. Similarly, \citet{zhang2018energy} borrowed the conception of energy–entropy competition from physics, treating mean training loss as "internal energy" and flatness as "entropy";
they then approximated the entropy as the log-product of Hessian eigenvalues.
\citet{yao2018hessian} also investigated the generalization gap induced by large batch training
from a robust training perspective,
and found
that
the local flatness, quantified by the spectral norm of Hessian, can be predictive of how likely the model would be affect by adversarial samples attack.
Most recently, \citet{maddox2020rethinking} revisited the effective dimensionality of Hessian and found they can also relate this measure to local flatness.
\subsection{Re-scaling Problem}
\label{sec:re-scaling}
All the above measures of flatness seem quite promising: correlation between "flat" minima and better generalization performance were found in different notions of flatness.
However, \citet{dinh2017sharp} argued that all these notions of flatness are problematic for deep neural networks and can not be directly applied to explain generalization.
The main logic behind the argument is that over-parametrized DNNs exhibit a large number of different parameter configurations which result in exactly the same function; but these parameter configurations may have different values of flatness.
Take a single-hidden-layer ReLU activated network as an example:
$$\hat{Y}=\phi_{\mathrm{ReLU}}\left(X \cdot \mathbf{w_{1}}\right) \cdot \mathbf{w_{2}}$$
where $\mathbf{w_1}$ are weights between input layer and hidden layer and $\mathbf{w_2}$ are weights between hidden layer and output layer
(note for convenience we can exclude the bias terms).
$\phi_{\mathrm{ReLU}}$ is the rectified linear function:
$\phi_{\mathrm{ReLU}}(x) = \max (0,x)$.
"Equivalent" parameter configurations can be easily achieved by "$\alpha$-scaling" transformation:
$$T_{\alpha}:\left(\mathbf{w}_{1}, \mathbf{w}_{2}\right) \mapsto\left(\alpha \mathbf{w}_{1}, \alpha^{-1} \mathbf{w}_{2}\right)$$
Note that a "$\alpha$-scaling" transformation will not change the generalization performance of the neural network, because the DNN still represents the very same function after transformation. Also, this idea of parameter transformation without changing the representing function can be trivially extended to any architecture having a single ReLU activated network as a submodule.
It can be further proved that after "$\alpha$-scaling" transformation, both Keskar sharpness and the Hessian-based measure of flatness
can change arbitrarily, while the generalization performance stays the same.
In light of the existence of "$\alpha$-scaling" problem, several recently works have been focusing on finding a "scale invariant" flatness metric.
\citet{petzka2019reparameterization}, \citet{rangamani2019scale} and \citet{tsuzuku2019normalized}
have all proposed a new "scale invariant" Hessian-based flatness measure separately,
but the idea behind them is similar. The trick is simply multiplying layer-wise Hessian eigenvalues by a factor of $\|\mathbf{w_i}\|^{2}$, then the new metric is immune to layer-wise reparameterization.
The new scale invariant metric looks promising experimentally, however, this metric is only scale-invariant when it is layer-wise.
Also, "$\alpha$-scaling" is not the only way of reparameterization, but just a particular case where layer-wise weights are changing collectively. As long as the optimizer goes into the neutral space (which is defined in section \ref{sec:neutral space}), there is much more possibilities for "irregular" reparameterization. Therefore, it seems that these "scale invariant" metrics have not reached the real core of the reparameterization problem.
\subsubsection{The Parameter-function Map}
With the representation of functions, we then introduce the definition of the parameter-function map \citep{valle2018deep,mingard2020sgd}:
\theoremstyle{definition}
\begin{definition}[Parameter-function map]
Consider a parameterised supervised model, and
let the input space be $\mathcal{X}$ and the output space be
$\mathcal{Y}$. The space of functions the model can
express is a set
$\mathcal{F} \subseteq \mathcal{Y}^{|\mathcal{X}|}$.
If the model takes parameters within a set
$W \subseteq \mathbb{R}^{n}$,
then the parameter-function map $\mathcal{M}$ is defined as
$$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{M}: W & \rightarrow \mathcal{F} \\
\mathbf{w} & \mapsto f(\mathbf{w})
\end{aligned}$$
\label{def:para-func map}
\end{definition}
The parameter-function map serves as the bridge between parameter-space searching algorithm (e.g. SGD) and its behavior in function space. The latter
determines the generalization ability of model.
As mentioned before, for dataset where the input space $\mathcal{X}$ is too large for our calculations to be feasible, we often restrict the inputs to a subset of original input space.
\subsubsection{The Neutral space}
\label{sec:neutral space}
Before deriving the concept of "volume of functions", we introduce the definition of \emph{neutral space}, which is defined as the
set of parameters mapping to a specific function.
\begin{definition}[Neutral space]
For a model defined in Definition \ref{def:para-func map},
and a given function $f$, the neutral space $\mathcal{N}_f \subseteq W$ is defined as
$$
\mathcal{N}_f := \{ \mathbf{w} \in W :
\mathcal{M}(\mathbf{w}) = f \}
$$
\label{def:neutral space}
\end{definition}
The size of neutral space can be informally defined as the volume of the corresponding function.
Note that the neutral space may be unbounded. In those cases, the "size" of neutral space might be counterintuitive at the first glance. However a probabilistic measure of the set may still be defined. We will use this probabilistic measure as the starting point for our Bayesian formalization.
\subsubsection{The Bayesian Prior, Posterior and Volume}
\label{sec:volume and Bayesian posterior}
In this section we give the definition of volume as well as its relationship with the Bayesian picture.
We define the ``volume of a function $f$'' as a probabilistic measure of its neutral space:
\begin{definition}[Volume of a function]
Given the prior distribution $P(\mathbf{w})$ over the parameters, the \emph{volume of function $f$}, $V_f$, can be defined as:
\begin{equation}
V_f:=P(f)=P(N_f)=\int \mathbbm{1}[\mathcal{M}(\mathbf{w})=f] P(\mathbf{w}) d \mathbf{w}
\label{equation:volume}
\end{equation}
\label{def:volume}
\end{definition}
where $\mathbbm{1}$ is an indicator function:
$\mathbbm{1}[arg] = 1$ if its argument is true or $0$ otherwise.
$V_f$ can be interpreted as the probability of the DNN expressing function $f$ upon initialization (i.e. before an optimization process). We will also refer to this quantity as $P(f)$,
because it can be interpreted as a Bayesian prior over functions, as done in \cite{valle2018deep,mingard2020sgd}.
If we condition functions on obtaining zero prediction error on training set
$S=(X,Y)$, we have the Bayesian posterior
\begin{equation}
P(f \mid S):=\frac{P(S \mid f) P(f)}{P(S)}
\label{equ:posterior}
\end{equation}
In the context of supervised learning with training dataset $S=\left\{\left(x_{i}, y_{i}\right)\right\}_{i=1}^{m}$,
the term $P(S | f)$ in Equation \ref{equ:posterior}
corresponds to a 0-1 likelihood
$$
P(S \mid f)=\left\{\begin{array}{l}
1 \text { if } \forall i, \quad f\left(x_{i}\right)=y_{i} \\
0 \text { otherwise }
\end{array}\right.
$$
and the normalization term (\emph{marginal likelihood}) $P(S)$ is
$$
P(S) = P(Y\mid X) =
\sum_{f} P(S \mid f) P(f)=\sum_{f \in \mathcal{C}_S} P(f) \\
= \int_{\mathbf{w} \in \mathcal{N}_S} P(\mathbf{w}) d\mathbf{w}
$$
with $\mathcal{C}_S$ denoting the set of all functions compatible with the dataset
$S$ and $\mathcal{N}_S$ refers to the neutral space for all $f \in \mathcal{C}_S$.
The marginal likelihood can also be interpreted as the sum of "volume" of all functions $f \in \mathcal{C}_S$.
From equation \ref{equ:posterior}, we can derive an important relationship between the posterior
and the volume of a function:
\begin{equation}
P(f \mid S) \propto V_f = P(f)\quad \text{if} \quad P(S \mid f)=1
\label{equ:volume-posterior relationship}
\end{equation}
Thus the probability that a function $f$ obtains upon training a DNN to zero training error by random sampling of parameters is proportional to the "volume" of the function. In this report we will calculate the volume of the function defined on the inputs $X$ and $X^\ast$ of the training set and test set respectively.
\subsubsection{The Heuristic Correlation Between Volume and generalization}
While \citet{wu2017towards} suggested that the volume of basin of attraction relates to
generalization, their assumption: local flatness is a good proxy for the volume of basin of attraction,
is not necessarily true.
In fact,
\citet{izmailov2018averaging} have shown that even in the same basin of attraction, there can be flatter region and sharper region.
Figure. \ref{fig:volume-sharpness-scheme-plot} schematically shows our understanding of the loss landscape, in which the local flatness may not necessarily correlated to the volume of basin of attraction noted as $V_\mathrm{S G D}\left(f\right)$\footnotemark.
However,
the volume of "basin size", which we noted as $V_B(f)$, might be a more stable proxy for $V_\mathrm{S G D}\left(f\right)$.
Note that $V_B(f)$ is proportional to Bayesian posterior $P(f | S)$ if the function reach zero error on training set.
From what we have shown in section \ref{sec:volume and Bayesian posterior} we know that the volume of a function $V_f$ is proportional to $V_B(f)$.
Recently \citet{mingard2020sgd} have empirically confirmed the correlation
between the basin size $V_B(f)$ and the volume of basin of attraction $V_\mathrm{S G D}\left(f\right)$,
by showing
that for a range of architectures, datasets and optimizers, the probability for an optimizer to converge on a function $f$ consistent with a training set
$S$, $P_{\mathrm{SGD}}(f | S)$, correlates well with the GP-EP approximated (see section \ref{sec:GP}) Bayesian posterior probability, $P(f | S)$.
Note that $V_\mathrm{S G D}\left(f\right) \propto P_{\mathrm{SGD}}(f | S)$
and $V_B(f) \propto P(f | S)$.
Moreover, they have also shown in their figure 1(b) that $P(f | S)$ is exponentially biased towards
functions with low generalisation error.
Considering the relationship in equation \ref{equ:volume-posterior relationship}, we expect there is also a logarithm relationship between $V_f$ and generalization error.
\citet{mingard2020sgd} suggested that the logarithmic form of the correlation may originate from the Poisson-Binomial-like distribution over the misclassifying probabilities of individual images $p_i$,
which are independent and non-identical.
\footnotetext{Here the subscript "SGD" means when initial weights are in the basin of attraction, it will then be "attracted" to the bottom of basin by optimizers like SGD or its variants.}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{pics/volume_and_flatness_scheme_plot.png}
\caption{Schematic loss landscape highlighting the relationship between volume of the basin,
volume of the (basin of) attraction and local flatness.
While flatness can vary inside the same basin
(rugged bottom), the volume of function $f_1$ ($\propto$ $V_{B}(f_1)$ ) is shown to be closed related to the volume of basin of attraction $V_{\mathrm{S G D}}(f_1)$.
}
\label{fig:volume-sharpness-scheme-plot}
\end{figure}
|
\section{Introduction}Data-driven control tuning has been an active area of research for the last few decades \cite{campi2002virtual,formentin2012non,formentin2014comparison,hjalmarsson1998iterative,karimi2004iterative,karimi2007non,sala2005extensions,campestrini2011virtual,lequin2003iterative,de2019formulas,coulson2019data}: it allows the user to perform data-to-controller design, and to avoid identifying a specific model for the plant. Data-driven methods have been used in many systems for which it is difficult to derive, from first-principle, a mathematical model of the plant. This is especially the case for multi-input/multi-output (MIMO) linear time-invariant systems, where it may be hard or too costly to model the interaction between the inputs and the outputs of the system \cite{formentin2012non}.
Unlike adaptive control, where the controller is usually updated in an \textit{online} manner, data-driven methods tune the control policy in an \textit{offline} way.
Specifically, the controller is computed upon a batch of data and an underlying objective function.
]Several data-driven control techniques have been proposed in the literature: iterative methods, such as iterative feedback tuning \cite{hjalmarsson1998iterative} and correlation-based tuning \cite{karimi2004iterative}; one-shot methods such as Virtual Reference Feedback Tuning (VRFT) \cite{campi2002virtual}, the correlation approach \cite{karimi2007non}, and recent techniques \cite{de2019formulas,coulson2019data} leveraging Willems et al. lemma \cite{willems2005note}.
Data-driven control methods draw similarities to other machine learning techniques. As in supervised and unsupervised learning, these methods make use of a batch of data to train upon. Recently, there has been a surge of interest in studying how a malicious agent can deteriorate the performance of supervised learning methods \cite{goodfellow2014explaining,biggio1}, and more recently, reinforcement learning methods too \cite{russo2019optimal}. It has been shown that through barely perceptible but specific changes in the dataset, namely \textit{data-poisoning attacks}, the malicious agent is capable of reducing the classifier performance by a significant amount \cite{biggio1,jagielski2018manipulating,munoz2017towards}. If attacks can significantly reduce the classification performance by slightly altering the dataset available to the user, it makes it difficult to assess the integrity of the data.
In this paper, we examine poisoning attacks against data-driven control methods. These methods follow the paradigm of \textit{learning from the data}, and we show that as such, they suffer from the same problem as classical machine learning methods. Data-driven control methods use experimental data to design control laws directly, and we consider an attacker who may affect the data being recorded during the experiment or maliciously change it after the experiment is done. Over the last decade, researchers have developed a risk management framework for cyber-physical systems \cite{chong2019tutorial,sandberg2015cyberphysical}, comprising \textit{detection, prevention} and \textit{treatment} of attacks. To the best of our knowledge, this paper is the first to analyze data-poisoning attacks on data-driven control methods. Our contributions are as follows.\\
(i) We formalize the problem of devising efficient poisoning attacks with a bounded amplitude as a bi-level optimization problem (whose objective depends on the attacker's goal, e.g., minimize the learner's performance). In general, this problem is non-convex. We develop gradient-based algorithms to find local optima of the problem and compute poisoning attacks.\\
(ii) We specify our algorithms to the case of VRFT. There, the use of parametrized controller eases the computation of gradients, and we can theoretically quantify the potential impact of poisoning attacks. We also investigate poisoning attacks for data-driven methods based on Willems et al. lemma\cite{willems2005note,de2019formulas}\ifdefined\isextended\else, but due to space constraints, this analysis is presented in the associated technical report \cite{techreport}\fi.\\
(iii) We experimentally assess the impact of poisoning attacks. It turns out that signals with larger levels of excitation (so as to identify the optimal controller more easily in data-driven methods) may make attacks more efficient (in the sense that the resulting closed-loop system is unstable). Our experiments suggest that poisoning attacks, even with very low amplitude, can significantly deteriorate the efficiency of data-driven control methods. Minimal changes in the dataset can cause system instability.
\section{Model and problem formulation}
\subsection{Notation}
We consider discrete-time models, indexed by $t\in \mathbb{N}_0$, and we will indicate by $[N]$ the sequence of integers from $0$ to $N$. We denote by $z$ the one-step forward shift operator and by $\mathcal{H}_2$ the Hardy space of complex functions which are analytic in $|z|< 1$ for $z\in \mathbb{C}$. For a generic signal $x_t \in \mathbb{R}^{n}$, we denote its values in $t\in[N]$ as \[X_{[N]}=\begin{bmatrix}
x_0 & x_1 &\dots & x_{N}
\end{bmatrix}^\top\in \mathbb{R}^{N\times n}\]
and, in case it is clear from the context, we omit the subscript notation. The vectorized version of $X_{[N]}$ is denoted by $\boldsymbol{x}_{[N]}=\vect(X_{[N]})$ (if $l=1$ then $\boldsymbol{x}_{[N]} = X_{[N]})$. For a vector $x\in \mathbb{R}^n$, we denote by $\supp(x)=\{i: x_i\neq 0\}$ the set of non-zero entries of $x$. Similarly, we indicate the $0$-`norm` of $x$ by $\|x\|_0=|\supp(x)|$. For a generic matrix $A$ denote its $i$-th row by $A_{i,*}$, and let $\lambda_i(A)$ be the $i$-th eigenvalue of $A$ (in case $A$ is squared). Also, let $\sigmamax(A),\sigmamin(A)$ be respectively the maximum and minimum singular value of $A$. Finally, for a vector $x\in \mathbb{R}^n$ and a function $f: \mathbb{R}^n\to \mathbb{R}$, we denote by $\nabla_x f(x)$ the $n$-dimensional vector of partial derivatives, where each element is $\partial_{x_i} f(x)$ with $\partial_{x_i} = \frac{\partial }{\partial x_i}$.
\subsection{Plant dynamics}
Throughout the paper, we consider a controllable and observable discrete time linear single-input/single-output system of the form
\begin{align}\label{eq:system_state_space1}
x_{t+1} &= Ax_t +Bu_t,\quad x_0\in \set X\\
y_t&=Cx_t+Du_t, \label{eq:system_state_space2}
\end{align}
where $x\in \mathbb{R}^n, u,y\in \mathbb{R}$ and $\set X$ is a closed-convex subset of $ \mathbb{R}^n$. Depending on the algorithm being used, we equivalently use transfer function notation and denote the input-output relationship using transfer function notation $y_t = G(z)u_t,$ with $G(z) = C(zI-A)^{-1}B+D$. We also denote the multiplication of two transfer functions $G(z)$ and $L(z)$ by $GL(z)$ (similarly the sum). Noise is not included in the model, but it is well known that data-driven control methods can be applied also to noisy data, using for example instrumental variables \cite{campi2002virtual}. The procedure and the concepts described in this work can be directly used to extend the method to the noisy case.
\ifdefined\isextended
\subsection{Persistency of excitation}
One of the methods we study in the paper makes use of the least squares procedure. This method has been widely studied in literature, we will state some useful definitions:\\
\begin{definition}
A bounded locally square integrable vector function $\phi:\mathbb{R}\to\mathbb{R}^d$ is said to be \textit{persistently exciting} if there exists a constant $t_0$ and a positive constant $T_0$ and $\alpha>0$ such that
\end{definition}
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{T_0} \sum_{k=t}^{t+T_0} \phi_k\phi_k^\top \succeq \alpha I \succ 0,\quad \forall t\geq t_0.
\end{equation}
The concept of PE function is equivalent to the exponential asymptotic stability of the zero solution of the differential equation $\dot e(t) = -\phi(t)\phi(t)^\top e(t)$ (where $e(t)$ usually denotes the error and $\phi(t)\phi(t)^\top$ is a measure of covariance). The PE condition assures the minimum eigenvalue of $\Phi_N= \sum_{t=0}^{N-1} \phi_t \phi_t^\top$ is strictly positive, which in turns implies that $\Phi_N^{-1}$ exists and the estimate $\hat \theta_N$ is unique. In particular, we have that the eigenvalues of $\Phi_N$ grow at-least linearly in $N$, and the following result from \cite{mareels1988persistency} \[ \liminf_{N \to\infty} \lambda_{\text{min}}\left(\frac{1}{N} \sum_{t=t_0}^{t_0+N} \phi_t\phi_t^\top\right) \succeq \alpha/2\succ 0\]
which implies that the eigenvalues of the correlation matrix $R_N=\frac{1}{N}\Phi_N$ are lower bounded by $\alpha/2$ for $N\to\infty$.
\fi
\subsection{Data-driven control}
We assume that the learner has no knowledge of the tuple $(A,B,C,D)$, and, that she uses data-driven methods to find an appropriate control law that satisfies some design requirements.
We denote by $\set D_N =\{(u_t, y_t), t\in [N-1]\}=(\boldsymbol{u}_{[N-1]}, \boldsymbol{y}_{[N-1]})$ the data available to the learner. This data comes from open-loop experiments on the plant.
Various data-driven approach have been proposed in the literature over the last decades: model-reference methods, such as VRFT \cite{campi2002virtual} and correlation-based \cite{karimi2007non}; and more recent methods based on Willems et al. lemma \cite{de2019formulas,coulson2019data}. For simplicity of exposition, we will consider a method based on model-reference, and a method based on Willems lemma. Specifically, we will focus on VRFT\cite{campi2002virtual} and the data-driven approach developed in \cite{de2019formulas}.
\subsubsection{Virtual reference feedback tuning} In this method, the design requirements are encapsulated into a reference model $M_r(z)$ that captures the desired closed-loop behavior from $r_t$ to $y_t$, where $r_t \in \mathbb{R}^p$ is the reference signal. We assume that $M_r$ satisfies some realizability assumptions, such as being a proper stable transfer function.
The objective of the model-reference control problem is to find a controller $K_\theta(z)$, parametrized by $\theta\in \mathbb{R}^{n_k}$, for which the closed-loop transfer function matches the user defined reference model $M_r(z)$. In other words, we wish to find the parameter $\theta$ that minimizes the $\set H_2$ norm of the difference between the reference model and the closed-loop system $\Delta_\theta(z) = M_r(z)-[(I+GK_\theta)^{-1}GK_\theta](z)$:
\begin{align}\label{eq:criterion_J_MR}
J_{\text{MR}}(\theta) &= \left\|M_r(z)-[(I+GK_\theta)^{-1}GK_\theta](z)\right\|_2^2\\
&= \frac{1}{2\pi} \int_{-\pi}^{\pi} \Tr\left[\Delta_\theta(e^{j\omega}) \Delta_\theta^\top(e^{-j\omega})\right]\textrm{d}\omega.
\end{align}
It is known in the literature that $J_{\text{MR}}(\theta)$ is non-convex in $\theta$, and thus, difficult to optimize. A first simplification, commonly used \cite{campi2002virtual,karimi2007non,formentin2014comparison}, is to make the following assumption.
\begin{assumption}[\cite{campi2002virtual}]\label{assumption1}
The sensitivity function $I-M_r(z)$ is close to the actual sensitivity function $(I+GK_{\hat{\theta}})^{-1}(z)$ in the minimizer $\hat{\theta}$ of \ref{eq:criterion_J_MR}.
\end{assumption}
This allows us to replace the cost $J_{\text{MR}}(\theta)$ by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:criterion_J}
J(\theta) = \left\|M_r(z)-[(I-M_r)GK_\theta](z)\right\|_2^2.\\
\end{equation}
\ifdefined\isextended
from which follows that the ideal controller $K^\star(z)$ can be defined through $G(z)$ and $M_r(z)$ as \[K^\star(z) = [G^{-1}(I-M_r)^{-1}M_r](z).\]
\begin{remark}\textit{This controller is usually of high order, and non-causal. Furthermore, it may not belong to the class of control laws to which $K_\theta(z)$ belongs to.\\}\end{remark}\fi
To minimize \ref{eq:criterion_J} without identifying the plant, we can resort to minimizing the difference between the input signal $u_t$ from the experiments and the control signal $ K_\theta(z) e_t$ computed using the \textit{virtual error signal}, $e_t$. The latter is defined as $ e_t = r_t -y_t = (M_r^{-1}(z)-1)y_t$ where $ r_t$ is the \textit{virtual reference signal} computed using the reference model $M_r(z)$ as $ r_t = M_r^{-1}(z)y_t$.
Minimizing the squared difference between $u_t$ and $ K_\theta(z) e_t$ usually gives a biased estimate of the minimizer $\theta$ of $J$ (that is the case if the controller that leads the cost function to zero is not in the controller set). To circumvent this issue, it is common to introduce a filter $L(z)$ that will pre-filter the data \cite{campi2002virtual}. We can then define the objective criterion that is actually minimized:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:criterion_J_VR_N}J_{\text{VR}}^{N}(\theta) = \frac{1}{N} \sum_{t=0}^{N-1} \|u_t - K_\theta(z) e_t\|_2^2\end{equation}
and it can be proven \cite{campi2002virtual} that for stationary and ergodic signals $\{y_t\}$ and $\{u_t\}$ we get the following asymptotic result
$\lim_{N\to\infty}J_{\text{VR}}^N(\theta) =J_{\text{VR}}(\theta)$, where:
\begin{align*}J_{\text{VR}}(\theta) &= \frac{1}{2\pi} \int_{-\pi}^{\pi} \Tr\left[\bar \Delta_\theta(e^{j\omega}) \Phi_{u}(\omega)\bar\Delta_\theta^\top(e^{-j\omega})\right]\textrm{d}\omega\\
\bar \Delta_\theta(z) &\coloneqq I-[K_\theta(I-M_r)G](z),
\end{align*}
with $\Phi_{u}$ being the power spectral density of $u_t$. Let $K^\star$ denote the minimizer over all possible $K$ of $\left\|M_r(z)-[(I-M_r)GK](z)\right\|_2^2$. If $\in K^\star\in \{K_\theta: \theta\}$, then $K^\star$ is also the minimizer of \ref{eq:criterion_J_VR_N}. Otherwise, one can properly choose a filter $L(z)$ to filter the experimental data so that the minimizer of \ref{eq:criterion_J_VR_N} and \ref{eq:criterion_J} still coincide (refer to \cite{campi2002virtual} for details).
It is worth mentioning that in practice it is assumed that the control law can be linearly parametrized in terms of a basis of transfer functions:
\begin{assumption}\label{assumption2vrft_linear_control}
The control law $K$ is represented by an LTI system $K_\theta(z)$ that is linearly parametrized in $\theta \in \mathbb{R}^{n_k}$, and we will write $K_\theta(z) = \beta^\top(z)\theta$, with $\beta(z)$ being a vector of linear discrete-time transfer functions of dimension $n_k$.
\end{assumption}
Assumption \oldref{assumption2vrft_linear_control} includes different types of control law, such as PID, and can be relaxed to other types of parametrization (see \cite{sala2005extensions} and \cite{esparza2011neural}).
\\
\subsubsection{Data-driven control based on Willems lemma}
Recently, there has been a surge of interest in data-driven methods that rely on a lemma by Willems et al \cite{willems2005note}, see for example \cite{de2019formulas,coulson2019data}. In \cite{de2019formulas} Theorem 1, the authors show that for the system $x_{t+1}=Ax_t+Bu_t$, we can equivalently write
\[ \begin{bmatrix}
B & A
\end{bmatrix}= X_{[1,N]}\begin{bmatrix}
U_{[N-1]}\\X_{[N-1]}
\end{bmatrix}^{\dagger}\]
where $X$ and $U$ represent data collected from the system and $\dagger$ denotes the right inverse. Observe that the above representation holds only if the input sequence is an exciting input of order $n+1$ and $\textrm{rank}\begin{bmatrix}U_{[N-1]} & X_{[N-1]}\end{bmatrix}=n+m$ \ifdefined\isextended\else (please refer to \cite{techreport} for a definition of persistently exciting signal)\fi. Furthermore, as shown in Theorem 2 in \cite{de2019formulas}, any closed-loop system with a state-feedback control $u_t=Kx_t$ we have the following equivalent representation:
\begin{equation}x_{t+1}=X_{[1,N]}^\top G_Kx_t\end{equation}
where $G_K$ is a $T\times n$ matrix satisfying
\begin{equation}K=U_{[N-1]}^\top G_K \hbox{ and } I_n=X_{[N-1]}^\top G_K.\end{equation}
We can equivalently write $A+BK=X_{[1,N]}^\top G_K$: this allows to treat $G_K$ as a decision variable, and search for a matrix $G_K$ that satisfies some performance conditions \cite{de2019formulas}. Due to space constraints, our analysis for attacking this data-driven approach is reported in \ifdefined\isextended the appendix\else\cite{techreport}\fi.
\section{Poisoning attacks on Data-Driven control}
In this section we introduce a generic framework that can be used to compute attacks for the different of data-driven methods.
\subsection{Attack framework}
\textbf{Attack description and assumptions.} We assume the goal of the malicious agent is to degrade performance of the closed-loop system by minutely corrupting the available data.
\ifdefined\isextended
The attack is thus considered a poisoning attack, and since the attacker has access to some data of the system, confidentiality is breached. Furthermore, this attack also affects both the \textit{integrity} and \textit{availability} of the data, two of the three fundamental properties in computer security \cite{bishop2002art}, together with confidentiality, and as such, may bring severe damage.
\\\\\fi
As in classical data poisoning analysis \cite{biggio1}, we assume the malicious agent knows the optimization problem being solved by the learner: the latter wishes to find a control law $K$ minimizing a cost $\set L(\set D_N, K)$, also denoted by $\set L(\boldsymbol{u},\boldsymbol{y}, K)$ when $\set D_N=(\boldsymbol{u},\boldsymbol{y})$ (see the previous section for examples). We further assume the malicious agent has no knowledge of the plant, and that she can access the data available to the learner.
\ifdefined\isextended The malicious agent aims to poison the dataset $\set D_N$ to reduce the closed-loop performance of the system, but, at the same time, make sure the poisoned data does not differ too much from the original data in order to remain stealthy (this last assumption can be easily relaxed).\fi The attack framework is illustrated in Figure \ref{fig:poisoning_scheme}. Notice that the malicious agent affects only the data collected from the plant.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.85\linewidth]{1.Figures/poisoning_scheme5.png}
\caption{Data poisoning scheme for data-driven methods.}
\label{fig:poisoning_scheme}
\end{figure}
We denote the malicious signal on the actuators by $\boldsymbol{a}_{u}\in \mathbb{R}^{N}$, and respectively $\boldsymbol{a}_{y}\in\mathbb{R}^{N}$, the attack signals on the sensors (note that we omitted the time-window subscript). We indicate the attack signal at time $t \in [N-1]$ by $a_{u,t}$ and $a_{y,t}$. The new input and output data points in the dataset at time $t$ are respectively: $u_t'=u_t+a_{u,t}$ and $y_t'=y_t+a_{y,t}$. Similarly, we indicate the attacked vector signals by $
\boldsymbol{u}'=\boldsymbol{u}+\boldsymbol{a}_u=\begin{bmatrix}u_0' & u_1' &\dots & u_{N-1}'\end{bmatrix}^{\top}$ and $\boldsymbol{y}'=\boldsymbol{y}+\boldsymbol{a}_y=\begin{bmatrix}y_0' & y_1' &\dots & y_{N-1}'\end{bmatrix}^{\top}. $\\
\iffalse
\\
Data-poisoning attacks have been widely studied in the machine learning community \cite{biggio1,munoz2017towards,jagielski2018manipulating}. A commonly used assumption is that the attacker can only poison $\lfloor\varepsilon N\rfloor$ data-points, with $\varepsilon$ being a real number in $[0,1]$. This is motivated by applications in which attackers can only reasonably control a small fraction of the transmitted data. Similarly, in control systems, an attacker might only be able to attack some of the sensors or have access to the entire dataset $\set D_N$.
\\\\
An attacker may change the data directly after experiments are done, or, on the other hand, maliciously change the data being recorded during the experiments. In the former case, the malicious agent could virtually disrupt the entire dataset, which is a form of \textit{Denial-of-Service} attack. In the latter case, the attacker changes the data that is being recorded into $\set D_N$.
\fi
\iffalse
\textbf{Notation. }We will denote the malicious signal on the actuators by $\boldsymbol{a}_{u}\in \mathbb{R}^{N}$, and respectively $\boldsymbol{a}_{y}\in\mathbb{R}^{N}$, the attack signals on the sensors (note that we omitted the time-window subscript). We will indicate the attack signal at time $t \in [N-1]$ by $a_{u,t}$ and $a_{y,t}$. The new input and output data points in the dataset at time $t$ are respectively: $u_t'=u_t+a_{u,t}$ and $y_t'=y_t+a_{y,t}$. Similarly, we will indicate the attacked vector signals by $
\boldsymbol{u}'=\boldsymbol{u}+\boldsymbol{a}_u=\begin{bmatrix}u_0' & u_1' &\dots & u_{N-1}'\end{bmatrix}^{\top}$ and $\boldsymbol{y}'=\boldsymbol{y}+\boldsymbol{a}_y=\begin{bmatrix}y_0' & y_1' &\dots & y_{N-1}'\end{bmatrix}^{\top}. $
\fi
\noindent
\textbf{Bi-level optimization problem.} Ideally, the malicious agent would like to implement the worst possible attack, solution of the following bi-level optimization problem:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:op_1}
\begin{aligned}
\max_{\boldsymbol{u}', \boldsymbol{y}'}\quad &\mathcal{A}(\set D_N,K(\boldsymbol{u}', \boldsymbol{y}'))& \\
\textrm{s.t.} \quad & K(\boldsymbol{u}', \boldsymbol{y}') \in \argmin_{K} \set L(\boldsymbol{u}', \boldsymbol{y}', K)\\
&\|\boldsymbol{u}'-\boldsymbol{u}\|_{q_u} \leq \delta_u,\quad \|\boldsymbol{y}'-\boldsymbol{y}\|_{q_y} \leq \delta_y,\\
& \|\boldsymbol{u}'-\boldsymbol{u}\|_0\leq \lfloor \rho_u N \rfloor, \quad \|\boldsymbol{y}'-\boldsymbol{y}\|_0\leq \lfloor \rho_y N \rfloor,\\
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{A}(\set D_N, K(\boldsymbol{u}', \boldsymbol{y}'))$ denotes the objective criterion of the malicious agent and $q_u,q_y$ are convex norms. For example, a malicious agent may simply choose a \textit{max-min} type of attack, where $\set A=\set L$. Alternatively, she may choose to maximize the absolute value of the closed-loop eigenvalues or other performance metrics.
The {\it amplitude} of the attack is constrained by two elements: (i) the maximal fraction of actuators/sensors poisoned data, measured by $\boldsymbol{\rho}=(\rho_u, \rho_y)\in [0,1]^2$; (ii) the maximal amount of change $\boldsymbol{\delta}=(\delta_u,\delta_y)$ the malicious agent introduces in the dataset, where $\delta_u$ represents the amount of change in the residual of the control signal and respectively $\delta_y$ for the measurement signal. The constraint (i) is analogous to the assumption being used in classical machine Learning data-poisoning attacks \cite{biggio1,munoz2017towards,jagielski2018manipulating}, which is motivated by applications in which attackers can only reasonably control a small fraction of the transmitted data.
The constraint (ii) is used to model the magnitude of the residuals, i.e., the amount of change in the dataset $\set D_N$ before and after the attack.
Observe that in \ref{eq:op_1}, we have highlighted the dependency of the control law $K$ on the attack vector signals $\boldsymbol{a}_u,\boldsymbol{a}_y$. Furthermore, the malicious agent's objective $\set A$ does not, in general, directly depend on the attack vector signal since we want to evaluate the performance of the new controller $K(\boldsymbol{u}',\boldsymbol{y}')$ on a clean dataset. Further note that the presence of the $0$-norm makes the problem non-convex. The latter can be cast to a mixed-integer program (MIP). Alternatively, one can relax the $0$-norm constraints using the $1$-norm.
\iffalse Therefore, one could alternatively consider the following optimization problem
\begin{equation}\label{eq:op_1_regularized}
\begin{aligned}
\max_{\boldsymbol{u}', \boldsymbol{y}' } \quad &\mathcal{J}(\set D_N,K(\boldsymbol{u}', \boldsymbol{y}')) -\lambda_u \|\boldsymbol{u}'-\boldsymbol{u}\|_1 -\lambda_y \|\boldsymbol{y}'-\boldsymbol{y}\|_1& \\
\textrm{s.t.} \quad & K(\boldsymbol{u}', \boldsymbol{y}') \in \argmin_{K\in \set C} \set L(\boldsymbol{u}', \boldsymbol{y}', K)\\
&\|\boldsymbol{u}'-\boldsymbol{u}\|_{q_u} \leq \delta_u,\\
&\|\boldsymbol{y}'-\boldsymbol{y}\|_{q_y} \leq \delta_y
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
for some positive real numbers $\lambda_u,\lambda_y$, and the entry-wise $1$-norm.
\fi
\subsection{Computing the poisoning attack}
In general, computing the optimal attack signal is non trivial. When the inner problem is constrained, additional non-convexities are introduced in the bi-level optimization problem \cite{sinha2017review}. We may however look for local optima using a gradient ascent approach, as this is done in classical Data-Poisoning problems \cite{biggio1,munoz2017towards}. To that aim, we will focus our analysis in computing the gradients of $\set A$.
\ifdefined\isextended
\begin{remark}\textit{There are also some major differences to classical data poisoning for classification problems: first, there is no label for the data, which implies that we can not simply maximize the probability of classification error. Second, the problem involves two sets of data, the input data $\boldsymbol{u}$ and the output data $\boldsymbol{y}$. This makes the problem more complicated, since the optimal attack vector $\boldsymbol{a}_u$ (or $\boldsymbol{a}_y$) could depend on the attacked vector signals $\boldsymbol{y}', \boldsymbol{u}'$ in a complex way.}\\
\end{remark}\fi
\noindent
\textbf{Gradient computation.} In order to compute the gradient, one first needs to compute how the attack vector signals affect the control law. In case $K$ is parametrized by a vector $\theta \in \mathbb{R}^k$, since $\set A$ does not directly depend on $\boldsymbol{a}_u$ (observe that the adversary's objective function does not directly depend on the attack signal), one can derivate $\set A$ with respect to a vector signal (for example, $\boldsymbol{a}_u$) and obtain
\begin{equation}\label{eq:jacobian_J}
\nabla_{\boldsymbol{a}_u}\set A = (\nabla_{\boldsymbol{a}_u} \theta
)\nabla_{\theta} \set A ,\end{equation}
where $\nabla_{\boldsymbol{a}_u} \theta$ is a $N\times n_k$ matrix and each row is the partial derivative of $\theta$ with respect to a specific input, i.e., $(\nabla_{\boldsymbol{a}_u} \theta)_{i,j} = \partial_{a_{u,i}} \theta_j$. Furthermore, we can also easily compute second order terms (this would allow one to also use Newton methods). Denoting by $\partial_i$ the partial derivative with respect to $a_{u,i}$ (or $a_{y,i}$), we have
\begin{gather}\label{eq:hessian_J}
\begin{aligned}
(\nabla_{\boldsymbol{a}_u}^2\set A)_{i,j} \ &= \partial_i[\partial_j \set A]=\partial_i[(\partial_j \theta)^{\top} \nabla_\theta \set A],\\
&= (\partial_{i,j} \theta)^{\top} \nabla_\theta \set A + (\partial_j \theta)^{\top} \nabla_\theta^2 \set A (\partial_i \theta).
\end{aligned}
\end{gather}
We are still left with the problem of computing $\nabla_{\boldsymbol{a}_u}\theta$. This is one of the main issues, since computing how the control law is affected by the poisoning attack may be non-trivial. In case the inner problem $\set L$ is convex and sufficiently regular, then it is possible to replace the inner problem with its stationary KKT conditions. This is also called \textit{Single-Level Reduction} \cite{sinha2017review}, and reduces the overall bi-level optimization problem to a single-level constrained problem by replacing the inner problem with $\nabla_{\theta}\set L(\boldsymbol{u}',\boldsymbol{y}', K_\theta)=0$. We then have the KKT conditions
\begin{equation}0=\frac{\textrm{d}}{\textrm{d}\boldsymbol{a}_u}\nabla_{\theta}\set L(\boldsymbol{u}',\boldsymbol{y}', K_\theta)=\nabla_{\boldsymbol{a}_u}\nabla_{\theta}\set L+\nabla_{\boldsymbol{a}_u}\theta \nabla_\theta^2 \set L.\end{equation}
In case $\nabla_\theta^2 \set L$ is nonsingular, we can directly deduce that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:grad_theta_wrt_u}
\nabla_{\boldsymbol{a}_u}\theta=-(\nabla_{\boldsymbol{a}_u}\nabla_{\theta}\set L)(\nabla_\theta^2 \set L)^{-1}.\end{equation}
We can use the same reasoning to compute $\nabla_{\boldsymbol{a}_y}\theta$.
We have now all the ingredients to solve problem \ref{eq:op_1} approximately. For example, one may use projected gradient ascent algorithms by iteratively updating the attack signals and project them back on the set of allowed perturbations $\set S_u \coloneqq \{\boldsymbol{x} \in \mathbb{R}^{N}: \|\boldsymbol{x}\|_{q_u} \leq \delta_u\}$ and $\set S_y \coloneqq \{\boldsymbol{x}\in \mathbb{R}^{N}: \|\boldsymbol{x}\|_{q_y} \leq \delta_y\}$.
\ifdefined\isextended \\ \fi
\begin{remark}\label{remark:norm_grad_a_theta} \textit{If $\|\nabla_{\boldsymbol{a}_u}\theta\|$ is sufficiently small, then it may be hard for the malicious agent to find an appropriate way to perturb the data using a gradient line search (since $\nabla_{\boldsymbol{a}_u}\set A$ would be small). One could enforce $\|\nabla_{\boldsymbol{a}_u}\theta\|$ to be small by making sure that $\|\nabla_\theta^2 \set L\|$ is sufficiently big, which is related to the excitation persistence of the signals.}\end{remark}
Next we analyse how to attack a model-reference based data-driven control method, the Virtual Reference Feedback Tuning method. We leave the analysis of methods based on Willems et al. lemma to the technical report \cite{techreport}.
\iffalse
\subsection{Poisoning attack algorithm}
We will now provide a generic algorithm that can be used to find the optimal attack vectors $\boldsymbol{a}_u, \boldsymbol{a}_y$. For simplicity, we will focus on the case $\boldsymbol{\varepsilon}=(1,1)$. This will allow us to restrict our attention on constraining the attack through the parameter $\boldsymbol{\delta}$. Despite this simplification, even in the best case that $\set L$ is convex, the overall optimization problem may be non-convex due to the dependency of the solution of the inner problem on $\boldsymbol{a}_u, \boldsymbol{a}_y$.
\\\\
Let the sets of allowed perturbations by $\set S_u \coloneqq \{x \in \mathbb{R}^{N}: \|x\|_{q_u} \leq \delta_u\}$ and $\set S_y \coloneqq \{x \in \mathbb{R}^{N}: \|x\|_{q_y} \leq \delta_y\}$. We introduce the projected gradient ascent algorithm used to optimize the attack. For simplicity, consider a generic vector $\boldsymbol{x} $: we will write the $i$-th iteration of the projected gradient ascent as
\[\boldsymbol{x}^{(i+1)} = \Pi_{\boldsymbol{x}+\set S}\left(\boldsymbol{x}^{(i)}+\gamma_i h(\nabla_{\boldsymbol{x}} \set A(\set D_N, K(\boldsymbol{x})))\right)\]
where $\Pi_{\boldsymbol{x}+\set S}$ denotes the projection on the set of allowed perturbations $\set S$, $i$ is the iteration, $\gamma_i>0$ is a step-size parameter and $h$ denotes the sign function, or a convex function. In particular, it is common to consider in adversarial machine learning the sign function, the $1$-norm and $2$-norm \cite{goodfellow2014explaining,madry2017towards} or the identity function. The step parameter could be fixed, or follow some iterative scheme, such as $\gamma_i = (1-\alpha) \gamma_{i-1} $ for some initial value $\gamma_0$ and $\alpha$. This allows to perform a line search along the direction given by $\nabla_{\boldsymbol{x}}\set A$.
\\\\
Then, under the assumption of $\set A$ being differentiable with respect to the input data, a simple and widely used approach is to iteratively solve the algorithm by exploiting the gradient ascent technique. We will iteratively update the attack signal as $\boldsymbol{a}_u^{(i+1)} = \boldsymbol{u}^{(i+1)}-\boldsymbol{u}$ and $\boldsymbol{a}_y^{(i+1)} = \boldsymbol{y}^{(i+1)}-\boldsymbol{y}$.\\\\
The attack vector $\boldsymbol{a}$ is updated in the direction of the gradient of the objective function with respect to the data, in order to maximize it. The full algorithm is shown in Algorithm \ref{algo1}, with projection operators $\Pi_u =\Pi_{\boldsymbol{u}+\set S_u}$ and $\Pi_y =\Pi_{\boldsymbol{y}+\set S_y}$. A parameter $\eta >0$ is used to control when the algorithm should stop (observe that we have omitted the dependency of $K^{(i)}$ on the input data for brevity). Other parameters are $\gamma_{u,0},\gamma_{y,0}$, which denote the initial steps size, $\alpha_u,\alpha_y$ denote the step reduction factors, $n_K$ denotes the number of steps in the projected gradient ascent (PGA).\\]
\begin{algorithm}[]
\DontPrintSemicolon
\KwIn{Dataset $\set D_N=(\boldsymbol{u},\boldsymbol{y})$, objective functions $\set A, \set L$, parameters $\boldsymbol{\delta}$, $\eta \in \mathbb{R}_+$, $\gamma_{u,0},\gamma_{y,0},\alpha_u,\alpha_y, n_K$}
\KwOut{Attack vectors $\boldsymbol{a}_u, \boldsymbol{a}_y$}
$i \gets 0, \boldsymbol{a}_u^{(i)},\boldsymbol{a}_y^{(i)}\gets 0$ \Comment*[r]{Initialize algorithm}
$K^{(i)} \in \argmin_{K\in \set C} \set L(\boldsymbol{u},\boldsymbol{y}, K)$\;
$L^{(i)} \gets \set L(\boldsymbol{u},\boldsymbol{y}, K^{(i)})$\;
$J^{(i)} \gets \set A(\boldsymbol{u},\boldsymbol{y}, K^{(i)})$\;
\Do{$|J^{(i+1)}-J^{(i)}|>\eta$}{
$(\boldsymbol{a}_u^{(i+1)},\boldsymbol{a}_y^{(i+1)})\gets \textit{LineSearch}(\set D_N,K^{(i)},\boldsymbol{a}_u^{(i)},\boldsymbol{a}_y^{(i)} )$\;
$K^{(i+1)} \in \argmin_{K\in \set C} \set L(\boldsymbol{u}+\boldsymbol{a}_u^{(i+1)},\boldsymbol{y}+\boldsymbol{a}_y^{(i+1)}, K)$\;
$J^{(i+1)}\gets \set A(\set D_N, K^{(i+1)})$\;
$i \gets i+1$\;
}
\Return $\boldsymbol{a}^{(i)}$
\caption{Data Poisoning Attack}
\label{algo1}
\end{algorithm}
As mentioned, one of the main issues is related to the computation of the gradient of $\set A$. For a controller parametrized by $\theta$ we have seen that we can write $[\nabla_{\boldsymbol{u}'} \theta(\boldsymbol{u}', \boldsymbol{y}')
]\nabla_{\theta} \set A$. As in data poisoning for supervised learning methods \cite{munoz2017towards}, the main difficulty here lies in computing how the control law is affected by the poisoned data points, i.e., computing $\nabla_{\boldsymbol{u}'} \theta(\boldsymbol{u}', \boldsymbol{y}')$ (or, in abstract form, $\nabla_{\boldsymbol{u}'} K(\boldsymbol{u}', \boldsymbol{y}')$).
\\\\
In case the inner problem $\set L$ is convex, then it is possible to replace the inner problem with its stationary KKT condition, i.e., write $\nabla_{K}\set L(\boldsymbol{u}',\boldsymbol{y}', K)=0$. Assuming differentiability also with respect to the data points, we have the KKT condition
\[\frac{\textrm{d}}{\textrm{d}\boldsymbol{u}'}\nabla_{K}\set L(\boldsymbol{u}',\boldsymbol{y}', K)=\nabla_{\boldsymbol{u}'}\nabla_{K}\set L+\nabla_{\boldsymbol{u}'}K \nabla_K^2 \set L=0,\]
In case $\nabla_K^2 \set L$ is nonsingular we can directly solve the equation and find
\[\nabla_{\boldsymbol{u}'}K=-(\nabla_{\boldsymbol{u}'}\nabla_{K}\set L)(\nabla_K^2 \set L)^{-1},\]
and similarly for $\boldsymbol{y}'$. We will now analyse how to specifically attack some data-driven control methods.
\fi
\section{Poisoning attacks on VRFT}
The Virtual Reference Feedback Tuning technique, together with the correlation approach, has been widely used in literature (and also on physical plants). It has been an active area of research for the last few decades \cite{campi2002virtual,formentin2012non,formentin2014comparison,hjalmarsson1998iterative,karimi2004iterative,karimi2007non,sala2005extensions,campestrini2011virtual,lequin2003iterative}. It shares similarities with the correlation approach, and therefore our analysis can be also applied to that method. \ifdefined\isextended For simplicity, we will restrict our attention to the single-input/single-output case (a generalization of the VRFT method to MIMO systems can be found in \cite{formentin2012non}).\fi
We provide a generic analysis, and only introduce the malicious agent's objective at the end of the section. First, we explain how to compute $\nabla_{\boldsymbol{a}_u} \theta$ and $\nabla_{\boldsymbol{a}_y}\theta$. To that aim, we re-write the VRFT criterion in a convenient matrix form. Then, we provide a first set of analytical results quantifying the potential impact of attacks. Finally, we illustrate the analysis in the case where the malicious agent wishes to maximize the learner's loss, an attack referred to as {\it max-min} attack.
\subsection{Learner's loss}
We now introduce the attacked learner's cost criterion. As mentioned in Section 2, it is common practice to pre-filter the data using a filter $L(z)$. We assume for simplicity that the data has been already filtered, although it can be easily included in our analysis, and that Assumptions \ref{assumption1} and \ref{assumption2vrft_linear_control} hold. The cost function minimized by the learner is related to the $\ell_2$ norm of the control signal, specifically it is
\begin{align}\set L(\boldsymbol{u}',\boldsymbol{y}', K_\theta)) &= \frac{1}{N} \sum_{t=0}^{N-1} \|u_t' - K_\theta(z)\tilde e_t\|_2^2,\\
&= \frac{1}{N} \sum_{t=0}^{N-1} \|u_t+a_{u,t} - \beta(z)^{\top}\tilde e_t\theta\|_2^2,
\end{align}
where $\tilde e_t = r_t-y_t'=(M_r^{-1}(z)-1)(y_t+a_{y,t})$.
Now, rewriting the VRFT criterion in matrix form, we will be able to compute $\nabla_{\boldsymbol{a}_u}\theta$ and $\nabla_{\boldsymbol{a}_y}\theta$ using \ref{eq:grad_theta_wrt_u}. Let $\phi_{t,i} = \beta_i(z) \tilde{e}_t$, $i=1,\dots, n_k$ and $\boldsymbol{\phi}_i =\begin{bmatrix}
\phi_{0,i},\dots,\phi_{N-1,i}
\end{bmatrix}^{\top}\in \mathbb{R}^N$. Then, it is possible to rewrite the VRFT criterion as
\begin{equation}\set L(\boldsymbol{u}',\boldsymbol{y}', K_\theta) = \frac{1}{N} \left \|\boldsymbol{u}'-\Phi(\boldsymbol{y}')\theta \right\|_2^2\end{equation}
where $\Phi(\boldsymbol{y}')=\begin{bmatrix}
\boldsymbol{\phi}_1,\dots, \boldsymbol{\phi}_{n_k}
\end{bmatrix} \in \mathbb{R}^{N\times n_k}$ is a matrix that containts the output response of the control law, and depends on $\boldsymbol{y}'$ since the error signal depends on $\boldsymbol{y}'$.
\subsection{Computing the gradients}
To be able to compute the gradients of the attack, we need one additional ingredient. We denote the input-output response of a generic transfer function $G(z)$ over $[N]$ as $\boldsymbol{y}_{[N]}= \set T_{G,N}\boldsymbol{u}_{[N]} + \set O_{G,N} x_0$, where
\[\set T_{G,N} =\begin{bmatrix}
D & 0 & 0 &\dots & 0\\
CB & D &0 & \dots & 0\\
CAB & CB & D & \dots & 0\\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots &\ddots & \vdots\\
CA^{N-1}B & CA^{N-2}B & CA^{N-3}B &\dots & D
\end{bmatrix}, \]
represents the Toeplitz matrix of order $N+1$ of the system, and $\set O_{G,N} = \begin{bmatrix}
C & CA & \dots & CA^{N}
\end{bmatrix}^{\top}$ is the observability matrix of order $N+1$. We can then derive the following lemma
\begin{lemma}
Consider the VRFT criterion and assume without loss of generality that the relationship $r_t=M_r^{-1}(z)y_t$, holds with zero initial and final conditions. Then we have:
\begin{align}
\nabla_{\boldsymbol{a}_u}\theta &= -\Phi(\boldsymbol{y}')\left(\Phi^{\top}(\boldsymbol{y}') \Phi(\boldsymbol{y}') \right)^{-1},\\
\nabla_{\boldsymbol{a}_y}\theta &= -S\left(\Phi^{\top}(\boldsymbol{y}') \Phi(\boldsymbol{y}') \right)^{-1} ,
\end{align}
with \[(S)_{i,*} = \boldsymbol{u}^{'\top}TD_{N,n_k}(e_i)-\theta^{\top}C_i\] where $C_i =\Phi^{\top}(\boldsymbol{y}')TD_{N,n_k}(e_i) + D_{N,n_k}^{\top}(e_i)^{\top}T^{\top} \Phi(\boldsymbol{y}')$. $T\in\mathbb{R}^{N\times Nn_k}$ is the overall Toeplitz matrix of the control signal (from the output signal)
\begin{equation}
T = \begin{bmatrix}
\set T_{\beta_1}(\set T_{M_r^{-1}} - I_N) & \dots & \set T_{\beta_{n_k}}(\set T_{M_r^{-1}} - I_N)
\end{bmatrix}
\end{equation}
where $\set T_{M_r^{-1}}$ denotes the Toeplitz matrix of the system $r_t=M_r^{-1}(z)y_t$ and $D_{p,q}: \mathbb{R}^p \to \mathbb{R}^{pq\times q}$ is a generalized diagonalization operator
\begin{equation}D_{p,q}(\boldsymbol{x}) = \begin{bmatrix}
\boldsymbol{x} & \boldsymbol{0} & \dots & \boldsymbol{0}\\
\boldsymbol{0} & \boldsymbol{x} & \dots & \boldsymbol{0}\\
\vdots &\vdots &\ddots &\vdots\\
\boldsymbol{0} & \boldsymbol{0} & \dots & \boldsymbol{x}
\end{bmatrix},\quad \boldsymbol{0}=\begin{bmatrix} 0\\\vdots \\0\end{bmatrix}\in \mathbb{R}^p.\end{equation}
\\
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} To find $\nabla_{\boldsymbol{a}_u}\theta$ and $\nabla_{\boldsymbol{a}_y}\theta$, we use \ref{eq:grad_theta_wrt_u}. We can easily find that $\nabla_\theta \set L= -\frac{2}{N}\Phi^{\top}(\boldsymbol{y}') (\boldsymbol{u}'-\Phi(\boldsymbol{y}') \theta)$ and $\nabla^2_\theta \set L=\frac{2}{N} \Phi^{\top}(\boldsymbol{y}') \Phi(\boldsymbol{y}')$, with minimum of $\set L$ given by $\hat{\theta}(\boldsymbol{u}', \boldsymbol{y}')$:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:solution_theta}\hat{\theta}(\boldsymbol{u}', \boldsymbol{y}') = \left(\Phi^{\top}(\boldsymbol{y}') \Phi(\boldsymbol{y}') \right)^{-1}\Phi^{\top}(\boldsymbol{y}') \boldsymbol{u}'.\end{equation}
\textbf{Computation of $\nabla_{\boldsymbol{a}_u}\theta$. }
Since $\nabla_{\boldsymbol{a}_u}\nabla_\theta \set L= -\frac{2}{N} \Phi(\boldsymbol{y}')$, then, using $\nabla^2_\theta \set L=\frac{2}{N} \Phi^{\top}(\boldsymbol{y}') \Phi(\boldsymbol{y}')$ we have
\begin{equation}\nabla_{\boldsymbol{a}_u} \theta=-\Phi(\boldsymbol{y}')\left(\Phi^\top(\boldsymbol{y}') \Phi(\boldsymbol{y}') \right)^{-1},\end{equation}
which is remarkably independent of $\boldsymbol{u}'$. Therefore for a persistently exciting signal $\boldsymbol{y}$, we may expect $\nabla_{\boldsymbol{a}_u} \theta$ to be small in norm.
\\\\
\textbf{Computation of $\nabla_{\boldsymbol{a}_y}\theta$. } Computing $\nabla_{\boldsymbol{a}_y}\theta$ is more involved. Actually, we only need to compute the quantity $\nabla_{\boldsymbol{a}_y}\nabla_\theta \set L$. To do so, we need to understand how $\boldsymbol{\phi}_i$ is affected by the signal $\boldsymbol{y}'$.
The output $\boldsymbol{\phi}_i$ of the i-th controller can also be rewritten as the output response over $[N-1]$ of $\beta_i(z)$ given the input $\tilde{\boldsymbol{e}}$. As mentioned in Section 2, we can write
\iffalse
Let $(A_{\beta_i}, B_{\beta_i}, C_{\beta_i}, D_{\beta_i})$ denote the state-space realization of $\beta_i(z)$ with initial condition $\beta_{i,0}$, and denote the corresponding Toeplitz matrix of order $N$ by
\begin{equation}\set T_{N,\beta_i}=\begin{bmatrix}
D_{\beta_i} & 0 &\dots & 0\\
C_{\beta_i}B_{\beta_i} & D_{\beta_i} & \dots & 0\\
C_{\beta_i}A_{\beta_i}B_{\beta_i} & C_{\beta_i}B_{\beta_i} & \dots & 0\\
\vdots & \vdots &\ddots & \vdots\\
C_{\beta_i}A_{\beta_i}^{N-2}B_{\beta_i} & C_{\beta_i}A_{\beta_i}^{N-3}B_{\beta_i} &\dots & D_{\beta_i}
\end{bmatrix}, \end{equation}
then the input-output response over $[0,N-1]$ is given by
\fi $\boldsymbol{\phi}_i = \set T_{\beta_i,N}\tilde{\boldsymbol{e}} + \set O_{ \beta_i,N}\beta_{i,0}$ where $\tilde{\boldsymbol{e}} = \boldsymbol{r}-\boldsymbol{y}'$. The initial conditions will not affect the analysis, and they can be assumed to be 0. We will also avoid the subscript $N$ for simplicity. We can write $\Phi$ in the following manner
\begin{equation}\Phi = \begin{bmatrix}\set T_{\beta_1} (\boldsymbol{r}-\boldsymbol{y}')& \dots & \set T_{\beta_{n_k}} (\boldsymbol{r}-\boldsymbol{y}')\end{bmatrix} \end{equation}
with
$\theta= \sum_{i=1}^{n_k} \set T_{\beta_i}\theta_i \tilde{\boldsymbol{e}}=\sum_{i=1}^{n_k} \set T_{\beta_i}\theta_i (\boldsymbol{r}-\boldsymbol{y}').$
We also need to make the relationship between $\boldsymbol{r}$ and $\boldsymbol{y}$ explicit. Since $r_t = (M_r^{-1}(z)-1)y_t$ we can study $M_r^{-1}(z)$. Suppose the state space realization of $M_r(z)$ is given by $(A,B,C,D)$: if $D$ is non singular or $F=CA^{-1}B$ is nonsingular, then one can use Theorem 1 in \cite{kavranoglu1993new} to invert the state space formulation and obtain a linear relationship of the type $\boldsymbol{r}=\set \set T_{M_r^{-1}} \boldsymbol{y}$, where $\set T_{M_r^{-1}}$ is the Toeplitz matrix of order $N$ of the inverted system (where we assumed zero initial/final conditions).
\ifdefined\isextended
For example, if $F$ is nonsingular then we can write the state space representation of $M_r^{-1}(z)$ as follows
\begin{align}
x_{t-1}=\bar A x_t + \bar B y_t,\quad r_t = \bar C x_t + \bar D y_t
\end{align}
where
\begin{align}
\bar A &= A^{-1}(I-BF^{-1}CA^{-1}),\quad \bar C =-F^{-1}CA^{-1},\\
\bar B &= -A^{-1}BF^{-1},\quad \bar D = -F^{-1},
\end{align}
Assuming zero final conditions this allows one to write $\boldsymbol{r}=\set T_{M_r^{-1}} \boldsymbol{y}$, where $\set T_{M_r^{-1}}$ is
\begin{equation}
\set T_{M_r^{-1}} = \begin{bmatrix}
\bar D &\dots & \bar C\bar A^{N-3}\bar B & \bar C\bar A^{N-2}\bar B\\
\vdots &\ddots &\vdots &\vdots \\
0 & \dots & \bar D & \bar C \bar B\\
0 & \dots & 0 & \bar D
\end{bmatrix}.
\end{equation}
\fi
In case $CA^{-1}B$ is singular, one can still try to express the reference signal in regressor form, and write $r_t = \rho_t^{\top} \boldsymbol{y}$ for some $\rho_t \in \mathbb{R}^N$, so that $\set T_{M_r^{-1}} = \begin{bmatrix}
\rho_0^{\top} & \dots &\rho_{N-1}^{\top}
\end{bmatrix}^{\top}.$ This allows us to express the virtual error vector as $\boldsymbol{e} = (\set T_{M_r^{-1}} - I ) \boldsymbol{y}$. If we now define the overall Toeplitz matrix from the output to the control signal $ T = \begin{bmatrix}
\set T_{\beta_1}(\set T_{M_r^{-1}} - I) & \dots & \set T_{\beta_{n_k}}(\set T_{M_r^{-1}} - I)
\end{bmatrix}$, then we can write $\Phi(\boldsymbol y) = T D_{N,n_k}(\boldsymbol{y})$.
\ifdefined\isextended
where $D$ is a generalized diagonalization operator $D_{p,q}: \mathbb{R}^p \to \mathbb{R}^{pq\times q}$
\begin{equation}D_{p,q}(\boldsymbol{x}) = \begin{bmatrix}
\boldsymbol{x} & \boldsymbol{0} & \dots & \boldsymbol{0}\\
\boldsymbol{0} & \boldsymbol{x} & \dots & \boldsymbol{0}\\
\vdots &\vdots &\ddots &\vdots\\
\boldsymbol{0} & \boldsymbol{0} & \dots & \boldsymbol{x}
\end{bmatrix},\quad \boldsymbol{0}=\begin{bmatrix} 0\\\vdots \\0\end{bmatrix}\in \mathbb{R}^p.\end{equation}
\else
\fi
We can find the derivative with respect to $y_j$: $\frac{\partial }{\partial y_j} \Phi(\boldsymbol y)= T D(e_j)$.
Similarly, we have $\frac{\partial }{\partial y_j} \Phi\theta= T D(e_j)\theta$. Let $C_j=\Phi^{\top}(\boldsymbol{y}')TD(e_j) + D^{\top}(e_j)^{\top}T^{\top} \Phi(\boldsymbol{y}')$, it follows that:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}\Big(\nabla_{\boldsymbol{a}_y}\nabla_\theta \set L\Big)_{j,*}&= -\frac{2}{N} \Big[(\boldsymbol{u}'-\Phi(\boldsymbol{y}') \theta)^{\top}TD(e_j) \\
&\quad\quad -(TD(e_j)\theta)^{\top}\Phi(\boldsymbol{y}')\Big],\\
&= -\frac{2}{N} (\boldsymbol{u}^{'\top}TD(e_j)-\theta^{\top}C_j).
\end{aligned}.
\end{equation}
\end{proof}
\ifdefined\isextended
\begin{remark}\textit{
In the previous lemma we made use of the assumption that we could write $\boldsymbol{r}=\set \set T_{M_r^{-1}} \boldsymbol{y}$, where $T_{M_r^{-1}} $ is a square matrix. This assumption holds in case the initial/final conditions are $0$ for $r_t=M_r^{-1}(z)$. If that is not the case, then we need to augment the matrix $T_{M_r^{-1}}$ with additional columns, as many as needed in order to take into account the extra conditions. Obviously, we assume that the user also collected this extra data from experiments.}\ifdefined\isextended \\ \fi
\end{remark}
\fi
\subsection{Impact of poisoning attacks}
Using the above analysis, we can quantify the potential impact of poisoning attacks. More precisely, we can upper bound the difference between $\theta = \hat{\theta}(\boldsymbol{u}, \boldsymbol{y})$ and $\theta' = \hat{\theta}(\boldsymbol{u}', \boldsymbol{y}')$ before and after the attack.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:diff_bound}
Let $(\boldsymbol{a}_u, \boldsymbol{a}_y)$ be a generic data-poisoning attack, with constraints $\|\boldsymbol{a}_u\|\leq \delta_u$ and $\|\boldsymbol{a}_y\| \leq \delta_y$. Then, we have:
\begin{equation}\left \|\theta-\theta' \right\|_2 \leq \gamma \sqrt{n_k}(\|\boldsymbol{y}\|_2\delta_u + \|\boldsymbol{u}\|_2\delta_y),\end{equation}
where
$\gamma\coloneqq \sigmamax(T)/\sigmamin(\Phi(\boldsymbol{y})^{\top}\Phi(\boldsymbol{y})).$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
For ease of exposition, let $\Phi=\Phi(\boldsymbol{y}), \tilde\Phi=\Phi(\boldsymbol{a}_y)$ and $\Phi'=\Phi(\boldsymbol{y}')=\Phi+\tilde\Phi$. Define also $P=\Phi^{\top}(\boldsymbol{y})\Phi(\boldsymbol{y})$ and $ P' = \Phi(\boldsymbol{y}')^{\top} \Phi(\boldsymbol{y}')$. Using the identity $(A+B)^{-1} = A^{-1}-A^{-1}B(A+B)^{-1}$ and by noting that $P'=P + \Lambda(\boldsymbol{y}')$ where $\Lambda = \Phi(\boldsymbol{a}_y)^{\top} \Phi(\boldsymbol{a}_y)+ 2\Phi(\boldsymbol{a}_y)^{\top} \Phi(\boldsymbol{y})$, we obtain
$(P')^{-1} = P^{-1}-P^{-1}\Lambda (P')^{-1}$. This identity allows us to work out the difference between $\theta$ and $\theta'$:
\begin{align*}
\theta-\theta' &= P^{-1}\Phi^{\top} \boldsymbol{u} - (P')^{-1}\Phi^{'\top} \boldsymbol{u}'\\
&\stackrel{(a)}{=} P^{-1}[\Phi^{\top} \boldsymbol{u} - (I-\Lambda (P')^{-1})(\Phi+\tilde\Phi)^{\top} (\boldsymbol{u}+\boldsymbol{a}_u)]\\
&= P^{-1}[-(I-\Lambda (P+\Lambda)^{-1})(\tilde\Phi^{\top}\boldsymbol{u}+(\Phi')^{\top}\boldsymbol{a}_u)]\\
&\stackrel{(b)}{=} P^{-1}[-P(P+\Lambda)^{-1}(\tilde\Phi^{\top}\boldsymbol{u}+(\Phi')^{\top}\boldsymbol{a}_u)]\\
&=-(P+\Lambda)^{-1}(\tilde\Phi^{\top}\boldsymbol{u}+(\Phi')^{\top}\boldsymbol{a}_u)
\end{align*}
where in (a) we used the inverse matrix identity and in (b) we factored out $(P+\Lambda)^{-1}$. Now, observe that for a generic vector $\boldsymbol{x}$ we could write $\Phi(\boldsymbol{x}) = TD(\boldsymbol{x})$, from which follows that $\|D(\boldsymbol{x})\|_2^2 = n_k\|\boldsymbol{x}\|_2^2$ and as a consequence $\|\Phi(\boldsymbol{x})\|_2 \leq \sqrt{n_k} \|T\|_2\|\boldsymbol{x}\|_2$. Using the previous result on $\|\theta-\theta'\|_2$ leads to the following upper bound
\[\|\theta-\theta'\|_2 \leq \sqrt{n_k}\|(P+\Lambda)^{-1}\|_2 \|T\|_2 (\|\boldsymbol{u}\|_2\delta_y + \|\boldsymbol{y}\|_2\delta_u). \]
We conclude by observing that combining $\sigmamax((P+\Lambda)^{-1}) = 1/\sigmamin(P+\Lambda)$ and $\sigmamin(P+\Lambda) \geq \sigmamin(P)+\sigmamin(\Lambda)$ yields $\|(P+\Lambda)^{-1}\|_2 \leq \frac{1}{\sigmamin(P)+\sigmamin(\Lambda)}\leq \frac{1}{\sigmamin(P)}.$
\end{proof}
What Lemma \oldref{lemma:diff_bound} tells us is that for a small value of $\gamma$, the difference in the two parameters will be small. This is in line with Remark \oldref{remark:norm_grad_a_theta}: if the signals are sufficiently exciting, then the minimum singular value of $P$ will be large, from which follows that $\gamma$ will be small. As a result, the malicious agent, to be able to affect the parameter $\theta$, will have to use signals of larger magnitude, which are easier to detect. Moreover, the difference can also be minimized by reducing $n_k$ (the number of parameters). The next result, whose proof can be found in our technical report \cite{techreport}, confirms the importance of using persistently exciting signals.
\begin{proposition}\label{corollary:targeted_theta}
If for a fixed $\boldsymbol{y}'$ the condition $\rank(\Phi(\boldsymbol{y}')) \geq n_k$ holds, then for $\delta_u$ sufficiently large the malicious agent can choose any parameter $\theta \in \mathbb{R}^{n_k}$ by selecting a proper signal $\boldsymbol{a}_u$.
\end{proposition}
\ifdefined\isextended
\begin{proof}
The proof follows from the fact that if $\rank(\Phi(\boldsymbol{y}')) \geq n_k$ holds then $\Phi(\boldsymbol{y}')^{\top}\Phi(\boldsymbol{y}')$ is full rank, and $\rank((\Phi(\boldsymbol{y}')^{\top}\Phi(\boldsymbol{y}'))^{-1}\Phi(\boldsymbol{y}')^{\top})=\rank(\Phi(\boldsymbol{y}')^{\top}) \geq n_k$. Then, for any $x \in \mathbb{R}^{n_k}$ there exists $\boldsymbol{a}_u \in \mathbb{R}^{N}$ such that $x =(\Phi(\boldsymbol{y}')^{\top}\Phi(\boldsymbol{y}'))^{-1}\Phi(\boldsymbol{y}')^{\top}(\boldsymbol{u}+\boldsymbol{a}_u)$, i.e., $\boldsymbol{a}_u = \Phi(\boldsymbol{y}')^\dagger (\Phi(\boldsymbol{y}')^{\top}\Phi(\boldsymbol{y}'))x-\boldsymbol{u}$. Therefore, for any $x \in \mathbb{R}^{n_k}$ there exists $\varepsilon>0$ such that for $\delta_u\geq \varepsilon$ the malicious agent can craft an attack that will make the parameter vector $\hat{\theta}(\boldsymbol{u}',\boldsymbol{y}')$ equal to $x$.
\end{proof}\fi
The previous proposition indicates that using a well-crafted attack, the malicious agent can dictate the closed-loop behavior of the system. For example, she may want $\hat \theta$ to converge to some chosen parameter $\theta_a$. The malicious agent in this case may not even need to change $\boldsymbol{y}$, and can just choose an appropriate vector $\boldsymbol{a}_u$. Since $\hat{\theta}(\boldsymbol{u}', \boldsymbol{y}') = \left(\Phi^{\top}(\boldsymbol{y}') \Phi(\boldsymbol{y}') \right)^{-1}\Phi^{\top}(\boldsymbol{y}') \boldsymbol{u}'$, if the malicious agent wants $\hat{\theta}$ to converge to $\theta_a$, then the lower is the norm of $\left(\Phi^{\top}(\boldsymbol{y}') \Phi(\boldsymbol{y}') \right)^{-1}$ the higher needs to be $\delta_u$. It is well-known that for persistently exciting signals, this norm will be small, which in turn implies that $\delta_u$ needs to be bigger.
\ifdefined\isextended
\begin{remark}\textit{If one wishes to include the effect of the filter $L(z)$ in the analysis, then we just need to include the effect of $\set T _L$ (the Toeplitz matrix of order $N$ of $L(z)$) in $T=\begin{bmatrix}
\set T_{\beta_1}\set T_{L}(\set T_{M_r^{-1}}-I)&\dots &\set T_{\beta_{n_k}}\set T_{L}(\set T_{M_r^{-1}}-I)
\end{bmatrix}$.
}
\end{remark}
\fi
\subsection{Max-min attack}
In a max-min attack, the malicious agent aims at maximizing the learner's loss. Formally, we just have: $\set A= \set L$. By choosing this cost function, the malicious agent is implicitly maximizing the residual error $\|M_r(z)-[(I-M_r)GK_\theta](z)\|_2$ (as $N\to \infty$). This cost function may seem attractive, but it does not allow the malicious agent to explicitly control the dynamics of the closed-loop system. For example, the resulting closed-loop system may still be stable after the poisoning attack. Under the assumption that the malicious agent can affect the entire dataset, the optimization problem (to devise an optimal attack) is as follows:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:op_maxmin}
\begin{aligned}
\max_{\boldsymbol{u}' \boldsymbol{y}'}\quad &\set A(\boldsymbol{u},\boldsymbol{y}, \hat \theta(\boldsymbol{u}', \boldsymbol{y}'))\coloneqq \frac{1}{N}\left\|\boldsymbol{u}-\Phi(\boldsymbol{y})\hat \theta(\boldsymbol{u}', \boldsymbol{y}')\right\|_2^2& \\
\textrm{s.t.} \quad & \hat{\theta}(\boldsymbol{u}', \boldsymbol{y}') = \left(\Phi^{\top}(\boldsymbol{y}') \Phi(\boldsymbol{y}') \right)^{-1}\Phi^{\top}(\boldsymbol{y}') \boldsymbol{u}'\\
&\|\boldsymbol{u}'-\boldsymbol{u}\|_{q_u} \leq \delta_u,\quad \|\boldsymbol{y}'-\boldsymbol{y}\|_{q_y} \leq \delta_y.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\noindent
\textbf{Convexity.} The above max-min optimization problem enjoys the following nice property. The objective function is convex in $\boldsymbol{u}'$: this is due to \ref{eq:solution_theta} providing the expression of $\hat{\theta}$. Therefore, for a fixed vector $\boldsymbol{y}'$, the maximum over $\boldsymbol{u}'$ is attained on some extremal point of the feasible set, specifically for $\|\boldsymbol{u'}-\boldsymbol{u}\|_{q_u}=\delta_u$. To find the optimal attack vector on the input signal, one can use disciplined convex-concave programming (DCCP) \cite{shen2016disciplined}. Convexity with respect to $\boldsymbol{y}'$ does not hold, which can be easily verified for the simple case $n_k=1$ and $N=2$. Note however that we can easily compute $\nabla_{\boldsymbol{a}_u} \set A$ and $\nabla_{\boldsymbol{a}_y} \set A$ using the expressions found previously (and also second-order terms).
\begin{algorithm}[h]
\DontPrintSemicolon
\KwIn{Dataset $\set D_N=(\boldsymbol{u},\boldsymbol{y})$; objective function $\set A$; parameters $\boldsymbol{\delta}$, $\eta$}
\KwOut{Attack vectors $\boldsymbol{a}_u, \boldsymbol{a}_y$}
$i \gets 0, (\boldsymbol{a}_u^{(i)},\boldsymbol{a}_y^{(i)})\gets (\boldsymbol{0},\boldsymbol{0})$ \Comment*[r]{Initialize algorithm}
$\hat\theta^{(i)}\gets \hat{\theta}( \boldsymbol{u}+\boldsymbol{a}_u^{(i)}, \boldsymbol{y}+\boldsymbol{a}_y^{(i)})$ where $\hat\theta$ is given in \ref{eq:op_maxmin}\;
$J^{(i)} \gets \set A(\boldsymbol{u},\boldsymbol{y}, \hat\theta^{(i)})$\;
\Do{$|J^{(i+1)}-J^{(i)}|>\eta$}{
$\boldsymbol{a}_u^{(i+1)} \gets $ solve \ref{eq:op_maxmin} in $\boldsymbol{a}_u$ using DCCP \cite{shen2016disciplined}\;
$\boldsymbol{a}_y^{(i+1)} \gets \textsc{PGA}(\delta_y, \gamma_i,\hat{\theta}( \boldsymbol{u}+\boldsymbol{a}_u^{(i+1)}, \boldsymbol{y}+\boldsymbol{a}_y^{(i)}))$\;
$\hat\theta^{(i+1)}\gets \hat{\theta}( \boldsymbol{u}+\boldsymbol{a}_u^{(i+1)}, \boldsymbol{y}+\boldsymbol{a}_y^{(i+1)})$\;
$J^{(i+1)}\gets \set A(\boldsymbol{u},\boldsymbol{y}, \hat\theta^{(i+1)})$\;
$i \gets i+1$\;
}
\Return $(\boldsymbol{a}_u^{(i)}, \boldsymbol{a}_y^{(i)})$
\caption{Max-min attack algorithm}
\label{algo1}
\end{algorithm}
\iffalse Let $\Phi' \coloneqq \Phi(\boldsymbol{y}')$ and $\Phi = \Phi(\boldsymbol{y})$, then we can compute the gradients with respect to $\boldsymbol{a}_u$ (similarly also for $\boldsymbol{a}_y$) to obtain
\begin{align*}\nabla_{\boldsymbol{a}_u} \set A &= -2\Phi'( \Phi^{'\top}\Phi')^{-1}\Phi^{\top}(\boldsymbol{u}-\Phi ( \Phi^{'\top}\Phi')^{-1}\Phi^{'\top}\boldsymbol{u}')\\
\nabla_{\boldsymbol{a}_u}^2 \set A&=2[( \Phi^{'\top}\Phi')^{-1}\Phi^{'\top}]^{\top}\Phi^{\top}\Phi[( \Phi^{'\top}\Phi')^{-1}\Phi^{'\top}] \end{align*}
\fi
\noindent
\textbf{Upper bound on $\set A$. } Using Lemma \oldref{lemma:diff_bound}, we can derive an upper bound on $\set A$, which can help to quantify the maximal impact of max-min attacks.
\begin{corollary}\label{corollary:minmax_bound}
The objective function of the optimization problem \ref{eq:op_maxmin} satisfies:
\begin{align*}
\set A(\boldsymbol{u},\boldsymbol{y}, \hat \theta(\boldsymbol{u}', &\boldsymbol{y}')) \leq \Bigg(\sqrt{ \set L(\boldsymbol{u},\boldsymbol{y}, K_{\hat \theta(\boldsymbol{u}, \boldsymbol{y})})}\\ &+ \frac{n_k\|\boldsymbol{y}\|_2 \sigmamax^2(T)}{\sigmamin(P)} (\|\boldsymbol{y}\|_2\delta_u + \|\boldsymbol{u}\|_2\delta_y)\Bigg )^2.
\end{align*}
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
\ifdefined\isextended
A simple use of triangular inequality allows us to deduce the following
\begin{align*}
\set A(\boldsymbol{u},\boldsymbol{y}, \hat \theta(\boldsymbol{u}', \boldsymbol{y}')) &= \left\|\boldsymbol{u}-\Phi(\boldsymbol{y})\hat \theta(\boldsymbol{u}', \boldsymbol{y}')\right\|_2^2,\\
&\leq \left(\left\|\boldsymbol{u}-\Phi(\boldsymbol{y})\hat \theta(\boldsymbol{u}, \boldsymbol{y})\right\|_2 + \left\|\Phi(\boldsymbol{y})\Delta\theta\right\|_2\right)^2
\end{align*}
where $\Delta\theta = \hat \theta(\boldsymbol{u}', \boldsymbol{y}')-\hat \theta(\boldsymbol{u}, \boldsymbol{y})$. By lemma \ref{lemma:diff_bound} and $\|\phi(\boldsymbol{y})\|_2 \leq \sqrt{n_k}\sigmamax(T) \|\boldsymbol{y}\|_2$ we get
\[\set A\leq \left(\sqrt{ \set L} + n_k\|\boldsymbol{y}\|_2 \frac{\sigmamax^2(T)}{\sigmamin(P)} (\|\boldsymbol{y}\|_2\delta_u + \|\boldsymbol{u}\|_2\delta_y)\right )^2 .\]
\else
The result directly follows from combining the triangular inequality and Lemma \oldref{lemma:diff_bound}.
\fi
\end{proof}
\noindent
\textbf{Algorithm. }
In Algorithm \ref{algo1}, we propose an alternating gradient ascent algorithm to compute the attack. Since we can compute the optimal attack on the input signal using DCCP \cite{shen2016disciplined}, the idea is to first compute $\boldsymbol{a}_u$ (keeping $\boldsymbol{a}_y$ fixed) and then compute $\boldsymbol{a}_y$ according to $\boldsymbol{a}_u$, using a projected gradient ascent (PGA) search, where we iteratively update $\boldsymbol{a}_y$ along $\nabla_{\boldsymbol{a}_y}\set A$ and project onto $S_y$. At the end of each iteration $k$, we compute the difference $\Delta_i J\coloneqq J^{(i+1)} - J^{(i)}$, where $J^{(i)}=\set A(\set D_N, \hat{\theta}(\boldsymbol{u}+\boldsymbol{a}_u^{(i)},\boldsymbol{y}+\boldsymbol{a}_y^{(i)} ))$, and we stop if $|\Delta_i J| <\eta$, with $\eta>0$ being a user-chosen parameter. In practice, the difficulty lies in computing the PGA step (it requires some fine tuning to adjust the step size).
\section{Numerical simulations}
\textbf{Plant dynamics and VRFT method.} We consider the numerical example proposed in \cite{campi2002virtual} of a
flexible transmission system, which was originally proposed in \cite{landau1995flexible} as a benchmark for digital control design. The continuous plant is discretized with sampling time $T_s=0.05s$, and the dynamics are given by
$G(z)=B(z)/A(z)$
with $A(z)=z^4-1.41833z^{3}+1.58939z^{2}-1.31608z+0.88642$ and $B(z)=0.28261z+0.50666$. The reference model is $M_r(z)= (1-\alpha)^2/z(z-\alpha)^2$ with $\alpha=e^{-T_s\bar \omega},\bar \omega=10. $
For such system, the class of controllers considered is of the form $\beta_i(z)=z^{2-i}/(z-1), i=1,\dots,6$. We will consider two types of input signals: (A) a step function $u_t$ that is equal to $1$ for $t\in [5,15]$ and $0$ otherwise; (B) a persistently exciting input signal $u_t \sim \mathcal{N}(0,1)$. In both cases, $N=512$ data points are collected from the plant and the data has been low pass filtered using $L(z)=(1-M_r(z))M_r(z)$ as in \cite{campi2002virtual}.
\medskip
\noindent
\textbf{Attack setting.}
We analyze the attack objective \ref{eq:op_maxmin} for different values of $\delta_u$ and $\delta_y$ using the euclidean norm. We used $\delta_u=\varepsilon_u\|\boldsymbol{u}\|_2$ with $\varepsilon_u \in \{0, 0.1, 0.2\}$, and $\delta_y = \varepsilon_y \|\boldsymbol{y}\|_2$ with $\varepsilon_y \in [0.01, 0.057]$. These values are chosen based on empirical evidence (we observed that a slight increase of $\varepsilon_y$ brings a larger change in the closed-loop performance of the system).
\renewcommand{\thefigure}{2}
\begin{figure}[b]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{1.Figures/simulations/vrft_minmax/input_output_data_wn}
\caption{Input/output dataset $\set D_N$ for scenario (B) with $\varepsilon_u=0.1$ and $\varepsilon_y=0.057$.}
\label{fig:input_output_data_whitenoise}
\end{figure}
\renewcommand{\thefigure}{3}
\begin{figure*}[]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}{0.49\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{1.Figures/simulations/vrft_minmax/learner_loss_function}
\caption{Fig.3: Loss of the learner $\set L$ for different values of $\varepsilon_u,\varepsilon_y$.}
\label{fig:loss}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.49\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{1.Figures/simulations/vrft_minmax/step}
\caption{Closed loop system step response for $(\varepsilon_u,\varepsilon_y)=(0.1,0.057)$. }
\label{fig:step}
\end{subfigure}
\end{figure*}
As an example, in Figure \oldref{fig:input_output_data_whitenoise}, we show data from a simulation of scenario (B) for the case $\varepsilon_u=0.1,\varepsilon_y=0.057$. We also compare the attacks with a white noise poisoning signal constrained using a fixed $\delta_u$ with $\varepsilon_u=0.2$.
\medskip
\noindent
\textbf{Attack analysis.}
In Figures \oldref{fig:loss}-\oldref{fig:step}, we show the average learner's loss for the various values of $(\varepsilon_u,\varepsilon_y)$ and the step response, for both scenarios (A) and (B). We also show the loss value in the case of a random attack where each attack point is white noise (WN) with constraint $\varepsilon_u=0.2$. In Figure \oldref{fig:loss}, due to the randomness in scenario (B) and non-convexity with respect to $\boldsymbol{a}_y$, we have taken the average value of the loss over $512$ simulations (the shadowed area, though very small, displays the $95\%$ confidence interval).
First, we observe from Figures \oldref{fig:loss}-\oldref{fig:step} that randomly attacking the dataset does not perturb performance in a significant way. The loss due to random Gaussian poisoning is significantly small compared to the loss due to the poisoning attacks. This indeed shows that our algorithm is exploiting the dynamics of the system in order to compute a poisoning attack.
Then, we observe that the loss in scenario (A) seems to increase more quickly compared to that in scenario (B), but this is not an indication of poor performances. Despite a flat increase of the learner's loss in scenario (B), which may be explained by the usage of persistently exciting data, we observe that a successful poisoning attack may cause more damage in scenario (B).
\begin{table}[H]
\begin{tabular}{lccccc}
\hline
\rowcolor{Gray}
\multicolumn{1}{l|}{\textbf{Scenario A - $\varepsilon_y$}} & $0.01$ & $0.023$ & $0.037$ & $0.05$ & $0.057$ \\ \hline
\multicolumn{1}{l|}{$\varepsilon_u=0$} & $0\%$ & $0\%$ & $0\%$ & $0\%$ & $0\%$ \\
\multicolumn{1}{l|}{$\varepsilon_u=0.1$} & $0.78\%$ & $0.58\%$ & $13.9\%$ & $1.56\%$ & $0.78\%$ \\
\multicolumn{1}{l|}{$\varepsilon_u=0.2$} & $47.1\%$ & $29.7\%$ & $19.8\%$ & $1.76\%$ & $1.56\%$ \\
\rowcolor{Gray}\hline
\multicolumn{1}{l|}{\textbf{Scenario B - $\varepsilon_y$}} & $0.01$ & $0.023$ & $0.037$ & $0.05$ & $0.057$ \\ \hline
\multicolumn{1}{l|}{$\varepsilon_u=0$} & $0\%$ & $0\%$ & $0\%$ & $0.2\%$ & $0\%$ \\
\multicolumn{1}{l|}{$\varepsilon_u=0.1$} & $0\%$ & $0\%$ & $34.4\%$ & $74.6\%$ & $75.2\%$ \\
\multicolumn{1}{l|}{$\varepsilon_u=0.2$} & $0\%$ & $1.75\%$ & $54.7\%$ & $84.2\%$ & $88.9\%$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Average proportion of unstable closed-loop systems out of $512$ simulations.}
\label{table:stability_wn}
\end{table}
As a matter of fact, from Table \oldref{table:stability_wn}, we note that instability of the closed-loop system does not seem to be correlated with the learner's loss in scenario (A), while it seems to be for scenario (B). This is also due to the choice of objective of the malicious agent, which does not try to directly maximize the closed-loop eigenvalues, but just increase the learner's loss, which is also linked to how informative the data is. This raises the interesting question, of whether using informative data may help the malicious agent in making the closed-loop system unstable.
Remarkably, we also observe that for $\delta_u=0$, the learner's loss slowly increases with $\delta_y$. From Corollary \oldref{corollary:minmax_bound}, we can see the presence of a multiplicative term $\|\boldsymbol{y}\|^2 \delta_u$ that may indicate the possibility of $\set L$ diverging for $\delta_u$ big enough. This effect can be clearly seen in the right plot of Figure \oldref{fig:loss}, where for $\varepsilon_u=0.1$ and $\varepsilon_u=0.2$ the loss starts to diverge. Moreover, from Table \oldref{table:stability_wn}, we see that for $\varepsilon_u=0$, the closed-loop system never gets unstable. This suggests that robustness of data-driven control methods can be assessed by a strict analysis of the input data integrity.
\section{Conclusion}
In this work, we have introduced a generic bi-level optimization objective that can be used to compute attacks on data-driven control methods. We then specialized the method to the well known Virtual Reference Feedback Tuning technique. In general, this bi-level optimization problem is non-convex, whilst in the case of VRFT, it becomes convex in the input data. For the case of attacks against VRFT, we have provided an upper bound on the difference of the poisoned/unpoisoned control law parameters and introduced a min-max objective that the adversary can use to compute an attack. Our analysis and experiments have shown that the usage of exciting signals may emphasize the effect of the poisoning attack and that a strict integrity check of the input data may reduce the impact of the attack. Future analysis should focus on a more in-depth theoretical analysis of the attack and find additional defence strategies for the learner.
\subsection{Targeted attack on VRFT}
As mentioned in the previous section, the maxmin objective does not let attacker to choose a particular behaviour of the resulting closed loop system. Furthermore, corollary \ref{corollary:targeted_theta} shows a way to perform a targeted attack.
A malicious agent may wish to perform a more sophisticated attack, and try to poison the dataset so that the closed-loop behaviour follows a certain desired reference model. The attacker can encapsulate this desired behavior in a transfer function $M_a(z)$ and perform the VRFT method to find the corresponding vector $\theta_a$ (observe that the control architecture does not change and the adversary is constrained to the set of reference models $\left\{\frac{K_\theta(z)G(z)}{1+K_\theta(z)G(z)}\right\}$). Then, the attack is simply minimizing the distance between $\theta_a$ and $\hat{\theta}$:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:op_vrft_targeted}
\begin{aligned}
\min_{\boldsymbol{u}' \boldsymbol{y}'}\quad &\set A(\boldsymbol{u},\boldsymbol{y}, \hat \theta(\boldsymbol{u}', \boldsymbol{y}'))\coloneqq \frac{1}{n_k}\|\theta_a-\hat{\theta}(\boldsymbol{u}',\boldsymbol{y}')\|_2^2& \\
\textrm{s.t.} \quad & \hat{\theta}(\boldsymbol{u}', \boldsymbol{y}') = \left(\Phi^{\top}(\boldsymbol{y}') \Phi(\boldsymbol{y}') \right)^{-1}\Phi^{\top}(\boldsymbol{y}') \boldsymbol{u}'\\
&\|\boldsymbol{u}'-\boldsymbol{u}\|_{q_u} \leq \delta_u,\quad \|\boldsymbol{y}'-\boldsymbol{y}\|_{q_y} \leq \delta_y
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
This objective in a sense mimics the original VRFT objective in which the attacker tries to minimize criterion \ref{eq:criterion_J} $\left\|M_a(z)-[(I-M_a)GK_\theta](z)\right\|_2^2$ with respect to the new reference model $M_a(z)$. Also, as pointed out in corollary \ref{corollary:targeted_theta} for $\delta_u$ sufficiently large the attacker can choose any $\hat\theta \in \mathbb{R}^{n_k}$.
\begin{lemma}
For a fixed vector $\boldsymbol{y}'$ the targeted attack is convex in $\boldsymbol{a}_u$, and the optimal poisoning signal $\boldsymbol{a}_u$ is
\begin{equation}
\boldsymbol{a}_u =\begin{cases}
\left(P^{\top}P\right)^{\dagger}P^{\top}\theta_a-\boldsymbol{u} \qquad \hbox{ if } \footnotesize{\|\left(P^{\top}P\right)^{\dagger}P^{\top}\theta_a-\boldsymbol{u}\|_{q_u} \leq \delta_u}\\ \frac{\left(P^{\top}P\right)^{\dagger}P\theta_a-\boldsymbol{u}}{\|\left(P^{\top}P\right)^{\dagger}P^{\top}\theta_a-\boldsymbol{u}\|_{q_u}}\delta_u \quad \hbox{otherwise}
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
where $P= ( \Phi^{\top}(\boldsymbol{y}')\Phi(\boldsymbol{y}'))^{-1}\Phi^{\top}(\boldsymbol{y}')$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
As in the maxmin attack one can easily recognize convexity of the criterion in $\boldsymbol{u}'$. Since we are minimizing a convex problem, we can directly find the solution by solving $\nabla_{\boldsymbol{a}_u} \set J=0$ ( and then normalize it to enforce the norm constraint). Let $\Phi' \coloneqq \Phi(\boldsymbol{y}')$ and $\Phi = \Phi(\boldsymbol{y})$, then we can compute the gradients with respect to $\boldsymbol{a}_u$ to obtain
\begin{equation}0=\nabla_{\boldsymbol{a}_u} \set A = -\frac{2}{N}\Phi'( \Phi^{'T}\Phi')^{-1}(\theta_a- ( \Phi^{'T}\Phi')^{-1}\Phi^{'T}\boldsymbol{u}').
\end{equation}
By letting $P= ( \Phi^{'T}\Phi')^{-1}\Phi^{'T}$ we easily get the result.
\end{proof}
Unfortunately the problem is still non-convex in $\boldsymbol{a}_y$. For the purpose of computing the attack, one can the algorithm proposed for the maxmin objective \ref{algo1} to compute it. Instead of performing gradient ascent the algorithm performs of gradient descent, and computes the optimal input poisoning signal according to the previous lemma.\\
\renewcommand{\thefigure}{4}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{1.Figures/simulations/vrft_targeted/step}
\caption{Closed loop step response for $\varepsilon_u=0.1$ and $\varepsilon_y=0.057$.}
\label{fig:targeted_step}
\end{figure}
\textbf{Simulations.} We analyze the targeted criterion using the same settings as for the maxmin criterion, and averaged results over $256$ simulations. As a target model we constructed one using $\theta_a=3\theta_0$, where $\theta_0$ is the solution to the original VRFT problem, taken from \cite{campi2002virtual}, which is $\theta_0\approx \begin{bmatrix}0.33& -0.61 & 0.72& -0.66& 0.48& -0.13\end{bmatrix}$. Future work could better focus on the analysis of choosing $\theta_a$, whilst here we present the idea and some numerical results. \\
\renewcommand{\thefigure}{5}
\begin{figure}[b]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{1.Figures/simulations/vrft_targeted/bode}
\caption{Closed loop Bode response: in blue the reference model; in red the average unpoisoned closed-loop system; in green the poisoned closed-loop system; in orange the target model $M_a(z)$. Averaged curves also display $95\%$ confidence interval.}
\label{fig:targeted_bode}
\end{figure}
\renewcommand{\thefigure}{6}
\begin{figure}[]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{1.Figures/simulations/vrft_targeted/learner_loss_function}
\caption{(Top) Loss of the learner $\set L$; (Bottom) Loss of the malicious agent $\set A$. Shadowed area displays $95\%$ confidence interval.}
\label{fig:targeted_loss}
\end{figure}
In Figures \ref{fig:targeted_step} and \ref{fig:targeted_bode} we present respectively the step responses and bode diagrams for the different models. In Figure \ref{fig:targeted_step} the effect of the target model $M_a(z)$ is more visible than the other curves, whilst the poisoned closed loop system seems to be barely affected by the attack. More insights can be gained by looking at the bode diagrams in Figures \ref{fig:targeted_bode}: first we observe that the poisoned closed loop system better approximates $M_a(z)$ only at low and high frequencies, but not in the range of frequencies where there is a peak. Furthermore, this approximation gets better in the case of scenario (A). This is in line with the reasoning provided in Proposition \ref{corollary:targeted_theta}. This also motivates a possible future work of analyzing which values of $\theta_a$ are more feasible for the malicious agent.\\
Finally, in Figure \ref{fig:targeted_loss} we show respectively: in the top row the learner's loss $\set L$ for scenario (A) and (B); in the bottom row the loss $\set A$ of the malicious agent. Despite a rapid convergence of $\theta$ to $\theta_a$, in roughly both scenarios, this convergence is not also depicted in the bode plots. Therefore, we argue that a successful targeted attack needs to take into consideration two things: (i) feasibility of $\theta_a$ and (ii) a good choice of the malicious agent criterion (for example one that considers the frequency domain).
\iffalse
Alternatively, one can use the data-representation of the system (explained in section 2) to derive adversarial objectives. For simplicity, suppose the state of the plant is fully measurable, so that $y_t=x_t$ (though it can be extended to output feedback). As explained in section 2, under some suitable persistence of excitation conditions, i.e., $\textrm{rank}\begin{bmatrix}U_{[0,T]} & X_{[0,T]}\end{bmatrix}=n+m$, in case of state-feedback control $u_t=Kx_t$, it is possible to write the system in \ref{eq:system_state_space} in the following equivalent representation (Theorem 2 in \cite{de2019formulas}):
\[x_{t+1}=X_{[1,T]}^{\top}G_Kx_t\]
where $G_K$ is a $T\times n$ matrix satisfying
\[K=U_{[0,T]}^{\top}G_K \hbox{ and } I_n=X_{[0,T]}^{\top}G_K.\]
Based on this fact we have $A+BK=X_{[1,T]}^{\top}G_K$, which can be used by the adversary to define an adversarial objective that involves the closed-loop dynamics defined by $A+BK$. \\
This allows for a wide range of possible criterion since we can now write the closed-loop transfer function as \[T(z) = (zI-A-BK)^{-1}B = (zI-X_{[1,T]}^{\top}G_K)^{-1}B\] for example, one could aim at maximizing the closed-loop eigenvalues, or alter the transient performance of the system.
In case the adversary wants to maximize the $2$-norm of $T(z)$ we observe that $\|T(z)\|_2^2=\Tr[CPC^{\top}]$ (although $C=I$ in this case), where $P$ is the unique solution to $(X_{[1,T]}^{\top}G_K)P+P(X_{[1,T]}^{\top}G_K)^{\top} +BB^{\top}=0$ . Under the assumption that $B$ is known, then the adversary can easily use a gradient ascent algorithm to find attack vectors $\boldsymbol{a}_y,\boldsymbol{a}_u$ that maximize the 2-norm of $T(z)$.
\fi
\section{Attacks on Data-Driven methods based on Willems lemma}
The usage of Willems lemma \cite{willems2005note} inspired the development of new data driven technique. For example, in \cite{de2019formulas} they show how to derive data-driven solutions of control problem by using linear matrix inequalities in conjunction with Willems lemma. Important examples are optimal control problems. As shown in \cite{de2019formulas}, suppose for simplicity that we have state measurements and consider the system
\[x_{t+1}=Ax_t+Bu_t+\xi_t\]
where $x_t\in \mathbb{R}^n, u_t\in \mathbb{R}^m$ and $\xi_t$ is an external input to the system. The objective is to find a linear state feedback control law $u_t=Kx_t$ that minimizes the influence of the external input onto $x$. For that purpose, let $z_t = Q_x^{1/2} x_t$ be a performance metric and $H_K(z) = Q_x(zI-A-BK)^{-1}$ be the transfer function from $\xi$ to $z$. Then the learner wishes to learn $K$ that minimizes the $H_2$ norm of $H_K(z)$:
\[\|H_K(z)\|_2^2 = \frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{-\pi}^{\pi}\Tr\left[H_K(e^{j\omega}) H_K^{\top}(e^{-j\omega})\right]\textrm{d}\omega.\]
Minimizing $H$ is equivalent to minimizing the mean-square deviation of $z$ when $\xi$ is a white process with unit covariance.
In \cite{de2019formulas} the authors show that optimal controller $K$ can be found using the equation $K=U_{[N-1]}Q(X_{[N-1]}Q)^{-1}$ where $Q \in \mathbb{R}^{(N+1)\times n}$ is solution of
\begin{equation}\label{eq:willems_control_h2}
\begin{aligned}
\min_{Q}\quad & \Tr\left(Q_x X_{[N-1]}Q\right)& \\
\textrm{s.t.} \quad & \begin{bmatrix}
X_{[N-1]}Q -I_n & X_{[1,N]}Q\\[0.5
em]
Q^{\top} X_{[1,N]}^{\top} & X_{[N-1]}Q
\end{bmatrix}\succeq 0.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation} Now, let the poisoning signals be $A_x\in \mathbb{R}^{n\times (N+1)}$ and $A_u \in \mathbb{R}^{m \times (N+1)}$. Define the poisoned data matrices $X_{[N-1]}'=X_{[N-1]}+A_{x,[N-1]}$ and $X_{[1,N]}'=X_{[1,N]}+A_{x,[1,N]}$ (similarly define $U_{[N-1]}'$). Let
\[
M(A_x)\coloneqq\begin{bmatrix}
X_{[N-1]}'Q -I_n & X_{[1,N]}'Q\\[0.5
em]
Q^{\top} X_{[1,N]}^{'T} & X_{[N-1]}'Q
\end{bmatrix}\succeq 0
\]
then we can cast the problem of finding the poisoning attack for a genetic attack criterion $\set A$ as follows
\begin{equation}\label{eq:willems_attack_general}
\begin{aligned}
\max_{A_x,A_u}\quad & \set A(\set D_N, K)& \\
\textrm{s.t.} \quad & Q = \argmin_{Q} \left\{\Tr\left(Q_x X_{[N-1]}'Q\right): M(A_x) \succeq 0\right\}\\
& K = U_{[N-1]}' Q (X_{[N-1]}' Q)^{-1}\\
& \|A_{x}\|_{q_x} \leq \delta_x, \quad\|A_{u}\|_{q_u} \leq \delta_u
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $q_x,q_u$ are convex norms. To solve it, since the inner problem is convex and regular, we can resort again to the Single-Level Reduction method \cite{sinha2017review,bard2013practical}, and replace the inner problem with its KKT conditions. Denote by $\mathcal{S}^n$ the space of $n\times n$ symmetric matrices, which is equipped with the inner product $\langle A,B \rangle=\Tr(A^{\top}B)$. We can we can write the Lagrangian function of the inner problem as follows
\[L(A_x,Q,Z) = \Tr\left(Q_x X_{[N-1]}'Q\right) -\langle Z, M(A) \rangle, \]
where $Z\in \set S^{2n\times 2n}$. Express $Z$ in block form
\[Z=\begin{bmatrix}
Z_{11} & Z_{12}\\
Z_{12}^{\top} & Z_{22}
\end{bmatrix}\]
then $L$ admits the following rewriting
\begin{align*}
L(A_x,Q,Z) &= \langle Q_x^{\top}, X_{[N-1]}'Q\rangle -\langle Z, M(A) \rangle\\
&=\langle Q_x^{\top}, X_{[N-1]}'Q\rangle -\langle Z_{11},X_{[N-1]}'Q -I_n \rangle\\
&\qquad -\langle Z_{22},X_{[N-1]}'Q \rangle - 2\langle Z_{12},X_{[1,N]}'Q\rangle\\
&=\langle Q_x^{\top}, X_{[N-1]}'Q\rangle +\langle Z_{11},I_n \rangle\\
&\qquad -\langle Z_{11}+ Z_{22},X_{[N-1]}'Q \rangle - 2\langle Z_{12},X_{[1,N]}'Q\rangle
\end{align*}
from which follows the first KKT condition:
\[0=\frac{\textrm{d}L}{\textrm{d}Q} = Q_x X_{[N-1]}'-(Z_{11}+ Z_{22})^{\top}X_{[N-1]}'-2Z_{12}^{\top}X_{[1,N]}'.\]
Therefore we can rewrite problem \ref{eq:willems_attack_general} as a single-level optimization problem
\begin{equation}\label{eq:willems_attack_minmax2}
\begin{aligned}
\max_{A,Q,Z}\quad &\set A(\set D_N, K)& \\
\textrm{s.t.} \quad & Q_x X_{[N-1]}'-(Z_{11}+ Z_{22})^{\top}X_{[N-1]}'-2Z_{12}^{\top}X_{[1,N]}'=0\\
& M(A_x) \succeq 0,\quad \langle Z, M(A_x) \rangle = 0,\quad Z\succeq 0\\
& K = U_{[N-1]}' Q (X_{[N-1]}' Q)^{-1}\\
& \|A_{x}\|_{q_x} \leq \delta_x, \quad\|A_{u}\|_{q_u} \leq \delta_u
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Unfortunately the problem is hard to solve, not only because of the upper level constraint on $Q$, but also because the Lagrangian constraints lead to non-convexities. The complementary conditions can be thought of as a boolean variables, turning the problem into a mixed-integer problem \cite{sinha2017review,sinha2017evolutionary,dempe2015bilevel,dempe2019solution}. In general, one can try to use branch and bounds methods or evolutionary algorithms \cite{sinha2017review} (the latter approach has shown good performance in general for bilevel optimization). Alternatively, one can also consider to solve a sequence of relaxed problems as shown in \cite{mersha2008solution}. We will now provide few examples of attacks.
\\\\
\textbf{Maxmin and eigenvalues attack}
The first attack we propose is the maxmin attack. This attack is implicitly maximizing the $H_2$ norm of $H_K(z)$, making the system more susceptible to modeling errors and process noise. To formulate it one must be careful, and observe that we cannot simply choose $\set A(\set D_N, K)= \Tr(Q_x X_{[N-1]}Q)$. The reason is simple: the matrix $Q$ does not parametrize the system $(A,B)$ because of the dependence of $Q$ on the attack signal $A_x$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:maxmin_attack}
Consider the optimization problem in \ref{eq:willems_attack_general}, then the optimal attack maximizing the $H_2$ norm of $H_K(z)$ can be found by solving the optimization problem
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\max_{A_x,A_u,W,G_K}\quad & \Phi(Q_xW)& \\
\textrm{s.t.} \quad & Q = \argmin_{Q} \left\{\Tr\left(Q_x X_{[N-1]}'Q\right): M(A_x) \succ 0\right\}\\
& X_{[1,N] }G_K W G_K^{\top} X_{[1,N]}^{\top} -W+I_n= 0\\
& W\succeq I_n \\
& U_{[N-1]}G_K = U_{[N-1]}' Q (X_{[N-1]}' Q)^{-1}\\
& X_{[N-1]}G_K = I_n\\
& \|A_{x}\|_{q_x} \leq \delta_x, \quad\|A_{u}\|_{q_u} \leq \delta_u
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $W \in \set S^{n\times n}$ and $\Phi$ satisfies
\[\Phi(Q_xW) = \begin{cases}
\Tr(Q_xW) \hbox{ if } \sigmamax(X_{[1,N]}G_K) \leq 1\\
\infty
\end{cases}\] \end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The result follows from the fact that maximizing the $H_2$ norm of $H_K(z)$ is equivalent to maximizing the trace of $Q_x W$ where $W$ is the controllability Gramian of the closed loop system $A+BK$. The matrix $W$ for a stable closed loop system can be found by solving
\[(A+BK)W(A+BK)^{\top}-W+I_n=0\]
for a symmetric matrix $W\succeq I_n$.
Due to Theorem 2 in \cite{de2019formulas} we have $A+BK=X_{[1,N]}G_K$ and
\[ \begin{bmatrix}
K\\
I_n
\end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix}
U_{[N]}\\
X_{[n]}
\end{bmatrix}G_K.\] Then the result follows by observing that $K= U_{[N]}' Q (X_{[N]}' Q)^{-1}$. In case $A+BK$ is unstable, then thematrix $W$ cannot be computed, from which follows the definition of $\Phi$ (since the maximum singular value of $A+BK$ is equivalent to the maximum pole squared of $A+BK$).\\
\end{proof}
The above formulation of the attack problem has several limitations, mainly due to the computation of the Gramian matrix of $A+BK$. We believe instead that an alternative formulation of the problem, easier to compute, is the overall maximization of the closed loop eigenvalues. Observe that
\begin{align*}\det((A+BK)(A+BK)^{\top})&=\prod_{i=1}^n \sigma_i(A+BK) \\
&= \prod_{i=1}^n |\lambda_i(A+BK)|^2\end{align*}
Therefore maximizing $\det((A+BK)(A+BK)^{\top})$ can be used as a proxy to maximize the closed loop eigenvalues. For simplicity, we will consider the concave criterion $\log(\det((A+BK)(A+BK)^{\top}))$ (note that one could alternatively maximize the geometric mean of the squared eigenvalues $\sqrt[n]{\det((A+BK)(A+BK)^{\top}}$, which is a concave function). Using Theorem 2 in \cite{de2019formulas} one can write $\log(\det(X_{[1,N]}G_KG_K^{\top} X_{[1,N]}^{\top}) )$ with $G_K$ satisfying
\[ \begin{bmatrix}
K\\
I_n
\end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix}
U_{[N]}\\
X_{[n]}
\end{bmatrix}G_K\]
and $K=U_{[N]}' Q (X_{[N]}' Q)^{-1}$ (where $Q$ is solution of the inner problem). Therefore we obtain the following optimization problem
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:eigenvalues_attack}
Consider the optimization problem in \ref{eq:willems_attack_general}, then we can maximize the closed-loop eigenvalues by solving the following optimization problem
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\max_{A_x,A_u,G_K}\quad & \log(\det(X_{[1,N]}G_KG_K^{\top} X_{[1,N]}^{\top})) & \\
\textrm{s.t.} \quad & Q = \argmin_{Q} \left\{\Tr\left(Q_x X_{[N-1]}'Q\right): M(A_x) \succeq 0\right\}\\
& U_{[N-1]}G_K = U_{[N-1]}' Q (X_{[N-1]}' Q)^{-1}\\
& X_{[N-1]}G_K = I_n\\
& \|A_{x}\|_{q_x} \leq \delta_x, \quad\|A_{u}\|_{q_u} \leq \delta_u
\end{aligned}
\end{equation} \end{lemma}
We observe an interesting feature of the previous problem: it can be cast as a convex problem in $A_u$ for a fixed signal $A_x$. By introducing an additional positive definite variable $V$ we can write
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\max_{A_x,A_u, G_K,V}\quad & \log(\det(V)) & \\
\textrm{s.t.} \quad & Q = \argmin_{Q} \left\{\Tr\left(Q_x X_{[N-1]}'Q\right): M(A_x) \succeq 0\right\}\\
& U_{[N-1]}G_K = U_{[N-1]}' Q (X_{[N-1]}' Q)^{-1}\\
& X_{[N-1]}G_K = I_n\\
& X_{[1,N]}G_KG_K^{\top} X_{[1,N]}^{\top} \succeq V\\
& V \succ 0\\
& \|A_{x}\|_{q_x} \leq \delta_x, \quad\|A_{u}\|_{q_u} \leq \delta_u
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
now, by using the relationship
\[ \begin{bmatrix}
B & A
\end{bmatrix}= X_{[1,N]}\begin{bmatrix}
U_{[N-1]}\\X_{[N-1]}
\end{bmatrix}^{\dagger}\]
and the fact that $A+BK= X_{[1,N]}G_K$ and $U_{[N-1]}G_K=K$ we can discard the variable $G_K$ and write
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\max_{A_x,A_u,V}\quad & \log(\det(V)) & \\
\textrm{s.t.} \quad & Q = \argmin_{Q} \left\{\Tr\left(Q_x X_{[N-1]}'Q\right): M(A_x) \succeq 0\right\}\\
& K = U_{[N-1]}' Q (X_{[N-1]}' Q)^{-1}\\
& (A+BK)(A+BK)^{\top}\succeq V\\
& V\succ 0\\
& \|A_{x}\|_{q_x} \leq \delta_x, \quad\|A_{u}\|_{q_u} \leq \delta_u
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
One can rewrite the constraints $(A+BK)(A+BK)^{\top}\succeq V$ using the Schur complement
\begin{equation*}
\resizebox{1\linewidth}{!}
$ V-(A+BK)(A+BK)^{\top} \preceq 0 \Rightarrow \begin{bmatrix}
-V & A+BK\\
(A+BK)^{\top} & -I_n\end{bmatrix} \preceq 0$}
\end{equation*}
from which we get the following lemma
\begin{lemma}
Consider a fixed attack vector $A_x$ and let $Q = \argmin_{Q} \left\{\Tr\left(Q_x X_{[N-1]}'Q\right): M(A_x) \succeq 0\right\}$. Then, the optimization problem
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\max_{A_u}\quad & \log(\det((A+BK)(A+BK)^{\top})) & \\
\textrm{s.t.} \quad & K = U_{[N-1]}' Q (X_{[N-1]}' Q)^{-1}\\
&\|A_{u}\|_{q_u} \leq \delta_u
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
is convex.
\end{lemma}
\renewcommand{\thefigure}{7}
\begin{figure}[]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{1.Figures/simulations/willems/loss_input}
\caption{(Top) Loss of the learner $\set L$; (Bottom) Loss of the malicious agent.}
\label{fig:targeted_loss}
\end{figure}
\renewcommand{\thefigure}{8}
\begin{figure}[]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{1.Figures/simulations/willems/eigenvalues_input}
\caption{(Top) Loss of the learner $\set L$; (Bottom) Loss of the malicious agent.}
\label{fig:targeted_loss}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}[]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{1.Figures/simulations/willems/signal_input}
\caption{(Top) Loss of the learner $\set L$; (Bottom) Loss of the malicious agent.}
\label{fig:targeted_loss}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Software, code and hardware}
All experiments were executed on a stationary desktop computer, featuring an Intel Xeon Silver 4110 CPU, 48GB of RAM. Ubuntu 18.04 was installed on the computer. Ubuntu is an open-source Operating System using the Linux kernel and based on Debian. For more information, please check \url{https://ubuntu.com/}.
\\\\
We set up our experiments using Python 3.7.7 \cite{van1995python} (For more information, please refer to the following link \url{http://www.python.org}), and made use of the following libraries: Cython version 0.29.15 \cite{behnel2011cython}, NumPy version 1.18.1 \cite{oliphant2006guide}, SciPy version 1.4.1 \cite{2020SciPy-NMeth}, PyTorch version 1.4.0 \cite{paszke2017automatic}. All the code will be published on GitHub with MIT license.
\section{Additional attacks on VRFT}
\subsection{Targeted attack}
As mentioned in the previous section, the max-min objective does not let the attacker choose a particular behaviour of the resulting closed-loop system. Furthermore, corollary \ref{corollary:targeted_theta} shows a way to perform a targeted attack.
A malicious agent may wish to perform a more sophisticated attack, and try to poison the dataset so that the closed-loop behaviour follows a certain desired reference model. The attacker can encapsulate this desired behavior in a transfer function $M_a(z)$ and perform the VRFT method to find the corresponding vector $\theta_a$ (observe that the control architecture does not change and the malicious agent is constrained to the set of reference models $\left\{\frac{K_\theta(z)G(z)}{1+K_\theta(z)G(z)}\right\}$). Then, the attack is simply minimizing the distance between $\theta_a$ and $\hat{\theta}$:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:op_vrft_targeted}
\begin{aligned}
\min_{\boldsymbol{u}' \boldsymbol{y}'}\quad &\set A(\boldsymbol{u},\boldsymbol{y}, \hat \theta(\boldsymbol{u}', \boldsymbol{y}'))\coloneqq \frac{1}{n_k}\|\theta_a-\hat{\theta}(\boldsymbol{u}',\boldsymbol{y}')\|_2^2& \\
\textrm{s.t.} \quad & \hat{\theta}(\boldsymbol{u}', \boldsymbol{y}') = \left(\Phi^{\top}(\boldsymbol{y}') \Phi(\boldsymbol{y}') \right)^{-1}\Phi^{\top}(\boldsymbol{y}') \boldsymbol{u}'\\
&\|\boldsymbol{u}'-\boldsymbol{u}\|_{q_u} \leq \delta_u,\quad \|\boldsymbol{y}'-\boldsymbol{y}\|_{q_y} \leq \delta_y
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
This objective in a sense mimics the original VRFT objective in which the attacker tries to minimize criterion \ref{eq:criterion_J} $\left\|M_a(z)-[(I-M_a)GK_\theta](z)\right\|_2^2$ with respect to the new reference model $M_a(z)$. Also, as pointed out in corollary \ref{corollary:targeted_theta} for $\delta_u$ sufficiently large the attacker can choose any $\hat\theta \in \mathbb{R}^{n_k}$.
\begin{lemma}
For a fixed vector $\boldsymbol{y}'$ the targeted attack is convex in $\boldsymbol{a}_u$, and the optimal poisoning signal $\boldsymbol{a}_u$ is
\begin{equation}
\boldsymbol{a}_u =\begin{cases}
\left(P^{\top}P\right)^{\dagger}P^{\top}\theta_a-\boldsymbol{u} \qquad \hbox{ if } \footnotesize{\|\left(P^{\top}P\right)^{\dagger}P^{\top}\theta_a-\boldsymbol{u}\|_{q_u} \leq \delta_u}\\ \frac{\left(P^{\top}P\right)^{\dagger}P\theta_a-\boldsymbol{u}}{\|\left(P^{\top}P\right)^{\dagger}P^{\top}\theta_a-\boldsymbol{u}\|_{q_u}}\delta_u \quad \hbox{otherwise}
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
where $P= ( \Phi^{\top}(\boldsymbol{y}')\Phi(\boldsymbol{y}'))^{-1}\Phi^{\top}(\boldsymbol{y}')$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
As in the max-min attack one can easily recognize convexity of the criterion in $\boldsymbol{u}'$. Since we are minimizing a convex problem, we can directly find the solution by solving $\nabla_{\boldsymbol{a}_u} \set J=0$ ( and then normalize it to enforce the norm constraint). Let $\Phi' \coloneqq \Phi(\boldsymbol{y}')$ and $\Phi = \Phi(\boldsymbol{y})$, then we can compute the gradients with respect to $\boldsymbol{a}_u$ to obtain
\begin{equation}0=\nabla_{\boldsymbol{a}_u} \set A = -\frac{2}{N}\Phi'( \Phi^{'T}\Phi')^{-1}(\theta_a- ( \Phi^{'T}\Phi')^{-1}\Phi^{'T}\boldsymbol{u}').
\end{equation}
By letting $P= ( \Phi^{'T}\Phi')^{-1}\Phi^{'T}$ we easily get the result.
\end{proof}
Unfortunately the problem is still non-convex in $\boldsymbol{a}_y$. To compute the attack, one can use the algorithm proposed for the max-min objective \ref{algo1} to compute it. Instead of performing gradient ascent the algorithm performs of gradient descent, and computes the optimal input poisoning signal according to the previous lemma.\\
\renewcommand{\thefigure}{4}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{1.Figures/simulations/vrft_targeted/step}
\caption{Closed loop step response for $\varepsilon_u=0.1$ and $\varepsilon_y=0.057$.}
\label{fig:targeted_step}
\end{figure}
\textbf{Simulations.} We analyze the targeted criterion using the same settings as for the max-min criterion, and averaged results over $256$ simulations. As a target model we constructed one using $\theta_a=3\theta_0$, where $\theta_0$ is the solution to the original VRFT problem, taken from \cite{campi2002virtual}, which is $\theta_0\approx \begin{bmatrix}0.33& -0.61 & 0.72& -0.66& 0.48& -0.13\end{bmatrix}$. Future work could better focus on the analysis of choosing $\theta_a$, whilst here we present the idea and some numerical results. \\
\renewcommand{\thefigure}{5}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{1.Figures/simulations/vrft_targeted/bode}
\caption{Closed loop Bode response: in blue the reference model; in red the average unpoisoned closed-loop system; in green the poisoned closed-loop system; in orange the target model $M_a(z)$. Averaged curves also display $95\%$ confidence interval.}
\label{fig:targeted_bode}
\end{figure}
\renewcommand{\thefigure}{6}
\begin{figure}[b]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{1.Figures/simulations/vrft_targeted/learner_loss_function}
\caption{(Top) Loss of the learner $\set L$; (Bottom) Loss of the malicious agent $\set A$. Shadowed area displays $95\%$ confidence interval.}
\label{fig:targeted_loss}
\end{figure}
In Figures \ref{fig:targeted_step} and \ref{fig:targeted_bode} we present respectively the step responses and bode diagrams for the different models. In Figure \ref{fig:targeted_step} the effect of the target model $M_a(z)$ is more visible than the other curves, whilst the poisoned closed-loop system seems to be barely affected by the attack. More insights can be gained by looking at the bode diagrams in Figures \ref{fig:targeted_bode}: first we observe that the poisoned closed-loop system better approximates $M_a(z)$ only at low and high frequencies, but not in the range of frequencies where there is a peak. Furthermore, this approximation gets better in the case of scenario (A). This is in line with the reasoning provided in Proposition \ref{corollary:targeted_theta}. This also motivates a possible future work of analyzing which values of $\theta_a$ are more feasible for the malicious agent.\\
Finally, in Figure \ref{fig:targeted_loss} we show respectively: in the top row the learner's loss $\set L$ for scenario (A) and (B); in the bottom row the loss $\set A$ of the malicious agent. Despite a rapid convergence of $\theta$ to $\theta_a$, in roughly both scenarios, this convergence is not also depicted in the bode plots. Therefore, we argue that a successful targeted attack needs to take into consideration two things: (i) feasibility of $\theta_a$ and (ii) a good choice of the malicious agent criterion (for example one that considers the frequency domain).
\iffalse
Alternatively, one can use the data-representation of the system (explained in section 2) to derive adversarial objectives. For simplicity, suppose the state of the plant is fully measurable, so that $y_t=x_t$ (though it can be extended to output feedback). As explained in section 2, under some suitable persistence of excitation conditions, i.e., $\textrm{rank}\begin{bmatrix}U_{[0,T]} & X_{[0,T]}\end{bmatrix}=n+m$, in case of state-feedback control $u_t=Kx_t$, it is possible to write the system in \ref{eq:system_state_space} in the following equivalent representation (Theorem 2 in \cite{de2019formulas}):
\[x_{t+1}=X_{[1,T]}^{\top}G_Kx_t\]
where $G_K$ is a $T\times n$ matrix satisfying
\[K=U_{[0,T]}^{\top}G_K \hbox{ and } I_n=X_{[0,T]}^{\top}G_K.\]
Based on this fact we have $A+BK=X_{[1,T]}^{\top}G_K$, which can be used by the adversary to define an adversarial objective that involves the closed-loop dynamics defined by $A+BK$. \\
This allows for a wide range of possible criterion since we can now write the closed-loop transfer function as \[T(z) = (zI-A-BK)^{-1}B = (zI-X_{[1,T]}^{\top}G_K)^{-1}B\] for example, one could aim at maximizing the closed-loop eigenvalues, or alter the transient performance of the system.
In case the adversary wants to maximize the $2$-norm of $T(z)$ we observe that $\|T(z)\|_2^2=\Tr[CPC^{\top}]$ (although $C=I$ in this case), where $P$ is the unique solution to $(X_{[1,T]}^{\top}G_K)P+P(X_{[1,T]}^{\top}G_K)^{\top} +BB^{\top}=0$ . Under the assumption that $B$ is known, then the adversary can easily use a gradient ascent algorithm to find attack vectors $\boldsymbol{a}_y,\boldsymbol{a}_u$ that maximize the 2-norm of $T(z)$.
\fi
\section{Attacks on methods based on Willems lemma}
\subsection{Introduction}
The usage of Willems lemma \cite{willems2005note} inspired the development of new data-driven techniques. For example, in \cite{de2019formulas} they show how to derive data-driven solutions of control problem by using linear matrix inequalities in conjunction with Willems lemma. Important examples are optimal control problems. In \cite{de2019formulas} Theorem 1, the authors show that for the system $x_{t+1}=Ax_t+Bu_t$, we can equivalently write
\[ \begin{bmatrix}
B & A
\end{bmatrix}= X_{[1,N]}\begin{bmatrix}
U_{[N-1]}\\X_{[N-1]}
\end{bmatrix}^{\dagger}\]
where $X$ and $U$ represent data collected from the system and $\dagger$ denotes the right inverse. Observe that the above representation holds only if the input sequence is an exciting input of order $n+1$ and $\textrm{rank}\begin{bmatrix}U_{[N-1]} & X_{[N-1]}\end{bmatrix}=n+m$ \ifdefined\isextended\else (please refer to \ref{techrepor} for a definition of persistently exciting signal)\fi. Furthermore, as shown in Theorem 2 in \cite{de2019formulas}, any closed-loop system with a state-feedback control $u_t=Kx_t$ we have the following equivalent representation:
\begin{equation}x_{t+1}=X_{[1,N]}^\top G_Kx_t\end{equation}
where $G_K$ is a $T\times n$ matrix satisfying
\begin{equation}K=U_{[N-1]}^\top G_K \hbox{ and } I_n=X_{[N-1]}^\top G_K.\end{equation}
We can equivalently write $A+BK=X_{[1,N]}^\top G_K$: this allows to treat $G_K$ as a decision variable, and search for a matrix $G_K$ that satisfies some performance conditions \cite{de2019formulas}.
\subsection{Optimal control design using Willems lemma}
As mentioned, one can consider the problem of finding the optimal control law using Willems lemma. We will now revise the technique shown in \cite{de2019formulas}. Consider the following system
\[x_{t+1}=Ax_t+Bu_t+\xi_t\]
where $x_t\in \mathbb{R}^n, u_t\in \mathbb{R}^m$ and $\xi_t$ is an external input to the system. The objective is to find a linear state feedback control law $u_t=Kx_t$ that minimizes the influence of the external input onto $x$ with $K\in \mathbb{R}^{m\times n}$. For that purpose, let $z_t = Q_x^{1/2} x_t$ be a performance metric signal with $Q_x \in \mathbb{R}^{n\times n}$ and $Q\succeq 0$. Define $H_K(z) \coloneqq Q_x(zI-A-BK)^{-1}$: the transfer function from $\xi$ to $z$. Then the learner wishes to learn $K$ that minimizes the $H_2$ norm of $H_K(z)$:
\[\|H_K(z)\|_2^2 = \frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{-\pi}^{\pi}\Tr\left[H_K(e^{j\omega}) H_K^{\top}(e^{-j\omega})\right]\textrm{d}\omega.\]
Minimizing $H$ is equivalent to minimizing the mean-square deviation of $z$ when $\xi$ is a white process with unit covariance.
In \cite{de2019formulas} the authors show that optimal controller $K$ can be found using the equation $K=U_{[N-1]}Q(X_{[N-1]}Q)^{-1}$ where $Q \in \mathbb{R}^{N\times n}$ is solution of
\begin{equation}\label{eq:willems_control_h2}
\begin{aligned}
\min_{Q}\quad & \Tr\left(Q_x X_{[N-1]}Q\right)& \\
\textrm{s.t.} \quad & \begin{bmatrix}
X_{[N-1]}Q -I_n & X_{[1,N]}Q\\[0.5
em]
Q^{\top} X_{[1,N]}^{\top} & X_{[N-1]}Q
\end{bmatrix}\succeq 0.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\subsection{Attack formulation}
Based on problem \ref{eq:willems_control_h2} we will now devise an attack strategy for the malicious agent. Let the poisoning signals be $A_x\in \mathbb{R}^{n\times (N+1)}$ and $A_u \in \mathbb{R}^{m \times N}$. Define the poisoned data matrices $X_{[N-1]}'\coloneqq X_{[N-1]}+A_{x,[N-1]}$ and $X_{[1,N]}'\coloneqq X_{[1,N]}+A_{x,[1,N]}$ (similarly define $U_{[N-1]}'$). Let
\[
M\left(X_{[N]}'\right)\coloneqq\begin{bmatrix}
X_{[N-1]}'Q -I_n & X_{[1,N]}'Q\\[0.5
em]
Q^{\top} X_{[1,N]}^{'T} & X_{[N-1]}'Q
\end{bmatrix}\succeq 0
\]
where the notation $X'$ indicates the poisoned version of the signals.\\
\textbf{Attack problem. } Then we can cast the problem of finding the poisoning attack for a genetic attack criterion $\set A$ as follows
\begin{equation}\label{eq:willems_attack_general}
\begin{aligned}
&\max_{X_{[N]}', U_{[N-1]}'}\quad \set A(\set D_N, K)& \\
\textrm{s.t.} \quad & Q = \argmin_{Q} \left\{\Tr\left(Q_x X_{[N-1]}'Q\right): M\left(X_{[N]}'\right) \succeq 0\right\}\\
& K = U_{[N-1]}' Q (X_{[N-1]}' Q)^{-1}\\
& \|X_{[N]}'- X_{[N]}\|_{q_x} \leq \delta_x\\ & \|U_{[N-1]}'-U_{[N-1]}\|_{q_u} \leq \delta_u
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $q_x,q_u$ are convex norms. To solve it, since the inner problem is convex and regular, we can resort again to the Single-Level Reduction method \cite{sinha2017review,bard2013practical}, and replace the inner problem with its KKT conditions. We get the following:
\begin{lemma}
Denote by $\mathcal{S}^n$ the space of $n\times n$ symmetric matrices equipped with the inner product $\langle A,B \rangle=\Tr(A^{\top}B)$. Then problem \ref{eq:willems_attack_general} is equivalent to the following problem:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:willems_attack_general_dual}
\begin{aligned}
&\max_{X_{[N]}', U_{[N-1]}',Q,Z}\quad \set A(\set D_N, K)& \\
\textrm{s.t.} \quad & Q_x X_{[N-1]}'-(Z_{11}+ Z_{22})^{\top}X_{[N-1]}'-2Z_{12}^{\top}X_{[1,N]}'=0\\
& M(X_{[N]}') \succeq 0,\quad \langle Z, M(X_{[N]}') \rangle = 0,\quad Z\succeq 0\\
& K = U_{[N-1]}' Q (X_{[N-1]}' Q)^{-1}\\
& \|X_{[N]}'- X_{[N]}\|_{q_x} \leq \delta_x\\ & \|U_{[N-1]}'-U_{[N-1]}\|_{q_u} \leq \delta_u
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
with $Q\in \mathbb{R}^{N\times n}$ and $Z\in \set S^{2n}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Denote by $\mathcal{S}^n$ the space of $n\times n$ symmetric matrices, which is equipped with the inner product $\langle A,B \rangle=\Tr(A^{\top}B)$. We can we can write the Lagrangian function of the inner problem as follows
\[L(X_{[N]}',Q,Z) = \Tr\left(Q_x X_{[N-1]}'Q\right) -\langle Z, M(X_{[N]}') \rangle, \]
where $Z\in \set S^{2n}$. Express $Z$ in block form
\[Z=\begin{bmatrix}
Z_{11} & Z_{12}\\
Z_{12}^{\top} & Z_{22}
\end{bmatrix}\]
then $L$ admits the following rewriting
\begin{align*}
L(X_{[N]}',Q,Z) &= \langle Q_x^{\top}, X_{[N-1]}'Q\rangle -\langle Z, M(X_{[N]}') \rangle\\
&=\langle Q_x^{\top}, X_{[N-1]}'Q\rangle -\langle Z_{11},X_{[N-1]}'Q -I_n \rangle\\
&\qquad -\langle Z_{22},X_{[N-1]}'Q \rangle - 2\langle Z_{12},X_{[1,N]}'Q\rangle\\
&=\langle Q_x^{\top}, X_{[N-1]}'Q\rangle +\langle Z_{11},I_n \rangle\\
&\qquad -\langle Z_{11}+ Z_{22},X_{[N-1]}'Q \rangle \\
&\qquad - 2\langle Z_{12},X_{[1,N]}'Q\rangle
\end{align*}
from which follows the first KKT condition:
\[0=\frac{\textrm{d}L}{\textrm{d}Q} = Q_x X_{[N-1]}'-(Z_{11}+ Z_{22})^{\top}X_{[N-1]}'-2Z_{12}^{\top}X_{[1,N]}'.\]
The remaining KKT conditions are $Z\succeq 0, M(X_{[N]}') \succeq 0$ and $ \langle Z, M(X_{[N]}') \rangle = 0$, from which we deduce the result.\\
\end{proof}
Unfortunately, the problem is hard to solve, not only because of the upper-level constraint on $Q$, but also because the Lagrangian constraints lead to non-convexities. The complementary conditions can be thought of as a boolean variables, turning the problem into a mixed-integer problem \cite{sinha2017review,sinha2017evolutionary,dempe2015bilevel,dempe2019solution}. In general, one can try to use branch and bounds methods or evolutionary algorithms \cite{sinha2017review} (the latter approach has shown good performance in general for bilevel optimization). Alternatively, one can also consider solving a sequence of relaxed problems, as shown in \cite{mersha2008solution}. We will now provide a few examples of attacks.
\subsection{Max-min attack}
The first attack we propose is the max-min attack. This attack is implicitly maximizing the $H_2$ norm of $H_K(z)$, making the system more susceptible to modeling errors and process noise. To formulate it, one must be careful and observe that the malicious agent cannot merely choose $\set A(\set D_N, K)= \Tr(Q_x X_{[N-1]}Q)$. The reason is simple: the matrix $Q$ does not parametrize the system $(A,B)$ because of the dependence of $Q$ on the attack signal $A_x$. In order to have a correct parametrization, we need to enforce the constraints
\[ \begin{bmatrix}
K\\
I_n
\end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix}
U_{[N]}\\
X_{[N]}
\end{bmatrix}G_K,\]
where $G_K$ is a decision variable and $K$ is the poisoned control law. We can derive the following attack:
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:maxmin_attack}
Consider the optimization problem in \ref{eq:willems_attack_general}, then the optimal attack maximizing the $H_2$ norm of $H_K(z)$ can be found by solving the optimization problem
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
&\max_{X_{[N]}', U_{[N-1]}',W,G_K}\quad \Phi(Q_xW)& \\
\textrm{s.t.} \quad & Q = \argmin_{Q} \left\{\Tr\left(Q_x X_{[N-1]}'Q\right): M(A_x) \succ 0\right\}\\
& X_{[1,N] }G_K W G_K^{\top} X_{[1,N]}^{\top} -W+I_n= 0,\quad W\succeq I_n \\
& U_{[N-1]}G_K = U_{[N-1]}' Q (X_{[N-1]}' Q)^{-1}\\
& X_{[N-1]}G_K = I_n\\
& \|X_{[N]}'- X_{[N]}\|_{q_x} \leq \delta_x\\ & \|U_{[N-1]}'-U_{[N-1]}\|_{q_u} \leq \delta_u
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $W \in \set S^{n}$ and $\Phi$ satisfies
\[\Phi(Q_xW) = \begin{cases}
\Tr(Q_xW) \hbox{ if } \max_i|\lambda_i(X_{[1,N]}G_K)| \leq 1\\
\infty
\end{cases}\] \end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The result follows from the fact that maximizing the $H_2$ norm of $H_K(z)$ is equivalent to maximizing the trace of $Q_x W$ where $W$ is the controllability Gramian of the closed-loop system $A+BK$. The matrix $W$ for a stable closed-loop system can be found by solving
\[(A+BK)W(A+BK)^{\top}-W+I_n=0\]
for a symmetric matrix $W\succeq I_n$.
Due to Theorem 2 in \cite{de2019formulas} we have $A+BK=X_{[1,N]}G_K$ and
\[ \begin{bmatrix}
K\\
I_n
\end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix}
U_{[N]}\\
X_{[N]}
\end{bmatrix}G_K.\] Then the result follows by observing that $K= U_{[N]}' Q (X_{[N]}' Q)^{-1}$. In case $A+BK$ is unstable, then thematrix $W$ cannot be computed, from which follows the definition of $\Phi$.\\
\end{proof}
The above formulation of the attack problem has several limitations, mainly due to the computation of the Gramian matrix of $A+BK$. We believe instead that an alternative formulation of the problem, easier to compute, is the overall maximization of the closed-loop eigenvalues.
\subsection{Eigenvalues attack}
To maximize the closed-loop eigenvalues one can use the fact that the following equality holds
\begin{align*}\det((A+BK)(A+BK)^{\top})= \prod_{i=1}^n |\lambda_i(A+BK)|^2\end{align*}
Therefore maximizing $\det((A+BK)(A+BK)^{\top})$ can be used as a proxy to maximize the absolute value of the closed-loop eigenvalues. For simplicity, we will consider the concave criterion $\log(\det((A+BK)(A+BK)^{\top}))$ (note that one could alternatively maximize the geometric mean of the squared eigenvalues $\sqrt[n]{\det((A+BK)(A+BK)^{\top}}$, which is a concave function). Using Theorem 2 in \cite{de2019formulas} one can write $\log(\det(X_{[1,N]}G_KG_K^{\top} X_{[1,N]}^{\top}) )$ with $G_K$ satisfying
\[ \begin{bmatrix}
K\\
I_n
\end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix}
U_{[N]}\\
X_{[N]}
\end{bmatrix}G_K\]
and $K=U_{[N]}' Q (X_{[N]}' Q)^{-1}$ (where $Q$ is solution of the inner problem). Therefore we obtain the following optimization problem
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:eigenvalues_attack}
Consider the optimization problem in \ref{eq:willems_attack_general}, then we can maximize the closed-loop eigenvalues by solving the following optimization problem
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
&\max_{X_{[N]}', U_{[N-1]}', G_K}\quad \log(\det(X_{[1,N]}G_KG_K^{\top} X_{[1,N]}^{\top})) & \\
\textrm{s.t.} \quad & Q = \argmin_{Q} \left\{\Tr\left(Q_x X_{[N-1]}'Q\right): M(X_{[N]}') \succeq 0\right\}\\
& U_{[N-1]}G_K = U_{[N-1]}' Q (X_{[N-1]}' Q)^{-1}\\
& X_{[N-1]}G_K = I_n\\
& \|X_{[N]}'- X_{[N]}\|_{q_x} \leq \delta_x\\ & \|U_{[N-1]}'-U_{[N-1]}\|_{q_u} \leq \delta_u
\end{aligned}
\end{equation} \end{lemma}
Unfortunately, the parametrization introduced by $G_K$ makes the problem particularly difficult, and non-convex. Not only we have the non-convexity introduced by using the single-level reduction method, but also the non-convex constraint $U_{[N-1]}G_K = U_{[N-1]}' Q (X_{[N-1]}' Q)^{-1}$. Despite that, we can still rewrite the problem in order to devise an attack on the input signal.
By using the relationship
\[ \begin{bmatrix}
B & A
\end{bmatrix}= X_{[1,N]}\begin{bmatrix}
U_{[N-1]}\\X_{[N-1]}
\end{bmatrix}^{\dagger}\]
and the fact that $A+BK= X_{[1,N]}G_K$ and $U_{[N-1]}G_K=K$ we can discard the variable $G_K$ and write
\begin{lemma}
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
&\max_{X_{[N]}', U_{[N-1]}'}\quad \log(\det((A+BK)(A+BK)^\top) & \\
\textrm{s.t.} \quad & Q = \argmin_{Q} \left\{\Tr\left(Q_x X_{[N-1]}'Q\right): M(A_x) \succeq 0\right\}\\
& K = U_{[N-1]}' Q (X_{[N-1]}' Q)^{-1}\\
& \|A_{x}\|_{q_x} \leq \delta_x, \quad\|A_{u}\|_{q_u} \leq \delta_u
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
which, as a corollary, allows us to formalize an attack on the input signal:
\begin{corollary}\label{eq:lemma_optimal_input_attack_willems}
Consider a fixed attack vector $A_x$ and let $Q = \argmin_{Q} \left\{\Tr\left(Q_x X_{[N-1]}'Q\right): M(X_{[N]}') \succeq 0\right\}$. Then, the optimization problem that finds the optimal poisoning on the input signal is
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\max_{U_{[N-1]'}}\quad & \log(\det((A+BK)(A+BK)^{\top})) & \\
\textrm{s.t.} \quad & K = U_{[N-1]}' Q (X_{[N-1]}' Q)^{-1}\\
&\|U_{[N-1]}'-U_{[N-1]}\|_{q_u} \leq \delta_u
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\end{corollary}
The previous problem
is not easy to solve, but easier than the previous problems that we showed. We will now present some numerical results.\iffalse As a side note, observe that one could rewrite the optimization problems as follows
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\max_{U_{[N-1]'},V}\quad & \log(\det(V)) & \\
\textrm{s.t.} \quad & K = U_{[N-1]}' Q (X_{[N-1]}' Q)^{-1}\\
(A+BK)(A+BK)^{\top} \succeq V,\quad V\succ 0,
&\|U_{[N-1]}'-U_{[N-1]}\|_{q_u} \leq \delta_u
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
for some $V\in \set S^n$. Unfortunately the constraint $(A+BK)(A+BK)^{\top} \succeq V$ cannot be rewritten using the Schur complement.\fi
\subsection{Eigenvalues attack - Simulations}
\textbf{Plant dynamics and optimal control.} In this section, we present some numerical results of attacking control methods designed using Willems lemma. We use the same plant being analyzed in \cite{de2019formulas}, which is
the discretized version of a batch reactor system \cite{walsh2001scheduling} with a sampling time of $T_s=0.1[s]$. The dynamics of the plant are given by
\begin{equation*}\resizebox{\hsize}{!}{%
$A=\begin{bmatrix}
1.178 & 0.001 & 0.511 & -0.403\\
-0.051 & 0.661 & -0.011 & 0.061\\
0.076 & 0.335 & 0.560 & 0.382\\
0 & 0.335 & 0.089 & 0.849
\end{bmatrix},\quad B=\begin{bmatrix}
0.004 & -0.087\\
0.467 & 0.001 \\
0.213 & -0.235 \\
0.213 & -0.016
\end{bmatrix}$ %
}\end{equation*}
The optimal control law of this system can be found using Theorem 4 in \cite{de2019formulas}. The input signal used by the learner is white noise $u_t\sim \mathcal{N}(0,1)$, and we run our simulations for $N=15$ and $N=50$, and averaged results over $256$ simulations.\\
\renewcommand{\thefigure}{7}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{1.Figures/simulations/willems/eigenvalues_input}
\caption{Eigenvalues of the poisoned closed-loop system for different values of $\delta_u$. In red is shown the sum of the absolute value of the closed-loop eigenvalues for $N=15$ and $N=50$. Similarly, in black is shown the absolute value of the maximum eigenvalue of $A+BK$.}
\label{fig:willems_eigenvalues}
\end{figure}
\renewcommand{\thefigure}{8}
\begin{figure}[b]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{1.Figures/simulations/willems/loss_input}
\caption{Adversarial objective function $\set A$ for different values of $\delta_u$.}
\label{fig:willems_loss}
\end{figure}
\renewcommand{\thefigure}{9}
\begin{figure*}[]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{1.Figures/simulations/willems/signal_input}
\caption{Plots of the input signals for $N=15$ and $N=50$. In each column are shown $u_{t,1}$ and $u_{t,2}$ and the corresponding poisoned signals. The signals are averaged out of $256$ simulations, and the orange shadowed area displays $95\%$ confidence interval for the poisoning signals.}
\label{fig:willems_signals}
\end{figure*}
\textbf{Attack setting and properties. }For the sake of simplicity, we analyze the problem of poisoning the input signal using the optimization problem \ref{eq:lemma_optimal_input_attack_willems}, solving it using the Particle Swarm Optimizer of MATLAB. We analyze the attack objective for different values of $\delta_u$, using the $\ell_\infty$ norm. As an example, in Figure \ref{fig:willems_signals} we show some examples of poisoned and unpoisoned input signals for which the closed-loop system is unstable. \\
\textbf{Attack analysis.}
In Figure \ref{fig:willems_eigenvalues} we show some properties of the closed-loop eigenvalues of the closed-loop system. We depict results for $N=15$ (continuous line) and $N=50$ (dashed line). On the left $y$-axis is shown the maximum absolute pole of $A+BK$ whilst on the right $y$-axis it is displayed the sum of the absolute value of the closed-loop poles. A first observation is that increasing the number of points $N$ makes the closed-loop system unstable for smaller values of $\delta_u$. In Figure \ref{fig:willems_loss}, for completeness, we also show the values of the adversarial criterion $\set A$ for different values of $\delta_u$. \\
From simulations, we see that this method is somehow less robust than VRFT. For very small values of $\delta_u$ we can get the system unstable. We have not included results on poisoning the output signals, but, preliminary results show that an attacker can make the closed-loop system unstable even for perturbations computed using the constraint $\delta_y=10^{-3}$ (even without poisoning the initial condition $x_0$). Future analysis should consider a possible way to robustify the method proposed in \cite{de2019formulas} and theoretical analysis of the attack.
\section{Software, code and hardware}
All experiments were executed on a stationary desktop computer, featuring an Intel Xeon Silver 4110 CPU, 48GB of RAM. Ubuntu 18.04 was installed on the computer. Ubuntu is an open-source Operating System using the Linux kernel and based on Debian. For more information, please check \url{https://ubuntu.com/}.
\\\\
We set up our experiments using Python 3.7.7 \cite{van1995python} (For more information, please refer to the following link \url{http://www.python.org}), and made use of the following libraries: NumPy version 1.18.1 \cite{oliphant2006guide}, SciPy version 1.4.1 \cite{2020SciPy-NMeth}, PyTorch version 1.4.0 \cite{paszke2017automatic}. All the code will be published on GitHub with MIT license.
\section*{APPENDIX}
Here in the appendix we present some additional result. First we show the targeted attack criterion for VRFT, and then an attack on a control law designed by means of Willems lemma.
\input{6.appendix_vrft_targeted.tex}
\input{7.appendix_willems.tex}
\input{8.appendix_additional_stuff.tex}
\iffalse
\section*{ACKNOWLEDGMENT}
The preferred spelling of the word ÒacknowledgmentÓ in America is without an ÒeÓ after the ÒgÓ. Avoid the stilted expression, ÒOne of us (R. B. G.) thanks . . .Ó Instead, try ÒR. B. G. thanksÓ. Put sponsor acknowledgments in the unnumbered footnote on the first page.
\fi
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
|
\section{Introduction}
In recent years many technical approaches have been proposed for ensuring that decisions made by machine learning systems are fair. To date, however, few of these proposals have been stress-tested in real-world systems. A viable approach to achieving fairness in practice requires overcoming a number of challenges that do not similarly constrain theoretical work.
First, as researchers increasingly acknowledge~\cite{selbst2019fairness, passi2019problem}, purely technical or statistical approaches to fairness leave unanswered important questions related to ethics and policy. An approach to fairness in practice must have means of clearly surfacing and resolving these tensions, which are not reducible to empirical questions.
Second, it has been identified that some common statistical notions of fairness may lead to unintentional and potentially harmful consequences \cite{corbett2018measure, liu2018delayed, hu2020fair}, especially to marginalized groups. This could be even more important to consider in decision systems that may affect millions or even billions of people. Instead, what is needed as a baseline is a statistical approach that makes the costs and benefits of decisions---and who these fall on---explicit. The normative decision about who the costs and benefits \emph{should} fall on then becomes part of discussions of ethics and values, or where relevant, law or policy. By disentangling statistical questions from normative ones, this approach is flexible enough to be applied to a wide range of different systems while ensuring normative decisions are made explicitly, with input from relevant stakeholders and domain experts.
Finally, technical approaches to fairness in machine learning often rely on assumptions that may not be reasonable in practice. For example, popular statistical measures of fairness like equality of odds \cite{hardt2016equality} and calibration \cite{kleinberg2016inherent} assume that measured labels constitute ground truth, which is not always the case. Methods that allow for inaccuracies in measured labels, on the other hand, often assume the true prevalence of labels among groups~\cite{johndrow2019algorithm, feldman2015certifying}, or the causal process that generated them~\cite{kilbertus2017avoiding, loftus2018causal, kusner2017counterfactual, nabi2018fair}. These assumptions are challenged when studying human reviewers and machine learning systems in dynamic environments where adversarial actors may try to evade systems intended to constrain them.
This paper presents an example of one team's approach to address these challenges within the context of a large technology company. We are not the first to identify any of these challenges, nor are our proposed solutions---taken individually---entirely novel. However, we believe that our experience integrating fairness tools and approaches into large-scale and complex production systems may be useful to other practitioners facing similar constraints, and illuminating to academics and researchers looking to better address the needs of practitioners.
We begin in Section \ref{sec:related_work} by surveying the fairness approaches that have seen practical implementation and the challenges preventing other approaches from being widely adopted. Section \ref{sec:ppfairness} introduces our holistic approach to assessing fairness in large-scale production systems, including a discussion of how we disentangle related yet distinct notions of fairness to facilitate more actionable analysis and decision-making for non-experts. For example, we explicitly consider and investigate fairness across multiple dimensions: at the \emph{product} level, the \emph{policy} level, and in a product or system's \emph{implementation}.
Section \ref{sec:an_approach} details more specifically the primary measurements we use to examine implementation fairness, and why we use, as a baseline, a measurement approach grounded in making the weighing of potential benefits and harms explicit rather than deploying methods where such values decisions are implied and obscured in technical choices.
Section \ref{sec:implementation_fairness} explains how this general approach to implementation fairness is applied to two different types of decisions: those made by machine learning models (Section \ref{sec:algorithmic_decisions}) and those made by human labelers (Section \ref{sec:label_bias}). In the case of machine learning predictions, we determine the system's prioritization of errors (false positives and false negatives) for different groups by measuring the \emph{prevalence at the threshold}. To study the implied prioritization of human labelers we use Signal Detection Theory (SDT) \cite{green1966signal}, an approach with a long history in psychology, to infer the latent ``thresholds'' that labelers are applying to labeling tasks affecting different groups. We conclude in Section \ref{sec:practical_challenges} with a discussion of challenges and open technical questions that complicate the application of theoretical recommendations in practice.
The following presents a lens, and collection of approaches, by which fairness can be considered in a variety of practical cases, and we emphasize the importance of context and subject matter expertise in determining the approach(es) best suited to address potential fairness-related issues in any particular product or domain.
\section{Related work}
\label{sec:related_work}
\subsection{Fairness in practice}
\label{sec:fairness_in_practice}
Despite the explosion of academic interest in methods for developing fair algorithms, fewer methods have been implemented in production machine learning systems used by governments or private companies (at least, few of these entities have been willing to publicly share their fairness approaches, if they exist).\footnote{See \citet{holstein2019improving} for a deeper investigation into the needs of machine learning practitioners that aren't being met by current methods.}
The fairness-enhancing approaches that have achieved the most practical success seem to be efforts to improve performance by adding training data, especially for underrepresented groups. For example, after \citet{buolamwini2018gender} discovered that IBM's facial gender classification system was performing poorly for dark-skinned people---and dark-skinned women in particular---IBM responded with a system trained on more representative data which reportedly reduced the error rates on dark-skinned women almost tenfold~\cite{puri2018mitigating}.\footnote{ Subsequent work on face recognition and classification systems has focused on the ethical problems inherent in these tasks, even when the tasks are performed with accuracy for many groups~\cite{raji2020saving}. This neatly illustrates the distinction between fairness in \emph{implementation} (which concerns the performance of the system for different groups), and fairness in \emph{product} and \emph{policy} design. We return to these different ``levels'' of fairness analysis in Section \ref{sec:ppfairness}.
} Similarly, when researchers at Jigsaw noticed their comment toxicity classifier was labeling innocuous comments containing identity terms (eg ``gay'' or ``muslim'') as toxic, they augmented the training data to contain more neutral phrases with these identity terms, improving the system overall \cite{dixon2018measuring}.
In the healthcare context, researchers found that training an algorithm to predict the costs a patient would incur as a proxy for healthcare need perpetuated bias against African-American patients, who tended to incur lower costs than their white counterparts, conditioned on the same level of health need~\cite{obermeyer2019dissecting}.\footnote{Among the many competing measures of fairness, the researchers chose calibration as the measure ``most relevant to the real-world use of the algorithm''. We similarly found calibration-based approaches most useful in our applications.} In response, the healthcare provider is re-evaluating its prediction practices~\cite{ledford2019millions}.
In these cases, the solution to unfairness was simply better machine learning; a concern for fairness motivated the investigations, but the resulting changes may have been adopted even if the decision makers were concerned solely with efficiency. The oft-discussed~\cite{kleinberg2016inherent, corbett2017algorithmic} tradeoff between fairness and efficiency did not apply.
Other efforts advance to goals of fairness, accountability, and transparency in practice are more procedural in nature. Proposals like ``Datasheets for Datasets'' \cite{gebru2018datasheets} and ``Model Cards'' \cite{mitchell2019model} seek to make explicit the limitations of ML systems without making prescriptions or recommendations as to how to resolve difficult policy questions. Several companies have also released toolkits to help measure multiple fairness-oriented metrics without making prescriptions about the appropriate metric to use~\cite{bellamy2018ibm,bird2020fairlearn,wexler2020whatif}. Recognizing that documentation and metrics on their own will not necessarily lead to meaningful fairness improvements, others have proposed a structured frameworks for internal algorithmic auditing informed by organizational values \cite{raji2020closing}.
Few fairness-minded interventions that aren't purely efficiency-oriented have been publicly discussed, with some notable exceptions. In 2019, researchers at LinkedIn published details of a system used in production to explicitly gender-balance the results returned when a recruiter searches for candidates~\cite{geyik2019fairness}.
Similarly, some vendors of algorithmic hiring assessments attempt to ensure that the data-driven models they sell don't produce outcome disparities with respect to protected characteristics like race and gender, though this may be due in part to legal considerations as opposed to purely ethical ones~\cite{bogen2018help,raghavan2020mitigating,sanchez2020does}.
Practitioners at Google describe the implementation of a particular fairness metric in production, though they aren't specific about the exact setting in which they are working~\cite{beutel2019putting}.
\subsection{Bias in machine learning predictions}
The problem of bias in supervised machine learning models is likely the most studied problem in algorithmic fairness. Numerous fairness criteria have been proposed \cite{mitchell2018prediction, berk2018fairness, verma2018fairness}, along with means of learning predictors that satisfy a given criterion.
Despite this plethora of options, few approaches appear to have been implemented in consequential production systems (see \ref{sec:fairness_in_practice} for a discussion of approaches that have seen practical implementations). We suspect there are two reasons for this. First, as \citet{corbett2018measure} discuss, many fairness criteria, including those that require equal positive classification rates (demographic parity) or equal false positive/negative rates (equality of opportunity \citep{hardt2016equality}), may fail to anticipate all implications to the well-being of the people affected by a model, and can thus inadvertently \emph{harm} marginalized groups. For example, \citet{liu2018delayed} find that, in certain lending situations, equalizing false negative rates by borrowers' race would lead to predictable decreases in the credit scores of certain African American borrowers. Similarly, \citet{hu2020fair} apply tools from welfare economics to find that ``applying more strict fairness criteria that are codified as parity constraints can worsen welfare outcomes for both groups.''
Second, as \citet{kleinberg2018algorithmic} note: ``a preference for fairness should not change the choice of estimator''. In other words, it is inappropriate to change a system's \emph{predictions} to achieve any fairness goal, since this will inevitably hurt the usefulness of the predictions for all groups. Instead, a desire for fairness should change how the predictions are used to make decisions. Practitioners, acutely aware of the cost of mistakes in their domain, are less likely to choose fairness solutions that increase these costs unnecessarily.
\subsection{Bias in training labels}
Compared to bias in predictions, bias affecting the \emph{labels} used in machine learning has received less attention in the algorithmic fairness literature.
Many algorithmic fairness metrics (including popular ones like calibration \cite{corbett2017algorithmic, kleinberg2016inherent} and equality of false positive rates \cite{hardt2016equality}) make reference to the ``true'' labels in an evaluation set, implicitly assuming these labels faithfully represent the desired target of prediction.\footnote{
\citet{jacobs2019measurement} note that the labels chosen to measure unobservable theoretical constructs should themselves be examined, but we place the choice of label beyond the scope of label bias for the purpose of this paper.}
It is common for papers discussing these methods to acknowledge that the labels might be biased (some are even motivated in part by the possibility of label bias), but it's rare for a paper to measure this bias.
Some have proposed methods to remedy possible biases in labels \cite{johndrow2019algorithm, feldman2015certifying, fogliato2020fairness}. However, without measurable ground truth to fall back upon, these approaches are left making assumptions about ground truth distributions for different groups that may not be applicable in all cases. A different line of work attempts to identify the causal paths that may lead to label biases, so that the effect of these paths can be nullified \cite{kilbertus2017avoiding, loftus2018causal, kusner2017counterfactual, nabi2018fair}. Unfortunately, these approaches are very sensitive to the structure of the causal model used, which in most cases cannot be empirically verified.
Beyond this recent computer science research there is a rich literature in economics \cite{becker2010economics, knowles2001racial, arnold2018racial}, statistics \cite{simoiu2017problem, pierson2018fast}, and psychology \cite{green1966signal, mumpower2014signal} (among other fields) developing methods to measure biases in human behavior. These methods offer hope that we might be able to identify label bias in datasets based on human decisions (for example in hiring, policing, college admissions, natural language and visual classification, etc). In section \ref{sec:label_bias}, we detail how a method from psychology, Signal Detection Theory, can be adapted to detect potential bias in human-provided labels when a source of ground truth is available.
\section{A Holistic Approach to Fairness}
\label{sec:ppfairness}
Because there is no single, agreed-upon definition of fairness, operationalizing fairness at the scale of a large and federated organization requires building a shared language for describing fairness risks and conducting standard analyses, cultivating a broad understanding of values and objectives, and establishing tools, processes, and frameworks to enable teams to make informed decisions about fairness across different contexts~\cite{friedman1996value,nissenbaum2001computer}.
These resources cannot just be technical: imposing statistical definitions of fairness on individual machine learning models by fiat without sensitivity to wider systems and contexts in which they are embedded can backfire, failing to benefit disadvantaged groups and undermining rather than promoting fairness over time. Particularly in dynamic, complex systems like online platforms, individual machine learning models may be the wrong level at which to impose substantive requirements of fairness, so a more holistic approach is required.
We thus consider fairness at three distinct but related levels: \emph{product}, \emph{policy}, and \emph{implementation}. Fairness at the product level relates to normative and descriptive questions about the product, such as:
``Are the goals of this product consistent with providing people with fair value and treating them fairly?''
and
``How should the product trade off between different stakeholders' interests and needs?''.
Fairness at the policy level considers how the values of the organization building a system are translated into rules, leading to questions like: ``does a policy prohibiting certain types of behavior within the product adequately address the unique experiences of some subpopulations?''.
Fairness at the implementation level deals with the empirical performance of the system, answering questions like:
``Are human labelers executing the policy or labelling instructions correctly?''
and
``Are predictive models achieving the desired tradeoff between different types of errors for all subpopulations?''.
Notice that implementation fairness questions are not limited to machine learning models---we also study the human decisions used to train the models or directly intervene in the system.
These levels are of course deeply intertwined, but by separating and differentiating between them, we aim to direct analysis toward the most salient components of a system and determine whether and what changes are needed, while ensuring each component is appropriately considered in relation to the others. For example, in order to determine the relevant models within a product to assess for implementation concerns, practitioners must understand the intended goal, structure, and use of the product as well as any policies or similar rules that may have shaped or constrained the model’s training data. If models are analyzed and found to have no implementation disparities across subgroups, but fairness concerns remain, practitioners then know to focus more deeply on the product design and policies in order to assess whether they appropriately consider the needs and harms of groups that may be impacted by that product. In other words, it is important to consider not only whether rules are being applied appropriately to all, but whether the rules themselves, or the structure in which they are situated, are fair, just and reasonable.
Unfairness stemming from a narrowly drafted policy can be escalated to and remedied by policy stakeholders, while unfairness resulting from poor machine learning implementation can be referred to machine learning engineers for remediation. Unfairness at the product level, meanwhile, may require a fundamental reimagination of a product’s goals and objectives, requiring significant reallocation of resources by product leadership. By disentangling these three layers, unarticulated tradeoffs can be more explicitly enumerated, and disagreements about those tradeoffs can be situated with the relevant organizational decision-making frameworks.
We have found that disentangling fairness into component dimensions in this way more constructively facilitates conversations among those creating systems who are less familiar with the rich array of potential fairness-related harms and methodologies to address them, since technical work to investigate implementation concerns can be appropriately situated in qualitative conversations related to policies, legal obligations, user and stakeholder expectations, and real-world harm.
\subsection{Fairness as a process}
\label{sec:fairness_as_a_process}
Fairness is an essentially contested concept \cite{dworkin2002sovereign}, and significant interdisciplinary and intradisciplinary differences exist regarding how fairness is approached and evaluated. Scholars and practitioners from computer science, law, and philosophy, for example, may see fairness in very different lights, while related policy and regulatory notions may evolve over time.
As such, there is often considerable disagreement about what fairness entails overall, let alone at a product-specific level. It is unrealistic to presume, and would be irresponsible to claim, that simply deploying tools, checklists, or frameworks is sufficient to fully mitigate fairness risks.
Indeed, a large proportion of fairness risks require weighing difficult tradeoffs, including seeking input from subject matter experts and people with lived experiences related to the potential harm, to inform the ultimate consensus that shapes how and to what extent fairness risks can be mitigated. Such deliberations require actionable ethical frameworks and qualitative research to fill in the gaps left by quantitative fairness approaches.
These processes must also be iterative in order to account for both evolving notions of fairness and justice, to allow for increasing degrees of sophistication in analyses, and to account for systems and products that themselves evolve over time. For example, subsequent analysis might broaden beyond a targeted assessment of an individual model to consider the more complex fairness questions that arise in compound or dynamic systems where multiple models may interact \cite{dwork2020pipelines, hu2018short}, or ongoing monitoring may reveal that the cumulative effects of previously deployed fairness interventions have over time introduced unintended harms of their own, requiring the reevaluation of prior decisions about effective remedies to individual model-level unfairness.
Importantly, an iterative process acknowledges that fairness is never fully ``solved,'' but rather encourages ongoing consideration of fairness throughout the product development lifecycle while preserving the ability to reassess what lens (or lenses) of fairness ought to apply in a particular context---and thus what method of assessment would be best suited to test for potential unfairness in that dimension. Creating space for such flexibility is an especially common need in areas where technology has illuminated a new, augmented, or resurgent fairness risk for which acceptable and expected remedies have yet to be defined, or for which consensus does not yet exist.
While an indispensable component of any holistic approach to fairness, we leave a detailed discussion of the opportunities and challenges of implementing such processes, as well as lessons learned from efforts to integrate them into organizational processes, to future work in order to discuss with sufficient degree of detail the challenges of addressing fairness at the implementation level in the context of a large and complex organization.
\section{Fairness in implementation}
\label{sec:an_approach}
At its highest level of abstraction, our approach contains three steps:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Catalog the costs and benefits the system may produce for people from different subgroups, and how these may trade off against one another.
\item Make explicit choices about where the system should situate itself in this space of tradeoffs. Which costs and benefits should the system prioritize, and for whom? These normative decisions should be made at the product and policy levels of the fairness analysis.
\item Ensure the system is minimizing costs and maximizing benefits according to the chosen tradeoffs in practice. This is the goal of the implementation level of the fairness analysis, which we address in detail in this section.
\end{enumerate}
This approach most closely resembles one advocated for by \citet{mullainathan2018algorithmic}, who argues that fairness analyses should proceed from a ``description of a global welfare function.'' \citet{kasy2020fairness} also study fairness in the context of costs and benefits; their approach to identifying the prioritization of groups (which they call the groups' ``power'') implied by observed decisions closely resembles what we discuss in Section~\ref{sec:implied}.
While we refer to "costs" in the following sections, we use this term capaciously to describe not just economic costs but broader impacts of classification error, recognizing that such quantification requires a holistic understanding of potential harms to ensure they are sufficiently captured when weighing tradeoffs.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.49\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{cancer_risk_a}
\caption{Female patients}
\label{fig:cancer_risk_a}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.49\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{cancer_risk_b}
\caption{Male patients}
\label{fig:cancer_risk_b}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Hypothetical patients in a cancer treatment scenario. Dots symbolize patients at a given risk level, while solid dots denote patients who turn out to have cancer. Regardless of differences in the distribution of risk factors among the two different groups, the cost-minimizing treatment policy for both groups treats patients if and only if the probability they have cancer exceeds a certain threshold.}
\label{fig:cancer_risk}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Benefits and harms in binary decision making}
To see how this approach could be applied, consider a doctor deciding whether to prescribe chemotherapy to patients to treat potential cancers. The doctor cannot know for sure which patients have cancer, though they can divide the patients (perhaps using expert judgement, a diagnostic test, or a machine learning algorithm) into four categories of increasing risk, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:cancer_risk_a}. The probability of having cancer within each category is known, but there is no way for the doctor to identify exactly which patients within each category this probability will materialize for.
To a first approximation, there are two types of harms, or costs, to consider in this situation: the cost of a false positive, where the patient receives unnecessary and unpleasant chemotherapy; and the cost of a false negative, where the cancer goes untreated and may kill the patient.\footnote{One could equivalently describe avoiding these costs as benefits, though this change of reference point wouldn't change the analysis} There is a trade off between these costs---the aggressive prescription of chemotherapy will decrease false negatives but increase false positives, while a reluctance to pursue treatment will do the opposite. Resolving this tradeoff requires an assessment of, and judgement about, the \emph{relative} cost of false positives and false negatives. Suppose that, after consulting with subject matter experts and relevant stakeholders, the doctor determines that an undiagnosed cancer is 4 times worse than unnecessary chemotherapy. This \emph{cost ratio} captures what we mean by a system's tradeoffs---saying a false negative is four times more costly than a false positive is saying we would trade four false positives for one false negative, and vice versa. We note that in reality the choice to pursue a given medical treatment is also a highly personal decision that patients and their caretaking teams are involved in; we simplify the process here and assume that all patients have the same cost ratio for the purpose of illustration.
Fig.~\ref{fig:cancer_risk_a} shows the total cost of choosing to treat the patients in a given risk category (equal to the number of false positives this produces) compared to the total cost of choosing not to treat them (equal to four times the number of false negatives). Immediately, we can see the cost-minimizing strategy: treat only those patients in the two highest-risk categories. The optimal policy takes the form of a \emph{threshold}---we treat everyone above a certain level of risk and no one below it.
We can now think about the general case of choosing thresholds when patients each have a continuous risk score $s$, and false negatives are $c$ times more costly than false positives (i.e.~the cost ratio is $c$). Let
\begin{equation}
\textrm{cost}(t) = \textrm{FP}(t) + c\textrm{FN}(t)
\label{eq:cost}
\end{equation}
describe the total cost of all decisions when a threshold $t$ is applied. We minimize the expected cost by taking the derivative with respect to $t$ and setting it to zero:
\begin{align}
\frac{d\E[\textrm{cost}(t)]}{dt} &= \frac{d\E[\textrm{FP}(t)]}{dt} + c\frac{d\E[\textrm{FN}(t)]}{dt}\\
0 &= -f(t^*)\E\left[1-Y|s=t^*\right] + cf(t^*)\E\left[Y|s=t^*\right]
\end{align}
where $f(s)$ is the density of cases with a given score $s$ and $\E[Y|s]$ is the rate of cancer cases among these patients. The derivative has a straightforward explanation: the decrease in false positives (or increase in false negatives) created by raising the threshold slightly is the product of the number of cases at the threshold and the fraction of those cases that were negative (or positive). Rearranging the equation gives us the optimality condition:
\begin{align}
t_\textrm{impl}^*=\E\left[Y|s=t^*\right] &= \frac{1}{1+c}
\label{eq:opt_threshold}
\end{align}
\emph{the cost-minimizing threshold is the score at which cases have a $\sfrac{1}{(1+c)}$ probability of being positive.}\footnote{This threshold is a global optima as long as $\E[Y|s]$ monotonically increases in $s$, and it is the unique optimum if $\E[Y|s]$ is strictly monotonic. In practice it doesn't matter if the optimal threshold is not unique---there will be a range of thresholds (the closed interval between $\sfrac{1}{6}$ and $\sfrac{1}{4}$ in the example in Fig.~\ref{fig:cancer_risk_a}) that all produce the same, cost-minimizing decisions.} We call the probability $\E\left[Y|s=t\right]$ the \emph{implied threshold}. Returning to our example we can now compute the precise cost-minimizing treatment strategy when $c=4$: treat any patient with a greater than 20\% chance of having cancer (i.e.~the optimal implied threshold is 20\%).
\subsection{Introducing subgroups}
Up until this point there has been no notion of subpopulations. Now imagine that the patients in Fig.~\ref{fig:cancer_risk_a} are female and the patients in Fig.~\ref{fig:cancer_risk_b} are male. This particular cancer affects a smaller fraction of male patients: 22\% of males have it, compared to 26\% of females. As a result, there are more males in the lower-risk categories and fewer in the higher-risk categories. We want ensure that our treatment strategy is fair to men and women.
We have established the optimal treatment approach for female patients: treat all patients with a >20\% chance of having cancer. But what is the optimal approach for male patients, who have a different base rate and distribution among the risk categories? Perhaps surprisingly, \emph{as long as the cost of decisions is the same} (i.e.~false negatives are four times more costly than false positives) the cost-minimizing approach is identical: we should treat all male patients with >20\% chance of having cancer. This is because Eq.~\ref{eq:opt_threshold} does not depend on $f(s)$, the distribution of risk among the group in question; nor does it depend on the base rate.
This has important consequences for the study of fair machine learning. Consider an alternate approach that is popular in the fair machine learning literature: equalizing error rates~\cite{hardt2016equality}. One might argue that a false negative cancer diagnosis is so costly that fairness demands that our decisions produce equal false negative \emph{rates} for male and female patients. The cost-minimizing approach does not produce such equality---the false negative rate for male patients is 43\%, while the false negative rate for female patients is 22\%.
Equalizing these rates would require some combination of treating more male patients and treating fewer female patients. However, since we've already chosen the treatment strategy that minimizes costs faced by both male and female patients, such an intervention would inevitably make at least one group worse off without making the other group better off. The same is true for equalizing false positive rates, or treatment rates (as would be required by demographic parity). A demand that these fairness criteria be satisfied, then, must reflect a judgement that equality in a particular ratio (in our example, the number of false negatives divided by the total number of cancer cases) is of greater fairness value than the minimization of the actual harm caused by errors to members of both groups. There are many reasons why this would not be an appropriate judgement to make in practice.
This is not to say that equal implied thresholds are always appropriate. Imagine if the cancer in question was more aggressive in female patients, such that a false negative was more likely to lead to death. In this case, the cost of a false negative (relative to the cost of a false positive) is greater for female patients than male patients, and the cost-minimizing threshold for female patients decreases. Our approach to fairness, which focuses on concrete impacts to people, would therefore require that different thresholds be applied to treatment decisions for male and female patients. Note that this treatment regime, which is cost-minimizing for both groups, actually increases the differences between false negative rates for male and female patients. This further illustrates the disconnect between such error rates and the well-being of decision subjects.
\subsection{Competing values}
\label{sec:competing_values_fairness_principle}
In cancer treatment, the potential cost of false positives \emph{and} false negatives fall on the same patient, making it easy to argue for the decision-making strategy that makes patients from all groups best off~\cite{ustun2019decoupled}.\footnote{Though, troublingly, some papers still advocate for decreased diagnostic performance in healthcare settings in the name of ``fairness''~\cite{pfohl2019creating}.} But what about cases where the tradeoff occurs \emph{between} groups? Consider the detection of spam on social media. The cost of a false positive principally falls on the publisher whose content is filtered (though consumers are also deprived of the opportunity to see this content), while the cost of a false negative falls on the consumer whose feed is contains low-quality content. As a result, the cost-minimizing approach for publishers would classify almost no content as spam,\footnote{Scrupulous publishers might argue for some spam enforcement so that their good content doesn't get drowned in a sea of spam, but a concern for false positives affecting their content would keep them from advocating for a system as strict as consumers would prefer.} while consumers would be better served by a more aggressive filtering system.
In these situations, a choice must be made about how the system will prioritize costs to different stakeholders. This prioritization doesn't have to reflect objective costs---cancer is objectively more costly than being caught in the rain, but it's perfectly acceptable for umbrella manufacturers to prioritize keeping people dry. Instead, it should reflect the goals and values of the system that have been carefully considered at the product and policy levels of fairness analysis. For example, we might decide that, for the spam filtering system, a false positive (affecting content producers) is ten times more costly than a false negative (affecting consumers). There is no single right answer here---different platforms make different tradeoffs in content moderation and different types of policy-violating content on the same platform might present significantly different costs---but being explicit helps ensure that the decision is made deliberately and consistently over time. The approach that achieves the desired prioritization is still described by Eq.~\ref{eq:opt_threshold}: if false positives are tens times as costly as false negatives ($c=0.1$), the optimal threshold is $\sfrac{1}{(1+c)}=0.91$.
This is also true for any subset of the decisions.
Consider the total costs created when potential spam published by a user from group $a$ may be seen be a consumer from group $b$:
\begin{equation}
cost_{ab}(t_{ab}) = \textrm{FP}_{ab}(t_{ab}) + c_{ab}\textrm{FN}_{ab}(t_{ab})
\end{equation}
This takes the same form as Eq.~\ref{eq:cost}, and as a result the cost-minimizing threshold depends only on $c_{ab}$, the cost to consumers from group $b$ when they see spam from group $a$ relative to the cost to publishers from group $a$ when non-spam content is filtered out of a user from group $b$'s feed. This motivates the key fairness principle that drives our analyses of binary decision making:
\begin{quote}
\emph{If we believe that a false positive is equally costly whether it affects somebody in group A or group B, and that a false negative is equally costly whether it affects somebody in group A or group B, we should apply the same implied threshold to decisions affecting both groups. Doing so will minimize errors no matter who they affect.}
\end{quote}
The antecedent won't always be true; for example, a platform might decide to explicitly prioritize female publishers by treating a false positive affecting female publishers as more costly than one affecting male publishers. In the criminal justice domain, system designers might opt to treat false positives as more costly for groups who, for example, tend to be penalized more harshly in future circumstances for having a history of incarceration. Again, these are decisions that are most appropriately made at the product and policy levels of fairness analysis. If such a prioritization was agreed upon, our implementation fairness approach could still be used to ensure the appropriate---and in this case, different---implied thresholds are being applied in practice.
\subsection{Analyzing existing systems}
\label{sec:implied}
Many real-world systems are not designed according to the three-step approach laid out in Section \ref{sec:an_approach}. Rather than making explicit choices about how to trade off between different costs and benefits, they arrive at the set of decisions they make through heuristics, inertia, and---potentially---mistakes. In such cases, we may be called to assess the fairness of a system without knowing exactly how it was designed. Our approach can still be used in these circumstances, it just needs to be reversed. Instead of choosing a set of tradeoffs and then ensuring that they are achieved in practice, we can work backwards from the decisions the system is currently making to determine the set of tradeoffs (i.e.~cost ratios) that make these decisions cost-minimizing. We call these the \emph{implied} tradeoffs of a system.\footnote{Welfare economics and optimal taxation theory use a similar concept---``inverse welfare weights''---to describe how a decision maker must weigh different individuals' welfare make a set of decisions welfare-maximizing in the aggregate~\cite{kasy2020fairness,saez2016welfare}.} In the case where the relevant costs are due to false positives and false negatives, we can invert Eq.~\ref{eq:opt_threshold} and use the implied threshold determine the cost ratio the decision maker is operating under:
\begin{equation}
c = \frac{1-E[Y|s=t]}{E[Y|s=t]}.
\label{eq:implied_cost}
\end{equation}
Consider a treatment regime for the patients in Fig.~\ref{fig:cancer_risk} where female patients in the two highest-risk categories and male patients in the \emph{three} highest-risk categories receive chemotherapy. Assuming this treatment regime minimizes some conception of cost for male and female patients, we can apply Eq.~\ref{eq:opt_threshold} to compute the implied cost ratios for both groups. $\E[Y|s=t, \textrm{female}]=0.25$, since 25\% of the patients at the threshold of treatment (the second-riskiest group) actually have cancer. This implies a female cost ratio of 3. In comparison, $\E[Y|s=t, \textrm{male}]=0.16$, implying a male cost ratio of 5. This treatment regime implies we believe that false negatives are more costly for male patients than female patients (or, equivalently, that false positives are more costly for female patients). If this reflects our considered belief, then it is fine. If this was not intended, and instead occurred because of some error or oversight (for example, the systematic overestimation of male patients' cancer risk), then we can consider ways to fix this. Section \ref{sec:implementation_fairness} describes how we measure implied tradeoffs in algorithmic decision making and human labeling.
\section{Measuring fairness in practice}
\label{sec:implementation_fairness}
To illustrate the principles behind our measurement approach, we'll use the example of a system designed to identify and remove posts that violate an online platform's policy against bullying and harassment. The system combines decisions made by humans with binary decisions made on the basis of machine-learned predictions. Human labelers are employed to determine whether a given post violates the policy; these labels then inform both immediate enforcement (i.e.~the removal of posts from the platform) and the training of the machine learning system. The machine learning system, in turn, produces predictions that are used both to triage potential harassment for human review and to automatically remove the most obvious cases of bullying.
This example clearly illustrates the breadth of questions that must be answered before a technical fairness analysis is even attempted, and the utility of distinguishing among product, policy, and implementation fairness. For example, how should the policy define bullying and harassment? Do all expressions of harassment qualify, or does it depend on the subject of that bullying's membership in certain demographic groups? If the latter, which groups are protected? What is the nature and degree of harm potentially caused by false positives and false negatives, and how should the system trade off between those errors in enforcement? These are incredibly challenging questions (as evidenced by the fact that different internet platforms, social institutions, and liberal democracies take different approaches to objectionable speech) which we will not attempt to answer in this paper. Still, it is important to note that the empirical questions we consider at the implementation fairness level are only a small part of the fairness puzzle.
In this section we first apply our approach to decisions made by the machine learning system---the familiar problem of fairness in supervised learning. We then show that the same conceptual approach can be used to study the fairness of human decisions with respect to a ground truth.
\subsection{Model fairness}
\label{sec:algorithmic_decisions}
The simplest and most ubiquitous type of algorithmic decision is a binary decision based on the prediction of a machine learning model---one action is taken if the probability of the predicted event is suitably high, another action taken otherwise. A system designed to automatically (without human intervention) identify and remove violating bullying and harassment takes this form.\footnote{Some might argue that such automated intervention would not be appropriate; such a conversation would be situated at the \emph{product} level of our fairness analysis while investigations of the comparative performance of such a system would be a question of \emph{implementation}.}
Consider the task of measuring the fairness of such a system. First, it is necessary to decide which subpopulations to compare. We could choose to measure the system for different groups of content consumers or producers, different groups targeted by bullying (which may not be the same as the intended consumer), or intersections of these groups. For the sake of exposition, though, let's consider two groups of content producers: groups ``A'' and ``B''. Differences in the base rate of outcomes are both extremely common in situations where fairness concerns are present (including in content moderation), and give rise to important impossibility results in the fair machine learning literature \cite{kleinberg2016inherent}. In our hypothetical scenario, group A's content is more likely to be bullying or harassment than group B's content.
Following the approach outlined in Section \ref{sec:an_approach}, we then have to identify the costs and benefits of the decision in question, and how these may be in tension for different groups. As in our previous examples, the most salient costs are the costs of false positives (erroneous removal of content) and false negatives (failing to remove bullying or harassment). There is no obvious tension between the costs experienced by \emph{producers} in each group---taking a more lenient approach to content from group A, for example, does not require taking a more aggressive (or more lenient) approach to content from group B. Instead, the relevant tension is between the welfare of content producers and content consumers. To navigate this tension, we would need to be explicit about how we prioritize the removal of violating content from each group. For now, let's say we have decided that the appropriate cost ratio is the same for both groups: though group A produces more bullying content, an individual instance of bullying is no more costly coming from a user in group A than coming from a user in group B (we return to this decision in the next section). Similarly, a false positive is equally bad whether it affects users from group A or group B. As a result, our fairness principle in Section \ref{sec:competing_values_fairness_principle} holds, and we should expect to see equal thresholds being applied to content from both groups.
To ensure the desired tradeoff (equal cost ratios) is being achieved in practice, we must ensure the implied threshold is equal for content produced by both groups. It's important to distinguish between two different thresholds here. The \emph{decision threshold} $t$ defines how the output of the model (the score $s$) is mapped to decisions $\hat{Y}$ (i.e.~whether the post is removed):
\begin{equation}
\hat{Y}_i= \textbf{1}\{s_i\ge t\},
\end{equation}
whereas the \emph{implied threshold} is the probability of the outcome corresponding to the decision threshold:
\begin{equation}
t_\textrm{impl}=\E[Y|s=t].
\end{equation}
If the score $s$ is \emph{calibrated}, such that $s=\E[Y|s=s]$, then the decision threshold and implied threshold are identical. In general, though, we cannot assume the model being assessed produces calibrated predictions (some models, like support vector machines, don't even produce scores in $[0,1]$).
There are a number of challenges that must be overcome to estimate the implied threshold from the output of the actual machine learning system. First, when the scores are continuous the score will almost never take on exactly the threshold value. As a result, we could approximate the implied threshold by conditioning on the score taking some value within a window around the threshold:
\begin{align}
\E[Y|s=t] \approx& \E[Y|t_l\le s \le t_u] \quad \textrm{where} \\
&t_l< t < t_u. \nonumber
\end{align}
Unfortunately, this approximation is often poor because of how scores are typically distributed. Bullying and harassment makes up a very small fraction of all posts on content platforms, so lower scores would generally be more common than higher scores, and samples in the window would disproportionately come from the lower end of the window. Therefore, simply averaging the outcomes of posts with scores within the window will tend to underestimate the implied threshold.
To address these problems, we first fit a weighted linear regression to posts within a symmetric region (of half-width $d$) around the threshold using tricubic weights:
\begin{align}
Y_i &= \beta_0 + \beta_1(s_i-t) + \epsilon_i \\
w_i &=
\begin{cases}
\left[1 - \left(\frac{|s_i - t|}{d}\right)^3\right]^3 & s_i \in [t - d, t + d] \\
0 & \text{otherwise}
\end{cases}.
\end{align}
Then, the intercept $\beta_0$ is our estimate of the implied threshold. We call this estimator the \emph{prevalence at the threshold}. Statistically significant differences in this value between groups A and B would indicate that our system is not minimizing errors regardless of which group they affect, and is instead prioritizing errors affecting one group.
\subsubsection{Alternative approaches}
\label{sec:alternatives}
It is worth revisiting why we have not adopted alternative approaches to fair machine learning popular in the computer science literature. It's clear that statistical parity isn't appropriate: removing an equal fraction of posts from all groups, regardless of how much bullying they engage in, is not a viable approach for a real-world content moderation system. But the reason why we haven't chosen to, as a baseline, equalize error rates (either the false positive rate, the false negative rate, or both) is more subtle.
Existing research has established that the cost-minimizing approach to equalizing error rates uses different implied thresholds for each group~\cite{corbett2017algorithmic}. In practice, the direction that thresholds must be adjusted is determined by a group's prevalence: equalizing error rates means applying a higher (more lenient) threshold to the group producing more bullying and harassment content (group A), and a lower (stricter) threshold to the group producing less of such content content (group B).\footnote{This is because, for most score distributions and thresholds, applying the same implied threshold to both groups will lead to a higher false positive rate and lower false negative rate for the higher-prevalence group. It is possible to construct score distributions where this does not occur (in which case equalizing error rates would require stricter thresholds for the higher-prevalence group), but these tend to be multi-modal in a way that we have not observed in practice.} Since we know that the implied threshold and the cost ratio are related by Eq.~\ref{eq:opt_threshold}, such differences in thresholds can only be rationalized by a decision to treat false negatives from group A (the higher-prevalence group) as \emph{less} costly than the same errors affecting group B. In other words, equalizing error rates would imply that we believe that bullying and harassment is not as bad when produced by the higher-prevalence group.
It is important to note that there may be cases where false positives or false negatives \emph{do} have different costs for content producers in group A or B, or for content consumers in group A or B; for example, if violating content produced by group B has a higher risk of leading to serious physical or psychological harms. In such cases, it may be deemed appropriate to apply different thresholds---but we hold that decisions about whether to treat subgroups differently as a fairness remedy should be made explicitly, with subject matter experts, and aligns with the \emph{policy} or \emph{product} dimension of fairness, rather than an unintended outcome of opting for statistical parity or equalized error rates within the \emph{implementation} dimension.
Finally, error rates can depend on ``easy'' decisions that are irrelevant to the question of fairness. Most posts are obviously not bullying or harassment (e.g.~``Happy birthday!''), and will never be removed by any content moderation system. And yet, since the number of non-violating posts makes up the denominator of the false positive rate, a group's false positive rate is affected by the number of obviously benign messages they post. It is clearly undesirable for a fairness assessment of a content moderation system to be affected by a group's tendency to share benign messages---but that would be the implication of considering false positive rates.
This problem is further exacerbated by the presence of adversarial behavior. Imagine bad actors from some group realizing that the system was designed to equalize false negative rates. They could spam the system with easy-to-identify instances of harassment, driving down their group's false negative rate. The system would be forced to respond by applying a more lenient threshold to content from the offending group, increasing the false negative rate to compensate and maintain error rate parity. By flooding the platform with obvious harassment, the bad actors would have forced us to be more lenient to the rest of their posts! This set of incentives would be problematic for a large-scale content moderation system to adopt. We note that as researchers continue to iterate on implementation fairness definitions and approaches, innovations in fair ML research may yet inform adaptations to our approach in the future.
\subsection{Label fairness}
\label{sec:label_bias}
As with most approaches to fair supervised learning, the approach described in the previous section assumes the outcome being predicted ($Y$) is measured accurately in the data used to assess the system. There are some cases where this assumption is reasonable---for example, websites can perfectly measure whether users click on a given button. However, in many cases, such as identifying bullying, the labels themselves are generated through human judgement, and may thus embed human biases. This is of concern for at least three reasons. First, accurate labels are needed to compute most model fairness metrics, including the metric in Section \ref{sec:algorithmic_decisions}. Second, supervised learning systems trained on biased labels will learn those biases. Finally, labelers' decisions might be used to directly intervene in the system.
In this section, we describe how our high level fairness approach can be applied to assess human decision making, in the case where decisions can be compared to a ground truth.
In our bullying and harassment example, the decision being made by human labelers is whether a given post violates a bullying policy as written. These decisions won't always be correct---labelers may misunderstand the policy or the post, make a mistake, or be misled by implicit or explicit biases. To track these errors, we also collect (for a subset of posts) the judgement of an expert in applying the written policy, whose decisions provide the ground truth for each post. A fairness measurement dataset, then, would consist of a set of tuples $(Y_{ij}, Y_i^*)$ for every label, where $Y_{ij}$ is the label provided by labeler $j$ to post $i$, and $Y_i^*$ is the expert-provided ground truth for that post.
As before, we can summarize the costs created by the human labeling process in terms of false positives and false negatives with respect to the ground truth. Ideally, then, we'd proceed as we would in the algorithmic decision making case: determine the implied threshold that labelers are using for posts from each group, and ensure it reflects the appropriate cost ratio. However, while in the algorithmic case we knew the decision threshold and which posts had scores close to the threshold, in the human decision making case we are missing all of this information. With only a binary label and a binary ground truth for each post, one might be tempted to abandon efforts to estimate the implied threshold and instead return to comparing something like group error rates. But this would be a mistake for the same reasons as described in Section \ref{sec:alternatives}: error rates are driven by easy decisions, both obviously benign (e.g.~``Happy birthday!'') and obviously violating. These are trivially easy for a human to judge correctly, and because of this are uninformative about a labeler's possible bias. We need a means of estimating the implied threshold with just a set of label/ground-truth pairs.
\subsection{Signal Detection Theory}
A promising approach comes in a model of human decision making developed by psychologists: Signal Detection Theory (SDT)~\cite{green1966signal}. Applied to the labeling of bullying or harassment, SDT models human decision making as follows: upon seeing a post, the labeler mentally accumulates evidence for and against the proposition that the post is policy-violating. The result of this accumulation is called the \emph{signal}. The labeler also conceives of a threshold (sometimes called the \emph{criterion}); when the signal exceeds the threshold they report the post as violating, when it doesn't they report the post as benign.\footnote{ It's important to remember that SDT is a \emph{model} of behavior---we're not suggesting that content labelers could report an actual numerical threshold if asked.}
Statistically, SDT models the distribution of the signal as a mixture of Gaussians: one Gaussian for benign posts and another for violating posts. Figure \ref{fig:sdt} illustrates the SDT model. Signal detection theory has been used to study human decision making in many different contexts since its development in the 1940s and `50s, including: military radar signals~\cite{green1966signal}, medical diagnosis~\cite{stewart2004detection}, child welfare decisions~\cite{mumpower2014signal}, and policing~\cite{pierson2018fast}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\columnwidth, trim=5 70 5 0]{sdt}
\caption{The signal detection theory model of decision making. Negative examples produce signals distributed according to the standard normal (blue curve). Positive examples produce signals sampled from a normal distribution with mean $d'$ and unit variance (red curve). A threshold $t$ is applied to turn signals into decisions. As a result, the false positive rate is simply the fraction of the negative distribution above the threshold (shaded blue), while the false negative rate is the fraction of the positive curve below the threshold (shaded red). Given observed false positive and false negative rates, we can therefore compute the $t$ and $d'$ values required to generate these error rates.}
\label{fig:sdt}
\end{figure}
Since the scale of the decision variable is arbitrary, we can (without loss of generality) choose the distribution for benign posts to be the standard normal. By further assuming that the Gaussians have equal variance,\footnote{Having equal variances ensures that the probability of a post being violating is monotonically increasing in the signal (see \citet{pierson2018fast} for proof and further details)}
SDT defines a two parameter family of signal distributions parameterized by the \emph{prevalence} ($\phi$) and the \emph{separation} ($d'$, pronounced ``dee-prime''). Prevalence is the fraction of posts that are violating, and therefore defines the mixing proportions of the Gaussians. Separation is the distance between the Gaussians' means. When separation is high there is little overlap between the signals produced by violating and benign posts, making it easy for labelers to correctly distinguish between them. When separation is low the distributions have substantial overlap, and labelers make more mistakes.\footnote{In fact, separation is directly related to AUC, the probability that a randomly chosen violating post will have a higher signal than a randomly chosen benign post: $d' = \sqrt{2}\Phi^{-1}(\textrm{AUC})$ (where $\Phi^{-1}(\cdot)$ is the inverse cumulative distribution function for the standard normal).}
Figure \ref{fig:sdt} shows how, for a given separation and threshold, the signal detection theory model implies a certain false positive rate and false negative rate. In particular:
\begin{align*}
\textrm{FPR}(d', t) &= 1-\Phi(t)\\
\textrm{FNR}(d', t) &= \Phi(t-d'),
\end{align*}
where $\Phi(\cdot)$ is the cumulative distribution function for the standard normal. Therefore, we can use the observed error rates to infer the model parameters:
\begin{align*}
t &= \Phi^{-1}(1-\textrm{FPR}) \\
d' &= t-\Phi^{-1}(\textrm{FNR}).
\end{align*}
Note that the threshold $t$ is not the implied threshold, since it is defined in signal space. But SDT allows us to compute the implied threshold using the prevalence and Bayes' rule:
\begin{align*}
E[Y|s=t] &= P(Y=1|s=t)\\
&= \frac{P(Y=1)P(s=t|Y=1)}{P(Y=1)P(s=t|Y=1) + P(Y=0)P(s=t|Y=0)}\\
&= \frac{\phi \textrm{N}(t-d')}{\phi \textrm{N}(t-d') + (1-\phi) \textrm{N}(t)}\\
&= \frac{1}{1+\frac{1-\phi}{\phi}\exp\left(-td'+d'^2/2\right)}
\end{align*}
($\textrm{N}(\cdot)$ is the density function of the standard normal distribution.)
Finally, we can plug the implied threshold into Eq.~\ref{eq:implied_cost} to recover the cost ratio that explains labelers' decisions:
\begin{align}
c &= \frac{1-\phi}{\phi}\exp\left(-td'+d'^2/2\right).
\end{align}
Comparing cost ratios (or, equivalently, implied thresholds) between groups allows us to determine whether labelers are making appropriate judgements about content from different groups. In particular, if we believe labeling errors are equally costly regardless of the group they affect, we should ensure labelers are acting accordingly by applying the same implied threshold to all groups.
\subsubsection{Limitations of the approach}
While the two-parameter mixture model is flexible~\cite{pierson2018fast}, it cannot capture all plausible signal distributions. For example, imagine there were three distinct types of posts: those that are obviously violating, those that are obviously benign, and those that are genuinely ambiguous. Signal detection theory cannot model such a tri-modal distribution, so it will produce incorrect estimates of the implied threshold in this case. \citet{pierson2018fast} attempt to address this by allowing the SDT parameters to vary according to decision covariates, but this requires a substantially more complex Bayesian inference procedure. We elect to use the simpler model to make it easier to scale the approach to many different labeling tasks.
An important direction for future work on labeling fairness centers on the separation parameter. A low $d'$ for some set of decisions means that labelers have trouble distinguishing violating posts from benign posts. Currently, however, it is difficult to determine whether this trouble is due to the labeling problem being fundamentally hard in some sense, or because labelers are making mistakes---unconsciously or otherwise---in a way that may be attributable to their own bias (or other factors). For example, a labeler's bias against certain posts might manifest not in them erring towards false positives or false negatives (which SDT can measure using the cost ratio), but in them being indifferent about making errors in general, leading them to rush their decisions. In principle, this type of bias is still amenable to being measured with an extension of our tradeoff-focused approach---now the labeler is trading off between the cost of a false positive, the cost of a false negative, \emph{and} the cost of their labeling time. The drift-diffusion model is an extension of SDT that attempts to account for decision time in this way~\cite{krajbich2011drift}.
\section{Practical challenges and open questions}
\label{sec:practical_challenges}
\subsection{Mitigating implementation fairness issues}
Many machine learning papers that propose new model fairness metrics also develop algorithms to satisfy these metrics, either through optimization constraints~\cite{corbett2017algorithmic, zafar2017disparate,agarwal2018reductions} or by incorporating the metric into the training loss function~\cite{kamishima2011fairness}. These approaches purport to automatically ensure that a new model is ``fair'', but each necessarily reduces the performance of the model, increasing the number of people affected by model errors. We believe such approaches are often unwise: measured unfairness is a symptom of deeper problems in a system that likely can't be solved through a tweak in the optimization process. Furthermore, designing the optimization process such that fairness issues are never measured risks papering over these problems while often making decision subjects worse off.
Unfairness in a model has many different possible causes, including: a lack of training data, a lack of features, a misspecified target variable, or measurement error in the input features. None of these problems are amenable to typical machine learning optimization---their solutions exist outside the bounds of the optimization problem. The challenging upshot of this is that there is no silver bullet for mitigating implementation fairness issues. Instead, we believe that the measurement of fairness issues should prompt a deep dive into the model to diagnose and remedy the root cause of the issue.
This is especially true when trying to mitigate label bias concerns, since this always means changing human behavior. Fortunately, psychologists have demonstrated that labelers' will change the thresholds they apply when incentivized~\cite{curran2007criterion}. If the problem can be isolated to specific labelers who are being too strict or lenient, they could be be nudged into applying a more appropriate thresholds. If the problem is systematic, one should investigate the labelers' guidelines, how labelers are selected, and whether they are appropriately representative.\vspace{-0.2cm}
\subsection{Group characteristic data}
To measure potential bias affecting a sensitive subpopulations, one generally needs to know which people affected by the system are members of that group.
However, the sensitive nature of the characteristics most relevant to fairness---including gender, ethnicity, religion, and national origin---poses important challenges for efforts to understand fairness in practice~\cite{bogen2020awareness}.
First, the entity trying to study fairness may lack subgroup information. While internet platforms may solicit a user's age and gender, they rarely collect or infer information about a user's race, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation. Collecting or otherwise obtaining this data raises privacy, ethical, and representational questions. In some cases, unresolved tensions between privacy and fairness have meant that we have lacked the data to perform fairness analyses pertaining to certain subgroups.
Even when the data is available, our methodologies require creating discrete groups out of complex identities. Discretizing someone's gender, age, or race will necessarily lack important details about their lived experience, or worse, may re-enforce historical categories that fuel discrimination or erase identities. But statistical measurement requires grouping users \emph{somehow}. Fairness practitioners need to make sure that (a) group definitions and data are as reflective as possible of users' self-identities, (b) group designations are sufficiently flexible to capture a wide range of fairness concerns, and (c) users are provided sufficient control to fix mistakes in groupings.
Finally, subgroup information will always be subject to measurement error; even for self-reported attributes like gender users might decline to specify, choose an option at random, or make a data-entry mistake. Furthermore, some practitioners use \emph{inferred} sensitive characteristics for fairness measurements and interventions~\cite{geyik2019fairness}. Such inferences are likely to increase the number of errors in subgroup assignment by orders of magnitude. An open question remains as to how these errors could affect fairness measurements, especially if these subgroup identification errors are correlated with decision-making errors.\vspace{-0.1cm}
\subsection{Complexity of systems}
Using metrics that are correctly tailored to the potential benefits and harms that users may experience is central to our fairness approach. We have discussed metric recommendations for binary decision-making, but best practices do not yet exist to measure fairness for more complex model or system types.
For example, models are often combined or have feedback loops. In these systems, measuring only individual components may not reveal issues that emerge only in their interactions, and conversely, individual component measurements may not necessarily support drawing conclusions about an overall system. Conducting measurement on each single model is a necessary starting point, but further research into how components may combine to create---or reduce---fairness risk is needed.\vspace{-0.2cm}
\section{Conclusion}
This paper has presented an approach to addressing fairness challenges developed within the context of a large technology company. Our approach considers fairness at three levels---product, policy, and implementation---allowing us to direct analyses and interventions towards the appropriate part of the system, and to separate normative questions from statistical ones where appropriate. At the implementation level, we also presented a high-level approach to studying fairness questions grounded in the costs and benefits produced by decisions. Finally, we discussed that approach in two archetypal binary decision-making contexts: algorithmic decision making and human labeling.
\bibliographystyle{ACM-Reference-Format}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:introduction}
Dysarthria is a condition which hampers the ability of a person to control the
muscles that play a major role in speech delivery. The loss of fine control
over muscles that assist the movement of lips, vocal chords, tongue and diaphragm
results in abnormal speech delivery. Among other things, this condition
affects verbal communication because of hampered intelligibility of spoken
speech.
It is believed that $7$ of the $12$ cranial nerves,
which perform the task of sending sensory and motor information to all the
muscles of the body, are
related to {\it speech} and language. Damage to any of
these nerves can result in hampering control of muscles that assist in
speech production \cite{book:894458}.
Generally dysarthria is a result of a disease or a
stroke that affects the nervous system and not a disease in itself.
The speech production is a complex mix of respiration,
phonation, resonance, articulation, and prosody. If any of these speech process
is affected because of lack of muscle control speech production suffers.
Depending on the degree of loss of control
over the muscles that assist in articulation dysarthria can range from mild
where
a person sounds as good as a healthy speaker to severe where it might be very
difficult for a listener to understand what is being spoken. There are $6$
types of dysarthria, namely, (a) Ataxic, (b) Flaccid, (c) Hyperkinetic, (d)
Hypokinetic, (e) Spastic and (f) Mixed (a mix of Flaccid and Spastic dysarthria).
\begin{table}
\caption{Causes for Different Dysarthria \cite{book:894458}.}
\label{tab:dysarthria_causes}
\begin{center}
\scalebox{0.5}{
\begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}\hline
& \multicolumn{6}{c|}{Dysarthria Type}\\ \cline{2-7}
Possible Causes&Ataxic&Flaccid&Hyperkinetic&Hypokinetic&Mixed
&Spastic\\ \hline
Stroke (Cerebro Vascular Accident)&\checkmark&\checkmark&\checkmark&&\checkmark&\checkmark \\
Trauma&\checkmark&\checkmark&&&\checkmark&\checkmark \\
Tumor&\checkmark&\checkmark&\checkmark&&&\checkmark \\
Congenital conditions&\checkmark&\checkmark&&&&\checkmark \\
Infection&\checkmark&&&&&\checkmark \\
Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis&&&&&\checkmark& \\
Athetosis&&&\checkmark&&& \\
Ballism&&&\checkmark&&& \\
Chorea Infection&&&\checkmark&&& \\
Drug-induced Dyskinesia&&&\checkmark&&& \\
Dystonia&&&\checkmark&&& \\
Gilles de la Tourette's syndrome&&&\checkmark&&& \\
Palsies&&\checkmark&&&& \\
Parkinsonism Drug-induced&&&&\checkmark&& \\
Toxic effects&\checkmark&&&&& \\
Viral Infection&&\checkmark&&&& \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
}
\end{center}
\end{table}
The cause for different types of dysarthria is well studied in literature \cite{book:894458}.
As seen in Table \ref{tab:dysarthria_causes}, cerebrovascular accident (CVA), commonly also known as stroke,
can result in any kind of dysarthria except, Hypokinetic dysarthria,
whereas drug induced Parkinsonism can only cause Hypokinetic dysarthria. Trauma
and Tumor can also result in a variety of dysarthria types (see Table
\ref{tab:dysarthria_causes}). While Toxic effects
can only induce Ataxia, Viral Infection causes Flaccid dysarthria, diseases like
Athetosis, Ballism, Chorea Infection, Drug-induced Dyskinesia, Dystonia and
Gilles de la Tourette's syndrome are known to result in Hyperkinetic dysarthria.
\begin{table}
\caption{Different Dysarthria effecting Speech Characteristics \cite{book:894458}.}
\label{tab:dysarthria_vs_speech_characteristics}
\begin{center}
\scalebox{0.5}{
\begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}\hline
& \multicolumn{6}{c|}{Dysarthria Type}\\ \cline{2-7}
Speech Characteristics&Ataxic&Flaccid&Hyperkinetic&Hypokinetic&Mixed
&Spastic\\ \hline
Imprecise consonants&\checkmark&\checkmark&\checkmark&\checkmark&\checkmark&\checkmark \\
Monopitch&&\checkmark&\checkmark&\checkmark&\checkmark&\checkmark \\
Monocloudness&&&\checkmark&\checkmark&\checkmark&\checkmark \\
Distorted vowels&\checkmark&&\checkmark&&\checkmark& \\
Harsh voice (quality)&\checkmark&&\checkmark&\checkmark&\checkmark&\checkmark \\
Hypernasality&&\checkmark&&&\checkmark&\checkmark \\
Excess and equal stress&\checkmark&&&&\checkmark& \\
Irregular articulatory breakdowns&\checkmark&&\checkmark&&& \\
Low pitch&&&&&\checkmark&\checkmark \\
Reduced stress&&&&\checkmark&&\checkmark \\
Short phrases&&&&&\checkmark&\checkmark \\
Slow rate&&&&&\checkmark&\checkmark \\
Strained-strangled voice&&&\checkmark&&&\checkmark \\
Breathy voice&&\checkmark&&\checkmark&& \\
Inappropriate silences&&&&\checkmark&& \\
Loudness control problems&\checkmark&&&&& \\
Nasal emission&&\checkmark&&&& \\
Prolonged intervals&&&&&\checkmark& \\
Short rushes of speech&&&&\checkmark&& \\
Variable nasality&\checkmark&&&&& \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\mychange{A comprehensive mapping between different types of dysarthria and the speech characteristics in shown in Table \ref{tab:dysarthria_vs_speech_characteristics}.}
\mychange{Out of the 20 speech characteristics, the inability to precisely articulate consonants is a prime characteristic across all types of dysarthria.}
One of the prime speech characteristic, across all type of dysarthria is the
inability to articulate consonants precisely (see Table
\ref{tab:dysarthria_vs_speech_characteristics}). As can also be seen multiple
speech characteristics are visible in a particular type of dysarthria. Clearly a
combination of these speech characteristics make the speech of a dysarthric
patient unintelligible. The speech characteristics become increasingly visible,
rather audible, as dysarthria becomes more profound in a patient. For example,
the
degree of distortion of a vowel ("vowel distortion") becomes more profound as dysarthria progresses
from mild to severe in case of Ataxic and Hyperkinetic dysarthria. In case of
Mixed dysarthria, there is an increase in "Prolonged interval" between the words or
phonemes in spontaneous speech when severity level of dysarthria increases
\mychange{thus, further degrading the intelligibility.}
Some of the noticeable characteristics of dysarthria are
(a) there is never an island of clear speech,
the speech errors are seen uniformly along the entire speech utterance,
\mychange{(b) articulation error is caused due to distortions and deletions, and not the insertion of phonemes,}
(c) pronunciation
of consonants are consistently imprecise, (d) vowels are neutralized,
(e) the speech delivery rate is slow and labored
and
(f)
any word requiring large articulatory movement due to complexity in
pronunciation results in a decreased articulatory
performance.
A speech language
therapist (SLP) who specializes in speech therapy can help a person with
dysarthria improve speech delivery through medication and practice of suitable exercises to regain control over the articulators.
\mychange{However, this requires }an accurate assessment of the degree of dysarthria
at the time of diagnosis and during therapy\mychange{,} to understand the effect of
medication
Instrumental investigation
\mychange{for example, using}
a water manometer fitted with a bleed valve
(to measure sub-glottal air pressure),
laryngograph
(measure abnormalities of closure),
electropalatography
(tongue movement), pneumotachography (to measure differentials of
nasal and oral air flow) \cite{book:1067226}
are supplemented
by perceptual (human) assessment and in many cases, due to lack of instruments,
perceptual assessment might be the only possible means of evaluation possible.
Perceptual assessment by a trained
SLP is considered the gold standard even if we were not to consider the
fact that
instrumentation based approach are invasive, expensive and painful.
Several tests and metrics developed over the years are used by the
SLPs. Three frequently used tests for evaluating dysarthric speech are
(a) Assessment of Intelligibility of Dysarthric Speech \cite{AIDS},
(b) Frenchay Dysarthria Assessment \cite{FDA}, and (c)
Quick Assessment for Dysarthria \cite{bk_qad}. While
Hoehn and Yahr scale \cite{HnY},
Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) \cite{UPDRS},
and Scale for Assessment and Rating of Ataxia (SARA) \cite{SARA} are
frequently used to measure the severity of dysarthria.
All these metrics are influenced
by the type of stimuli used to elicit a phonetic utterance
\cite{Kent}. For example, the assessment of speech part of the UPDRS has a
scale between $0$ and $4$, where $0$ is normal and a score of $4$ suggests
that the speaker is unintelligible most of the time.
As seen in Table \ref{tab:updrs} the interpretation of
{\em mildly}, {\em moderately}, {\em severely}
are not only SLP ({\em evaluator}) dependent but, more importantly, these
interpretations have a bearing on the stimuli used to elicit speech from the
patient.
\begin{table}
\caption{UPDRS for Speech Intelligibility Assessment \cite{updrs_metric}. The underlined words
are subject to human interpretation.}
\begin{center}
\scalebox{0.8}{
\begin{tabular}{|c|l|} \hline
UPDRS & Interpretation \\ \hline
0 & Normal \\
1 & \underline{Mildly} affected. No difficulty being understood. \\
2 & \underline{Moderately} affected. \underline{Sometimes} asked to repeat statements. \\
3 & \underline{Severely} affected. \underline{Frequently} asked to repeat statements. \\
4 & Unintelligible \underline{most} of the time.\\ \hline
\end{tabular}
}
\end{center}
\label{tab:updrs}
\end{table}
Both objective assessment using instruments and perceptual assessment by
clinicians show drawbacks. As a result, the research focus is on using
signal processing and machine learning \mychange{(ML)} approaches to automatically assess
dysarthric speech intelligibility.
In this paper we concentrate on automatic dysarthria speech
intelligibility assessment. This paper consolidates our work reported in \cite{9053339}, \cite{9054492}
and \cite{icds2020} and expands on it in the following way, (a)
\mychange{we}
propose two
additional new methods to robustly compute the speech intelligibility of the speaker, (b) we derive using visible speech the characteristics of words that make them useful to be used for speech intelligibility characterization, (c) we propose a method to enable selection of
an optimal number of words that are sufficient for intelligibility assessment for a language from a set of dictionary
words (vocabulary) without affecting the correctness of the assessed intelligibility score.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows, in Section
\ref{section:review} we review the existing literature on intelligibility
assessment techniques elaborating on the perceptual, instrumental and automatic intelligibility assessment techniques.
We describe the proposed intelligibility assessment techniques in Section \ref{sec:proposed} and also
describe the method to derive an optimal set of words from a set of dictionary words in Section \ref{sec:word_selection}.
The experimental setup is described in Section \ref{sec:experiments} and we conclude in Section \ref{sec:conclusions}.
\section{Review of Intelligibility Assessment Methods}
\label{section:review}
The approaches adopted in literature for speech intelligibility assessment can be
classified into three broad categories, namely,
(a) physiological assessment using sophisticated instruments,
(b) perceptual assessment performed by a trained clinician,
and
(c) automatic speech intelligibility assessment using advancement in
signal processing and \mychange{ML.}
The current research focus as well as the thrust of this paper
is on the use of automatic methods for dysarthric
speech intelligibility assessment. We carry out a brief survey of the existing
techniques and not review the perceptual or instrument
based assessment techniques.
The advancement in signal processing and \mychange{ML}
literature has encouraged researchers to explore the use of signal processing and ML techniques for automatic speech intelligibility assessment.
Broadly, these methods aim at measuring the abnormalities in spoken
speech by extracting handcrafted acoustic features based on statistical signal
processing \cite{Acoustic,spmethods2} and/or supervised methods based on
ML \cite{ML,7953122}. Such techniques offer the advantage of frequent,
cost effective and objective assessment of speech intelligibility.
However, a speech signal is abundant in layered information such as
gender, speaker traits, emotion of the speaker in addition to the linguistic
content of the speech \cite{book:1291324}. These multiple layers (who spoke, how
they spoke, what they spoke) of information in the same speech sample makes
it difficult to extract features that carry {\em only} pathology-specific
information.
Additionally, the ML models are prone to overfitting during training because
of the small corpus size of the disease-specific speech. This makes these
models ineffective in terms of generalization over a larger
population. One set of such approaches aims at categorizing the patients speech
recording into broad categories such as $\{{\tt healthy}, {\tt dysarthric}\}$ ($2$
classes)
\cite{kim2015automatic,rudzicz2010articulatory} or $\{{\tt high}, {\tt medium}, {\tt low}\}$ Intelligibility ($3$ classes) rather than
providing an absolute intelligibility assessment score.
However, a mechanism that can provide continuous intelligibility ratings is of
more use in a clinical setting especially, when the assessment scores are \mychange{synchronous}
with the perceptual scores understood by the SLP.
Subsequently, a set of approaches aimed at learning continuous intelligibility
assessment scores have been been researched.
Literature in this area can be broadly categorized into (a) reference-free and
(b) reference-based approaches.
\subsection{Reference-free approaches}
Reference-free approaches aim at measuring speech intelligibility without using
any prior knowledge associated with healthy or intelligible speech as reference.
Different handcrafted features that are believed to be correlated
with speech intelligibility have been explored to
(a) classify different types of dysarthria
(Table \ref{tab:dysarthria_vs_speech_characteristics})
(b) assess intelligibility of speech especially that affected by dysarthria.
Phonation features that describe pathological voice such as fundamental
frequency $F_0$ and jitter have been found useful
in quantification of voice tremor \cite{jitter,tremor}.
Pitch Period Entropy based assessment was proposed \cite{ppe} in order to
overcome the gender and acoustic environment dependency of these features.
Short-time energy and variation of energy (shimmer) \cite{shimmer} have also
been effectively used to describe hypophonia. Teager-Kaiser Energy Operator
\cite{tkeo}, a measure of instantaneous speech intensity, has been used in
order to take signal frequency into account. Features that capture energy
distribution in power spectra such as Median of Power Spectral Density (MPSD)
\cite{mpsd} and Low Short-Time Energy Ratio (LSTER) \cite{lster} have also
been explored in literature.
Acoustic cues based on
first three formants,
and their corresponding bandwidths
can be observed to study the impact on articulatory dynamics, thereby proving to be
helpful in estimation of speech intelligibility \cite{formant}. Vowel Space
Area (VSA)
for studying speech
intelligibility \cite{vsa1, vsa2} has also been
explored.
An approach
for discriminating dysarthric speech from healthy speech by using a set of
glottal
and openSMILE features have been explored using
Support Vector Machine classifier \cite{Narendra}.
An investigation of analytic phase features,
extracted from the speech signal, by using single frequency filtering technique was performed in \cite{Krishna}.
Audio descriptor features used for defining Timbre of musical instruments
along with \mychange{Artificial Neural Network (ANN)} model was used in \cite{chitralekha} to classify severity levels
of dysarthric speech.
Multi-tapered spectral estimation
to obtain the audio descriptor features was employed for dysarthria classification.
A multi-task learning technique to jointly solve dysarthria detection and
speech reconstruction tasks was explored by encoding dysarthric speech to a
lower dimensional latent space in \cite{daniel}.
Speech rate, pauses, fillers, and Goodness of Pronunciation (GoP) were
used as discriminating features to differentiate healthy controls (HC) from individuals with Huntington
disease using \mychange{Long Short Term Memory - Recurrent Neural Network (LSTM-RNN)} and \mychange{Deep Neural Network (DNN)} \cite{Perez}.
Classification of patients with \mychange{Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS)}, \mychange{Parkinsons Disease (PD)}, and \mychange{Healthy
Control (HC)} using a \mychange{Convolutional Neural Network - Long Short Term
Memory (CNN-LSTM)} based transfer
learning framework was proposed in \cite{jhansi}.
Dysarthria detection in Mandarin speaking individuals was proposed in
\cite{mayle} using a RNN-LSTM based framework directly on raw speech waveforms.
Variations of CNN architecture such as time-CNN, frequency-CNN and tf-CNN to
capture spectro-temporal variations in speech of individuals suffering from dysarthria was explored in \cite{chandrashekhar}.
The performance of Bi-directional LSTM (BiLSTM) with log-filterbank,
Mel-filter Cepstral Coefficients (MFCCs) and i-vector features as input to classify Dutch and
English speakers into intelligible and non-intelligible categories was explored
in \cite{chitra-jstsp}.
CNN for automatic early detection of ALS from highly intelligible speech was
attempted in \cite{An2018}.
The use of features based on occurrence of $<${\tt unk}$>$\ token
in {\tt{DeepSpeech}}, an end-to-end speech-to-alphabet system based on the
\mychange{CTC} loss function was effectively employed in
\cite{9054492} in order to achieve a $4$-class classification of different
intelligibility levels of dysarthria.
These reference-free methods rely on supervised learning and are usually trained
on a small dataset. Due to the size of pathological speech corpora (low
resource), they are likely to overfit the train data, thus not performing
very well on the test (unseen during training) dataset. In order to tackle this
situation, more recently, several reference-based approaches have been proposed.
\subsection{Reference-based approaches}
The family of reference-based or non-blind approaches involve the use of
healthy reference signals in a wide variety of ways. The reference speech signals
are used to train systems for example, \mychange{Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR)}
engines,
which are then employed for evaluating pathological speech to
estimate their intelligibility with respect to the healthy speech.
A single speaker-independent Gaussian Mixture Model (GMM) is trained on the data of
healthy speakers to create a healthy reference model in \cite{tobias}. The
reference GMM is adapted using pathological speech to generate a GMM-based
supervector (feature)
to represent the pathological speech signal. The intelligibility score
is then obtained by training a regression model on the GMM-based supervector.
A total variability subspace modeled by factor analysis method was adopted
to assess dysarthria intelligibility
in
\cite{Martinez}. Acoustic information corresponding to each speech recording was
represented by an i-vector and a support vector regression model was trained
for intelligibility score estimation.
A very similar approach of using i-vector for regression task has been adopted
in both \cite{martinez2} and \cite{imed}. GMM and DNN based models trained using
MFCC features were employed for the task of hypernasality estimation in
\cite{vikram}.
Two acoustic models trained on a large corpus of
healthy speech, one to measure the nasal resonance from voiced sounds and another
to measure the articulatory
imprecision from unvoiced sounds was used in \cite{Saxon} to estimate hypernasality in
dysarthric subjects.
A phonological feature extractor trained using healthy speech samples was
employed to compute statistical phonological characteristics of a speaker
using frame-level phonological features in \cite{middag1}. Similarly, a study
was carried out in \cite{middag2} to understand if ML
models trained on normal
healthy speech can be adapted to train \mychange{using} pathological speech.
Another set of reference-based approaches are based on training an
ASR system using healthy reference speech.
The ASR system replaces a human listener and pathological speech intelligibility
is computed based on the word error recognition rate. Such an approach has been
applied to measure intelligibility of tracheoesophageal speech \cite{schuster},
speech of oral cancer patients \cite{maier}, head
and neck cancer patients \cite{maier2}, and intelligibility of substitute speech after
laryngectomy \cite{schuster2}.
More recently a short-time objective intelligibility (STOI) approach was
proposed in \cite{ICASSP2020janbakhshi}. First
utterance-dependent reference signal from multiple
healthy speakers was constructed using Dynamic Time Warping (DTW).
This reference and the pathological speech (corresponding to the same
utterance) was aligned to
compute the short-time or spectral cross-correlation.
This method, called P-STOI, was evaluated on French and English speakers.
Subsequently in \cite{ICASSP2020janbakhshi}, an improvised method was proposed which
used synthetic speech generated by a text-to-speech (TTS) systems to create
a reference speech signal.
Spectral bases of the octave band representations of speech was exploited
in \cite{subspace} by first finding subspaces of spectral patterns
characterizing intelligible (healthy) and pathological speech using
Principal Component Analysis (PCA) or Approximate Joint Diagonalization (AJD)
and then measuring the Grassman distance between the two subspaces.
While the automatic speech intelligibility of pathological speech has attracted
a lot of attention leading to a researchers trying out different approaches,
the main constraint has been in terms of the size of the database, which is
often very small and because of privacy issues often not available for use
by other groups.
\section{Proposed Intelligibility Assessment Approaches}
\label{sec:proposed}
We describe two approaches, one based on high level descriptors extracted
directly from speech utterances and the other based on the output of an
end-to-end speech to alphabet (S2A) recognition engine, to assess the intelligibility of dysarthric speech. We
describe them in detail.
\subsection{High Level Descriptors based Intelligibility Assessment} \label{section:hld}
The openSMILE toolkit \cite{openSMILE} is an open-source toolkit, used for
extraction of features from audio signals.
OpenSMILE features have been popularly used for detection of
emotions in audio \cite{dumpala2019a}, speaker biometric, and detection of
voice pathologies \cite{bhat2019a}.
We use the Interspeech 2009 Emotion Challenge configuration \cite{Schuller2009TheI2} to obtain a set of $384$
features corresponding to an input speech signal.
Thus, a speech signal can be represented as a $384$ dimensional vector ($F$).
\mychange{Further we normalize $F$ along each of the $384$ dimensions so that the
feature value is in the range $(0,1)$.}
Let, ${\vec{F}}^{k}(w)$ denote the \mychange{normalized} high level descriptors (feature vector) of
length $|F| = 384$ corresponding to the
Speaker $k$. Note that $$E(\delta,\eta,w) = \mychange{\frac{1}{|F|}}\sqrt{\sum_{i=1}^{|F|} \left ({\vec{F}}_{i}^{\eta}(w) -
{\vec{F}}_{i}^{\delta}(w)\right )^2}$$ is the Euclidean distance between speaker $\delta$ and
speaker $\eta$ speaking the same word $w$ \mychange{(note that $E(\delta,\eta,w)$ takes a value
between $(0,1)$)}.
Then, the intelligibility measure of speaker $d$ speaking the word $w$, denoted by $I_{os}(d,w)$ can be
computed as
\[
I_{os}(d,w) = \frac{1}{N_h} \sum_{l=1}^{N_h} E(d,l,w)
\]
where $N_h$ denotes the number of healthy speakers available in the dataset.
Note that $I_{os}(d,w)$ captures the average distance of the speaker $d$
speaking the word $w$ from all the $N_h$ healthy speakers who speak the same
word $w$.
The overall intelligibility of the speaker $d$ across all the words in the
dataset can be computed as
\begin{equation}
I_{os}(d) = \frac{1}{|W|} \sum_{w \in W} I_{os}(d,w)
\label{eq:i_os}
\end{equation}
where $W$ is the set of words and $|W|$ is the total
number of words in the database.
A large value of intelligibility measure $I_{os}(d)$ would mean a larger distance between the speaker
$d$ and the healthy speakers in the high level descriptors space.
We can easily see that the metric $I_{os}$ is negatively correlated with the perceptually assessed intelligibility score
and this is clearly seen in our experimental results.
\subsection{Speech to Alphabet ({\tt{DeepSpeech}}) based Intelligibility Assessment}
Mozilla's DeepSpeech \cite{MozillaDS} ({\tt{DeepSpeech}}) is an end-to-end deep learning model
that converts
speech into alphabets based on the Connectionist Temporal Classification (CTC) loss function. The $6$ layer deep model is pre-trained on $1000$ hours of speech from
the Librispeech corpus \cite{panayotov2015librispeech}. All the layers, except
the $4^{th}$ layer, which has recurrent units, have feedforward dense units.
A speech utterance $x$ is segmented into $T$ frames, as is common in speech
processing, namely, $x_{t}\ \ \forall t \in \left[0, T-1\right]$.
Each frame $x_{t}$ is represented by $26$
\mychange{MFCCs}, namely, $\vec{f}_t$.
Subsequently the speech utterance $x$ can be represented as a
sequence of speech features, namely, $\{\vec{f}_t\}_{t=0}^{T-1}$. The input to
the {\tt{DeepSpeech}}\ is the speech features from $9$ preceding and $9$ succeeding frames,
namely $\{ \vec{f}_{t-9} \cdots \vec{f}_{t+9}\}$.
The output of the {\tt{DeepSpeech}}\ model is a probability distribution over the
alphabet set ${\cal A}$ of a particular language.
In case of English language, ${\cal A} = (a, b, \cdots, z, \square, \star, <{\tt unk}>)$ and
$|{\cal A}| = 29$. Note that there are three additional
outputs, namely, $<${\tt unk}$>$, $\square$, and $\star$ corresponding to {\em unknown}, {\em space} and
an {\em apostrophe} respectively in the alphabet set in addition to the $26$ known English letters.
The output at each frame/timestep, $t$ is
\begin{equation}
c^*_{t} = \max_{\forall k \in {\cal A}} P\left(\left(c_{t} = k\right)|\left \{\vec{f}_{t-9}, \cdots, \vec{f}_{t}, \cdots, \vec{f}_{t+9}\right \}\right)
\label{eq:mozds}
\end{equation}
where $c^*_{t} \in {\cal A}$. It is important to note that a typical
speech recognition engine is assisted by a statistical language model (LM)
which helps in masking small acoustic mispronunciations. However as seen in
(\ref{eq:mozds}) there is no role of LM.
This, as we will see
later, is vital to speech intelligibility estimation.
Let us define four string operations, namely, (a) ${\cal C}(s,p)$ which counts the
number of patterns $p \in {\cal A}$ in the string $s$, (b) ${\cal L}(s)$ is the
length of the string $s$, (c) ${\cal S}(s)$ which compresses the
string $s$ so that all repetitions are deleted and (d) ${\cal D}(s,p)$ which deletes
all the patterns $p \in {\cal A}$ in the string $s$. The string $s$ is
typically the output of (\ref{eq:mozds}). Table \ref{tab:operations} shows some
examples of these operation on the output of {\tt{DeepSpeech}}\ string $s$. While we
will not be making use of these properties in this paper, it is interesting to
note that (a) the order of ${\cal S}$ and ${\cal D}$ does not matter and
(b) ${\cal S}^n ={\cal S}$ and ${\cal D}^n = {\cal D}$ (see Table \ref{tab:operations}).
\begin{table}
\caption{Example operation on the output of {\tt{DeepSpeech}}.}
\label{tab:operations}
\begin{center}
\scalebox{0.8}{
\begin{tabular}{rl} \hline
\multicolumn{2}{c}{$s = [$ {\tt n\ a\ a\ $\square$ t\ t\ t\ $<${\tt unk}$>$\ u\ u\ u\ $\square$ r\ r\ r\ r\ $<${\tt unk}$>$\ e\ e\ $<${\tt unk}$>$} $]$}\\
\hline
${\cal C}(s,<{\tt unk}>)=$ & $3$\\
${\cal L}(s)=$ & $20$\\
${\cal S}(s)=$ & $[$ {\tt n\ a\ $\square$ t\ $<${\tt unk}$>$\ u\ $\square$ r\ $<${\tt unk}$>$\ e\ $<${\tt unk}$>$} $]$ \\
${\cal D}(s,<{\tt unk}>)=$ & $[$ {\tt n\ a\ a\ $\square$ t\ t\ t\ u\ u\ u\ $\square$ r\ r\ r\ r\ e\ e} $]$ \\ \hline
${\cal S}({\cal D}({\cal D}(s,<{\tt unk}>),\square)) =$ &$ [$ {\tt n\ a\ t\ u\ r\ e} $]$\\
${\cal S}({\cal D}({\cal D}(s,\square),<{\tt unk}>)) = $ &$ [$ {\tt n\ a\ t\ u\ r\ e} $]$\\
${\cal D}({\cal D}({\cal S}(s),\square),<{\tt unk}>) = $ &$ [$ {\tt n\ a\ t\ u\ r\ e} $]$\\
${\cal D}({\cal S}({\cal D}(s,\square),<{\tt unk}>)) = $&$ [$ {\tt n\ a\ t\ u\ r\ e} $]$\\ \hline
${\cal S}^n(s) =$ & $ {\cal S}(s)$ \\
${\cal D}^2(s,p) \stackrel{\Delta}{=} {\cal D}({\cal D}(s,p),p) =$ & ${\cal D}(s,p)$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
}
\end{center}
\end{table}
In order to estimate the intelligibility, for a given spoken word, $u$, we
get the output $c^*_t$ from (\ref{eq:mozds}) for each time step $t$. Let $c^* =
c^*_1, c^*_2, \cdots$
denote the output sequence for the spoken word $u$.
We compute the similarity between
$s_1 = {\cal D}({\cal S}(c^*),<{\tt unk}>)$ of length $l_1 = L(s_1)$ and the ground truth (say $s_{1g}$ of length $l_g
= {\cal L}(s_{1g})$). Note that the operations ${\cal S}$ and ${\cal D}$ are not applicable on the
ground truth.
The higher the similarity between the two strings ($s_1$ and $s_{1g}$) the higher the intelligibility
of the utterance $u$.
We experiment with three string comparison metrics, namely, (a) Sequence Matcher,
(b) Levenshtein distance and (c) occurrence of $<${\tt unk}$>$\ for computing the intelligibility scores.
\noindent {\bf Intelligibility based on Sequence Matcher:}
Sequence matcher is an extension of the Gestalt Pattern Matching algorithm \cite{black2004ratcliff}.
The similarity between two strings is computed as the number of characters in the
matching subsequences divided by
the total number of characters in both the strings.
The number of matching characters is the
length of the longest matching (contiguous) subsequence between the two input strings $s_1$ and $s_{1g}$.
The intelligibility using the Sequence Matcher technique can be computed as
\begin{equation}
I_{sm}(s_1, s_{1g}) = 100 * \left(\frac{2*m}{l_1 + l_g} \right)
\label{eq:i_sm}
\end{equation}
where $m$ denotes the total number of characters in matching subsequences between $s_1$ and $s_{1g}$.
\noindent {\bf Intelligibility based on Levenshtein Distance:}
Levenshtein or Edit distance expresses the number of edits (insertions, deletions,
substitutions) necessary to convert one sequence to another. The lesser the number
of edits the higher is the similarity between the two sequences.
The intelligibility using the Levenshtein distance is computed as,
\begin{equation}
I_{ld}(s_1, s_{1g}) = \left(1 - \frac{l}{l_1 + l_g} \right) *100
\label{eq:i_ld}
\end{equation}
where $l$ represents the edit distance between $s_1$ and $s_{1g}$.
\noindent {\bf Intelligibility Assessment based on $<${\tt unk}$>$:} The {\tt{DeepSpeech}}\
speech to character has been, like most automatic speech recognition engines,
trained on {\em only} healthy speech and it is natural that it fails to recognize sounds
in pathological speech, an effect of this is the production of the character
$<${\tt unk}$>$\ in (\ref{eq:mozds}). Intelligibility of the speech can be estimated from
the number of times $<${\tt unk}$>$\ occurs in the output, namely in $s_1$.
The intelligibility using this metric is computed as,
\begin{equation}
I_{<{\tt unk}>}(s_1,s_{1g}) = \left (1 - \min \left (\frac{{\cal C}(s_1,<{\tt unk}>)}{{\cal L}(s_{1g})}, 1 \right ) \right
) \mychange{* 100}
\label{eq:i_unk}
\end{equation}
where $\min(a,1)$ outputs $1$ when $a \ge 1$, else it outputs the vale of $a$.
So given a set of $w \in W$ words, the patient to be assessed is asked to speak all the
$|W|$ words in $W$; the intelligibility score for the patient is then computed as
\begin{equation}
\mychange{I_{ld} =} \frac{1}{|W|}\sum_{i=1}^{|W|}I_{sm}(s_i, s_{ig});
\label{eq:final_ld}
\end{equation}
for Intelligibility based on Sequence Matcher,
\begin{equation}
\mychange{I_{sm} =} \frac{1}{|W|}\sum_{i=1}^{|W|}I_{ld}(s_i, s_{ig}) ;
\label{eq:final_sm}
\end{equation}
for Intelligibility based on Levenshtein Distance and
\begin{equation}
\mychange{I_{<{\tt unk}>} =} \frac{1}{|W|}\sum_{i=1}^{|W|}I_{<{\tt unk}>}(s_i, s_{ig})
\label{eq:final_unk}
\end{equation}
for Intelligibility based on occurrence of $<${\tt unk}$>$. Note that all these metrics
for intelligibility assessment work, as will be shown in our experiments, independent of the speaker.
Clearly the larger the number of words ($|W|$) that the patient needs to speak
the more reliable is the intelligibility score, however a
large set of words makes the assessment system poor from the user experience
perspective especially in terms of time required for the patient to speak and
additionally the effort to speak a large number of words by the dysarthric
patient.
Next we propose a cost minimization approach to select an optimal
number of words (much smaller than $|W|$) without effecting the intelligibility assessment.
\section{Selection of Optimal set of words}
\label{sec:word_selection}
As seen earlier the larger the number of words that the patient is asked to
speak the better the integrity of the intelligibility score. However, from the
user experience and time perspective a smaller number of words is preferable.
We propose a cost minimization approach to select an optimal number of words from the
original set of $|W|$ words that can reliably estimate the subject's intelligibility
instead of having the patient to speak all the $|W|$ words. This not only makes the
system less intrusive, but also causes less discomfort to the patient undergoing
the assessment.
In order to obtain a subset of the original $|W|$ words to be used for the assessment
we identify all possible subsets of $r$ words from the original set of words
$W = \{w_1, w_2, ..., w_{|W|}\}$, where $w_{i}$ is the individual word spoken in the utterance
and $|W|$ is the total number of words. The total number of subsets that can be formed from $W$ is,
\[
{\cal T} = \sum_{r=1}^{|W|} {}^{|W|}C_
\]
where
\[{}^{|W|}C_r = \frac{|W|!}{\left(|W|-r\right)!r!}\]
is the number of ways of choosing $r$ unordered outcomes from $|W|$ possibilities.
As one can see there are ${\cal T}$ subsets that can be constructed in all from $|W|$
words.
For each subset $W_{k}$ namely, $W_k \subset W$,
for $k = \{1,2, ... {\cal T}\}$,
let $|W_k|$ denote the number of words in the set $W_k$.
For each subset $W_k$ the intelligibility score is computed as
\[
I^{W_k}_{avg} = \frac{1}{|W_k|} \sum_{w \in W_k} I_{{w}}
\]
where $I_{{w}}$ is the intelligibility score (for example (\ref{eq:final_ld})) of the word $w \in W_k$ and $I^{W_k}_{avg}$
denotes the average intelligibility score over all the $|W_k|$ words in that subset
$W_k$. Note that $I^{W_k}_{avg}$ is computed for a speaker.
Now, we define a correlation
score of each subset, namely, $I^{W_k}_{avg}$ of
a speaker and the corresponding perceptual intelligibility (human annotated
reference) score, $I_{p}$ of
the same speaker \mychange{by computing the Pearson correlation {({{\sc Pc}})}} as
\[
\mbox{{\tt{cor}}} \left(W_{k} \right) = \mbox{{\mychange{{{\sc Pc}}}}}\left(I^{W_k}_{avg}, I_{p}\right)
\]
We compute $\mbox{{\tt{cor}}} \left(W_{k} \right)$ for all speakers in the
dataset. For sake of simplicity, let the representation $\mbox{{\tt{cor}}} \left(W_{k} \right)$
denote the correlation for all the speakers in the database.
To find the optimal number of words, we define the following cost function
\begin{equation}
\mbox{{\tt{cost}}}\left(W_{k}\right ) =
\alpha_1 |W_k| -
\alpha_2 \mbox{{\tt{cor}}} \left(W_{k} \right)
- \alpha_3 {\mychange{E_{word}}} \left(W_{k}\right)
\label{eq:cost}
\end{equation}
where
${\mychange{E_{word}}}$ is defined as the effort or difficulty in
pronouncing the words in $W_k$. We show, using visible speech \cite{VSbook} analysis
how to compute ${\mychange{E_{word}}}$ in
Section \ref{sec:vs_basis}.
Note that we chose $\alpha_1 = \alpha_2 = \alpha_3 =1$ in all our experiments.
The subset $W^*_k$ that minimizes (\ref{eq:cost}) is the optimal set, namely,
\begin{equation}
W_k^* = \min_{k=1,2, \cdots, {\cal T}} (\mbox{{\tt{cost}}}\left(W_{k}\right )).
\label{eq:mincost}
\end{equation}
As will be seen in the experimental results section, the choice of different
intelligibility metrics results in a different optimal subset $W_k$.
Notice that the cost function (\ref{eq:cost}) has three components, the first
component encourages selection of as few words as possible (from a list of
words or vocabulary), the second
component dependents on the availability of an annotated database and
encourages selection of those words which show high correlation between
the chosen intelligibility metric and real intelligibility (perceptual) score and the third
component is dependent on the pronunciation of the word and encourages choice
of words (in the vocabulary) that are hard to articulate. The vocabulary is
constrained by the number of (spoken) words that are present in the database and
have been annotated (given a perceptual intelligibility score).
\subsection{Computing Word Pronunciation Difficulty using
Visible Speech}
\label{sec:vs_basis}
Visible Speech (VS) is a system of phonetic symbols
\cite{VSbook} to represent the
position of the speech organs in articulating sounds.
It is composed of symbols that visually capture
the position and movement of different parts of the speech production
system. A set of $8$ organs, namely,
(a) Larynx,
(b) Pharynx,
(c) Soft Palate,
(d) The action of the soft palate in closing the Nasal Passage,
(e) Back, (f) Front, (g) Point of the Tongue,
and
(h) Lips
are involved in the speech production system.
The production of speech is a complicated process that involves precise
control over these $8$ organs. In order to utter a word, phrase or a sentence
of intelligible speech, the rapid switching of positions of different organs
is of extreme importance.
The fundamental
principle of VS is that all the relations between different
sounds are presented in a symbolic manner. Each symbol captures the position of
the articulators in producing a sound.
The sounds of
same nature produced at different parts of the mouth are represented by a
single symbol and the orientation of the symbol depicts the position of the
organs involved in production of the sound. Based on this hypothesis, he
proposed a set of Physiological Symbols corresponding to the English elements
of Speech. Tables \ref{tab:chart} represents the Visible Speech symbols
corresponding to the consonants, vowels, glides and diphthongs in the English
language.
\begin{table}
\caption{Chart of English Sounds and corresponding Visible Speech symbol
\cite{VSbook}}
\centering
\scalebox{0.7}{
\begin{tabular}{llllllll}
&&\multicolumn{5}{c}{Visible Speech Consonants.}& \\
\vis\ls &p in pea & \vis\ps & t in tea & \vis\bs & k in key & \vis\pp & r in train \\
\vis\lsv &b in bay & \vis\psv & d in day & \vis\bsv & g in gay & \vis\ppv & r in rain \\
\vis\lnv &m in some & \vis\pnv & n in son & \vis\bnv & ng in sung & \vis\tp & h in hue \\
\vis\ld &f in fine & \vis\pb & th in thigh & \vis\pd & l in cloud & \vis\tpv & y in you \\
\vis\ldv &v in vie & \vis\pbv & th in thy & \vis\pdv & l in loud & \vis\fp & h in hop \\
\vis\lm &wh in whey & \vis\pmv & s in hiss & \vis\tm & sh in rush & \vis\lmv & w in way \\
\vis\pm &s in his & \vis\tmv & ge in rouge & & & & \\
&&\multicolumn{5}{c}{Visible Speech Vowels.}& \\
\vis\vhfp &ee in eel & \vis\vhfw & i in ill & \vis\vlfp & e in shell & \vis\vlfw & a in shall \\
\vis\vhbpr &oo in pool & \vis\vhbwr & u in pull & \vis\vlbpr & a in all & \vis\vlbwr & o in doll \\
\vis\vmbw &a in father & \vis\vmmw & a in ask & \vis\vlmw & u in curl & \vis\vmbp & u in dull \\
&&\multicolumn{5}{c}{Visible Speech Glides.}& \\
\vis\glipback &w in now & \vis\gpoint & r in sir & \vis\gtop & y in may & \vis\gvoice & a in near \\
&&\multicolumn{5}{c}{Visible Speech Diphthongs.}& \\
\vis\vmbw\gtop &i in mine & \vis\vmfp\gtop & a in mane & \vis\vmbw\glipback & ow in now & \vis\vmbpr\glipback & ow in know \\
\vis\vlbpr\gtop & oy in boy & & & & & & \\
\end{tabular}
}
\label{tab:chart}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\caption{The $10$ Radical Symbols (VS basis) from which all Letters are formed.}
\centering
\scalebox{0.8}{
\begin{tabular}{|c|l|}
\hline
{VS basis} & {Description} \\ \hline
\vis\vlmp & The Throat sounding [Voice] \\
\vis\vlmpr & The Throat sounding and lips 'rounded'\\
$\circ$ & Vowel Definer \\
$\wedge$ & Wide Vowel Definer \\
\vis\fP & The Throat contracted [Whisper] \\
\vis\bp & Part of the Mouth contracted \\
\vis\bd & Part of the Mouth divided \\
$\alpha$ & Mixer \\
$|$ & Shutter \\
\vis\mnasal & The Nasal valve open [Soft Palate] \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
}
\label{tab:10symbols}
\end{table}
Further, a set of $24$ radical symbols that represent all possible phonetic
sounds was proposed in \cite{VSbook}. However, of the $24$ radical symbols,
only $10$ radical symbols are sufficient to represent all possible vowels and
consonant letters in the English language. We can look at these $10$ radical
symbols as being a {\em basis} to represent any VS symbol in Table \ref{tab:chart}.
The $10$ dimensional VS basis (or radical symbols) are
depicted in Table \ref{tab:10symbols} (some symbols may not accurately depict the radical symbols as proposed by Bell \cite{VSbook}).
Note that every Visible Speech symbol in Table \ref{tab:chart}
can be represented in the form of a $10$ dimensional vector, namely,
[{\vis\vlmp}, {\vis\vlmpr}, $\circ$, $\wedge$, {\vis\fP}, {\vis\bp}, {\vis\bd}, $\alpha$, $|$, {\vis\mnasal}].
For example the VS symbol corresponding to k is {\vis\bs} and is formed by
{\vis\bp} and $|$ hence it can be represented as [0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0]
using the VS basis. A few VS symbols represented
using the VS basis is shown for ease of understanding in Table
\ref{tab:example}.
\begin{table}
\caption{Example of VS symbols represented using VS basis.}
\label{tab:example}
\centering
\scalebox{0.8}{
\begin{tabular}{c|rc} \hline
VS Symbol & \multicolumn{2}{c}{VS basis [{\vis\vlmp}, {\vis\vlmpr}, $\circ$,
$\wedge$, {\vis\fP}, {\vis\bp}, {\vis\bd}, $\alpha$, $|$, {\vis\mnasal}]} \\ \hline
{\vis\bs} & {\vis\bp} and $|$ = &[0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0] \\
{\vis\bsv} & {\vis\bp}, $|$ and {\vis\vlmp} = &[1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0]\\
{\vis\pnv} & {\vis\bp}, {\vis\mnasal} and {\vis\vlmp}= &[1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 1]
\\
{\vis\pbv} & {\vis\bpv}, $\alpha$ and {\vis\vlmp}= &[1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, 1, 0]
\\
{\vis\vhbpr} & {\vis\vlmpr} and $\circ$= &[0, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0]
\\
{\vis\vhbwr} & {\vis\vlmpr} and $\wedge$= &[0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0]\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{effort_naturalization.png}
\caption{Histogram of the effort involved in production of the word {\NATURALIZATION}.}
\label{fig:naturalization}
\end{figure}
The entire process of decomposition for the English word {\NATURALIZATION} is
shown in Table \ref{tab:naturalization}. Note that
{\vis\pnv\vlfw\tmv\vhbwr\ppv\vmbp\pdv\vmbp\gtop\pm\vlfp\tm\vmbp\pnv} in the VS symbolic form of
the word {\NATURALIZATION} and each VS symbol can be represented as a $10$
dimensional vector using the VS basis.
\begin{table}
\caption{VS basis representations of the word {\NATURALIZATION}.
Note that ${\mychange{E_{word}}}=43$ is the difficulty level of the word. }
\label{tab:naturalization}
\centering
\scalebox{0.7}{
\begin{tabular}{|c|llllllllll|c|}
\hline
& {\vis\vlmp} & {\vis\vlmpr} & $\circ$ & $\wedge$& {\vis\fP} & {\vis\bp} &
{\vis\bd} & $\alpha$ & $|$ & {\vis\mnasal} & {$E$} \\ \hline
Rest & [0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0] & -- \\
{\vis\pnv} & [1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1] & \textbf{3} \\
{\vis\vlfw} & [1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0] & \textbf{3} \\% \hline
{\vis\tmv} & [1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0] & \textbf{3} \\
{\vis\vhbwr} & [0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0] & \textbf{5} \\
{\vis\ppv} & [1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0] & \textbf{4} \\
{\vis\vmbp} & [1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0] & \textbf{2} \\
{\vis\pdv} & [1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0] & \textbf{2} \\
{\vis\vmbp} & [1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0] & \textbf{2} \\
{\vis\gtop} & [1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0] & \textbf{2} \\
{\vis\pm} & [0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0] & \textbf{2} \\
{\vis\vlfp} & [1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0] & \textbf{4} \\
{\vis\tm} & [0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0] & \textbf{4} \\
{\vis\vmbp} & [1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0] & \textbf{4} \\
{\vis\pnv} & [1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1] & \textbf{3} \\ \hline
& & &&&&&&&&&${\mychange{E_{word}}}=43$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
}
\end{table}
We now compute the effort ($E$) in terms of moving the organs of speech production system when
transitioning from one sound represented in the VS basis as $\vec{R_i}$ to the next sound represented
in the VS basis as ($\vec{R_k}$) as
\[
E = \#({\vec{R_{i}} \oplus \vec{R_{k}}})
\]
where, $\oplus$ represents the XOR operation and $\#(\vec{R})$ represents the number of
$1$'s in the vector $\vec{R}$. The last column in Table \ref{tab:naturalization}
shows the effort, $E$, in traversing from one sound to another. For example,
$E=3$ for traversing from sound {\vis\pnv} represented by
$R_{\mbox{\vis\pnv}}$
=[ 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 1]
to the sound {\vis\vlfw} represented by $R_{\mbox{\vis\vlfw}}$
= [1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0] (see Table \ref{tab:naturalization}).
Note that $\vec{R_{\mbox{\vis\pnv}}} \oplus \vec{R_{\mbox{\vis\vlfw}}}$
$= [ 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 1$] and $\#([ 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0,
0, 0, 1]) = 3$. The effort for pronouncing the word {\NATURALIZATION}
is the sum of effort taken to traverse from one sound to another while
speaking the word. As seen in Table \ref{tab:naturalization} the effort to
speak naturalization is ${\mychange{E_{word}}}=43$.
Figure \ref{fig:naturalization} shows the histogram plot for the effort involved in producing
the word {\NATURALIZATION}. Observe that there are $5$ instances when an
effort or $E=2$ was required to move from one sound to another.
Since, the ability to precisely control the different organs involved in speech production
is diminished in dysarthric patients, words that require higher value of effort are
usually not articulated properly by these patients. Subsequently words with
higher ${\mychange{E_{word}}}$ are more difficult to articulate because they need speech producing
organs to transition more than a simple word.
The effort required to speak a word or equivalently the difficulty level of a
word depends on the amount of changes the articulators have to make to
articulate that word. We use this in building a cost function (\ref{eq:cost})
to identify an
optimal set of words that can be used to assess the intelligibility of spoken
speech.
\section{Experimental Results}
\label{sec:experiments}
We conducted a series of experiments with an objective to determine how close
the proposed intelligibility assessment techniques were to the SLP relatable
perceptual intelligibility score. Additionally the aim was to assess the
intelligibility score by asking the dysarthric patient speak a very limited
number of {\em carefully chosen} words. We first detail the database that was
used for experimentally validating the proposed speech intelligibility
techniques.
\subsection{Database}
\label{section:database}
The Dysarthric Speech Database for Universal Access Research (UA Speech database)
\cite{UASpeech} consists of audiovisual recordings produced by $15$ dysarthric
speakers with cerebral palsy and $13$ healthy subjects. The subjects were
required to read a set of $765$ isolated words \mychange{($449$ unique)} shown on a computer monitor.
The set of utterances, from each participant, included
\begin{itemize}
\item {\tt Digits}\ (D) ($10$ words, $3$ repetitions). Example {\tt
one}, {\tt two} , $\cdots$
\item {\tt Letters}\ (L) ($26$ words, $3$ repetitions).
The $26$ letters of the International Radio Alphabet. Example {\tt alpha},
{\tt bravo}, $\cdots$
\item {\tt Computer Commands}\ (CC) ($19$ words, $3$ repetitions).
A set of common word processing commands. Example {\tt command}, {\tt line},
{\tt enter}, $\cdots$
\item {\tt Common Words}\ (CW) ($100$ words, $3$ repetitions).
The most common $100$ words taken from the Brown corpus. Example {\tt {yes}}, {\tt {no}}, $\cdots$
\item {\tt Uncommon Words}\ (UW) ($300$ words, $1$ repetition).
Words selected from Project Gutenberg novels such that the occurrence of
infrequent biphones is maximized. Example {\tt {butterflies}}, {\tt {convulsion}}, $\cdots$
\end{itemize}
\mychange{As can be observed there should be $455$ ($10$ {\tt Digits}, $26$ {\tt Letters}, $19$
{\tt Computer Commands}, $100$ {\tt Common Words}, and $300$ {\tt Uncommon Words}) unique words. However $6$
words ({\tt choking}, {\tt equilibrium}, {\tt moustache}, {\tt powwow}, {\tt vouchsafe}, and {\tt watch}) in {\tt Uncommon Words}\
repeat reducing the number of unique words to $449$.}
\begin{table
\caption{Distribution of speaking task into blocks B1, B2 and B3. The number of utterances is shown in $\{\}$ and the repetition number is shown $()$
\cite{9053339}.}
\begin{center}
\scalebox{0.8} {
\begin{tabular}{l|c||c|c|c}\hline
&Full $\{765\}$& B1 $\{255\}$& B2 $\{255\}$& B3 $\{255\}$\\ \hline\hline
{\tt Computer Commands}\ &CC $\{57\}$ & CC(1) $\{19\}$ & CC(2) $\{19\}$ & CC(3) $\{19\}$\\
{\tt Letters}\ &L $\{78\}$ & L(1) $\{26\}$ & L(2) $\{26\}$& L(3) $\{26\}$\\
{\tt Digits}\ &D $\{30\}$ & D(1) $\{10\}$ & D(2) $\{10\}$& D(3) $\{10\}$\\
{\tt Common Words} &CW $\{300\}$ & CW(1) $\{100\}$& CW(2) $\{100\}$& CW(3) $\{100\}$\\
{\tt Uncommon Words} &UW $\{300\}$ & UW1 $\{100\}$ & UW2 $\{100\}$ & UW3 $\{100\}$\\ \hline
\end{tabular}
}
\end{center}
\label{tab:UAblocks}
\end{table}
All utterances, as mentioned in \cite{UASpeech}, were recorded using an eight-microphone array at a
sampling frequency of $48$ kHz. For ease of subjects, the words were divided into three equally
sized blocks (B1, B2, B3) of $255$ words each and the participants were given a break between the
blocks. The distribution of \mychange{utterances} in the three blocks is shown in Table \ref{tab:UAblocks}
for each speaker \cite{9053339}.
A set of $5$ native American English were asked to provide orthographic transcriptions for utterances
spoken by dysarthric patients in order to assign a perceptual intelligibility rating. For each
listener's transcription, the percentage of correctly identified transcription was calculated and
averaged to obtain the individual speaker's intelligibility rating based on perception.
These intelligibility scores lie in the range of $2\%$ to $95\%$. Further, based on these
scores, each speaker was classified into one of four categories: {\tt{very low}}\ $(0\%-25\%)$,
{\tt low}\ $(26\%-50\%)$, {\tt medium}\ $(51\%-75\%)$ and {\tt high}\ $(76\%-100\%)$
intelligibility.
\subsection{Results}
As an attempt to concurrently seize the effects of the proposed techniques,
we evaluate the performance of the methods, namely,
(i) $I_{os}$ (\ref{eq:i_os}),
(ii) {\tt{DeepSpeech}}\ + $I_{sm}$ (\ref{eq:i_sm}),
(iii) {\tt{DeepSpeech}}\ + $I_{ld}$ (\ref{eq:i_ld}) and
(iv) {\tt{DeepSpeech}}\ + $I_{<{\tt unk}>}$ (\ref{eq:i_unk})
on different subsets of utterances from the UASpeech dataset.
As mentioned earlier $I_{os}$ is negatively correlated to perceptual intelligibility scores
while the other intelligibility scores are positively correlated.
The subsets used for our analysis, as seen in Table \ref{tab:UAblocks}, are
(a) {\tt Computer Commands}\ (CC), (b) International Radio Letters ({\tt Letters}), (c) {\tt Digits}, (d) {\tt Common Words}\ (CW) and
(d) {\tt Uncommon Words}\ UW1, UW2 and UW3 and across three different blocks,
namely, B1, B2 and B3 as shown in Table \ref{table:detailedres}.
We also compute the combined average score across all $765$ words using our intelligibility
metrics $I_{os}$, {\tt{DeepSpeech}}\ + $I_{sm}$, {\tt{DeepSpeech}}\ + $I_{ld}$, and {\tt{DeepSpeech}}\ + $I_{<{\tt unk}>}$ compared to the perceptual intelligibility (considered
as the ground truth) rating using {{\sc Pc}}. Since all but {\tt Uncommon Words}\ are present in each
of the three blocks B1, B2 and B3, the {{\sc Pc}}\ values averaged across the three blocks are of the same range.
The low value of {{\sc Pc}}\ for the subset of {\tt Digits}\ is attributed to the comparative simplicity in production
of the words and hence less effort to pronounce them as described by the visible speech analysis. As
we will see later, none of the words in {\tt Digits}\ qualify into the optimal set of
words that are sufficient to compute the intelligibility score of dysarthric
speech.
In general the {\tt Uncommon Words}\ are difficult to pronounce and hence the higher value of {{\sc Pc}}\ signifies that the UW subset
seems to captures the nuances required for reliable intelligibility estimation.
It can also be seen that intelligibility score based on Sequence Matching
and Levenshtein
distance performs better compared to the other intelligibility measuring
metrics.
\begin{table}
\caption{Pearson Correlation of the proposed techniques for assessment of intelligibility.}
\centering
\resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c||c|c|c||c|} \hline
& CC & {\tt Digits}\ & {\tt Letters} & CW & UW1 & UW2 & UW3 & B1 & B2 & B3 & All Words\\ \hline
Utt/speaker & 57 & 30 & 78 & 300 & 100 & 100 & 100 & 255 & 255 & 255 & 765\\ \hline
$I_{os}$ (\ref{eq:i_os})& -0.80 & -0.74 & -0.83 & -0.81 & -0.80 & -0.73 & -0.74 & -0.84 & -0.80 & -0.73 & -0.81\\ \hline
{\tt{DeepSpeech}}\ + $I_{sm}$ (\ref{eq:i_sm})& 0.85 & 0.84 & 0.93 & 0.94 & 0.94 & 0.92 & 0.92 & 0.94 & 0.93 & 0.94 & {\bf 0.94}\\ \hline
{\tt{DeepSpeech}}\ + $I_{ld}$ (\ref{eq:i_ld})& 0.88 & 0.84 & 0.94 & 0.93 & 0.91 & 0.90 & 0.90 & 0.93 & 0.91 & 0.93 & 0.93 \\ \hline
{\tt{DeepSpeech}}\ + $I_{<{\tt unk}>}$(\ref{eq:i_unk}) & 0.87 & 0.83 & 0.88 & 0.82 & 0.91 & 0.90 & 0.90 & 0.89 & 0.88 & 0.87 & 0.88\\ \hline
\end{tabular}}
\label{table:detailedres}
\end{table}
As we argued earlier that it is physically taxing on a patient to speak a large
number of utterances, for example, the best performance of intelligibility assessment
would require the patient to speak all the $765$ \mychange{utterances} (last column of Table
\ref{table:detailedres}). We applied the cost minimization approach, described in
Section \ref{sec:word_selection}, to identify an optimal (much smaller than
\mychange{$449$}) set of words, which would not adversely affect the computation of intelligibility score of the
speaker.
Given a set of $|W|$ words, the proposed algorithm requires to look in for $(2^{|W|} - 1)$ possible
combinations to find the optimal subset $W_k$ containing $|W_k|$ words.
In the UASpeech dataset a set of $|W| = \mychange{449}$ \mychange{unique} words are provided which leads to ${\cal T}
\approx 10^{\mychange{135}}$ possible subsets. Note that operating on such high number of
possible solutions is infeasible. We used the following two criteria to reduce
the number of words from which we expect our word selection to happen
\begin{enumerate}
\item All words with
less than $\mychange{5}$ syllables are discarded.
\item For each isolated word, the distance traversed in the 2D vowel space
(formed by formants $F_1$ and $F_2$) is determined using the standard values of formants for
vowels shown in Table \ref{tab:formantvalues}
\cite{formantvalues2, formantvalues}.
The phonetic transcription of each word is obtained and the Euclidean distance between subsequent vowels
present in the word are summed up to obtain the distance that is required to be traversed in the vowel
space in order to satisfactorily pronounce the word.
For example, the word {\NATURALIZATION} has the phonetic transcription (using
the ARPABET symbol set consists of $39$ phonemes \cite{arpabet_phone})
{['N', 'AE', 'CH', 'ER', 'AH', 'L', 'IH', 'Z', 'EY', 'SH', 'AH', 'N']}, considering only
the vowels,
we get {['AE', 'ER', 'AH', 'IH', 'EY', 'AH']}.
Assuming an initial rest start, namely, $F_1 = 0$ and $F_2 = 0$, for the word
the distance traversed in the
$F_1-F_2$ space is calculated as the Euclidean distance between the vowels,
namely,
'AE' (588, 1952) $\rightarrow$
'ER' (474, 1379) $\rightarrow$
'AH' (623, 1200) $\rightarrow$
'IH' (427, 2034) $\rightarrow$
'EY' (580, 1799) $\rightarrow$
'AH' (623, 1200) is {$4593.44$}. All words that traversed less than $2400$ in
this $F_1-F_2$ space were discarded.
\end{enumerate}
\begin{table}
\caption{Formant frequencies of F1 and F2 for American English vowels from \cite{formantvalues}. }
\centering {
\scalebox{0.8}{
\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|} \hline
{{Vowel}} & {{E{Y}}} & {AO} & {ER} & {AH} & {UW} & {AE} & {IY} & {IH} & {UH} & {AA} & {E} \\ \hline
{{F1}} & {580} & 652 & 474 & 623 & 378 & 588 & 342 & 427 & 469 & 768 & 476 \\ \hline
{{F2}} & {1799} & 997 & 1379 & 1200 & 997 & 1952 & 2322 & 2034 & 1122 & 1333 & 2089 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
}
}
\label{tab:formantvalues}
\end{table}
\mychange{
The aforementioned constraints reduces the space of
words from \mychange{$449$} to \mychange{$14$}.
The set of $14$ words, all from {\tt Uncommon Words}\ set are shown in Table
\ref{tab:14words}.
We applied the proposed cost minimization approach on
this set of \mychange{$14$} words only. Note that we now have to search for an
optimal set of words from ${\cal T} = 16384$ possible subsets (see
(\ref{eq:mincost})).
The performance, in terms of {{\sc Pc}}, of the proposed techniques for
assessment of intelligibility on these set of $14$ words is also shown in Table
\ref{tab:14words}. Note that this is our reference performance of the four
intelligibility techniques. We now apply our cost minimization approach to find
the optimal set of words from this set of $14$ words (Table
\ref{tab:14words}).}
\begin{table}
\caption{\mychange{Performance on the set of $14$ words identified from the set
of $449$ words, which had more than $5$ syllables and traversed $> 2400$ in the
$F_1$-$F_2$ space.}}
\label{tab:14words}
\centering
\scalebox{0.8}{
\begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|p{7.5cm}|} \hline
Method & $|W_k|$ & {{\sc Pc}} &
\multirow{5}{*}{\vbox{{
\NATURALIZATION, {\tt Autobiography},
\EXACTITUDE, \IRRESOLUTE, \INALIENABLE, {\tt Legislature}, {\tt Overshadowed},
\PSYCHOLOGICAL, {\tt Dissatisfaction}, {\tt Agricultural}, {\tt Apothecary},
{\tt Authoritative}, {\tt Exaggerate}, {\tt Inexhaustible}
}}}\\ \cline{1-3}
$I_{os}$ & 14 & -0.81 & \\ \cline{1-3}
{\tt{DeepSpeech}}\ + $I_{<{\tt unk}>}$ & 14 & 0.91 & \\ \cline{1-3}
{\tt{DeepSpeech}}\ + $I_{sm}$ & 14 & 0.92 &\\ \cline{1-3}
{\tt{DeepSpeech}}\ + $I_{ld}$ & 14 & 0.87 &\\ \hline
\end{tabular}
}
\end{table}
\mychange{
In the experiments to follow, we minimize the cost function (\ref{eq:cost}) for
different values of $\alpha$'s to identify an optimal set of words ($W_k^*$)
and show the performance on this set of words for the four different
intelligibility assessment metrics, namely, $I_{os}$, {\tt{DeepSpeech}}\ + $I_{sm}$, {\tt{DeepSpeech}}\ + $I_{ld}$, {\tt{DeepSpeech}}\
+ $I_{<{\tt unk}>}$.
\begin{theorem}
$
W_1^* = \min_{k=1,2, \cdots, {\cal T}}
\left \{\alpha_1 |W_k|
- \alpha_3 {\mychange{E_{word}}} \left(W_{k}\right) \right\}$
\end{theorem}
This is the case when
we do not have access to perceptual intelligibility score, or in other words
there is no access to a database of utterances. Clearly,
this scenario is (a) independent of the intelligibility assessment
technique described in Section \ref{sec:proposed} (see Table \ref{tab:optimal_101}) and (b) allows for building a
speech intelligibility assessment system for any language using just the
dictionary of words without the need for an annotated database. }
\mychange{
The optimal set of words for $\alpha_1=1, \alpha_2=0, \alpha_3=1$ is shown in
Table \ref{tab:optimal_101}. As can be seen there is not a significant change
in the performance of the intelligibility assessment techniques when a set
of $8$
words were selected from $14$ words using the cost minimization approach with
$\alpha_1=1, \alpha_2=0, \alpha_3=1$ in (\ref{eq:cost}). This suggests that
even in the absence of a database we should be in a position to select a
set of words that can be used for intelligibility assessment.
}
\begin{table}
\caption{\mychange{Performance on selected optimal set of words for $\alpha_1=1,
\alpha_2=0, \alpha_3=1$.}}
\label{tab:optimal_101}
\centering
\scalebox{0.8}{
\begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|p{7.5cm}|} \hline
Method & $|W_1^*|$ & {{\sc Pc}} & Selected Words ($W_1^*$)\\\hline
$I_{os}$& 8 & -0.82 &\multirow{4}{*}{\vbox{{\NATURALIZATION, \authoritative, \AUTOBIOGRAPHY,
\psychological, \dissatisfaction, \agricultural, \APOTHECARY, \INEXHAUSTIBLE}}}\\ \cline{1-3}
{\tt{DeepSpeech}}\ + $I_{<{\tt unk}>}$ & 8 & 0.93 & \\ \cline{1-3}
{\tt{DeepSpeech}}\ + $I_{sm}$ & 8 & 0.91 &\\ \cline{1-3}
{\tt{DeepSpeech}}\ + $I_{ld}$ & 8 & 0.85 &\\ \hline
\end{tabular}
}
\end{table}
\mychange{
\begin{theorem}
$
W_2^* = \min_{k=1,2, \cdots, {\cal T}}
\left \{\alpha_1 |W_k|
- \alpha_2 \mbox{{\tt{cor}}} \left(W_{k} \right)
\right\}$
\end{theorem}
This condition $\alpha_1=1, \alpha_2=1,$ and $\alpha_3=0$ does not make use of
the component that captures the articulatory effort (based on visual speech) required to
utter a word.
The optimal set of words for $\alpha_1=1, \alpha_2=1, \alpha_3=0$ is shown in
Table \ref{tab:optimal_110}.
Clearly the introduction of effort required to utter a word
(computed using visual speech) is a very important factor in
the construction of
the cost function.
As can be seen, the absence of visual speech based effort to utter a word
in the cost function (\ref{eq:cost}) results in the selection of only one word.
The selected optimal word happens to be the one with the largest {{\sc Pc}}\
depending on the technique used for assessment.
}
\begin{table}
\caption{\mychange{Performance on selected optimal set of words for $\alpha_1=1,
\alpha_2=1, \alpha_3=0$.}}
\label{tab:optimal_110}
\centering
\scalebox{0.8}{
\begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|p{7.5cm}|} \hline
Method & $|W_2^*|$ & {{\sc Pc}} & Selected Words ($W_2^*$)\\\hline
$I_{os}$& 1 & -0.79 &\dissatisfaction\\ \hline
{\tt{DeepSpeech}}\ + $I_{<{\tt unk}>}$ & 1 & 0.89 & \authoritative\\ \hline
{\tt{DeepSpeech}}\ + $I_{sm}$ & 1 & 0.88 &\NATURALIZATION\\ \hline
{\tt{DeepSpeech}}\ + $I_{ld}$ & 1 & 0.85 &\NATURALIZATION\\ \hline
\end{tabular}
}
\end{table}
\begin{theorem}
$
W_3^* = \min_{k=1,2, \cdots, {\cal T}}
\left \{\alpha_1 |W_k|
- \alpha_2 \mbox{{\tt{cor}}} \left(W_{k} \right)
- \alpha_3 {\mychange{E_{word}}} \left(W_{k}\right)
\right\}$
\end{theorem}
The optimal value of the number of words ($|W_3^*|$), and the subset of words
$W_3^*$ for the four different intelligibility assessment techniques is shown in Table \ref{table:r-PC}.
Also shown is the {{\sc Pc}}\ upon performing the intelligibility assessment with the identified optimal set of words.
It can be observed that the optimal number of words selected are between \mychange{$6$ (for
$I_{os}$) and $9$ (for {\tt{DeepSpeech}}\ + $I_{sm}$)}.
This is a significant reduction in the number of utterances compared to the $765$ \mychange{utterances} that a dysarthric patient
has to speak to enable gauge the intelligibility score (\cite{Paja,Martinez,ICASSP2019janbakhshi}). The automatic identification of an optimal number of
words, using a cost minimization approach, for intelligibility assessment is one of the main contributions of this
paper.
It can be observed that the selected words, in the optimal set, require complex movements and
precise control over the organs of the speech production system and hence, are suitable for the
purpose of intelligibility assessment.
\begin{table}
\caption{Performance of the proposed techniques
after selecting an optimal set words (\ref{eq:cost}) \mychange{for
$\alpha_1=\alpha_2=\alpha_3=1$}.}
\centering
{
\scalebox{0.8}{
\begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|p{150px}|}
\hline
Method & $|W_3^*|$ & {{\sc Pc}} & Selected Words ($W_3^*$)\\\hline
$I_{os}$ & $6$ & $-0.86$ & {\AUTOBIOGRAPHY, \OVERSHADOWED, \psychological,
\dissatisfaction, \agricultural, \INEXHAUSTIBLE} \\\hline
{\tt{DeepSpeech}}\ + $I_{<{\tt unk}>}$ & $7$ & $0.94$ & {\NATURALIZATION, \psychological,
\dissatisfaction, \agricultural, \APOTHECARY, \authoritative, \INEXHAUSTIBLE}\\\hline
{\tt{DeepSpeech}}\ + $I_{sm}$ & $9$ & $0.94$ & {\NATURALIZATION, \authoritative, \exactitude,
\OVERSHADOWED,
\psychological, \dissatisfaction, \agricultural, \APOTHECARY,
\INEXHAUSTIBLE,} \\\hline
{\tt{DeepSpeech}}\ + $I_{ld}$ & $6$ & $0.91$ & {\INEXHAUSTIBLE, \authoritative, \APOTHECARY,
\agricultural,
\dissatisfaction, \NATURALIZATION}\\\hline
\end{tabular}} }
\label{table:r-PC}
\end{table}
Figure \ref{fig:plots} shows a scatter plot of the estimated intelligibility rating based on each of the four proposed approaches,
namely, $I_{os}$ (top left), {\tt{DeepSpeech}}\ + $I_{<{\tt unk}>}$ (top right), {\tt{DeepSpeech}}\ + $I_{sm}$ (bottom left) and
{\tt{DeepSpeech}}\ + $I_{ld}$ (bottom right) with the perceptual intelligibility rating ($I_p$).
It can be inferred that the predicted and perceptual assessment scores follow a linear relation throughout the intelligibility
range ($0$-$100$). Thus, we establish that even a smaller set of {\em optimally} chosen words is indeed sufficient to reliably
assess the intelligibility rating of a dysarthric speaker. It can be observed
that the {{\sc Pc}}\ of
all the proposed techniques (Table \ref{table:r-PC}) based on a set of \mychange{only} $6$
to $9$ spoken words is \mychange{not very far} from the
last column of Table \ref{table:detailedres} which is based on considering all the $765$
\mychange{utterances} spoken by the patient.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{plots_v3.png}
\caption{Scatter plot between the perceptual intelligibility ($I_p$) and
$I_{os}$ (top left), {\tt{DeepSpeech}}\ + $I_{<{\tt unk}>}$ (top right), {\tt{DeepSpeech}}\ + $I_{sm}$ (bottom left) and
{\tt{DeepSpeech}}\ + $I_{ld}$ (bottom right).}
\label{fig:plots}
\end{figure}
We further evaluate the proposed four different intelligibility assessment systems
with other state-of-the-art techniques in Table \ref{table:comparison}.
In \cite{Martinez}, the authors obtained a {{\sc Pc}}\ of $0.91$ using an approach based on
a total variability subspace modeled by factor analysis by representing acoustic information
corresponding to each speech by an i-vector and then trained a support vector regression
model for intelligibility score estimation. Janbakhshi et. al. \cite{ICASSP2019janbakhshi}
proposed a reference-based approach called P-STOI by using DTW technique to create utterance
dependent healthy references and then computing spectral cross-correlation of aligned
pathological speech to the healthy reference in order to assess intelligibility, yielding a {{\sc Pc}}\ of $0.95$.
A Mahalanobis distance-based discriminant analysis classifier based on a set of acoustic features,
resulted in a {{\sc Pc}}\ of $0.96$ as proposed in \cite{Paja}.
As can be observed, all the {\tt{DeepSpeech}}\ based proposed approaches of assessing the
intelligibility of dysarthric speech \mychange{are very close to}
(in terms of correlating with perceptual intelligibility score) other state of
the art approaches proposed in literature in spite of the fact that our
approaches require a significantly smaller number of words to be uttered by the
patient (compare $6-9$ utterances to $765$ utterances).
\begin{table}
\caption{Performance of the proposed and state-of-the-art measures on the UA Speech corpus.}
\centering
\scalebox{0.85}
{
\begin{tabular}{|l|c|} \hline
Method & {{\sc Pc}}\\ \hline \hline
Martinez et. al.\cite{Martinez} (2013) & $0.91$\\ \hline
Janbakhshi et. al.\cite{ICASSP2019janbakhshi} (2019) & $0.95$\\ \hline
Paja et. al.\cite{Paja} (2012) & $0.96$\\ \hline \hline
$I_{os}$ (Proposed) & \mychange{$-0.86$}\\ \hline
{\tt{DeepSpeech}}\ + $I_{<{\tt unk}>}$ (Proposed) & \mychange{$0.94$} \\ \hline
{\tt{DeepSpeech}}\ + $I_{sm}$ (Proposed) & \mychange{$0.94$}\\ \hline
{\tt{DeepSpeech}}\ + $I_{ld}$ (Proposed) & \mychange{$0.91$}\\ \hline
\end{tabular}}
\label{table:comparison}
\end{table}
\mychange{
It can be observed that the word \NATURALIZATION\ appears frequently as one of
the words in the optimal set of words selected by minimizing the cost function
(\ref{eq:cost}) for varying values of $\alpha$'s (see Tables \ref{tab:optimal_101},
\ref{tab:optimal_110}, \ref{table:r-PC}). The performance of the
proposed techniques using the single word \NATURALIZATION\ in terms of {{\sc Pc}}\ is
captured in Table \ref{tab:frequentword}. The main reason for its frequent
occurrence can be attributed the fact that it has one of the highest articulatory effort cost (computed based
on visual speech) among all the $14$ words (see Table \ref{tab:naturalization})
that were used in our experiments to select the optimal set of words.}
\begin{table}
\caption{Performance of the proposed techniques on the frequently
occurring word \NATURALIZATION.
\label{tab:frequentword}
\centering
\scalebox{0.85}
{
\begin{tabular}{|l|c|} \hline
Method & {{\sc Pc}}\\ \hline \hline
$I_{os}$ & \mychange{$-0.55$}\\ \hline
{\tt{DeepSpeech}}\ + $I_{<{\tt unk}>}$ & \mychange{$0.85$} \\ \hline
{\tt{DeepSpeech}}\ + $I_{sm}$ & \mychange{$0.88$}\\ \hline
{\tt{DeepSpeech}}\ + $I_{ld}$ & \mychange{$0.93$}\\ \hline
\end{tabular}
}
\end{table}
\section{Conclusion}
\label{sec:conclusions}
Dysarthria is a neuro motor disorder that affects the ability of the person to
have precise control over his organs that help in producing speech. Determining
the intelligibility of speech which is relatable with the perceptual
intelligibility score that the SLP is familiar with is important.
In this paper, we introduced four different techniques, all speaker
independent, that can assist in computing the
intelligibility score of a dysarthric speaker. The techniques make use of the
output of an end to end pre-trained {\tt{DeepSpeech}}\ speech to alphabet \mychange{(S2A)} engine, which in our
opinion is novel. As mentioned earlier, we exploit the fact that lack of
intelligibility detoriates the performance of the \mychange{S2A} engine
primarily because it has been trained on healthy normal speech. Keeping in mind, the immense
stress and difficulty faced by a dysarthric patient to speak a large number of
words, we proposed a cost minimization scheme which allows for identification of
an optimal set of words that are sufficient to retain the fidelity of speech
intelligibility assessment.
This formulation of the cost minimization approach to identify the optimal set
of words, the use of visual speech to determine the pronunciation difficulty of a word,
in our opinion, has never been explored before.
Infact the cost minimization approach, as formulated in this paper, can be employed to identify an optimal
set of words suitable for intelligibility assessment, given a set of dictionary words in any other language
\mychange{(see Table \ref{tab:optimal_101})}.
Experimental results show that the choice of optimal number of words is able to predict the intelligibility score of a dysarthric patient
and is linearly proportional to the perceptual intelligibility score, thereby making the
proposed system built on optimal set of words usable by a speech language pathologist.
|
\section*{Plain Language Summary}
Because of the chaotic nature of the dynamics underlying many complex
systems such as weather and climate, evolution of ensembles of
trajectories have to be considered in order to produce future
predictions of such systems. An analysis of the dynamics of such
ensembles provides insights into mechanisms that make the system
predictable. Because comprehensive models of such complex systems are
very costly to run, reduced order dynamical models of them are a
useful tool in conducting such ensemble-based predictability
studies. We develop such a computationally-inexpensive reduced order
model using machine learning and show that it's predictive skill is
comparable to those of Linear Inverse Model (state of the art) when
training data is plentiful, but much better when such data is more
limited. Consequently we think that this new method has wide
applicability. Furthermore, given the nonlinear nature of the new
method, it has the potential to provide new insights into
predictability of complex systems.
\section{Introduction}
Following the pioneering work of Lorenz \citep[e.g.,][and
others]{lorenz1965study, lorenz1969three}, understanding to what
degree different aspects of the climate system are predictable has
become a foundational aspect of climate science. Indeed, since
predictability of climate can arise in two distinct ways, two kinds of
predictability are identified and are of interest
\citep{lorenz1975predictability}. In predictability of the first kind,
predictability arises from variability internal to the climate system
at various timescales when appropriately initialized and with
error-growth/decorrelation from observations being controlled by the
chaotic nature of the underlying dynamics. On the other hand, our
ability to anticipate the response of the climate system to
forcing external to the system, over a longer time scale gives rise to
predictability of the second kind. However, since our ability to
predict variations in climate as occurs due to internal/natural
variability is much less developed than our ability to predict the
response of the climate system to external forcing \cite[e.g.,
see][and references therein]{stocker2013climate}, we concern ourselves
with tools to address issues related to predictability of the first
kind in this article.
In the context of predictability of the first kind, because of the
chaotic nature of climate dynamics, it is necessary to consider the
evolution of an ensemble of trajectories be able to track the true
trajectory of the climate system. However, since we are limited to
observing the one climate system as it evolves, it is inevitable to
have to use models to make progress on understanding predictability of
the first kind. From the point of view of modeling, even if the
probabilistic evolution of the climate system can be formulated
correctly (e.g., as with the Liouville equation as in
\cite{ehrendorfer1994liouville}), the immense range of scales involved
and the computational complexity of such a formulation renders it
impractical and ensemble intergration of (severely) truncated models
is the only feasible alternative. In any such model, while on the one
hand, the difficulty of observationally estimating the state of the
climate system inevitably leads to initial condition errors, the
truncated representation of the climate system, on the other hand
leads to model error. Here, by model error we refer to deficiencies
in the model such as insufficient resolution and inaccurate
parameterizations of unresolved processes which lead to the model's
inability to accurately simulate the delicate dynamical balance of
processes that underlies both the mean state and the modes of
variability of the climate system. Because of these errors---initial
condition errors and model errors---model predictions invariably
decorrelate rapidly from observations \citep[e.g.,
see][]{nadiga2019enhancing} and for this reason predictability studies
have had to largely focus on so-called ``perfect model'' scenarios
wherein {\em a} model trajectory is assumed to be the trajectory of
interest (``true'' trajectory) and the analysis of an ensemble of
model integrations forms the basis for characterizing predictability.
Although imperfect, extensive investments in climate modeling over the
past half a century have led to the development of a number of
comprehensive climate models and Earth System Models (ESMs), and, they
are proving invaluable in improving our understanding of various
details of the climate system including its variability. The
comprehensive nature of these models, however, renders them extremely
resource-intensive, computationally and otherwise. Even as
ensemble-based predictability studies with such models are beginning
to be performed at great expense, the model-specific nature of such
studies makes it difficult to relate the results of such studies to
the actual climate system. To wit, while studies of the Atlantic
Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) in many models have found
decadal to multidecadal predictability \citep[e.g.,
see][]{griffies1997predictability, pohlmann2004estimating,
collins2006interannual, hawkins2008potential, sevellec2008optimal},
these findings have tended to be disparate and model-specific, and
establishing the relevance of such findings to the real system has
been difficult.
A hierarchy of models, in terms of their complexity, has typically
been important to advancing our understanding of various phenomena in
climate science. For example, reduced-order dynamical models were
central to Lorenz's discovery of chaos and the ensuing body of work
related to predictability Lorenz \citep[e.g.,][and
others]{lorenz1965study, lorenz1969three}. As such, it should not be
surprising that reduced-order dynamical and empirical representations
of comprehensive climate models and observations continue to serve as
essential tools in our quest to further the understanding of
predictability of climate today. One such reduced-order dynamical
representation that has proved valuable is the Linear Inverse Model
(LIM). While more fundamentally rooted in the fluctuation-dissipation
theorem of equilibrium statistical mechanics, its typical usage in
climate science follows the work of Hasselmann
\citep{hasselmann1988pips} and Penland and co-workers \citep[e.g.,
see][]{penland1989random, penland1995optimal, farrell2001accurate}.
The LIM approach consists of a linear dynamical system
forced by white noise, where the linear dynamical operator and the
covariance of the noise in a reduced dimensional space---typically
Empirical Orthogonal Function (EOF) space are inferred from
data. Indeed, predictions using the LIM approach have been shown to be
skilful in a number of settings including the El Nino Southern
Oscillation (ENSO) \citep[e.g., see][]{penland1993prediction}, the
Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) \citep[e.g.,
see][]{newman2007interannual, alexander2008forecasting}, and the
Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) \citep[e.g.,
see][]{hawkins2009decadal}.
Indeed, it is thought that the LIM approach is capable of capturing a
large fraction of the predictable signal in a variety of settings. To
wit, \cite{newman2017we}, in analyzing the predictability of tropical
sea surface temperature (SST) anomalies found that the forecast skill
of a LIM derived from
observed covariances of SST, sea surface height (SSH) and wind
fields was close to that of the (fully nonlinear and first-principles based) operational North
American Multi-Model Ensemble. The question then arises as to whether a linear approach,
as with a LIM, captures the entirety of the predictable signal or as to
whether there are predictable dynamics that are
nonlinear and therefore not capturable in a linear framework. A first
step towards exploring this issue consists of addressing the question
of whether the predictive skill of the well established LIM
methodology can be improved upon by further consideration of
non-linearity. This will be the focus of the present article.
The issue of improving on the skill of the LIM approach by
further consideration of nonlinearity itself has received substantial
attention, although largely in
the context of ENSO: Various authors (\cite[e.g.][and others; also see
\cite{kondrashov2018data}]{timmermann2001empirical,kondrashov2005hierarchy})
have considered nonlinear extensions of LIMs, but the benefits of such
extensions in terms of improved hindcast skill has been difficult to
establish and generalize.
Given the successes of data-driven methods in fields such as computer
vision, natural language processing, etc., over the past few decades,
an alternative approach to considering, nonlinearity has been to adapt
the artificial neural network (ANN) approach. While initial work in
the area \citep[e.g.][and
others]{grieger1994reconstruction,hsieh1998applying} was of an
exploratory nature, later studies starting with \citep{tang2000skill}
show improved skill of the (nonlinear) ANN approach in comparison to
linear methods \citep[e.g.,][and others]{ham2019deep}.
In the context of methods relevant to predictability studies where we
are interested in modeling temporal dynamics/processes, ANNs can be
categorized as either feedforward neural networks (FNN) or recurrent
neural networks (RNN). The use of feedforward networks in this setting
leverages the capability of such networks to approximate a continuous
function arbitrarily well \citep{cybenko1989approximation} to learn
the right hand side of an evolution operator. Here the evolution
operator is typically related to an underlying (unknown) partial differential
equation system if the system is considered in a physical domain or a
set of ordinary differential equations if the system is considered in a
modal domain and temporal evolution itself is achieved by the use of
traditional time integration schemes \citep[e.g.,
see][]{scher2019weather, weyn2019can,degennaro2018model,
weyn2020improving}. Alternatively, an FNN can be used to directly
learn the future state at a fixed time increment given its recent
history. The latter RNN architecture, however, is
distinguished by the presence of cyclical connections in how the
neurons are connected \citep[e.g., see][]{lukovsevivcius2009reservoir}
and we concern ourselves with this architecture for the rest of this
article. Such an RNN while featuring deterministic dynamics that
transforms an input time series into an output time series through
nonlinear filters, is capable of exhibiting self-sustained temporal
dynamics.
In the context of RNNs, in response to various
shortcomings of mainstream RNN architectures, an important one of
which was the difficulty of training them, a new approach was proposed
independently by \cite{jaeger2001echo} and \cite{maass2002real}, and which
has subsequently come to be known as Reservoir Computing (RC). In RC,
an RNN that is randomly created and that remains unchanged during
training---the reservoir---is passively excited by the input signal
and maintains in the resevoir's state a nonlinear transformation of
the input history. Training then simply consists of using linear
regression to obtain the weights that best give the desired output
signal as a linear combination of the input and the resevoir state. In
particular, since RC has outperformed other methods of nonlinear
system identification, prediction, and classification in the context
of chaotic dynamics \citep[e.g.,][and others]{jaeger2004harnessing,
pathak2018model}, we consider its use as a tool in climate predictability
studies, while noting recent use of RC methods in the context of
weather prediction \citep{arcomano2020machine}.
The rest of the article is structured as follows: In the next section
we present the details of the problem we consider. Following that, in
section 3, we present the Linear Inverse Model approach to the problem
and discuss various details of the approach. After presenting details
of the reservoir computing approach to the problem in section 4, we
compare the results of this approach with the results of the LIM
approach in section 5. A discussion of the results and some additional
experiments using the Lorenz-63 system towards gaining some insight
into the RC method and its performance in the climate setting are presented in
section 6. A few implications of the study and a short discussion of
the pros and cons of the new methodology then concludes the article.
\section{Predictability of the North Atlantic Sea Surface Temperature}
The utility of skilful near-term (subseasonal to decadal) predictions
of regional climate is manifold and range from assessing societal and
ecological impacts of a changing climate \cite[e.g.,
see][]{national2008ecological,adger2010social} to planning and
managing infrastructure \cite[e.g., see][]{wilbanks2014climate} to
insurance and risk management \cite[e.g., see][]{mills2005insurance}
to adapt to such changes.
In the framework of comprehensive climate
and earth system models, a host of reasons, including the scientific
challenges involved in being able to estimate the state of the climate
system with sufficient accuracy and the complex, multiscale and
chaotic dynamical nature of the climate system which complicates the
process of accounting for uncertainty in the future evolution of
errors in the initial state estimate, make predictions of the first
kind more difficult than being able to model the response of the
climate system to secular changes in external forcing such as due to
greenhouse gases (e.g., see \cite{meehl2009decadal,
meehl2014decadal}). As such, our ability to produce longer term
projections, projections that are contolled by external forcing
related predictability, is better developed than our ability to
produce near-term (subseasonal to decadal) predictions---predictions that are
(increasingly) controlled by natural variability related predictability (as
the prediction lead time decreases). It should,
however, also be noted that the response of the climate system to
external forcing can be/is modulated by natural variability, leading
to the response to external forcing being amplified or mitigated on
certain time scales of natural variability.
Remaining in the framework of comprehensive climate models, while
initialized predictions of climate seek to augment the external
forcing related predictability that is realized in uninitialized long
term projections by predictability related to natural variability,
there are a number of issues that remain to be resolved before such
initialized predictions are skillful \citep[e.g.,
see][]{kim2012evaluation, kharin2012statistical, sanchez2016drift,
nadiga2019enhancing}. For example, in many such models observation
based initialization in the presence of model bias leads to a rather
rapid departure of the initialized prediction trajectory from
observations necessitating post-processing of the predictions before
they can show any skill at all. For these reasons, we concern
ourselves with a statistical approach to the problem of near-term
prediction of climate presently.
We consider the variability of SST in the North Atlantic over the last
800 years of the pre-industrial control (piControl; a simulation in
which external forcing is held fixed) simulation of the Community
Earth System Model \citep[CESM2;][]{danabasoglu2020community} as part
of the sixth phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6). CESM2
is a global coupled ocean-atmosphere-land-land ice model and the
piControl simulation we consider uses the Community Atmosphere Model
(CAM6) and the Parallel Ocean Program (POP2), and at a nominal 1$^o$
horizontal resolution in both the atmosphere and the ocean; the reader
is referred to \cite{danabasoglu2020community} for details. This data
is publicly available from the CMIP archive at
https://esgf-node.llnl.gov/projects/cmip6 and its mirrors.
Two measures of predictability of SST in the North Atlantic are shown
in Fig.~\ref{decor}. On the left is potential predictability and on
the right is a decorrelation time. Potential predictability is defined
as the ratio of the standard deviation of the N-year average of SST
(in the current context) to the corresponding standard deviation of
the 1-year average \citep{boer2004long}. As such, this measure assumes
that variability on the longer (N$>$1) timescales is the signal related
to potentially predictable processes (such as due to slow
deterministic ocean dynamics) while that on the (faster) interannual
scale is noise (attributable to processes such as chaotic internal
variability). Potential predictability using a ten year average is
shown in the left panel of Fig.~\ref{decor}.
Various definitions of decorrelation time ($\tau_D$) are possible
\citep[e.g., see][and references therein]{von2001statistical} and
three were considered:
\begin{eqnarray}
\tau^{(1)}_D =& 1 + 2 \sum_{k=1}^{\infty} \rho(k),\cr
\tau^{(2)}_D =& 1 + 2 \sum_{k=1}^{\infty} \rho^2(k),
\end{eqnarray}
and simply the e-folding time of the auto-correlation function
$\rho(k)$ ($\tau^{(3)}_D = k$ at which $\rho(k)$ falls below $1/e$ for
the first time). The computed values of $\tau^{(2)}_D$ and
$\tau^{(3)}_D$ showed strong similarity with the former greater than
the latter by about 20\%, whereas $\tau^{(1)}_D$ showed a much larger
range of values. For brevity and as a more conservative estimate of
predictability, $\tau^{(3)}_D$ is shown in the right panel of
Fig.~\ref{decor}. In this figure, the color bar for the decorrelation
time is shown in months .
Both measures of predictability in Fig.~\ref{decor} indicate that the
more northern regions of the North Atlantic are more predictable, and that
in these regions, predictability may extend to times as long as about eight years. We
note that this finding is consistent with previous analysis of the variability of SST of the
global ocean, both in observations and climate models that has identified
the North Atlantic as a region that possesses significant
predictability \cite[][and others]{delworth2000observed, boer2004long,
hawkins2011evaluating}. As such, we consider the spatio-temporal
variability of SST in the North
Atlantic for our example setting.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{fig1}
\caption{Two measures of predictability of SST in the North
Atlantic. On the left is shown potential predictability computed
as the pointwise ratio of the standard deviation of the ten year
average to the standard deviation of the one year average. On the
right is shown a measure of the decorrelation time computed as the
pointwise e-folding time of the auto-correlation function. The
time is shown in months on the colorbar.}
\label{decor}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{fig2}
\caption{The leading EOFs of North Atlantic SST are shown on the
left. Scale information is omitted since the EOFs are
normalized. The main plot in the right panel shows the fraction of
variance captured by individual modes (left axis) and the
cumulative variance captured as a function of the mode number
(right axis). The inset in the right panel shows
time variations of the two leading principal components over a
period of 20 years.}
\label{eofs}
\end{figure}
\section{Linear Inverse Modeling}
Since we are interested in predicting interannual variations of the SST
based on data from the CESM2 simulation described above, we
consider a twelve month moving-window average of the monthly SST
field in what follows. The measures of predictability considered in
the previous section were estimated in a spatially-local, pointwise
fashion. A commonly used approach to further consider the effects of
spatial covariance is that of empirial orthogonal
function (EOF) analysis (equivalently principal component analysis
PCA) \citep[e.g., see][and references therein]{von2001statistical}.
Furthermore, a truncated EOF basis also serves as an effective
strategy to reduce the dimension of the system under consideration:
\begin{eqnarray}
T(\vv x, t) = \sum_{k=1}^N e_k(\vv x) y_k(t),
\end{eqnarray}
where T is SST, $e_k(\vv x)$ is the $k-th$ EOF, $y_k(t)$ its
corresponding time coefficient or principal component, and where $N$
the number of EOFs retained is much smaller than the number of spatial
locations $\vv x$.
The spatial pattern of the first four EOFs on performing the analysis
using the full record of 800 years is shown in the left panel of
Fig.~\ref{eofs}; scaling information/colorbars are omitted since the
EOF patterns are normalized. The main plot in the right panel of
Fig.~\ref{eofs} shows the fraction of variance captured by individual
modes and the cumulative variance captured as a function of the mode
number (using two separate vertical axes on the left and right
respectively). While the first four modes capture about 50\% of the
variance, the first thirty modes capture about 95\% of the variance.
To give the reader a feel for the nature of temporal variability in
the EOF basis, the inset in the right panel of Fig.~\ref{eofs} shows
time variations of the two leading principal components (time
coefficients) over a period of 20 years.
In its typical usage in climate science, the LIM approach consists of
considering the evolution of the leading principal components as a
linear dynamical system that is forced by white noise \citep[e.g.,
see][]{hasselmann1988pips, penland1989random, penland1995optimal, farrell2001accurate}:
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{d\vv y}{dt} = \vv B\vv y + \boldsymbol\xi,
\label{limeq}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\vv y$ is the state vector, i.e., the truncated vector of
principle components. In (\ref{limeq}) $\vv B$ is a constant
deterministic matrix determined as:
\begin{eqnarray}
\vv B = \frac{1}{\tau_0} \ln\left(\vv C_{\tau_0} \vv C_0^{-1}\right),
\label{limeqB}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\vv C_{\tau_0} = \left<\vv y(t+\tau_0) \vv y^T(t)\right>$ is
the lagged covariance at a chosen lag $\tau_0$, $\vv C_0 = \left<\vv
y(t) \vv y^T(t)\right>$ is the (zero-lag) covariance,
and $\boldsymbol\xi$ is a (vector) white noise process with
a covariance matrix $\vv Q$ ($=\left<\boldsymbol\xi\boldsymbol\xi^T\right>$) that is
determined from:
\begin{eqnarray}
\vv B\vv C_0 + \vv C_0 \vv B^T + \vv Q = 0.
\end{eqnarray}
See \cite{penland1989random} for details. The LIM (\ref{limeq}), can
then be used to predict $\vv y$ at lead time $\tau$ as
\begin{eqnarray}
\vv y_L(t + \tau) = \exp(\tau \vv B)\vv y(t) + \exp(\tau \vv
B)\int_t^{t+\tau}\exp(-t' \vv B)\boldsymbol\xi(t') dt'.
\end{eqnarray}
However, if we are only interested in the ensemble average over
realizations of the noise process, then
\begin{eqnarray}
\bar{\vv y}_L(t + \tau) = \exp(\tau \vv B)\vv y(t).
\label{avgLIM}
\end{eqnarray}
In the rest of the article, we'll only consider the ensemble average
prediction and drop the overbar for convenience:
\begin{eqnarray}
\vv y_L(t + \tau) = \exp(\tau \vv B)\vv y(t) = \vv P_\tau \vv y(t).
\label{limpred}
\end{eqnarray}
Here it is important to note that $\vv P_\tau$, the propagator of the
state vector $\vv y$ over a period $\tau$ has to tend to zero at long
lead times:
\begin{eqnarray}
\Lim{\tau\rightarrow \infty}\vv P_\tau = 0
\end{eqnarray}
or equivalently that the real part of all of the eigenvalues of
$\vv B$ have to be negative for the LIM to be useful.
Finally, if, the true dynamics of the system were indeed linear, the
expected mean square error of the prediction $\vv y_L(t + \tau)$ at
lead time $\tau$ is (related to the covariance of the (vector) noise
process and) given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\epsilon_{ifL}(\tau) = \frac{\hbox{tr}\left(\vv C_0 - \vv P_\tau \vv C_0
\vv P^T_\tau\right)}{\hbox{tr}(\vv C_0)},
\label{iflerr}
\end{eqnarray}
where tr($\cdot$) is the trace of the relevant matrix. However, since the
actual evolution of the principal components of SST is likely
nonlinear, a comparison of the actual error of the ensemble-averaged prediction
$\vv y_L(t + \tau)$ in (\ref{limpred}) to the theoretical estimate of
the error if the actual evolution were to be linear in (\ref{iflerr})
can be used as a measure of nonlinearity in the actual evolution.
We end this section by noting a couple of alternative/complementary
views of the LIM approach. While we presented the LIM approach
here as a somewhat ad-hoc ``reduced order modeling''
approach, the methodology has deeper roots in statistical mechanics
and dynamical systems theory. Indeed the SST prediction problem
can be recast as one seeking, in effect, a global space-time response
of a statistically steady surface ocean from a dynamical
systems perspective. In this context, the Fluctuation Dissipation
Theorem (FDT) of statistical mechanics relates the linear response of
the system to certain space-time correlation functions of the
undisturbed system \cite[e.g., see][]{leith1975climate,
gritsun2007climate, abramov2007blended}: The surface ocean is
continuously experiencing small forcings of numerous different types,
and these generate corresponding fluctuation responses. Therefore,
given a sufficiently detailed space-time map of these correlations,
the FDT allows the response to a given force to be extracted and
resolved, leading exactly to the LIM formulation described above.
Alternatively, when used as a data-driven approach to approximate the
evolution of an underlying nonlinear dynamical system, the LIM
approach, in common with the Dynamical Mode Decomposition (DMD)
approach \cite[e.g., see][]{tu2014dynamic}, arises in the context of
spectral analysis of the Koopman operator---a linear but
infinite-dimensional operator whose modes and eigenvalues capture the
evolution of observables describing any dynamical system, even
nonlinear ones \cite[e.g., see][]{tu2014dynamic}. In this context, (a)
the propagator $P_\tau$ in (\ref{limpred}) is the Koopman operator, on
using the state vector itself as the observable. However, since the
Koopman operator acts on functions rather than on the state itself,
the Koopman operator steps the observation operator forward in
time, and since the observation
operator here is the identity operator, in effect the state is stepped
forward in time, and (b) rather than thinking of $P_\tau$
as arising from a linearization of the underlying dynamics, it is better
thought of as an average of the nonlinear dynamics evaluated over an
ensemble of snapshots \citep[e.g.,
see][]{blumenthal1991predictability}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{fig3}
\caption{A schematic of the reservoir computing architecture. The
connectivity between the neurons in the reservoir is random and
training is limited to determining $\vv W_{out}$ using (a
regularized form of) linear
regression over the training data. In the prediction phase, the
output becomes the input for the next time step.}
\label{singleres}
\end{figure}
\section{Reservoir Computing}
As mentioned in the introduction, Reservoir Computing is a form of
Recurrent Neural Network (RNN) in which a randomly created reservoir
stores a set of nonlinear transformations of the input signal and in
which training consists of using linear regression to obtain the
weights that best give the desired output signal as a linear
combination of the input and the resevoir state \citep[e.g., see][and
references therein]{lukovsevivcius2009reservoir}.
Following the development in \cite{lukovsevivcius2009reservoir}, in
general, an RNN may be thought of as mapping a (vector) input time
series $\vv u(n)$ to a (vector) output time series $\vv y(n)$ with
$n=1,\ldots,T$, and e.g., as shown in schematic
Fig.~\ref{singleres}. We note here that when the dimensionality of the
problem is reduced, as we do by using EOFs here, $\vv y(n)$ comprises
of the time evolving coefficients of the retained modes. However, if
such dimension reduction techniques were not employed, while
$\vv y(n)$ would comprise of the temporally evolving values of
relevant variables at different spatial locations, spatial-locality of
the governing dynamics would lead us to consider separate reservoirs
for each of the domain-decomposed neighborhoods with further exchange
of (boundary or halo) information between adjoining reservoirs at regular time
intervals. For the kinds of applications we consider in this article,
it is natural to consider $\vv u(n) = \vv y(n-1)$ (autonomous
dynamics). (But for the difference that augmenting the input vector $\vv u(n)$ by a
unit entry is a convenient way of including bias in both the reservoir
update (see (\ref{resevolve})) and in the readout (see (\ref{readout})).
As such, input and output in this article refer to the evolving state
vector $\vv y$ at two subsequent time steps and where the time step is
fixed at a month. Note that we refer to the vector $\vv y$ as the
state vector, the vector $\vv r$ as the resevoir state (vector), and
the combined vector \{$\vv r , \vv y$\} as the extended state
(vector). Finally, when we mention {\em input} in the rest of the
article, we refer to $\vv u(n)$ in the more general (non-autonomous)
setting or to $\vv y(n)$ in the present (autonomous) setting.
\subsection{Nonlinear Kernels and Linear Readout}
Indeed, to investigate the possibility of
improving on the {\em Linear} inverse modeling approach of the
previous section, we are interested in going beyond $\vv y(n+1) = \vv W
\vv y(n)$ where (and in the rest of the article) $\vv W$ is a constant
weight matrix. A generic approach to nonlinear modeling is to first consider
transformation of the input $\vv y(n)$ into a high-dimensional set of
nonlinear features $\vv r(n)$ and then apply linear techniques such as
linear regression to obtain a nonlinear model. Following this approach
in the present context leads to the nonlinear model
\begin{eqnarray}
\vv y(n+1) = \vv W_{out} \tilde{\vv r}(n).
\label{readout}
\end{eqnarray}
Here, again, $\vv W_{out}$ is a constant weight matrix of dimension
$N_y\times N_{\tilde r}$, but with $N_{\tilde r}\gg N_y$ typically,
and where $\tilde{\vv r}$ is the combined vector of $\vv r(n)$, the set
of nonlinear features and $\vv y(n)$, the input: $\tilde{\vv r} = \left\{\vv r(n)
, \vv y(n)\right\}$, with $N_{\tilde r} = N_r +
N_u$.
\subsection{Recurrent Neural Networks}\label{RNN}
The storage of the nonlinear expansion/transformations of the input
with memory in an RNN is given by the evolution of the RNN state as
\begin{eqnarray}
\vv r(n) = f\left(
\vv W\vv r(n-1) +
\vv W_{in} \vv u(n)
\right), n=1,\ldots,T,
\label{resevolve1}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\vv r(n)$ and $\vv u(n)$ are respectively the vector of RNN
states and the vector of inputs at time step $n$, and $f(\cdot)$ is
the activation function applied element-wise. In (\ref{resevolve1}),
$\vv W_{in}$ and $\vv W$ are both weight matrices with dimensions
$N_r\times N_u$ and $N_r\times N_r$ respectively. We note here that
the bias term in (\ref{resevolve1}) is included by adding a unit
entry to the input vector.
Indeed, a yet-simpler approximation that foregoes the connectivity
between the neurons in the reservoir in (\ref{resevolve1}) and relies
entirely on random features to construct kernel machines has been
considered by various authors \citep[e.g., see][]{rahimi2008random,
gottwald2020supervised}.
Finally, we note that, to account for certain details of the system
such as the data frequency, (e.g., on expressing data frequency in
terms of a characteristic decorrelation time of the system), it is
useful to generalize (\ref{resevolve1}) by introducing a so-called
``leakage'' parameter $\alpha_{lk}$:
\begin{eqnarray}
\vv r(n) = \left(1-\alpha_{lk}\right)\vv r(n-1) + \alpha_{lk} f\left(
\vv W\vv r(n-1) +
\vv W_{in} \vv u(n)
\right), n=1,\ldots,T.
\label{resevolve}
\end{eqnarray}
\subsection{Constancy of RNN Weights in Reservoir Computing}
While in most forms of RNNs, training is accomplished by iteratively
adapting all weights involved (e.g., $\vv W_{in}$, $\vv W$, and
$\vv W_{out}$), in reservoir computing, all weight vectors except
$\vv W_{out}$, the weights associated with the output layer are set
randomly and held constant, and training is accomplished by setting
$\vv W_{out}$ using linear regression. In so doing, RC methods differ
from other RNNs in partitioning off the recurrent (bulk) parts of the
network as a dynamic reservoir of nonlinear transformations of the
input history and isolating the training to readout parts of the
network that not only do not contain any recurrences but are also
usually linear.
Notwithstanding the vastly simplified nature of RC in comparison to
other RNN methodologies, it still remains that setting up a ``good''
reservoir for a particular problem or for a class of problems is still
poorly understood. In response to this, and again in common with other
ML techniques, there is a proliferation of RC methodologies. As such,
and again in common with the use of most machine learning techniques,
a certain degree of trial and error using accumulated
experience/heuristics in the field as a guide is essential to
successfully using the RC approach.
\subsection{Echo State Networks: Weighted Sum and Nonlinearity}
Given our primary interest in investigating the effects of considering
nonlinearity in prediction problems related to climate and comparing
prediction skill against the well established LIM approach, we focus
on simple but robust formulations of the RC method. As such, we focus
on Echo State Networks (ESN) \citep[e.g., see][and references therein]{jaeger2007special},
networks that essentially embody the ``weighted sum and nonlinearity''
aspect of RCs seen in (\ref{readout}) and (\ref{resevolve}) and
training is reduced to linear regression.
\subsection{Echo State Property and Scaling of Input Connections}
Analogous to the LIM requirement that $\vv P_\tau\rightarrow 0$ as
$\tau\rightarrow \infty$ for it to be useful, a requirement for ESNs
to work is that they should posses the echo state property
\citep{jaeger2001echo} whereby the effect of a previous reservoir
state $\vv r(n)$ and the corresponding input $\vv u(n)$ on a future
state $\vv r(n+k)$ should vanish as $k\rightarrow\infty$. While this
is usually assured when the spectral radius of $\vv W$ is less than
unity, this requirement on the spectral radius is quite often not
necessary \citep[e.g., see][and references
therein]{jaeger2007special}. Here, the spectral radius of $\vv W$ is
given by the eigenvalue of $\vv W$ that has the largest magnitude.
Specifically, a random matrix of dimension $N_r\times N_r$ with
sparsity $S$, $\widehat{\vv W}$, was generated using a unit normal distribution centered
at zero ($N(0,1)$). Thereafter, the individual entries of the matrix were
rescaled by the magnitude of the eigenvalue with the largest magnitude
($\lambda_{max}$) to obtain the
random reservoir connectivity matrix $\vv W$ with specified spectral
radius ($\rho$) as
\begin{equation}
\vv W = \frac{\rho}{\lambda_{max}}\widehat{\vv W}\left(N(0,1)\right).
\label{connectivity}
\end{equation}
While the spectral radius of the reservoir connectivity matrix $\vv W$
is related to the {\em echo state property} of the reservoir, how
strongly the reservoir dynamics is driven by current value of the
state vector ($\vv u(n)\equiv \vv y(n-1)$) itself is related to
magnitude of the entries of $\vv W_{in}$: Again, a random matrix of
dimension $N_r\times N_u$ is generated using a unit normal
distribution and then multiplied elementwise by a factor $\alpha^2_{in}$ to
obtain $\vv W_{in}$:
\begin{equation}
\vv W_{in} = \alpha^2_{in}\widehat{\vv W}_{in}\left(N(0,1)\right)
\label{alphain}
\end{equation}
\subsection{Training of Linear Readout using Ridge Regression}
Having set the internal connectivity of the reservoir and its
connectivity to the input, it remains to determine
$\vv W_{out}$ before the network can be tested and used to predict the
future evolution of the system. This process of {\em training} the
readout (\ref{readout}) is achieved as follows: Given the (standarized) state vector
$y$ over a training period $\vv y(n), n=1,\ldots,T_{tr}+1$, the
reservoir state $r(n), n=1,\ldots,T_{tr}$ is computed using
(\ref{resevolve}) after initializing the reservoir state
($\vv r(0) = 0$). After an initial washout period $T_{wo}$, the
extended state of the system (i.e., the state of the resevoir and the
input state vector) is collected together in a collection matrix
$\vv R$ of dimension
$ N_{\tilde r} \times \left(T_{tr}-T_{wo}\right)$. Over the same
period, a matrix $\vv Y$ of dimension
$ N_y\times\left(T_{tr}-T_{wo}\right)$ that comprises the
one-step-advanced state vector $y(n+1), n=T_{wo}+1, \ldots, T_{tr}$ is
formed. Then, writing the readout equation (\ref{readout}) in a matrix
form leads to
\begin{equation}
\vv Y = \vv W_{out}\vv R
\label{train}
\end{equation}
which constitutes a linear regression problem to determine a $\vv
W_{out}$ (that typically minimizes the quadratic error between the two
sides of (\ref{train})). While the Moore-Penrose pseudoinverse of $\vv R$ provides a
direct and numerically-stable solution to the linear regression
problem, it can be expensive memory-wise for long training periods
\cite[e.g., see.][]{lukovsevivcius2009reservoir}. Ridge regression
(equivalently the Tikhonov regularization) provides a solution to
(\ref{train})
\begin{equation}
\vv W_{out} = \vv Y \vv R^T\left(\vv R\vv R^T + \alpha^2\vv I\right)^{-1}
\label{ridge}
\end{equation}
that is also numerically stable, but is also usually faster
than the pseudoinverse. Furthermore regularization, through the
$\alpha^2$ term, in (\ref{ridge}), by
limiting the magnitude of entries in $\vv W_{out}$ serves to mitigate
sensitivity to noise and overfitting
\citep{lukovsevivcius2009reservoir}, and making ridge regression the
solution of choice.
\subsection{Making Predictions with Reservoir Computing}
Predictions can be made with the trained reservoir by continuing the
update of the system beyond the end of training ($n=T_{tr}$). In
particular, the reservoir is updated according to (\ref{resevolve}),
the one-step prediction is obtained from (\ref{readout}), the two-step
prediction is obtained by feeding the one-step prediction as input and
so on. Considering that the weights $\vv W$ and $\vv W_{in}$ are
random, we average over $N_{rand}$ realizations of the network to
obtain the averaged prediction, much in the sense of considering the
average prediction of a LIM over multiple realizations of the noise
process, as in (\ref{avgLIM}). Again, for convenience and as with the
LIM prediction, we generally omit the overbar for the prediction
$\vv y_R(T_{tr}+n), n=1,\ldots$
\subsection{The Reservoir Computing Algorithm and Parameter Values}
\begin{algorithm}
\Indm
\KwData{Evolution of the state vector
$\vv y$ over the training period $\vv y(n), n=1,\ldots,T_{tr}$}
\KwResult{Prediction $\vv y_R(T_{tr}+
\left(k-1\right)T_{skip}+n),\; ;k=1,\ldots, N_{st},\; n=1,\ldots,T_{pred}$}
\For{$\xi$ = 1 \KwTo $N_{rand}$}
{
\vspace*{.2cm}
{\bf Build Reservoir:} Using values from Table 1 and description in
this section\\
\Indp
Set up reservoir connectivity matrix $\vv W$ using (\ref{connectivity})\\
Set up input to reservoir connection matrix $\vv W_{in}$ using (\ref{alphain})\\
\Indm
{\bf Train Readout:}\\
\Indp
Initialize reservoir state $\vv r(0) = 0$\\
Form input ($\vv u$) and output ($\vv y$) vectors over training period\\
Step reservoir over training period using (\ref{resevolve})\\
Collect extended state (reservoir state and state vector) \{$\vv r ,
\vv y$\} over the training period, after discarding a short burn-in/wash-out
period $T_{wo}$, in the form a matrix $\vv R$,
and target one-step-prediction in the form a matrix $\vv Y$\\
Obtain $\vv W_{out}$ using ridge regression (\ref{ridge})\\
\Indm
{\bf Predict future evolution:}\\
\Indp
\For{$k=1$ \KwTo $N_{st}$}{ \vspace*{.2cm}
$T_{st} = T_{tr} + \left(k-1\right)T_{skip}$\\
(Re)compute reservoir evolution to $T_{st}$ using data\\
\For{$n=1$ \KwTo $T_{pred}$}{ \vspace*{.2cm}
Update reservoir state $\vv r(T_{st}+n)$ using (\ref{resevolve})\\
Obtain prediction $\vv y(T_{st}+n+1)$ using (\ref{readout})\\
Use prediction as input for next time step: $\vv u(T_{st}+n+1)
\leftarrow \vv y(T_{st}+n+1)$\\
}
\Indm
}
}
$\vv y_R \leftarrow \left<\vv y(T_{tr} +
\left(k-1\right)T_{skip}+n)\right>_\xi, \;k=1,\ldots, N_{st},\;
n=1,\ldots, T_{pred}$\\\vspace*{0.4cm}
\caption{A recap of the reservoir computing methodology used in the article.}
\end{algorithm}
\begin{table}
\centering
\caption{Parameter values and other details of the reservoir computing
method used.}
\label{table}
\begin{tabular}{ |r|l| }
\hline
\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{Details of Reservoir Architecture }\\
\hline
Type& Echo State Network\\
\hline
Topology &Random \\
\hline
Number of neurons in reservoir, $N_r$ &200 \\
\hline
Spectral radius ($\rho$ in (\ref{connectivity})) &1 \\
\hline
Sparsity of reservoir connectivity matrix&0 \\
\hline
Scale for input connections ($\alpha^2_{in}$ in (\ref{alphain})) &
$10^{-2}$\\
\hline
Initial washout period $T_{wo}$ in months & min(100, 0.1*$T_{tr}$)\\
\hline
Ridge regression coefficient ($\alpha^2$ in (\ref{ridge})) &
0.1\\
\hline
Activation function $f$ &Symmetric tanh \\
\hline
Distribution for random weight matrices &Centered unit normal \\
\hline
Number of instances to average over, $N_{rand}$&32\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
We note that in using RC in this study, our emphasis is on simplicity
rather than the best performance. As such we forego both, the many
other variations in architecture that are possible with RC, and extensive tuning of
the reservoir for performance. A reasonable set of parameters that was
found in an initial exploration of the methodology in one of the
cases constitutes for the most part the single set of parameters that are
used for all the cases. A recap of the algorithm in
Algo.~1 and a listing of the parameter values used in Table.~1
completes the description of the reservoir computing approach we adopt
and we next proceed to compare the performance of this simple
(nonlinear) network against the linear inverse modeling approach.
\section{Comparison of Skill of Reservoir Computing and LIM
Approaches}
The requirement that the real parts of all of the eigenvalues of $\vv
B$ in (\ref{limeq}) be negative for the LIM approach to be useful
can be particularly problematic when the data record is short. When
this has been the case, a variety of ad-hoc fixes have been adopted by
practitioners to ensure the stability
requirement. For example, \cite{hawkins2011evaluating} satisfy the
requirement by limiting the number of EOFs considered (to 7 in their
context). Other ways of ensuring the stability of LIM is by
increasing the level of smoothing of the data, etc.
\subsection{Learning from Long Runs of Data}
In the first setting that we will consider, we want to avoid the need
for such ad-hoc fixes or restrictions when using the LIM
approach. As such, we use a {\em long} training period: That is we use
the initial 60\% of the 800 year record as training data.
The determination of the (constant) matrix $\vv B$ of the LIM
(\ref{limeq}) using (\ref{limeqB}) involves the choice of a lag
$\tau_0$, and the dependence of $\vv B$ on $\tau_0$ (also suggestive
of nonlinearity in the behavior of the system), has to be addressed.
We examined the dependence of error (NRMSE) and anomaly correlation
coefficient (ACC) on the choice of lag $\tau_0$ and picked the value
of $\tau_0$ that produced minimum error and maximum correlation. On
examining error and correlation for
$\tau_0\in \{1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 12, 18, 24\}$ months, we found the
performance to be best at a lag of six months, while noting that the
performance with a lag of twelve months was only slightly worse. As
such, a lag $\tau_0$ of six months was chosen and we call this
'bestLIM' for brevity. The choice of lag is determined by evaluating
the skill of predictions over a 20\%
validation segment of the data. After the lag is thus fixed, training
is performed a second time over the 80\% of data (comprising the
training and validation segments) and testing is performed over the
remaining 20\%.
Since the parameters in the RC approach are fixed at the values
specified in the table, in this setting, the RC system is trained over
the same 80\% of data (comprising the
training and validation segments) and testing is performed over the
remaining 20\%. That is a $\vv
W_{out}$ is found through linear regression as described in the
previous section and held fixed, while predictions starting at a
number of different start dates, $T_{skip}$ months apart, are initialized using the correct
state of the reservoir for the start date.
\newcommand{figs-submit2/200_480yr_18_1919_r32la:1_le:1_sp:1_ri:0.1_sp:0.5_wi:0.1}{figs-submit2/200_480yr_18_1919_r32la:1_le:1_sp:1_ri:0.1_sp:0.5_wi:0.01}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{fig4}
\caption{Spatial distribution of the normalized root mean square
error at a prediction lead time of one year, averaged over
($N_{st}$=213) prediction starts. The LIM result is shown on the
left and the RC result on the right. While the overall patterns of
error are similar (lower errors in the sub-polar gyre, etc.), the
RC methodology is seen to display consistently smaller errors
(e.g., note the brighter yellow in the LIM result midway between
Florida and Africa and further South).}
\label{xyerrlong}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{fig5}
\caption{Anomaly correlation coefficient between the reference CESM2
SST and the LIM predictions (left) and the RC
predictions (right) at the same prediction lead time of one year,
computed over ($N_{st}$=213) prediction starts. Similar to the
comparisons of errors in Fig.~\ref{xyerrlong}, while the overall
patterns are again the same in the two approaches, the RC
methodology displays consistently higher correlation skill (e.g.,
again focussing on the region midway between Florida and Africa and
further South).}
\label{xyacclong}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{fig6}
\caption{Spatially integrated skill measures are shown as a function
of prediction lead time. Normalized RMSE is shown in thick lines
using the left axis and anomaly correlation coefficient is shown
in dot-dashed lines using the right axis. LIM results are shown in
blue and RC results are shown in orange. The main plot shows
results for predictions using 30 EOFs. The corresponding results
for predictions using 4 EOFs is shown in the inset. All three axes in
the inset have the same limits as in the main plot. The thinner
blue line in the main plot is a theoretical estimate of the error
in the LIM approach if the actual dynamics (that of SST in CESM2)
were linear (notated as ifLinear in the legend; see (10)). The difference
between the actual LIM error (thick blue line) and this
theoretical estimate of error (ifLinear) is an indication of
nonlinear dynamics in the data. The RC results show better skill,
although not by much in this setting where training data is
plentiful (480 years).}
\label{erracclong}
\end{figure}
Predictions were limited to lead times $T_{pred}$ of 18 months since at that
time, the NRMSE had already reached values close to 0.9 and the ACC
had fallen to about 0.4 indicating the eventual approach to levels of skill
achieved by climatology. In order to make the comparisons between the
LIM and the RC approach statistically significant, predictions were
started every ($T_{skip}$) 18 months over the testing period and then statistics
were computed over such predictions (213 of them).
Figure~\ref{xyerrlong} shows the spatial distribution of NRMSE at a prediction
lead time of 12 months using the two methods, with the LIM result on
the left and the RC result on the right. First, the overall similarity
of the distribution of prediction error with the two methods indicates
overall similarity in the behavior of the two methods. It also
reiterates the greater predictability of the North Atlantic SST at
higher latitudes, in the region of the subpolar gyre as compared to
the mid and lower latitudes. Next, the smaller differences between the
two panels reveals that the prediction error with the RC methodology
is consistently lower than with the LIM approach.
Figure~\ref{xyacclong} shows the spatial distribution of the anomaly
correlation coefficient for the two methods again at the same
prediction lead time of 12 months as in Fig.~\ref{xyerrlong}. The
comparison of the two panels again reveals overall similarity, but
again with the RC predictions showing consistently higher correlation
to the reference ESM results.
To be able to better compare the skill of predictions using the two
methods, we next consider the spatially-averaged prediction error and
correlation as a function of prediction lead time. This is shown in
Fig.~\ref{erracclong}. In this figure, the LIM results (and diagnostics) are
shown in blue lines where as the RC related results are shown in
orange lines. The plots show NRMSE as a function of prediction lead time in heavy
solid lines and uses the left axis, and ACC likewise in dot-dashed
lines and uses the right axis. In addition, the thinner blue line
shows the theoretical estimate of error of the LIM if the actual
system were itself linear, and as given by (\ref{iflerr}). The
main plot is for predictions using 30 EOFs where as the inset plot is
for predictions using 4 EOFs. The inset plot uses the same limits for
the horizontal axis and for each of the two vertical axes as in the main plot.
The difference between the theoretical estimate of LIM error if the
actual system were linear and the actual LIM error indicates that
there is indeed nonlinearity in the actual system and provides a basis
for the expectation that nonlinear methods may be able to improve on
the linear approach of LIM. Indeed, this expectation is seen to be
realized by the simple RC model which essentially embodies a
``weighted sum and nonlinearity'' approach. While the improvement of
predictive skill of RC over that of LIM is small, it is
significant and consistent, both in terms of its variation with lead
time and at different number of EOFs. The significance of this
improvement is further reiterated on recalling that LIMs have been
speculated to capture the bulk of the predictable signal in
experiments that compare LIM predictions with predictions of full
dynamical models \citep{newman2017we}.
\subsection{Learning from Limited Data}
In the previous subsection we established the approximate similarity
of the LIM approach and the RC approach, but with the RC predictions
exhibiting better skill, when data is plentiful.
Physically, training over such long samples of data amounts to
generalizing the (18 month) response over a wide variety of
situations.
The dominance of linear behavior in that setting can be understood in
numerous ways including statistical mechanics (fluctuation-dissipation
theorem) and statistics. While it should be evident, we explicitly
note that this does not mean that the system itself is linear. To wit,
the commonplace recognition of the chaotic nature of climate (and
weather) on the short timescale is clear evidence of the nonlinearity
of the underlying dynamics. In this section, we are interested in this
regime, a regime where nonlinearity has a greater role to play. The
relevance of this regime to (initialized) interannual prediction
(cf. CMIP) cannot be overstated.
As such, we now focus on comparing the two methods when training data
is more limited: We limit the training period ($T_{tr}$) to about ten
years (11.5 to 13.3 years; see below). With 800 years of data, we
started the learning process every six years to have a large enough
number of samples to estimate skill statistics. In particular, as in
the previous section, the training period (now, of 10 years) was
followed by a validation period and a testing period of equal
lengths. The testing comprised of either three prediction starts over
a testing period of 3.3 years (to give a 60:20:20
training:validation:test split) or just one 18 month prediction. Even
as the second testing protocol places reduced emphasis on
generalization error in evaluating predictive skill, it was considered
for the reason that such single predictions are quite often of
significant interest. We note that a new LIM model and a new RC model
is learnt for each of the short (about 13 or 16.7 year) segments. As
before, the best lag for each LIM was determined over the
corresponding validation period, but this time only lags of 1, 2, 3,
and 4 months were considered. Thereafter, the LIM state matrix was
recomputed and the RC model trained (i.e., $\vv W_{out}$ was computed)
over the combined training and validation splits (as in Sec.~5.1).
\renewcommand{figs-submit2/200_480yr_18_1919_r32la:1_le:1_sp:1_ri:0.1_sp:0.5_wi:0.1}{figs-submit2/200_10yr_18_18_r32la:1_le:1_sp:1_ri:0.1_sp:0.5_wi:0.01}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{fig7}
\caption{Comparison of NRMSE in the LIM predictions (left) and RC
predictions (right), again at a lead time of one year (as in
Fig.~\ref{xyerrlong}), but when training data is limited to about ten
years. In this setting, the errors in the RC predictions are seen
to be much smaller than in the LIM predictions.}
\label{xyerrshort}
\end{figure}
\renewcommand{figs-submit2/200_480yr_18_1919_r32la:1_le:1_sp:1_ri:0.1_sp:0.5_wi:0.1}{figs-submit2/200_10yr_18_39_r32la:1_le:1_sp:1_ri:0.1_sp:0.5_wi:0.01}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{fig8}
\renewcommand{figs-submit2/200_480yr_18_1919_r32la:1_le:1_sp:1_ri:0.1_sp:0.5_wi:0.1}{figs-submit2/200_10yr_18_18_r32la:1_le:1_sp:1_ri:0.1_sp:0.5_wi:0.01}
\caption{Like in Fig.~\ref{erracclong}, this figure compares the
spatially-integrated NRMSE (left axis) and ACC (right axis) for
LIM predictions (blue) and RC predictions (orange) as a function
of prediction lead time when training data is limited to about
10 years. The main plots are for predictions that retain 30 EOFs
whereas the inset plots are for predictions that retain only 4
EOFs. The panel on the left corresponds to testing over (at
least) 20\% of the data segment considered whereas the panel on
the right shows results when testing is limited to predicting
over a single 18 month period. The RC predictions are seen to
be more skilful than the LIM predictions when 30 EOFs are
retained. When only 4 EOFs are retained, their skills are
comparable.}
\label{erraccshort}
\end{figure}
As alluded to earlier, the LIM approach can be problematic in this
setting in that the learnt system can be unstable. That is, one or
more of the eigenvalues of the estimated system matrix $\vv B$ can be
positive in the limited data setting, not because of shortcomings of
the estimation technique, but because the short runs of data are
indeed best explained in the linear framework by a system matrix that
has unstable eigenvalues. It seems that such an unstable system matrix
is prone to not generalizing well and leads to problems with
predictions. Rather than make ad-hoc adjustments to the procedure such
as limiting the number of EOFs considered or increasing the smoothing
of the data, other than noting this problem, we eliminate the LIM
prediction from computing skill measures when the prediction is
flagged to be unrealistic (e.g., if the predicted amplitude of any of
the EOF coefficients exceeded ten times the climatological standard
deviation over the prediction period). In so doing, the measures of
skill for the LIM approach we present will be (artificially)
inflated. For future reference, we also note that when greater than
50\% of the predictions are so flagged, skill measures are considered
unreliable and not used/presented (e.g., the leftmost points on the
blue curves in the main panel of Fig.~9 are omitted for this reason).
Using the same format as in Fig.~\ref{xyerrlong}, the error using LIM
and RC is shown in Fig.~\ref{xyerrshort} again at a prediction lead
time of 12 months (in the case where testing comprises of prediction
over a single 18 month period). While the spatial distribution of
errors is somewhat similar in the two methods in the sense that
errors at the lower latitudes are higher, etc., RC errors are
seen to be much lower than LIM errors. Similarly, the ACC for the RC
predictions are seen to be much larger than for the LIM predictions
(not shown). The variation of the spatially-averaged error and
correlation measures as a function of prediction lead time is shown in
Fig.~\ref{erraccshort} for the two testing protocols.
Again, blue lines are used for LIM results and
orange lines for RC results and the format is the same as in
Fig.~6. These results show that when learning from short stretches of data,
whereas the RC approach has much greater skill
than the LIM approach when the temporal evolution of the coefficients
of a large number of EOFs is being modeled (main plots in
Fig.~\ref{erraccshort}), their skill is comparable
when only very few (four) EOFs are retained (inset plots in
Fig.~\ref{erraccshort}). Practically speaking, this last point is somewhat of
academic interest alone. What we mean by that is: Since the skill of
the RC approach with 30 EOF coefficients is not much worse than
with only 4 EOF coefficients, even if the skill of the RC approach with 4
coefficients were to be worse or even much worse (than that of the LIM
approach), practically one would opt for the 30 EOF coefficient prediction
since it explains a much larger fraction of the variance at similar or
better skill.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{fig9}
\caption{NRMSE and ACC of predictions of the year-1 averaged
state. The main plots are for predictions retaining 30 EOF
coefficients. The inset plots are for those retaining only
4. While the LIM predictions display a monotonic behavior (more
data, more accurate), the RC predictions show a distinct
non-monotonic behavior with a regime where accuracy improves on
limiting training data.}
\label{err-vs-trn}
\end{figure}
On comparing Figs.~\ref{erraccshort} and \ref{erracclong}, it is
evident that when the RC approach outperforms the LIM approach it is
largely because of the degradation of skill of the LIM approach; the
skill of RC remains comparable when learning from long or short
stretches of data. If $N_y$ (practically the same as $N_u$) is the
number of EOFs retained, LIM in essence has to estimate
$N_y\left(N_y+1\right)/2$ parameters ($\vv C_{\tau_0}$ in (4)) over the training data whereas
the RC approach has to estimate a much larger number of parameters
that corresponds to the size of the $\vv W_{out}$ matrix
($\approx N_y\left(N_y+N_r\right)$, $N_r\gg N_y$). As such, one might
expect that limited data will have a greater deleterious effect on the
RC approach. Clearly, that is not the case.
At first glance, this behavior may be viewed in terms of RC being
successful in fitting a better local model since it allows for
nonlinearity. But, it is important to note that the better model
also generalizes since otherwise we wouldn't be seeing improvemnts in
skill over the test data. In addition, we suggest that it is this behavior---the
ability to perform well in situations where the number of parameters
that have to be learnt are far greater than the number of samples they
have to be learnt from---that the RC method shares in
common with other machine and deep learning techniques and which
constitutes an improvement over traditional statistical methods such as
LIMs.
In order to further verify this behavior, a number of other
experiments were conducted and Fig.~\ref{err-vs-trn} shows results
from one such experiment. In this figure, the NRMSE and ACC skill
measures for the prediction of the average state over the first year
is plotted as a function of the training period. The main plot is for
computations that retained 30 EOF coefficients whereas the inset plot is for
computations that retained only four. For the case of the shortest
period of training data, since greater than 50\% of the predictions
were flagged as unrealistic in the LIM approach, the skill measures
are not indicated for that case. Perusing the plots right to left, the
(more-or-less) monotonic degradation of accuracy of the LIM
predictions with decreasing training data is as would be expected from
a statistical perspective. The RC predictions, however, show a clear
departure from this expectation with a pronounced non-monotonic
behavior: skill of the RC predictions are worst at intermediate length
training data (around 30 years for 30 retained EOFs and around 10
years for 4 retained EOFs). While this aspect needs to be investigated
further and will be reported on in the future, we speculate that
this non-monotonic behavior is related to a transition from a regime
where the RC response is strongly non-linear when data is
limited to a regime where the RC response is more linear
when larger amounts of data are available for training.
\section{Discussion}
We considered a combination of settings, that included long and short
learning periods and when a small number of EOFs are retained (that
explained $\approx$ 50\% of variance) vs. when a larger number of EOFs
are retained (that explained $\approx$ 95\% of variance). In almost
all of these cases, the RC approach performs at least as well as the
LIM approach. For simplicity, these cases can be considered as falling
into two categories: one where training data is plentiful in
comparison to the number of parameters to be estimated and one where
data is more limited in that sense. Whereas when learning data was
plentiful, the RC approach was only marginally better than the LIM
approach, the RC approach performed much better than the LIM approach in
settings of limited data. This difference in performance was mostly
related to the strong degradation of the performance of the LIM
approach. The predictive skill as a function of lead time
(prediction-horizon) of the RC approach in the limited data setting
was similar to that in the pentiful data setting. This needs to be
investigated further. Nevertheless, the reasonable performance of the
RC approach in the limited data setting is a significant and important
strength. Indeed, in a more general context, it is this related ability of
machine learning and deep learning models to generalize from limited
data that has led to their widespread popularity \citep[e.g.,
see][]{zhang2017understanding}.
At this point, it is natural to wonder if the set of parameters used
were in some sense optimal and as to what the sensitivity of the
results is to changes in the parameters. As to the former, we recall
that a set of parameters found to work reasonably during an initial
exploration of the methodology in a particular setting was modified
minimally and used to carry out all the computations in the previous
section. For instance, if we consider the computation in which the RC
results show a larger NRMSE at lead times of about a year and longer
(inset of right panel in Fig.~8), with some searching, we were able to
find new parameter settings where NRMSE of the RC predictions were
everywhere lower. We avoided such a search mainly to keep the
presentation simple. As to the latter other than noting that such a
sensitivity analysis is beyond the scope of this article, considering
the different settings in which the same set of parameters has
performed reasonably, we are inclined to think that the qualitative
nature of the results are likely robust, and will not change, for
small but significant changes in the parameters. A limited range of
(opportunistic) testing that resulted, more often than not, to {\em not}
change the qualitative nature of the results presented is consistent
with our expectation.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{fig10}
\caption{Reservoir computing based predictions of the Lorenz-63
system. On the left is an individual prediction whereas the full
ensemble (of 128 realizations) and the ensemble-mean are shown on
the right for each of the three variables (rows). The reference
trajectory is shown in blue (evident in the left column, but
obscured by the ensemble mean or the ensemble-members in the right
column). The prediction lead time on the x-axis is
non-dimensionalized in terms of the Lyapunov time (an e-folding
time for error growth).}
\label{L63traj}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{fig11}
\caption{Normalized error as a function of prediction lead time for
predictions using reservoir computing. In general (see body for
details), the predictive skill diminishes when only progressively
smaller parts of the system are observed and used in the RC
learning and prediction procedure.}
\label{L63error}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{fig12}
\caption{This figure follows the scheme in
Fig.~\ref{L63traj}. Whereas Fig.~\ref{L63traj} was for RC
predictions when the system was fully observed, this figure is for
RC predictions when only one of the variables was used in the RC
learning and prediction procedure. Top: RC learning and prediction
using only the $x$ variable in (\ref{lorenz63}) (results are
similar with $y$ alone). Bottom: with only $z$ variable.}
\label{L63trajXZ}
\end{figure}
Machine learning methods span a wide range of complexity and it
remains an open question as to what methods are most suited for
climate predictability studies in settings such as the one we consider
and how far prediction skill itself can be improved. In this context,
we note that preliminary results in other on-going related work where
we consider other RNN architectures \citep{nadiga2019predicting,
parkmachine, jiang2019interannual} suggest that comparable skill may
be obtained using techniques with more complexity such as
Convolutional Long Short Term Memory (convLSTM) architectures and that
the skill of less complex architectures such as Multi-Layer
Perceptrons (MLP) tends to be poor \citep[also
see][]{chattopadhyay2020data}.
On the other hand, and as mentioned earlier, it might be the case that
the reservoir computing paradigm that we have considered here is well
suited for the problem at hand in that they have proved exceptionally
good at tasks related to nonlinear system identification, prediction,
and classification in the context of chaotic dynamics. To wit,
Fig.~\ref{L63traj} compares the predicted evolution of an ensemble of
trajectories to a reference trajectory of the iconic Lorenz-63 system
\citep{lorenz1963deterministic}, hereafter referred to as L63:
\begin{eqnarray}
\dot x &=& 28x - y - xz\cr
\dot y &=& 10\left(y-x\right)\cr
\dot z &=& -\frac{8}{3}z + xy
\label{lorenz63}
\end{eqnarray}
Here, the three-dimensional state vector (or a subset of it) was
sampled every 0.01 time units for 100 time units after discarding an
initial integration period of 10 time units and learning of the
chaotic attractor and variability was achieved using the same
reservoir computing approach and parameters as described in the
previous section, but with a couple of modifications. The leakage parameter
$\alpha_{lk}$ in the reservoir update equation (\ref{resevolve}) is
now changed from the value of unity to 0.2 to approximately account
for the fact that the average decorrelation time in this setting is
about five times greater than that in the North Atlantic SST setting,
measured in terms of the respective time intervals between data
points. Furthermore, since in the previous
setting we were trying to model one aspect in one region of a
more complicated and more extensive multiscale system that was possibly sampled
infrequently, we might expect that regularization (related to ridge
regression) would be more important than in the presently setting where we are dealing
with a toy three dimensional model that is well sampled. Indeed, on
trying a few smaller values for the $\alpha^2$ parameter in
(\ref{ridge}), we find that the predictions are better at a value of
10$^{-6}$ for the $\alpha^2$ parameter.
In other details, the data was split in a 60:40 train:test
fashion, predictions were continued for 18 time units and predictions
over the test section were started every 0.2 time units to allow for
110 start times. Performance measures were averaged over the 110
starts and the ensemble average of the predictions were performed over
128 realizations.
In both the panels of this figure, the x-axis corresponds to the
prediction lead time non-dimensionalized in terms of the Lyapunov time
($\approx$ 0.11 time units), a characteristic time related to error
doubling. The panel on the left shows a case where the RC is seen to
follow the reference trajectory over as long a period as ten times the
Lyapunov time. The panel on the right shows the ensemble of RC
predictions for the same reference trajectory. While the ensemble mean
of the RC predictions (dot dashed orange) tracks the reference
trajectory till approximately 5.5 Lyapunov times, a number of the
ensemble members are seen to deviate earlier. It is also interesting
to note that at later times, after the ensemble mean has departed from
the reference trajectory, the structure of the attractor is still
seen to be well predicted. That is in the case of the Lorenz '63
system, the RC prediction system learns and predicts the structure of
the attractor well in addition to be being able to predict the exact
reference trajectory over significant periods of time (many Lyapunov
times).
Thus, like the results of \cite{pathak2018model}, Fig.~\ref{L63traj}
demonstrates the skill of RC, in being able to learn chaotic
variability.
We conducted a few more experiments to be able to relate the good
performance of the RC approach in the L63 context to the kinds of
performance that we presented in the previous section in the context
of predicting SST in the North Atlantic in the pre-industrial control
run of the CESM2 climate model. Figure.~\ref{L63error} documents the
results of these experiments in terms of the growth of error as a
function of prediction lead time when the system is fully observed
(blue lines) or only partially observed (other colors). Here, by
partially observed, we mean that the learning and prediction were
performed with only one or two of the three variable system (for a
total of six cases---the six colors other than blue). One set of RC
predictions when the system was fully observed (blue line) was
considered in Fig.~\ref{L63traj}. While we prefer the use of NRMSE as
a convenient diagnostic for various reasons, its usage in
Fig.~\ref{L63error} hides the fact that when different combinations of
variables are chosen for learning and prediction, the reference level
of climatological variance changes in each of the experiments. It is
for this reason that the error in a partial-observation experiment
(e.g., the experiment labeled XZ) can show up as being less than in
the fully observed system. Otherwise, a conclusion that may be drawn
from these experiments is that the skill in the RC predictions
decreases as fewer variables of the system are observed. That is to
say, the faster loss of skill in the SST context may likewise be due
to the fact that regional SST is only one small component of the, more
complicated, full model climate system that is being modeled in isolation.
Plots similar to Fig.~\ref{L63traj}---the fully observed case---are
shown in Fig.~\ref{L63trajXZ} for (one of the 110 sample predictions
each) for the two cases where only the X variable is observed (top
row) and only the Z variable is observed (bottom row). The case when
only the Y variable is observed is similar to when only the X variable
is observed and so not shown. Again, beyond times when the reference
trajectory is correctly predicted, the RC predictions are seen to
capture the climatological behavior reasonably. This is in spite of
the fact that the dimension of the observed and modeled system is too
low to even allow for chaotic behavior (cf. Poincare-Bendixon theorem,
\cite[e.g., see][]{guckenheimer2013nonlinear}). We conclude this
section by noting that we are working on further improvements to the
RC methodology that will permit us to use it similarly (as in the L63
setting) as a climate emulator.
\section{Conclusion}
Ensemble simulations are an essential tool for understanding
predictability of climate. Thus, when dealing with observations of the
actual climate system or with comprehensive climate models in their
own right, reduced-order dynamical models play a central role by
enabling simulation of large ensembles when such ensemble simulations
are otherwise either not possible or are computationally expensive and
resource-intensive. Furthermore such reduced order dynamical models
facilitate the testing and comparison of
dynamical mechanisms across models and in observational data.
While the LIM approach has proved valuable as such a reduced order
modeling strategy, we have demonstrated that the nonlinear reservoir
computing approach exhibits useful skill over a wider range of
conditions including extending into regimes of limited data (more
nonlinear) and being able to accomodate large numbers of EOF
coefficients (that explain a greater fraction of the variance). While
such improved predictive skill of the new approach needs to be
verified in other settings, we do not see a priori reasons why this
should be difficult or impossible unless of course the system itself
is largely linear. Clearly, establishing predictive skill of a method
is the first step towards facilitating its use in understanding issues
related to predictability such as the dynamics of error growth and the
structure of optimal perturbations, and we expect to report on these
topics in the near future.
The difference in computational cost between the LIM approach and the
RC approach is not a significant consideration in the reduced order
modeling framework that we have considered: In particular, given the
linear setting and the additive nature of the stochastic forcing in
the LIM approach, explicit averaging over noise realizations is not
required. However, the nonlinear nature of the RC approach
necessitates explicit averaging over random realizations of the
weights involved (but the realizations are trivially
parallelizable). Apart from that, a crude estimation of the asymptotic
scaling of the RC approach suggests an O($N^2_{\tilde r} T_{tr}$)
scaling for the plentiful data regime and O($N^3_{\tilde r}$) in the
very short training data regime, making it's computational cost very
low in the reduced dimension setting we have considered.
In addition to the previously mentioned difficulty of optimizing the
design of the reservoir, the issue of interaction of randomnes of the
weight matrices with other hyper-parameters needs to be better
understood. For example, in certain hyper-parameter regimes, while
some realizations of the random weights may give reasonable
predictions, others could be unreasonable. That is to say, the
ensemble can be over-dispersive. It is possible that such behavior is
more common when the reservoir is operating in a regime that is close
to violating the ``echo state property.'' Even though the latter
property is controlled by parameters such as the spectral radius of
the connectivity matrix, it is difficult to guarantee the property in
an a priori fashion while also guaranteeing reasonable performance. A solution
to this problem resides in part in tuning the system to be away from
such regimes using hyper-parameter tuning. A less-attractive
alternative (because it modifies the ensemble spread explicitly) is to
address this issue in a posterior fashion as was
done for the LIM approach in the limited data setting.
Aside from such practical considerations, at a more fundamental level,
given its basis in nonlinear kernel methods, it is possible that the
RC approach, will give insights into the nature of predictability that
are not accessible to linear points of view, where an example of an
insight provided by the LIM approach is that of non-normal finite time
amplification of perturbations in an asymptotically stable system
\cite[e.g., see][]{penland1995optimal, farrell2001accurate}. For
example, apart from improved predictive skill, it is possible that
future developments of the RC method will permit its use as a climate emulator.
\section*{Acknowledgement}
We acknowledge the World Climate Research Programme, which, through
its Working Group on Coupled Modelling, coordinated and promoted
CMIP6. We thank the CESM2 modeling group for producing and making
available their model output, the Earth System Grid Federation (ESGF)
for archiving the data and providing access, and the multiple funding
agencies who support CMIP6 and ESGF. CESM2 SST data is publicly
available from the CMIP archive at
https://esgf-node.llnl.gov/projects/cmip6 and its mirrors. The author
was supported, by the Regional and Global Model
Analysis (RGMA) component of the Earth and Environmental System
Modeling (EESM) program of the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of
Science under the HiLAT-RASM project, by LANL’s LDRD
program, project number 20190058DR, and by DOE's SciDAC project ``Non-Hydrostatic Dynamics with Multi-Moment Characteristic Discontinuous Galerkin Methods''. We would like to thank the two
anonymous referees for their constructive criticism and comments; the
article has significantly benefitted from them.
|
\section{Introduction}
It has long been known that convective boundary mixing (CBM) must be included into stellar models in order to reproduce observations.
The main sequence (MS) width of clusters is one of the best-known examples of such observations;
other examples include large samples of wide binaries and asteroseismic measurements \citep[e.\,g.][]{claret2019,deheuvels2016}.
As a result, stellar models' CBM schemes are calibrated to give results consistent with the observed reality.
\citet{castro2014} showed that current generations of models have MS widths on the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram (HRD) which are too narrow for high mass stars.
The discrepancy in width grows larger with mass.
Currently, CBM is usually implemented in 1D stellar evolution codes in one of two ways. The first of these is step overshoot, which is an extension of the convective core by some fraction of a pressure scale height \citep[see e.\,g.][]{ekstrom2012}. Depending on the code, mixing in the overshoot region could be instantaneous or diffusive. The second is exponentially decaying diffusion, where mixing is governed by a diffusion coefficient which decays exponentially from a value near the Schwarzschild boundary \citep{freytag1996,herwig2000}. The parameters in both can be calibrated in order to match observations such as post-MS spin down \citep[Fig.\,1 in][]{brott2011} and asteroseismic frequencies \citep{aerts2018}.
Both 3D hydrodynamics simulations and observations can be compared to 1D models incorporating CBM and other mixing processes, such as waves \citep{meakin2007,jones2017,edelmann2019,muller2020,pratt2020}.
Incorporating 3D hydrodynamics results, such as convective regions which grow as a result of entrainment, into 1D models also allows them to be studied on evolutionary timescales.
It has been shown that the rate of entrainment of material at convective borders is dependent on the bulk Richardson number, $Ri_{\rm B}$, a dimensionless measure of the penetrability of a boundary by convection.
For example, \citet{cristini2019} showed that both the upper and lower boundaries in a convective shell followed the same entrainment law, suggesting that CBM is controlled by the global properties of the convective region.
Despite these results from simulation, the entrainment law is not widely used in 1D stellar evolution codes.
Prior to this study, only \citet{staritsin2013} has published 1D entrainment law stellar models. Staritsin's models of 16 and 24\,M$_\odot$ main sequence stars with entrainment were calibrated using asteroseismology values for the extent of mixing. In these models, the extent of extra mixing beyond the formally convective region (in units of pressure scale heights) decreased as the models evolved. This contrasts traditional CBM which typically stays constant.
In this paper, we investigate entrainment in 1D main sequence models from 1.5 to 60\,M$_{\odot}$ using the Geneva stellar evolution code.
We then compare our new models with entrainment to models including standard overshoot and constrain our entrainment parameters using these models.
We further constrain our entrainment models with comparison to observations, in particular the MS width.
We contrast entrainment parameters constrained by observations with those obtained in 3D simulations and discuss implications.
Section\,\ref{sec:methods} explains the definition and calculation of $Ri_{\rm B}$ and the entrainment algorithm, along with the parameters of the model grid. Section\,\ref{sec:results} discusses the properties of the models, focussing on $Ri_{\rm B}$ and the entrainment parameters. We present our conclusions in Section\,\ref{sec:discussion} and discuss the the plausibility and implications of our entrainment algorithm.
\section{Methods}
\label{sec:methods}
\subsection{Calculation of Bulk Richardson number}
\label{sec:calc_rib}
The bulk Richardson number is defined as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:rib}
Ri_{\rm B} = \frac{l_{\rm c} \Delta b}{v_{\rm c}^2},
\end{equation}
where $l_{\rm c}$ is a length-scale for turbulent motions in the convective region, $v_{\rm c}$ is the typical speed of convective flows and $\Delta b$ is the buoyancy jump. For $l_{\rm c}$ we use $0.5H_{P,\rm b}$, where $H_{P,\rm b}$ is the pressure scale height at $r=r_{\rm b}$ and $r_{\rm b}$ is the radius of the convective core.
If there is no CBM included in the model, $r_{\rm b}$ is equivalent to the Schwarzschild boundary.
Otherwise, it is the radius to which the CBM extends.
$l_{\rm c}$ represents the length-scale of the largest fluid elements in the turbulent region. The motivation for our choice of $l_{\rm c}=0.5H_{P.\rm b}$ comes from the results of \citet{meakin2007}, who found that the horizontal correlation length-scale for velocity in their simulation of convection was approximately half a pressure scale height. We aim to be consistent with \citet{cristini2019} by using this estimate of the horizontal correlation length-scale as a proxy for $l_c$.
The buoyancy jump is an integral of the squared buoyancy frequency $N^2$ with respect to radius $r$, given by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:buoyjump}
\Delta b = \int_{r_1}^{r_2}
N^2 \mathrm{d}r,
\end{equation}
where $r_1$ and $r_2$ encompass the boundary of the convective core, centred at $r=r_{\rm b}$.
The upper limit $r_2$ is equal to $r_{\rm b}$ plus some fraction of a pressure scale height;
in this study we use $r_2=r_{\rm b}+0.25H_{P,\rm b}$ to be consistent with previous work \citep{cristini2019}.
Conversely, $r_1$ is the larger of either $r_{\rm b}-0.25 H_{P,\rm b}$ or the Schwarzschild boundary.
Using this maximum prevents negative $N^2$ regions, which do not contribute to buoyancy braking, from being included in the buoyancy jump integration.
In our prescription, the size of the integration region encompassed by $r_1$ and $r_2$ is between $0.25$ and $0.5 H_{P,\rm b}$, depending on the size of the entrainment region. This is supposed to encompass the part of the boundary in which fluid elements are decelerated and turned back towards the convective region by buoyancy. \citet{cristini2019} Table\,2 gives examples of their simulation boundary widths, which are all a fraction (0.1 to 0.6) of a pressure scale height. We cannot use a boundary width of $\sim 2v_{\rm c}/N$ as in \citet{staritsin2013}, since at our boundary we have $N=0$, so we use the approach of \citet{cristini2019}. However, we cannot be sure if the boundary width does not vary with mass (other than what is already contained in the mass dependence of $H_{P,\rm b}$), and the integration region size must still be considered a free parameter. The buoyancy jump and its dependence on these parameters is discussed in more detail in Section\,\ref{sec:time_dependence} and Fig.\,\ref{fig:N2profiles}.
For the buoyancy frequency, we use
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:buoyfreq}
N^2 = \frac{g\delta}{H_P}(\nabla_{\rm ad} - \nabla + \frac{1}{\delta}\nabla_{\rm \mu}),
\end{equation}
where $g$ is the gravitational acceleration, $H_P$ the pressure scale height, $\delta$ the density gradient with respect to temperature $(-\frac{\partial \ln \rho}{\partial \ln T})$, $\nabla_{\rm ad}$ the adiabatic temperature gradient, $\nabla$ the actual temperature gradient, and $\nabla_{\rm \mu}$ the mean molecular weight gradient.
For $v_{\rm c}$, we use a mass-weighted root mean square of the mixing length theory (MLT) velocity, $v_{\rm{MLT}}$, in the core:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:velocity}
v_{\mathrm{c}}=
\sqrt{\frac{\sum_i v_{\mathrm{MLT,}i}^2 \Delta m_i}
{\sum_i \Delta m_i}},
\end{equation}
where $i$ represents the model mesh point and $\Delta m$ is the mass contained between the midpoints of shells $i+1$ and $i$, and $i-1$ and $i$. This sum over $i$ is taken from the centre of the core to the Schwarzschild boundary. This average value is less subject to fluctuation due to numerical factors such as zoning than a single value chosen at some distance from the boundary. $v_{\rm c}$ estimates the typical speed of the flow in the convective region which is responsible for entrainment.
\subsection{Entrainment law algorithm}
\label{sec:algorithm}
$Ri_{\mathrm{B}}$ is a good measure of how difficult it is for convective flows to entrain material from the stable region. Indeed, the numerator, $l_{\rm c}\Delta b$, measures the stability or stiffness of the convective boundary region via the buoyancy frequency $N^2$. The denominator, $v_{\mathrm{c}}^2$ ($\propto$ specific kinetic energy), measures the vigour of the convective flows approaching the boundary. A higher $Ri_{\mathrm{B}}$ value thus means that it is harder for convection to entrain material from the stable region above.
We then use $Ri_{\mathrm{B}}$ in the entrainment law\footnote{Whilst the use of the word 'law' suggests that all the parameters have a determined value, this is not the case for the entrainment law. However, since this is the currently accepted terminology in other fields such as geophysics, we will continue to use it.} \citep[e.\,g.][]{fernando1991} to calculate an entrainment rate.
The entrainment law is
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:entrainmentlaw}
\frac{v_{\mathrm{e}}}{v_{\mathrm{c}}}=ARi_{\mathrm{B}}^{-n},
\end{equation}
where $v_{\mathrm{e}}$ is the convective boundary progression speed and $A$ and $n$ are parameters controlling the entrainment rate.
Note that if $n=1$ (as is the case for most of our models), any uncertainty in $l_{\rm c}$ in Eq.\,\ref{eq:rib} would inversely scale $A$. However, we are not targeting exact values for these parameters, and we can be fairly certain given the results of \citet{meakin2007} that $l_{\rm c}\sim H_{P,\rm b}$ as we have assumed.
A mass entrainment rate, $\dot{M}_{\rm{ent}}$, can be derived from this to give
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:mdot}
\dot{M}_{\rm{ent}}=4\pi r_{\mathrm{b}}^2 \rho_{\mathrm{b}} v_{\mathrm{c}}ARi_{\mathrm{B}}^{-n},
\end{equation}
with $\rho_{\mathrm{b}}$ being the density at $r=r_{\mathrm{b}}$.
The mass contained within the entrained region, $M_{\mathrm{ent}}$, is then
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:ment}
M_{\rm{ent}} = \sum_j \dot{M}_{\mathrm{ent},j} \mathrm{\Delta}t_j
\end{equation}
where $j$ denotes the model time step with length $\mathrm{\Delta}t$.
This region is then considered part of the convective core. This means that the region is then instantaneously mixed and the temperature gradient is set to $\nabla_{\rm ad}$ (further discussed in Section\,\ref{sec:discussion}).
In our implementation of the entrainment law, the entrained mass accumulates over the lifetime of the core with each time step, according to Eq.\,\ref{eq:ment}.
Since the value of $Ri_{\rm B}$ controls $\dot{M}_{\mathrm{ent},j}$ rather than $M_{\rm{ent}}$ directly, any previous history of entrainment in the models is unaffected by the instantaneous value of $Ri_{\rm B}$.
This contrasts the previous implementation of \citet{staritsin2013}, in which the entrained distance at any time step is equal to $v_{\rm e}\rm{\Delta}t$. Thus, our prescription can be viewed as cumulative entrainment and Staritsin's as instantaneous (meaning that it depends only on the stellar structure at the current time step).
3D hydrodynamic simulations of stellar convection which exhibit entrainment show that the convective region continuously accumulates material. This is the motivation for a cumulative entrainment method, as once material is entrained, it stays well-mixed. However, it is not known whether this holds true on evolutionary time-scales so it is not clear at this point which approach is more appropriate. Our method allows us to investigate the consequences of cumulative entrainment which is controlled by the changing value of the bulk Richardson number and we compare our results to \citet{staritsin2013} in Section\,\ref{sec:discussion}.
\subsection{Geneva code model grid}
\label{sec:grid}
We use the Geneva stellar evolution code \citep[\texttt{GENEC,}][]{eggenberger2008} to compute a grid of non-rotating MS models with solar metallicity ($Z=0.014$).
The masses included are 1.5, 2.5, 8, 15, 25, 32, 40 and 60\,M$_{\odot}$.
For each mass we compute at least one standard CBM model and one entrainment model.
The standard CBM prescription in \texttt{GENEC} is step overshoot, where the convective core is extended by some distance $\alpha_{\rm{ov}}H_{P,\mathrm{b}}$.
In \texttt{GENEC}, the default value for $\alpha_{\mathrm{ov}}$ is 0.1 for models with initial mass $M_{\mathrm{ini}}\geq1.7$\,M$_{\odot}$, 0.05 for $1.7$\,M$_{\odot}>M_{\mathrm{ini}} \geq 1.25$\,M$_{\odot}$ and 0 for $M_{\mathrm{ini}}<1.25$\,M$_{\odot}$.
These default values were calibrated using the MS width of low mass stars \citep[for details see][]{ekstrom2012}.
As in the core, the CBM (a.k.a. overshoot) region is mixed instantaneously (for both chemical species and entropy) and uses the adiabatic temperature gradient.
Table \ref{tab:models} lists the models computed and their key properties. The first four columns of Table \ref{tab:models} define the initial parameters of the model. These are the initial mass $M_{\rm{ini}}$ and the CBM parameters (either $\alpha_{\rm{ov}}$ for step overshoot models or a combination of $A$ and $n$ for entrainment models).
The $\tau_{\rm{MS}}$ column is the main sequence lifetime. This is defined as the age of the model when the central hydrogen mass fraction has reached $10^{-4}$.
The next column, $T_{\rm{eff,min}}$, is the minimum effective temperature reached by the model during the MS.
Next is the mean of the bulk Richardson number, $\langle Ri_{\rm B}\rangle$, taken over the duration of $\tau_{\rm{MS}}$, along with the means of its components, $\langle v_{\rm c} \rangle$ and $\langle l_{\rm c} \Delta b \rangle$.
The final three columns pertain to the model attributes at the end of the MS.
These include the final mass, $M_{\rm{fin}}$, the mass of the helium core, $M_{\rm{He}}$, and the total mass entrained, $M_{\rm{ent,tot}}$.
$M_{\rm{He}}$ is defined as the mass of the convective core at a central hydrogen mass fraction of one per cent.
Both a default step overshoot model and an entrainment model with $A=10^{-4}$ and $n=1$ were calculated for each mass.
This value of $A$ was chosen to reproduce the MS lifetime of the 2.5\,M$_{\odot}$ standard overshoot model, as this mass is within the mass range originally used to calibrate the step overshoot.
$A=2\e{-4}$ was also used for some masses to explore the widening of the MS in the high-mass range.
Previous simulations of convection have found that $n\sim1$, which guided our choice to keep $n=1$ for the majority of our grid. However, the $A$ values used for our 1D MS models ($A\sim10^{-4}$) are substantially lower than those derived from 3D simulations.
$A$ values derived from 3D simulations include $A=1.06$ \citep[][oxygen burning]{meakin2007}, $A\approx0.1$ \citep[][oxygen burning]{muller2016} and $A=0.05$ \citep[][carbon burning]{cristini2019}. The difference could simply be a matter of evolutionary phase, since these 3D simulations are all of later stages than the MS. One potential confounding factor is radiative diffusion. Since the burning stages from carbon onward are neutrino-cooled, the effect of radiative diffusion on the mixing process is minimal, in contrast to the MS. Another point is partial degeneracy, which plays a part in later-stage stellar evolution but not in MS convective cores. Finally, the entrainment law may not keep the same slope for all $Ri_{\rm B}$ values. Our 1D models have $Ri_{\rm B}$ in the range of $\sim$10$^4$ to $\sim$10$^7$, which is substantially higher than the upper limit of $Ri_{\rm B}\sim1000$ in the 3D simulations and may represent a different entrainment law regime. Alternatively, there may be other important physics which is not encompassed by the entrainment law in its current form.
See Section\,\ref{sec:parameters} for more details on the chosen entrainment parameter values.
Appendix \ref{app} contains details on model resolution.
\begin{table*}
\centering
\caption{Summary of the CBM parameters used in the grid along with some key quantities. See Section\,\ref{sec:grid} for a description of the columns.}
\label{tab:models}
\begin{tabular}{cccccccccccc}
\hline
$M_{\rm{ini}}$ & $\alpha_{\rm{ov}}$ & $A$ & $n$ & $\tau_{\rm{MS}}$ & $\lg{(T_{\rm{eff,min}})}$ & $\lg{\langle Ri_{\rm B}\rangle}$ & $\lg{\langle v_{\rm c}\rangle}$ & $\lg{\langle l_{\rm c}\Delta b\rangle}$ &$M_{\rm{fin}}$ & $M_{\rm{He}}$ & $M_{\rm{ent,tot}}$\\
{[M$_{\odot}$]} & & & & {[Myr]} & {[K]} & & {[cm\,s$^{-1}$]} & {[cm$^2$\,s$^{-2}$]} & {[M$_{\odot}$]} & {[M$_{\odot}$]} & {[M$_{\odot}$]}\\
\hline
1.5 & 0.05 & - & - & 2093 & 3.82 & 7.54 & 3.29 & 14.2 & 1.50 & 0.0662 & -\\
1.5 & - & $10^{-4}$ & 1 & 2060 & 3.82 & 7.60 & 3.29 & 14.2 & 1.50 & 0.0723 & 0.0135\\
\\
2.5 & 0.1 & - & - & 512 & 3.93 & 6.84 & 3.66 & 14.2 & 2.50 & 0.173 & -\\
2.5 & - & $5\e{-5}$ & 1 & 486 & 3.94 & 6.87 & 3.66 & 14.2 & 2.50 & 0.181 & 0.0395\\
2.5 & - & $10^{-4}$ & 1 & 519 & 3.92 & 6.86 & 3.66 & 14.2 & 2.50 & 0.227 & 0.0869\\
2.5 & - & $2\e{-4}$ & 1 & 582 & 3.90 & 6.86 & 3.67 & 14.2 & 2.50 & 0.319 & 0.199\\
2.5 & - & $3\e{-4}$ & 1 & 668 & 3.87 & 6.89 & 3.68 & 14.3 & 2.50 & 0.457 & 0.368\\
\\
8 & 0.1 & - & - & 31.8 & 4.27 & 5.76 & 4.22 & 14.2 & 8.00 & 0.933 & -\\
8 & - & $10^{-4}$ & 1 & 33.1 & 4.26 & 5.80 & 4.23 & 14.3 & 8.00 & 1.25 & 0.403\\
8 & - & $2\e{-4}$ & 1 & 36.5 & 4.24 & 5.82 & 4.23 & 14.3 & 8.00 & 1.69 & 0.833\\
\\
15 & 0.1 & - & - & 11.6 & 4.39 & 5.29 & 4.46 & 14.2 & 14.8 & 2.82 & -\\
15 & 0.3 & - & - & 13.0 & 4.35 & 5.27 & 4.47 & 14.2 & 14.7 & 3.69 & -\\
15 & 0.5 & - & - & 14.3 & 4.31 & 5.24 & 4.47 & 14.2 & 14.7 & 4.55 & -\\
15 & - & $10^{-4}$ & 1 & 12.3 & 4.37 & 5.34 & 4.47 & 14.3 & 14.8 & 3.72 & 0.960\\
15 & - & $2\e{-4}$ & 1 & 13.8 & 4.34 & 5.38 & 4.47 & 14.3 & 14.7 & 5.01 & 2.06\\
15 & - & $10^{-4}$ & 0.9 & 15.1 & 4.27 & 5.49 & 4.48 & 14.5 & 14.6 & 6.24 & 3.24\\
15 & - & $10^{-4}$ & 1.2 & 10.9 & 4.40 & 5.40 & 4.46 & 14.3 & 14.8 & 2.52 & 0.0881\\
15 & - & $10^{-4}$ & 1.5 & 10.9 & 4.40 & 5.28 & 4.46 & 14.2 & 14.8 & 2.39 & 0.00350\\
\\
25 & 0.1 & - & - & 6.54 & 4.43 & 5.00 & 4.62 & 14.2 & 24.2 & 6.64 & -\\
25 & 0.3 & - & - & 7.14 & 4.37 & 4.97 & 4.62 & 14.2 & 23.8 & 8.14 & -\\
25 & 0.5 & - & - & 7.70 & 4.25 & 4.95 & 4.63 & 14.2 & 23.0 & 9.54 & -\\
25 & 0.7 & - & - & 8.18 & 3.96 & 4.94 & 4.63 & 14.2 & 20.4 & 10.8 & -\\
25 & - & $10^{-4}$ & 1 & 6.99 & 4.39 & 5.08 & 4.62 & 14.3 & 24.1 & 8.73 & 1.90\\
25 & - & $2\e{-4}$ & 1 & 7.63 & 4.31 & 5.11 & 4.63 & 14.4 & 23.3 & 10.9 & 3.72\\
\\
32 & 0.1 & - & - & 5.30 & 4.43 & 4.85 & 4.68 & 14.2 & 30.1 & 9.55 & -\\
32 & 0.3 & - & - & 5.72 & 4.32 & 4.82 & 4.69 & 14.2 & 28.9 & 11.4 & -\\
32 & 0.5 & - & - & 6.09 & 3.78 & 4.80 & 4.69 & 14.2 & 24.9 & 13.1 & -\\
32 & - & $10^{-4}$ & 1 & 5.66 & 4.33 & 4.92 & 4.69 & 14.3 & 29.1 & 12.4 & 2.49\\
32 & - & $2\e{-4}$ & 1 & 6.08 & 4.00 & 4.94 & 4.69 & 14.3 & 25.3 & 15.4 & 4.87\\
\\
40 & 0.1 & - & - & 4.51 & 4.40 & 4.71 & 4.73 & 14.2 & 36.5 & 13.0 & -\\
40 & 0.3 & - & - & 4.84 & 3.88 & 4.69 & 4.74 & 14.2 & 30.0 & 15.2 & -\\
40 & 0.5 & - & - & 5.11 & 3.83 & 4.67 & 4.74 & 14.1 & 24.6 & 17.1 & -\\
40 & - & $10^{-4}$ & 1 & 4.86 & 3.63 & 4.78 & 4.74 & 14.3 & 29.5 & 17.1 & 3.35\\
\\
60 & 0.1 & - & - & 3.58 & 4.08 & 4.63 & 4.74 & 14.1 & 36.6 & 21.2 & -\\
60 & 0.3 & - & - & 3.79 & 4.23 & 4.59 & 4.75 & 14.1 & 36.4 & 24.8 & -\\
60 & 0.5 & - & - & 3.95 & 4.28 & 4.57 & 4.75 & 14.1 & 37.8 & 28.0 & -\\
60 & - & $10^{-4}$ & 1 & 3.75 & 4.10 & 4.66 & 4.75 & 14.2 & 34.6 & 26.2 & 3.51\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
\section{Results}
\label{sec:results}
\subsection{Time dependence of boundary penetrability and mass entrainment rate}
\label{sec:time_dependence}
The time dependence of the bulk Richardson number, $Ri_{\rm B}$, for two 15\,M$_{\odot}$ models (step overshoot with $\alpha_{\rm{ov}}=0.1$, entrainment with $A=10^{-4}$ and $n=1$) is presented in Fig.\,\ref{fig:15dov0p1rib}. Over the MS, the variations in $Ri_{\rm B}$ are modest, within one order of magnitude. Nevertheless, we can see in Fig.\,\ref{fig:15dov0p1rib} that $Ri_{\rm B}$ initially increases and later on decreases.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{figs/15_dovhp0p1_RiB.pdf}
\caption{Time evolution of the bulk Richardson number for 15\,M$_{\odot}$ models with either the default step overshoot parameter $\alpha_{\rm{ov}}=0.1$ or entrainment parameters $A=10^{-4}$ and $n=1$. From top to bottom, the figure presents the bulk Richardson number, $Ri_{\rm B}$, the buoyancy jump multiplied by the length-scale for turbulent motions, $l_{\rm c}\Delta b$ (the numerator of $Ri_{\rm B}$), the mass-weighted mean square of the MLT velocity, $v_{\rm c}$, throughout the convective region (the denominator of $Ri_{\rm B}$) and finally the corresponding mass entrainment rate, $\dot{M}_{\rm{ent}}$ (using Eq.\,\ref{eq:mdot}).}
\label{fig:15dov0p1rib}
\end{figure}
The increase in $Ri_{\rm B}$ can be understood by considering the evolution of the buoyancy jump $\Delta b$ (the length-scale for turbulent motions, $l_{\rm c}$, which is set to half of a pressure scale height, is roughly constant during the MS), which is an integration of the buoyancy frequency $N^2$ over the boundary region.
In a massive star such as the 15\,M$_{\odot}$ model plotted, the convective core continuously recedes in mass over the MS. As the convective core recedes, it leaves behind a chemical gradient which contributes to an increase in $N^2$ and hence $\Delta b$. This leads to an increase in $l_{\rm c}\Delta b$ (the numerator in $Ri_{\rm B}$ shown in the second row of Fig.\,\ref{fig:15dov0p1rib}), which is strongest at the very beginning of the main sequence since there is no chemical composition gradient to start with.
After some time (age $\sim 6.5\,$Myr), the core recedes far enough that the outermost limit
of the buoyancy jump integration
is lower than the original extent of the convective core.
From this point onward, $\Delta b$ remains roughly constant
since the full extent of its integration region is already occupied by the chemical gradient left by the convective core. Note that this saturation would likely occur earlier in the evolution if the size of the integration region was smaller; see the text below Eq.\,\ref{eq:buoyjump} in Section\,\ref{sec:calc_rib}.
The transient spikes in $Ri_{\mathrm{B}}$ also come from spikes in $\Delta b$. These originate from the finite differencing used in the code, since the boundary lies between two grid points. Fortunately, they have no impact on the results since they cause a temporary decrease in the entrainment mass rate (bottom row in Fig.\,\ref{fig:15dov0p1rib}). The spikes can be further explained by considering the integration of the squared buoyancy frequency. The buoyancy frequency depends on the gradient of the mean molecular weight, $\nabla_{\rm \mu}$ (see Eq.\,\ref{eq:buoyfreq}), which becomes the dominant part of $N^2$ at the upper edge of the CBM region. In the absence of mixing above this edge, $\nabla_{\rm \mu}$ can experience large local spikes. This is reflected in the mean molecular weight $\mu$ as step-like features rather than a smooth profile, and can cause transient increases in $Ri_{\rm B}$. These perturbations in $Ri_{\rm B}$ do not cause pathological changes in the core mass, which evolves smoothly (see Fig.\,\ref{fig:acompare}).
We intentionally did not include any shear mixing beyond the entrained region to study the effects of entrainment without any additional extension the MS lifetime from other factors. Any additional mixing processes such as shear would make it difficult to determine how much the entrainment itself affects the MS width and lifetime. However, we know from 3D simulations that there is a shear layer, which will smooth composition and structure profiles and probably prevent these spikes in the models \citep{arnettmoravveji2017,jones2017}. This shear layer could be modelled using an exponentially decaying diffusion coefficient \citep[exp-D hereinafter,][]{freytag1996,herwig2000} at the edge of the entrained region. Preliminary results suggest that a combination of entrainment and exp-D improves the transient spikes in $Ri_{\rm B}$ seen in pure entrainment models. Since exp-D provides an extra source of CBM, smaller values of $A$ might be needed in these combination models to produce the required MS widths.
Figure\,\ref{fig:N2profiles} shows the buoyancy jump integration region at three stages of the evolution of the 15\,M$_{\odot}$ entrainment model with $A=2\e{-4}$. The dashed lines represent the position of the edge of the entrained region at $r=r_{\rm b}$. The dotted lines represent the upper and lower limits of the integration. Both $N^2$ \textit{(blue)} and $\Delta b$ \textit{(green)} are plotted, with $\Delta b$ being the value obtained when integrating from the convective boundary to the corresponding radius on the x-axis. Hence, the value for $\Delta b$ at $(r-r_{\rm b})/H_{P,\rm b}=0.25$ is the value plotted in Fig.\,\ref{fig:15dov0p1rib}. Values for $\Delta b$ at higher radius would be obtained if the upper limit of the integration was larger.
Since the temperature gradient in the entrained region is adiabatic, $N^2$ is only positive in the stable region, which is the only region to contribute to the buoyancy jump in our current models. Fig.\,\ref{fig:N2profiles} also shows that the main contribution to the buoyancy jump is from the region close to $r=r_{\rm b}$. Outside our chosen integration region, $\Delta b$ remains at a similar order of magnitude. If the integration region is in fact significantly smaller than our chosen value, e.g. $0.05 H_P$, then the buoyancy jump would also be significantly smaller
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figs/N2profiles_A1e-4.pdf}
\caption{Profiles of the buoyancy frequency $N^2$ \textit{(blue)} at three different central hydrogen mass fractions, $X_{\rm c}$ (indicated at the top of the panel), in a 15\,M$_{\odot}$ entrainment model with $A=10^{-4}$ and $n=1$. Also shown is the buoyancy jump $\Delta b$ \textit{(green, right axis)} when integrated out to the corresponding number of pressure scale heights from the boundary, shown on the x-axis. The dashed line at $(r-r_{\rm b})/H_{P,\rm{b}}=0$ is the border between the entrained region and the stable region at $r=r_{\rm b}$. The dotted lines represent the limits of the buoyancy jump integration as used in our models ($r_{\rm b} \pm 0.25 H_{P,\rm b}$).}
\label{fig:N2profiles}
\end{figure*}
Finally, the modest decrease in $Ri_{\mathrm{B}}$ towards the end of the MS is due to the gradual increase in convective velocities (third row in Fig.\,\ref{fig:15dov0p1rib}). The increase in convective velocities is due to the luminosity of the star gradually increasing over the MS. Since velocity and luminosity are related by $v_c^3 \propto L$ \citep{biermann1932}, convective velocities also increase over the MS. Compared to $\Delta b$, however, the variation in $v_{\mathrm{c}}$ is small, which explains why $\Delta b$ has the greatest effect on the overall changes of $Ri_{\mathrm{B}}$ during the MS.
Over the MS, $Ri_{\rm B}$ varies between a few tens of thousands and a few hundreds of thousands (excluding short spikes explained above). Using the entrainment law (Eq.\,\ref{eq:entrainmentlaw}) with $A=10^{-4}$ and $n=1$, this leads to mass entrainment rates between $10^{-6.3}$ and $10^{-7.5}$\,M$_\odot\,$yr$^{-1}$ in a 15\,M$_{\odot}$ model.
The mass entrainment rate, which is inversely proportional to $Ri_{\rm B}$, first decreases during the first part of the MS and later on increases slightly. The mass entrainment rate in this model leads to a total entrained mass of 0.960\,M$_\odot$ (see last column of Table\,\ref{tab:models}).
\subsection{Mass dependence of boundary penetrability}
\label{sec:mass_dependence}
Current observations seem to suggest that convective boundary mixing is mass dependent.
For instance, \citet{claret2019} presented the dependence of CBM as a function of mass for stars of less than $\sim 4$\,M$_{\odot}$ in binary systems, finding a steep dependence for the lowest mass stars with growing convective cores on the MS. \citet{schootemeijer2019} found a mild dependence of CBM on mass for stars in the Small Magellanic Cloud. \citet{higgins2019} compared models to the massive star binary HD 166734, concluding that a step overshoot parameter of $\alpha_{\rm{ov}}=0.5$ was suitable for stars above 30 to 40\,M$_\odot$, which is much larger than the value of $\alpha_{\rm{ov}}=0.1$ determined for lower mass stars by \citet{ekstrom2012}. \citet{castro2014} performed a large study on Milky Way stars and found significant broadening of the MS at higher masses; we compare to this work in particular in Section\,\ref{sec:MS_width}.
In this section, we explore if this dependence can be explained by the mass dependence of stellar structure and properties.
It is well known that the luminosity has a strong mass dependence.
For low-mass stars, the dependence is steep with $L \propto M^3$. For massive stars, it flattens and approaches a linear dependence with mass above about 20\,M$_\odot$ (see Fig.\,6 in \citealt{yusof2013}). A higher luminosity leads to higher convective velocities ($v_c^3 \propto L$, \citealt{biermann1932}). Since the bulk Richardson number, $Ri_{\rm B}$, contains a velocity term, it would also be expected to show mass dependence.
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figs/RiB_components.pdf}
\caption
Mass dependence of the Bulk Richardson number and its components.
The left hand panel shows the time-average of the log$_{10}$ of the bulk Richardson number over the MS against initial mass.
Circles represent default step overshoot models ($\alpha_{\rm{ov}}=0.05$ for 1.5\,M$_{\odot}$, $\alpha_{\rm{ov}}=0.1$ otherwise) and pluses represent entrainment models with $A=10^{-4}$ and $n=1$.
The right panel shows the log$_{10}$ of the time average of the two components of $Ri_{\rm B}$. For the denominator ($v_c^2$), a minus sign is used so that adding the values of the two components yields the value of $Ri_{\rm B}$.
}
\label{fig:RiB_components}
\end{figure*}
The left panel of Figure \ref{fig:RiB_components} shows the logarithm of the time average of two values: $Ri_{\rm B}$ and $v_{\rm c}^2$ (sign reversed, since it is the denominator of $Ri_{\rm}$, and scaled by a constant value to fit on the same axis). This panel demonstrates that $Ri_{\rm B}$ is mass dependent and its dependence is dominated by the velocity term. The right panel shows the velocity term compared to total luminosity (again scaled by a constant), demonstrating that the mass dependence of velocity is also very similar to that of luminosity, as expected from the mass luminosity relation. Conversely, the buoyancy jump term also plotted in the right-hand panel does not demonstrate mass dependence since its logarithm varies by less than 0.5 dex. Despite this, the buoyancy jump term does dominate the variation of mass entrainment rate with time (Fig.\,\ref{fig:15dov0p1rib}) and so cannot be ignored when considering entrainment at the convective boundary. Note also that this only holds if our assumptions on the buoyancy jump integration region (see text below Eq.\,\ref{eq:buoyjump} in Section\,\ref{sec:calc_rib}) are correct.
In this section, we showed that convective boundary properties have a clear mass dependence, which can be measured via $Ri_{\mathrm{B}}$. Next, we want to explore whether the entrainment law, which uses $Ri_{\mathrm{B}}$ can provide the mass dependence of the convective boundary mixing needed to reproduce the observed MS width.
We can already note that $Ri_{\mathrm{B}}$ decreasing with initial mass will lead to higher entrainment rates for more massive stars, which goes in the right direction.
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figs/2p5_Acompare.pdf}
\caption{Comparison of the evolution of the convective core mass (Schwarzschild convective region plus CBM region), $M_{\rm cc}$, for 2.5\,M$_{\odot}$ models with step overshoot $\alpha_{\rm ov}=0.1$ and entrainment. Entrainment models use $n=1$. \textit{Left:} Time evolution of $M_{\rm cc}$ for various values of $A$, including $A=0$ (no CBM). \textit{Right:} The step overshoot model compared to the entrainment model with the closest-matching lifetime ($A=10^{-4}$) and the model without CBM. The dashed lines show the mass coordinate of the Schwarzschild boundary. The entire convective region and CBM region (for both overshooting and entrainment) are assumed to be fully mixed (for both chemical species and entropy) and have an adiabatic temperature gradient.}
\label{fig:acompare}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Dependence of entrainment on the entrainment law parameters}
\label{sec:parameters}
Both 3D simulations and theoretical studies determined various values for the entrainment law parameters $A$ and $n$.
From a theoretical energy balance argument, $n$ should be 1 \citep{stevens2001}.
Hydrodynamical simulation values for $n$ range from $\sim0.7$ to $\sim1$ depending on the setup.
Conversely, literature values for $A$ vary from $A\approx1$ \citep{meakin2007} to $A\approx0.05$ \citep{cristini2019}.
See \citet{muller2020} and references therein for examples of entrainment law parameters derived from 3D simulation results.
The fact that $A$ and $n$ are not the same between setups suggests that the entrainment law in its current form does not encompass every aspect of the growth of the convective region in these simulations.
In this study, we start by taking $n=1$ and use published 1D \texttt{GENEC} evolution models with step overshoot and $\alpha_{\rm ov}=0.1$ to determine a value of $A$ that would reproduce the published models.
The value of $\alpha_{\rm ov}=0.1$ in \texttt{GENEC} models is constrained using the main sequence width for low/intermediate-mass stars \citep{ekstrom2012}.
The same value of $\alpha_{\rm ov}$ is then applied to all higher masses (at all metallicities) in the published grids of \texttt{GENEC} models.
Therefore, 2.5\,M$_{\odot}$ models were used to constrain an $A$ value in entrainment models that matches the general properties of the 2.5\,M$_{\odot}$ \texttt{GENEC} model with step overshoot and $\alpha_{\rm ov}=0.1$: MS width in the Hertzsprung-Russell (HR) diagram, core masses and MS lifetime.
Table\,\ref{tab:models} and Fig.\,\ref{fig:acompare} show the comparison between entrainment models with different values of $A$ and the default overshoot model. They confirm that the minimum effective temperatures reached by the models with $\alpha_{\rm ov}=0.1$ and $A=10^{-4}$, $n=1$ are very similar. Table\,\ref{tab:models} also indicates that the MS lifetimes are similar.
Figure \ref{fig:acompare} shows the evolution of the convective core mass in 2.5 M$_{\odot}$ entrainment models. The left-hand panel shows how the entrainment depends on the value of $A$ with values of $A$ ranging from zero (no CBM) to $3\times 10^{-4}$ (all models with $n=1$). As expected, a larger value of $A$ leads to more entrainment and thus larger convective core masses and longer lifetimes. One point to note is that since entrainment rate is reduced if $Ri_{\rm B}$ increases, the potential problem of the convective region quickly encompassing the whole star can be avoided. Indeed, as the entrainment extends further, the jump in composition and entropy at the boundary increases and makes the boundary stiffer, which makes it harder for additional entrainment. The use of the entrainment law thus provides an important feedback. This is best seen for the $A=3\times 10^{-4}$ model (brown curve), where entrainment leads to core growth only during the first part of the MS. After a while, the entrained mass plateaus since the entrainment rate drops significantly and the convective regions shrinks in mass due to the Schwarzschild boundary receding as in the step overshoot models.
Note that much larger values of $A$ may still lead to the entire model becoming convective. Much larger values of $A$ are not needed or supported by observations anyway as discussed in Section\,\ref{sec:MS_width}.
Keeping $n=1$, the value $A=10^{-4}$ provides the closest match to the default step overshoot model in terms of MS lifetime. We see, however, that the time evolution of the convective core is very different in entrainment models compared to the step overshoot model, as shown in the right-hand panel of Fig.\,\ref{fig:acompare}. The step overshoot model assumes that mixing is an instantaneous process (compared to the MS lifetime) and thus the convective core is significantly larger on the ZAMS in these models. On the other hand,
entrainment is a time-dependent process (in that the size of the entrained region is dependent on the earlier entrainment history) and builds up over the entire MS, as shown in Eq.\,\ref{eq:ment}. The dashed-red line indicates the Schwarzschild boundary in the $A=10^{-4}$ model and shows how the entrained region (region between the solid and dashed red lines) grows in mass with time. This means that for a given lifetime, the entrainment models start with smaller and end with larger convective core masses compared to step overshoot models (see Table\,\ref{tab:models} and Section\,\ref{sec:core_masses}).
We also tested the dependence of entrainment on the value of $n$ with various 15\,M$_\odot$ models with values of $n=0.9, 1.2$ and 1.5 (keeping $A=10^{-4}$, see Table\,\ref{tab:models}). The dependence on $n$ is strong. Indeed, values of $n$ slightly larger than 1 (1.2 or 1.5) strongly reduce the total entrained mass (by a factor of 10 or more, see last column of Table\,\ref{tab:models}) and values of $n$ slightly smaller than 1 (0.9) lead to significantly more entrainment (by a factor of more than 3). While the dependence on $n$ and $A$ are not independent, our models tend to show that $n$ cannot be too far from 1.
We will compare the values determined in this study to observational constraints and hydrodynamic simulations in the discussion.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{figs/minTeff.pdf}
\caption{Minimum value of effective temperature on the main sequence for all models in the grid (as in Table\,\ref{tab:models}). The mixing schemes used are denoted by different coloured markers as in the legend. The one-off $\alpha_{\rm{ov}}=0.7$ model with 25\,M$_{\odot}$ is shown with the black clover symbol (see Section\,\ref{sec:discussion}).}
\label{fig:minteff}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figs/HRD_15_32_spec.pdf}
\caption{Spectroscopic HRD in the mass range 8 to 32\,M$_{\odot}$ with $\alpha_{\rm ov}=0.1$ step overshoot and two entrainment models, $A=10^{-4}$ and $2\e{-4}$. The dotted lines represent the position of the TAMS from model grids with $\alpha_{\rm ov}=0.1$ \citep{ekstrom2012} and $\alpha_{\rm ov}=0.335$ \citep{brott2011}. The dash-dotted line represents the position of the empirical TAMS determined by \citet{castro2014}; see their Table 1 for the polynomial coefficients of the three TAMS lines used in this figure. The dots, pluses and crosses have been placed where the model reaches 90\%, 95\% and 99\% of the MS lifetime respectively.}
\label{fig:HRD_spec}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Impact of entrainment on main sequence width}
\label{sec:MS_width}
One of the main observational constraints on stellar models is the MS width.
\citet{castro2014} represents one of the most comprehensive study of MS width at solar metallicity. One of their key findings is that models using a mass-independent value of step overshoot \citep{ekstrom2012,brott2011} do not reproduce the observed MS width. Instead, it appears that CBM must increase with initial mass. While the sample used in \citet{castro2014} is far from complete, it is worth comparing our new entrainment models with models with various amounts of step overshoot and the MS width deducted by \citet{castro2014}. \citet{castro2014} find that the MS generally extends to a $\lg{(T_{\rm eff})}\sim 4.3$ over a range of luminosities, which corresponds to stars in the mass range $\sim10-20$\,M$_{\odot}$. Above 20\,M$_{\odot}$, the MS does not seem to have a well-defined cool end and instead appears to extend down to very cool temperature.
Figure \ref{fig:minteff} shows the minimum effective temperature, $T_{\rm{eff,min}}$ reached on the MS by each model in the grid.
$T_{\rm{eff,min}}$ for the default step overshoot models is shown with blue disks and we can see that they indeed predict an MS cool edge that deviates from the observed $\lg{(T_{\rm{eff}})}\sim 4.3$ further as the mass of the model increases from 10\,M$_\odot$ upwards. We also see that these models do not predict the observed widening of the MS above 20\,M$_\odot$. As discussed in the previous section, entrainment models with $A=10^{-4}$ and $n=1$ (red pluses) reproduce the main features of the default ($\alpha_{\rm{ov}} = 0.1$) step overshoot models (MS lifetime and HRD tracks). Thus as expected, the $T_{\rm{eff,min}}$ of the entrainment models is also hotter than the observed one for stars between 10 and 20\,M$_{\odot}$. One difference appears for stars above 20\,M$_{\odot}$ with the entrainment models predicting a cooler edge for the 32\,M$_{\odot}$ model and a very cool edge for the 40\,M$_{\odot}$. The 60\,M$_{\odot}$ models do not follow this trend because they experience strong mass loss towards the end of the MS, which keeps the models on the hot side of the HRD.
Increasing the value of $A$ from $10^{-4}$ to $2\times 10^{-4}$ (purple crosses) provides a reasonable match to the observed MS edge at
$T_{\rm{eff,min}} \sim 4.3$. Indeed, $4.34 \leq T_{\rm{eff,min}} \leq 4.24$ in the models between 8 and 25\,M$_{\odot}$. Furthermore, the 32\,M$_{\odot}$ model now extends to very cool $T_{\rm{eff}}$.
While the observational constraints are not very tight, the MS width for lower masses is slightly wider than observations so a larger value of $A$ would not be favoured.
The broader MS width can be reproduced with an increased value of $\alpha _{\rm{ov}}$ (e.g. with $\alpha_{\rm{ov}} =0.5$, green squares) but in this case, the MS width for lower mass stars would be too wide.
The reason why the entrainment models have broader MS width for more massive stars is due to the mass dependence of $Ri_{\rm B}$ discussed in Section \ref{sec:mass_dependence}, which is used in the entrainment law.
This means that the entrainment law provides a partial physical explanation for the apparent mass dependence of the overshooting parameters and a way of providing a much better fit to the observations with a single value of the parameters $A$ and $n$, which is harder for other CBM such as step overshoot or exponentially decaying diffusion coefficients. Whilst the fit to the TAMS edge could be improved, for example by varying $n$ in addition to $A$, the usefulness of this approach would be limited. Other factors such as rotation, metallicity variations and different mass loss prescriptions could provide additional mass-dependent factors which are not included in these models.
\citet{castro2014} gathered observations of galactic stars and placed them on a spectroscopic HRD (sHRD) \citep{langer2014}, in which they show the density of observed stars in each region of the HRD. Since the sample is incomplete and possibly biased \citep{vink2010,mcevoy2015}, it is difficult to compare densities of stars across the HRD. Nevertheless, it is still interesting to determine what fraction of the MS lifetime models spend in a given location in the HRD. This is indicated in Fig.\,\ref{fig:HRD_spec} (dots at 90\% of the MS lifetime, pluses at at 95\% and crosses at 99\%).
Figure \ref{fig:HRD_spec} shows our models on an sHRD so that we can compare directly to these observations. We focus on the 8 to 32\,M$_{\odot}$ range, which encompasses the region of the sHRD in which there is a clear observed TAMS boundary (marked on Fig.\,\ref{fig:HRD_spec} with the dash-dotted line). Also shown are the TAMS boundaries obtained by \citet{castro2014} from two model grids: \citet{ekstrom2012} using $\alpha_{\rm ov}=0.1$ and \citet{brott2011} using $\alpha_{\rm ov}=0.335$.
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figs/MHe_big.pdf}
\caption{Final helium core mass, $M_{\rm He}$, for various values of step overshoot $\alpha_{\rm ov}$ and entrainment parameter $A$. All entrainment models use $n=1$. Blue circles represent the default value of $\alpha_{\rm ov}$, which is 0.05 for 1.5\,M$_{\odot}$ and 0.1 otherwise. The one-off $\alpha_{\rm{ov}}=0.7$ model with 25\,M$_{\odot}$ is shown with the black clover symbol, nearby the $A=2\e{-4}$ model (see Section\,\ref{sec:discussion}). \textit{Left:} Absolute value of $M_{\rm He}$ against initial mass. The $\alpha_{\rm ov}=0.1$ point at 20\,M$_{\odot}$ is taken from the \citet{ekstrom2012} grid. \textit{Right:} $M_{\rm He}$ normalised by the default step overshoot value.}
\label{fig:MHe}
\end{figure*}
The \citet{ekstrom2012} step overshoot value of $\alpha_{\rm ov}=0.1$ was calibrated using models on the lower MS, such as our 2.5\,M$_\odot$ models. As such, its TAMS boundary is closest to the \citet{castro2014} empirical boundary in the lower mass range, but deviates strongly at higher masses. Conversely, the \citet{brott2011} step overshoot value of $\alpha_{\rm ov}=0.335$ was calibrated at 16\,M$_\odot$ and corresponds best to the \citet{castro2014} TAMS in the middle of the mass range, deviating at both the high-mass and low-mass extremes. This suggests that when using step overshoot to determine CBM, a mass-dependent $\alpha_{\rm ov}$ is
needed in models to reproduce observations over a large mass range.
The entrainment law naturally accounts for the mass dependence of CBM through the mass dependence of $Ri_{\rm B}$ (see Section \ref{sec:mass_dependence}). In Fig.\,\ref{fig:HRD_spec}, the entrainment models have a markedly different TAMS boundary shape (approximated by the positions of the cross markers) with an increased widening of the MS with increasing mass. In particular, the $A=2\e{-4}$ model is closer to the \citet{castro2014} observed TAMS than both the \citet{ekstrom2012} and \citet{brott2011} TAMS boundaries for the 8 and 25\,M$_\odot$ models. Whilst the MS width for 32\,M$_\odot$ models is unconstrained by the \citet{castro2014} observations, the $A=2\e{-4}$ model does fulfill the requirement of reaching very low temperatures, with $\lg{T_{\rm eff}}\leq4.2$ at 99 per cent of the full MS lifetime.
\subsection{Impact of entrainment on helium core masses and lifetimes}
\label{sec:core_masses}
The type and degree of CBM
also affects the mass of the helium core at the end of the MS. The size of this core, whilst not directly observable, has very important implications for post-MS evolution. The compactness and explodability of pre-supernova models is dependent on the post-MS structure, in which the helium core plays an important role \citep{oconnor2011,ertl2016,sukhbold2018,chieffi2020}.
Additionally, since the evolution is driven by the conditions in the core, CBM parameters that produce large cores can mimic the results of more massive models with less CBM.
In Table\,\ref{tab:models}, the helium core mass at the end of the MS, $M_{\rm He}$, is given in the penultimate column. We define $M_{\rm He}$ as the mass of the convective core (including CBM) when the central hydrogen mass fraction drops to one per cent. This definition gives similar results to taking the mass coordinate at which the hydrogen mass fraction drops to one per cent at the last time step of the MS.
Figure\,\ref{fig:MHe} shows both $M_{\rm He}$ (\textit{left}) and $M_{\rm He}$ divided by its value in the default step overshoot model (\textit{right}). As expected, the left panel shows that larger amounts of CBM produce larger core masses at the end of the MS. In absolute terms, this increase in core mass is greatest in the more massive stars. In the right-hand panel, the majority of CBM choices show the opposite trend, with a greater effect of CBM on relative core mass for the lower-mass models. This is particularly true for $\alpha_{\rm ov}=0.5$. In contrast, the $A=10^{-4}$ models increase $M_{\rm He}$ by $\sim$30 per cent across the mass range of the grid, except for the 1.5\,M$_{\odot}$ model which displays a milder change in core mass.
The value of entrainment that best produces the \citet{castro2014} MS width in Fig.\,\ref{fig:HRD_spec} is $A=2\e{-4}$. As can be seen in the right-hand panel of Fig.\,\ref{fig:MHe}, this value of $A$ creates helium cores which are a factor of 1.6 to 1.8 larger than using default step overshoot models. The 20\,M$_{\odot}$ point \citep[taken from][]{ekstrom2012} in the left-hand panel of Fig.\,\ref{fig:MHe} illustrates the implications of this; a 15\,M$_{\odot}$ model with $A=2\e{-4}$ has a similar helium core mass to an $\alpha_{\rm ov}=0.1$ model, which is 5\,M$_{\odot}$ more massive initially. This shift of at least 5\,M$_{\odot}$ has wide-ranging implications for massive star evolution and their fate. Examples include the upper mass limit of observed supernova progenitors \citep{smartt2009} and the mass range of black hole production \citep[e.\,g.][]{chieffi2020}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{figs/tauMS.pdf}
\caption{Main sequence lifetime relative to the default step overshoot models ($\alpha_{\rm ov}=0.05$ for 1.5\,M$_{\odot}$, 0.1 otherwise). The one-off $\alpha_{\rm{ov}}=0.7$ model with 25\,M$_{\odot}$ is shown with the black clover symbol (see Section\,\ref{sec:discussion}).}
\label{fig:tauMS}
\end{figure}
Figure\,\ref{fig:tauMS} shows the MS lifetime, $\tau_{\rm MS}$ (column 5 in Table\,\ref{tab:models}), relative to the default step overshoot case for various CBM parameters across the mass range of the grid. This figure shows similar trends to the right-hand panel of Fig.\,\ref{fig:MHe}, but with more CBM producing longer lifetimes rather than larger cores. When comparing step overshoot models only, it is clear that the relative increase in lifetime is smaller for higher-mass stars. The entrainment models show more complicated non-monotonic behaviour. However, it is important to note that the relative effect of increasing CBM on lifetime is milder compared to the effect on helium core masses; the maximum relative increase in lifetime in Fig.\,\ref{fig:tauMS} is nearly 15 per cent for the 2.5\,M$_{\odot}$ model, whereas $M_{\rm He}$ is increased by a $\sim$80 per cent for the same model in Fig.\,\ref{fig:MHe}.
The strong effect on core masses and more modest effect on lifetimes can be understood from the difference between step overshoot and entrainment discussed in Section\,\ref{sec:parameters} and highlighted in Fig.\,\ref{fig:acompare}. Whilst the mass contained within the CBM region in the step overshoot models decreases with time, entrainment is a cumulative process, which builds up over the main sequence and thus leads to much larger final core masses.
Another important difference for the later evolution is the initial sizes of convective cores. The step overshoot model starts with a much larger core. This will leave an imprint on the structure of that part of the star, which will affect the behaviour of the intermediate convective zone \citep{kaiser2020}.
\section{Discussion and Conclusions}
\label{sec:discussion}
We have calculated a grid of 1D stellar models using the Geneva stellar evolution code with masses between 1.5 and 60\,M$_{\odot}$ and at solar metallicity ($Z=0.014$).
We have shown that the boundary penetrability by convective flows, quantified by the bulk Richardson number $Ri_{\rm B}$, decreases monotonically with increasing mass.
This decrease is dominated by the increase in typical convective velocities due to the steep mass-luminosity relation for stars in the 1 to 20\,M$_{\odot}$ range.
The boundary stiffness, $l_{\rm c}\Delta b$, is nearly invariant with mass in the range studied.
Due to the decrease in $Ri_{\rm B}$ with mass, models with entrainment experience a mass-dependent increase in mixing.
This is reflected in a corresponding mass-dependent MS widening in the HRD.
For our models, we find the value of $A$ which best reproduces the observed MS widths of massive stars is $A=2\e{-4}$, with $n=1$. Note however that more extended samples are desired to place a very tight constraint on $A$ and that the effects of rotation were not considered in this work (Martinet et al. in prep.).
The choice of temperature gradient in the entrained region is also an important factor in the implementation of entrainment. As explained in Section\,\ref{sec:algorithm}, we use $\nabla=\nabla_{\rm ad}$ in the entrained region, since 3D simulations show that entropy is well mixed as the convective region grows \citep{cristini2017}. 3D simulations also show a narrow boundary above the entrained region with a smooth chemical gradient rather than a switch from one $\mu$ to another; it is likely that the mixing of entropy is similarly slowed compared to the entrained region in this boundary. Indeed, asteroseismic observations support MS convective cores with a smooth $\nabla$ profile in the CBM region \citep{arnettmoravveji2017}.
In standard models, the global evolutionary effect of a slight change in $\nabla$ in the CBM region is subtle, especially if the CBM region is small. In entrainment models, however, the size of the CBM region towards the end of the MS can be significant, especially with larger values of $A$. The choice of $\nabla$ may also have a more important role in entrainment models due to its effect on the buoyancy jump, $\Delta b$. In our current implementation, the CBM region has no contribution to $\Delta b$ whatsoever, since it is fully mixed ($\nabla_{\rm \mu}=0$) and $\nabla=\nabla_{\rm ad}$. This means that the buoyancy frequency in the entrained region is 0. If the temperature gradient were to instead transition smoothly from $\nabla_{\rm ad}$ to $\nabla_{\rm rad}$ within the entrained region \citep[as explored in][]{michielsen2019}, there would be a contribution to $\Delta b$ from the entrained region. This contribution would grow larger as the entrained region grows in size, therefore providing more feedback slowing the entrainment for larger values of $A$. Consequently, these models would require larger values of $A$ than models with $\nabla=\nabla_{\rm ad}$ to produce the same MS width.
Since we have demonstrated in Section\,\ref{sec:mass_dependence} that the mass dependence of $Ri_{\rm B}$ is dominated by the change in typical convective velocities with mass, it is interesting to test whether a scaling based on $v_{\rm c}$ could provide a simpler alternative to entrainment. This seems reasonable since
the dependence of $Ri_{\rm B}$ with mass is almost entirely controlled by $v_{\rm c}$, with $l_{\rm c}\Delta b$ staying nearly constant with mass. To constrain this scaling, we take the value of $\alpha_{\rm{ov}}=0.5$ for 15\,M$_{\odot}$, as this most closely matches the \citet{castro2014} observational $\lg{(T_{\rm{eff,min}})}\sim4.3$. The scaled overshoot parameter for each mass, $M_{\rm{ini}}$, is then given by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:scaledov}
\alpha_{\rm ov,scaled,}(M_{\rm{ini}}) = \alpha_{15\,\rm M_{\odot}} \frac{\langle v^m(M_{\rm{ini}})\rangle}{\langle v^m(M_{\rm{ini}}=15\rm{\,M}_\odot)\rangle},
\end{equation}
where $\alpha_{15\,\rm M_{\odot}}=0.5$ and $\langle v^m(M_{\rm{ini}})\rangle$ is the average of the convective velocity to the power $m$ over the MS of the model of initial mass $M_{\rm{ini}}$.
Various scenarios support different values for $m$. According to Eq.\,\ref{eq:mdot}, the mass entrainment rate $\dot{M}_{\rm{ent}}$ is proportional to $v_{\rm c}^3$. If $\alpha_{\rm{ov}}$ in the step overshoot case most closely corresponds to $\dot{M}_{\rm{ent}}$ in entrainment models, then $m=3$ is appropriate. However, $m=2$ would be supported if $\alpha_{\rm{ov}}$ corresponds best to the penetrability of the boundary ($Ri_{\rm B}$ is inversely proportional to $v_{\rm c}^2$ if $n=1$). The $m=1$ case of $\alpha_{\rm{ov}} \propto v_{\rm c}$ would be similar to the findings of \citet{denissenkov2019}, who reported that the exp-D $f$ parameter scales linearly with the cube root of the convective driving luminosity, or equivalently $f \propto v_{\rm c}$.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{figs/scaled_ov.pdf}
\caption{Step overshoot parameter $\alpha_{\rm ov}$ scaled using Eq.\ref{eq:scaledov}. The polynomial fit to the $m=1$ points uses the equation $\alpha_{\rm ov}(M_{\rm{ini}})=-0.00037867 M_{\rm{ini}}^2 +0.03885918 M_{\rm{ini}} -0.01237484$. Previous studies such as \citet{claret2017} and \citet{moravveji2016} show that similar results are obtained using an exp-D $f$ parameter which is roughly a factor of 10 to 15 smaller than the equivalent step overshoot $\alpha_{\rm ov}$. Therefore a fit for $f(M_{\rm{ini}})$ would be roughly 1/10 to 1/15 of $\alpha_{\rm ov}(M_{\rm{ini}})$.}
\label{fig:scaledov}
\end{figure}
Figure\,\ref{fig:scaledov} shows the predicted values of $\alpha_{\rm{ov}}$ according to Eq.\,\ref{eq:scaledov} with $m=1$, 2 and 3. The $m=2$ and $m=3$ cases quickly reach very high values of $\alpha_{\rm ov}$ above 15\,M$_\odot$; thus the y-axis scale is zoomed onto the lower $\alpha_{\rm ov}$ range. The values of $\alpha_{\rm ov}=0.05$ and $\alpha_{\rm ov}=0.1$ for 1.5\,M$_\odot$ and 2.5\,M$_\odot$ respectively have already been calibrated \citep{ekstrom2012}, but are also underestimated by the $m=2$ and $m=3$ cases. Only $m=1$ matches the already-known values for the lower mass range and does not produce extremely high values in the higher mass range.
Since the $m=1$ case seems the most reasonable, we have provided a polynomial fit to this scaling, described in the caption of Fig.\,\ref{fig:scaledov}. We emphasise that this scaling should only be considered a temporary fix to the problem of mass-dependent CBM and behaviour of the mass range above 60\,M$_{\odot}$ is unknown. Whilst the $m=1$ scaling supports previous findings \citep{denissenkov2019}, the step overshoot values at $M_{\rm{ini}} \geq 30$\,M$_\odot$ are already much larger than the value of $\alpha_{\rm{ov}}=0.5$ favoured by \citet{higgins2019}. Eq.\,\ref{eq:scaledov} also does not take the stiffness of the boundary into account. This may be less of a problem for MS cores, but convective shells which have two boundaries are known to have different stiffnesses for each and different entrainment rates according to the entrainment law \citep{cristini2019}. In addition, the possible mass dependence of $H_{P,\rm{b}}$ (which is used to determine the total overshooting distance, $d_{\rm{ov}}=\alpha_{\rm{ov}} H_{P,\rm{b}}$) should not be discounted, as it also contains information on the stellar structure near the boundary.
Nevertheless, we have calculated an additional model at 25\,M$_{\odot}$ with $\alpha_{\rm{ov}}=0.7$, which is approximately the value suggested by the $m=1$ case of Eq.\,\ref{eq:scaledov}. This model can be found in Table\,\ref{tab:models} and in Figures\,\ref{fig:minteff}, \ref{fig:MHe} and \ref{fig:tauMS} represented by a black clover symbol. Fig.\,\ref{fig:minteff} in particular shows that this model produces a very broad MS with a minimum $\lg{T_{\rm{eff}}}\sim 4$, which is consistent with \citet{castro2014}.
The focus of this study is on entrainment at the convective core boundary during the MS, but many 3D simulations which resulted in entrainment were concerned with later evolutionary phases. The effects of entrainment in post-MS 1D models are unknown, but may be similar to that of other CBM with phenomena such as increased likelihood of convective shell mergers. In convective envelopes, the length-scales and pressure stratification can be significantly different to convective cores. The relatively high importance of thermal diffusion may mean that entrainment is not a suitable CBM prescription in convective envelopes \citep{viallet2015}.
Since our entrainment implementation is cumulative, it is interesting to compare our results to those of \citet{staritsin2013}, who used instantaneous entrainment. Staritsin's values for $A$ were also much smaller than the results of 3D simulations, with $A=4.425\e{-4}$ for the 16\,M$_\odot$ model and $A=4.054\e{-4}$ for the 24\,M$_{\odot}$. This is not dissimilar to our value of $2\e{-4}$, perhaps due to the similarity in calibration: Staritsin required that the entrained distance at the ZAMS was $0.1\,H_P$, guided by asteroseismic results for the star HD\,46202 \citep{briquet2011}. We also based our initial estimate of $A=10^{-4}$ on the MS lifetime of models with $\alpha_{\rm{ov}}=0.1$, as explained in Section\,\ref{sec:parameters}.
However, there are also significant differences between our models and the models of \citet{staritsin2013}. The key result of \citet{staritsin2013} was an entrainment region which decreased with time as the model evolved; we instead see the opposite, since the mass of our entrained region can only ever increase (by construction). As such, Staritsin's entrainment models produced less Helium overall than standard $\alpha_{\rm{ov}}=0.1$ models, whereas our estimations for Helium core sizes were much greater in the entrainment models (see Table\,\ref{tab:models}). In addition, the buoyancy jump continuously increases in \citet{staritsin2013}, whereas we see a plateau in the buoyancy jump near the middle of the MS (as explained in Section\,\ref{sec:time_dependence}. This difference could be due to the buoyancy jump integration distance used by Staritsin, $h \sim 2v_{\rm c}/N$. Since $v_{\rm c}$ grows with time during the MS (in Staritsin's models as well as ours), the integration length $h$ would similarly increase with time, potentially leading to the increase in $\rm{\Delta}b$.
To conclude, the entrainment law, through its dependence on the bulk Richardson number, produces models with a wider MS for high mass stars than standard models. In addition, the extension of the MS increases with mass, as required by observation. However, the value of the entrainment law $A$ parameter required to produce the correct MS width for the lower mass stars in our grid is orders of magnitude smaller than the value derived from 3D simulations of convection in the later stages of stellar evolution. This value may change further if more aspects of convective boundary physics are included, such as shear.
Although these models are not complete, they are an important step in the right direction since they show that convective boundary penetrability is a key part of the physics behind the mass dependence of CBM.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
The authors acknowledge support from EU FP7 ERC 2012 St
Grant 306901. R.H. acknowledges support from the World
Premier International Research Centre Initiative (WPI Initiative),
MEXT, Japan and the IReNA AccelNet
Network of Networks, supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant
No. OISE-1927130. This article is based upon work from the
ChETEC COST Action (CA16117), supported by COST
(European Cooperation in Science and Technology). C.G.,
R.H., C.M. and S.E. thank ISSI, Bern, for their support on organizing
meetings related to the content of this paper. C.G. and S.E. acknowledge the STAREX grant from the ERC Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement No 833925). This work used the DiRAC@Durham facility managed by
the Institute for Computational Cosmology on behalf of the
STFC DiRAC HPC Facility (www.dirac.ac.uk). The equipment
was funded by BEIS capital funding via STFC capital grants
ST/P002293/1 and ST/R002371/1, Durham University, and
STFC operations grant ST/R000832/1. This work also used
the DiRAC Data Centric system at Durham University,
operated by the Institute for Computational Cosmology on
behalf of the STFC DiRAC HPC Facility. This equipment was
funded by BIS National E Infrastructure capital grant ST/
K00042X/1, STFC capital grants ST/H008519/1 and ST/
K00087X/1, STFC DiRAC Operations grant ST/K003267/1,
and Durham University. DiRAC is part of the National E
Infrastructure.
\section*{Data Availability}
The data underlying this article will be shared on reasonable request to the corresponding author.
\bibliographystyle{mnras}
|
\section{Notation}
\label{sec:prog}
We now go over the notation used in description of our parallel algorithms.
Fig. \ref{fig:examples} shows a parallel algorithm for the job-scheduling problems.
The {\bf var} section gives the variables of the problem.
We have a single variable $G$ in the example shown in Fig. \ref{fig:examples}.
$G$ is an array of objects such that
$G[j]$ is the state of thread $j$ for a parallel program.
The {\bf input} section gives all the inputs to the problem. These inputs are constant in the program and do not change during execution.
The {\bf init} section is used to initialize the state of the program.
All the parts of the program
are applicable to all values of $j$. For example, the {\em init} section of the job scheduling program in Fig. \ref{fig:examples}
specifies that $G[j]$ is initially $t[j]$. Every thread $j$ would initialize $G[j]$.
The {\bf always} section defines additional variables which are derived from $G$.
The actual implementation of these variables are left to the system. They can be viewed as
macros. We will show its use later.
The LLP algorithm gives the desirable predicate either by using the {\bf forbidden} predicate or {\bf ensure} predicate.
The {\em forbidden} predicate has an associated {\em advance} clause that specifies how $G[j]$ must be advanced
whenever the forbidden predicate is true.
For many problems, it is more convenient to use the complement of the forbidden predicate.
The {\em ensure} section specifies the desirable predicates of the form $(G[j] \geq expr)$ or
$(G[j] \leq expr)$.
The statement {\em ensure} $G[j] \geq expr$ simply means that whenever thread $j$ finds $G[j]$ to be less than
$expr$; it can advance $G[j]$ to $expr$.
Since $expr$ may refer to $G$, just by setting $G[j]$ equal to $expr$, there is no guarantee
that $G[j]$ continues to be equal to $expr$ --- the value of $expr$ may change because of changes in other components.
We use {\em ensure} statement whenever $expr$ is a monotonic function of $G$ and therefore the predicate
is lattice-linear.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\small {
\fbox{\begin{minipage} {\textwidth}\sf
\begin{tabbing}
xxxx\=xxxx\=xxxx\=xxxx\=xxxx\=xxxx\= \kill
$P_j$: Code for thread $j$\\
// common declaration for all the programs below \\
{\bf var} $G$: array[$1$..$n$] of $0..maxint$;// shared among all threads\\
{\bf input}: $t[j]: int$, $pre(j)$: list of $1..n$;\\
{\bf init}: $G[j] := t[j]$;\\
\\
{\bf \underline{job-scheduling}}:\\
\> {\bf forbidden}: $G[j] < \max \{G[i] + t[j] ~|~ i \in pre(j)\}$;\\
\> \> {\bf advance}: $G[j] := \max \{G[i] + t[j] ~|~ i \in pre(j)\}$;\\
\\
{\bf \underline{job-scheduling}}:\\
\> {\bf ensure}: $G[j] \geq \max \{G[i] + t[j] ~|~ i \in pre(j)\}$;\\
\end{tabbing}
\end{minipage}
}
}
\caption{LLP Parallel Program for (a) job scheduling problem using forbidden predicate (b) job scheduling problem using ensure clause \label{fig:examples}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\section{Optimal Binary Search Tree}
\label{sec:optimalBST}
Suppose that we have a fixed set of $n$ symbols called {\em keys} with some associated information called {\em values}. Our goal is to build a dictionary based
on binary search tree out of these symbols.
The dictionary supports a single operation search which returns the value associated with the the given key.
We are also given the frequency of each symbol as the argument for the search query.
The cost of any search for a given key is given by the length of the path from the root of the binary search tree to the node containing
that key. Given any binary search tree, we can compute the total cost of the tree for all searches.
We would like to build the binary search tree with the least cost.
Let the frequency of key $i$ being searched is $p_i$. We assume that the keys are sorted in increasing order of $p_i$.
Our algorithm is based on building progressively bigger binary search trees.
The main idea is as follows.
Suppose symbol $k$ is the root of an optimal binary search tree for symbols in the range $[i..j]$.
The root $k$ divides the range into three parts -- the range of indices strictly less than $k$, the index $k$, and the range of indices
strictly greater than $k$. The left or the right range may be empty.
Then, the left subtree and the right subtree must themselves be optimal for their respective ranges.
Let $G[i,j]$ denote the least cost of any binary search tree
built from symbols in the range $i..j$.
We use the symbol $s(i,j)$ as the sum of all frequencies from the symbol $i$ to $j$, i.e.,
\[ s(i,j) = \sum_{k=i}^{j} p_k \]
For convenience, we let $s(i,j)$ equal to $0$ whenever $i > j$, i.e., the range is empty.
We now define a lattice linear constraint on $G[i,j]$.
Let $i \leq k < j$. Consider the cost of the optimal tree such that symbol $k$ is at the root.
The cost has three components: the cost of the left subtree if any, the cost of the search ending at this node itself and the cost of search in the
right subtree. The cost of the left subtree is
\[ G[i,k-1] + s(i,k-1) \]
whenever $i<k$. The cost of the node itself is $s(k,k)$. The cost of the right subtree is
\[ G[k+1,j] + s(k+1,j) \]
Combining these expressions, we get
\[ G[i,j] = \min_{i \leq k < j} (G[i,k-1] + s(i,j) + G[k+1,j]) \]
This is also the least value of $G[i,j]$ such that
\[ G[i,j] \geq \min_{i \leq k < j} (G[i,k-1] + s(i,j) + G[k+1,j]) \]
We now show that the above predicate is lattice-linear.
\begin{lemma}
The constraint $B \equiv \forall i,j: G[i,j] \geq \min_{i \leq k < j} (G[i,k-1] + s(i,j) + G[k+1,j])$ is lattice-linear.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Suppose that $B$ is false, i.e., $\exists i,j: G[i,j] < \min_{i \leq k < j} (G[i,k-1] + s(i,j) + G[k+1,j]).$
This means that there exists $i,j,k$ with $i \leq k < j$ such that $G[i,j] < (G[i,k-1] + s(i,j) + G[k+1,j])$.
This means the the index $(i,j)$ is forbidden and unless $G[i,j]$ is increased, the predicate $B$ can never become true
irrespective of how other components of $G$ are increased.
\end{proof}
We now have our LLP-based algorithm for Optimal Binary Search Tree as Algorithm \ref{algo:LLP-BST}.
The program has a single variable $G$. It is initialized so that $G[i,i]$ equals $p[i]$ and $G[i,j]$ equals zero whenever $i$ is not equal to $j$. The algorithm advances $G[i,j]$ whenever it is smaller than
$\min_{i \leq k < j} G[i,k-1] + s(i,j) + G[k+1,j]$.
In Algorithm \ref{algo:LLP-BST}, we have used the {\bf awlways} clause as a macro that uses
$s(i,j)$ as a short form for $ \sum_{k=i}^{j} p[k]$.
\begin{algorithm}
\SetAlgoRefName{LLP-OptimalBinarySearchTree}
$P_{i,j}$: Code for thread $(i,j)$\\
{\bf input}: $p$:array of real;// frequency of each symbol\\
{\bf init}: $G[i,j] = 0 ~ \forall i \neq j$;\\
\hspace*{0.2in} $G[i,i] = p[i]$;\\
{\bf always}:
$s(i,j) = \sum_{k=i}^{j} p[k]$\\
{\bf ensure}:\\
\hspace*{0.2in} $ G[i,j] \geq \min_{i \leq k < j} G[i,k-1] + s(i,j) + G[k+1,j]$\\
{\bf priority}: $(j-i)$\\
\caption{Finding An Optimal Binary Search Tree \label{algo:LLP-BST}}
\end{algorithm}
Although, the above algorithm will give us correct answers, it is not efficient as it may update $G[i,j]$ before $G[i,k]$ and $G[k,j]$ for $i\leq k < j$ have stabilized.
However, the following scheduling strategy ensures that we update $G[i,j]$ at most once. We check for whether $G[i,j]$ is forbidden in the order
of $j-i$. Hence, initially all $G[i,j]$ such that $j=i+1$ are updated. This is followed by all $G[i,j]$ such that $j=i+2$, and so on.
We capture this scheduling strategy with the ${\bf priority}$ statement. We pick $G[i,j]$ to update such that
$(j-i)$ have minimal values.
Of course, our goal is to compute $G[1,n]$.
With the above strategy of updating $G[i,j]$, we get that $G[i,j]$ is updated at most once. Since there are $O(n^2)$ possible values of $G[i,j]$ and each takes
$O(n)$ work to update, we get the work complexity of $O(n^3)$. On a CREW PRAM, we can compute all $i,j$ with the fixed difference in parallel. By using
$O(\log n)$ span algorithm to compute $\min$, we get the parallel time complexity as $O(n \log n)$.
Thus, we have the following result.
\begin{lemma}
There exists a parallel algorithm for the optimal binary search tree problem which uses just read-write atomicity and solves it in $O(n \log n)$ parallel time.
\end{lemma}
We now consider the constrained versions of the problem.
\begin{lemma}
All the following predicates are lattice linear.
\begin{enumerate}
\item Key $x$ is not a parent for any key.
\item The difference in the sizes of the left subtree and the right subtree is at most $1$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
\begin{enumerate}
\item This requirement changes the ensure predicate to
$ G[i,j] \geq \min_{i \leq k < j, k \neq x} G[i,k-1] + s(i,j) + G[k+1,j]$.
The right hand side of the constraint continues to be monotonic and therefore it is lattice linear.
\item This requirement changes the ensure predicate to
$ G[i,j] \geq \min_{i \leq k < j, |k-1-i, j-k-1| \leq 1} G[i,k-1] + s(i,j) + G[k+1,j]$.
This change simply restricts the values of $k$, and the right hand side continues to be monotonic.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proof}
{\em Remark:}
A problem very similar to the optimal Binary Search tree problem is that of constructing an optimal way of multiplying a chain of matrices. Since matrix multiplication is associative,
the product of matrices $(M_1*M_2)*M_3$ is equal to $M_1*(M_2*M_3)$. However, depending upon the dimensions of the matrices, the computational effort may be different.
We let the dimension of matrix $M_i$ be $m_{i-1} \times m_i$. Note that this keep the matrix product well-defined because the dimension of matrix $M_{i+1}$ would be
$m_i \times m_{i+1}$ and the product $M_i \times M_{i+1}$ is well-defined.
We can view any evaluation of a chain as a binary tree where the intermediate notes are the multiplication operation and the leaves are the matrices themselves.
Suppose, our goal is to compute the optimal binary tree for multiplying matrices in the range $M_i \ldots M_j$.
Borrowing ideas from the previous section, we let $G[i,j]$ denote the optimal cost of computing the product of matrices in the range $M_i \ldots M_j$.
Suppose that this product is broken into products of $M_i \ldots M_k$ and $M_{k+1} \ldots M_j$ and then multiplication of these two matrices.
We can compute the cost of this tree as
\[ G[i,k] + G[k+1,j] + m_{i-1}m_{k}m_j \]
Then, we have the following predicate on $G$.
\[ G[i,j] \geq \min_{i \leq k < j} (G[i,k] + m_{i-1}m_{k}m_j + G[k+1,j] \]
The reader will notice the similarity with the optimal binary search tree problem and this problem and the same algorithm can be adapted to solve this problem.
\section{Knapsack Problem}
\label{sec:knapsack}
We are given $n$ items with weights $w_1, w_2, \ldots, w_n$ and values $v_1, v_2, \ldots, v_n$. We are also given a knapsack
that has a capacity of $W$. Our goal is to determine the subset of items that can be carried in the knapsack and that maximizes the total value.
The standard dynamic programming solution is based on memoization of the following dynamic programming formulation \cite{Vazirani:2001, williamson}.
Let $G[i, w]$ be the maximum value that can be obtained by picking items from $1..i$ with the capacity constraint of $w$.
Then, $G[i,w]= max (G[i-1, w-w_i] + v_i, G[i-1, w])$. The first argument of the max function corresponds to the case when the item $i$ is included in the optimal set
from $1..i$, and the second argument corresponds to the case when the item $i$ is not included and hence the entire capacity can be used for the items from $1..i-1$.
If $w_i > w$, then the item $i$ can never be in the knapsack and can be skipped.
The base cases are simple. The value of $G[0,w]$ and $G[i,0]$ is zero for all $w$ and $i$.
Our goal is to find $G[n,W]$. By filling up the two dimensional array $G$ for all values of $0 \leq i \leq n$ and $0 \leq w \leq W$, we get an algorithm
with time complexity $O(nW)$.
We can model this problem using lattice-linear predicates as follows.
We model the feasibility as
$G[i,w] \geq \max (G[i-1, w-w_i] + v_i, G[i-1, w])$ for all $i,w > 0$ and $w_i \leq w$.
Also,
$G[i,w] =0$ if $i=0$ or $w=0$. Our goal is to find the minimum vector $G$ that satisfies feasibility.
\begin{lemma}
The constraint $B \equiv \forall i,w: G[i,w] \geq \max (G[i-1, w-w_i] + v_i, G[i-1, w])$ for $w_i \leq w$ is lattice-linear.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
If the predicate $B$ is false, there exists $i$ and $w$ such that $G[i,w] < \max (G[i-1, w-w_i] + v_i, G[i-1, w])$. The value $G[i,w]$ is forbidden; unless
$G[i,w]$ is increased the predicate can never become true.
\end{proof}
\begin{algorithm}
\SetAlgoRefName{LLP-Knapsack}
$P_{i,j}$: Code for thread $(i,j)$\\
{\bf input}: $w,v$:array[$1$..$n$] of int;// weight and value of each item\\
{\bf var}: $G$:array[$0 \ldots n$, $0 \ldots W$] of int; \\
{\bf init}: $G[i,j] = 0 ~ if ~ (i=0) \vee (j=0)$;\\
{\bf ensure}:\\
$ G[i,j] \geq \max \{ G[i -1, j -w_i] + v_i, G[i-1, j] \} $ ~ if ~$j \geq w_i$\\
\hspace*{0.2in} \hspace*{0.2in} $ \geq G[i-1, j]$, otherwise.\\
\caption{Finding An Optimal Solution to the Knapsack Problem\label{algo:LLP-Knapsack}}
\end{algorithm}
Algorithm \ref{algo:LLP-Knapsack} updates the value of $G[i,j]$ based only on the values of $G[i-1,.]$. Furthermore, $G[i,j]$ is always at least
$G[i-1, j]$. Based on this observation, we can simplify the algorithm as follows.
We consider the problem of adding just one item to the knapsack given the constraint that the total weight does not exceed $W$.
We maintain the list of all optimal configurations for each weight less than $W$.
\begin{algorithm}
\SetAlgoRefName{LLP-IncrKnapsack2}
$P_{j}$: Code for thread $j$\\
{\bf input}: $w,v$: int;// weight and value of the next item\\
\hspace*{0.2in} $C$: array[$0 \ldots W$] of int;\\
{\bf var}: $G$:array[$0 \ldots W$] of int; \\
{\bf init}: $\forall j: G[j] = C[j]$;\\
{\bf ensure}:\\
\hspace*{0.2in} $ G[j] \geq C[j-w] + v $ ~ if ~$j \geq w$ \\
\caption{Finding An Optimal Solution to the Incremental Knapsack Problem\label{algo:LLP-IncrKnapsack}}
\end{algorithm}
The incremental algorithm can be implemented in $O(1)$ parallel time using $O(W)$ processors as shown in Fig. \ref{algo:LLP-IncrKnapsack}.
Each processor $j$ can check whether $G[j]$ needs to be advanced.
We can now invoke the incremental Knapsack algorithm as Algorithm \ref{algo:Knapsack2}.
If we had $W$ cores, then computing $G[i,.]$ from $G[i-1,.]$ can be done in $O(1)$ giving us the span of $O(n)$.
\begin{algorithm}
\SetAlgoRefName{Knapsack2}
$P_{j}$: Code for thread $j$\\
{\bf input}: $w,v$:array[$1$..$n$] of int;// weight and value of each item\\
{\bf var}: $G$:array[$0 \ldots W$] of int;\\
{\bf init}: $\forall j: G[j] = 0$;\\
{\bf for} $i := 1$ to $n$ do\\
\hspace*{0.2in} $G := IncrKnapsack2(w[i], v[i], G)$;\\
\caption{Finding An Optimal Solution to the Knapsack Problem\label{algo:Knapsack2}}
\end{algorithm}
We now add some lattice-linear constraints to the Knapsack problem. In many applications, some items may be related and the constraint
$x_a \Rightarrow x_b$ means that if the item $x_a$ is included in the Knapsack then the item $x_b$ must also be included. Thus, the item $x_a$ has profit of zero if $x_b$ is not included.
The item $x_b$ has utility even without $x_a$ but not vice-versa.
Without loss of generality, we assume that all weights are strictly positive, and
that index $b < a$.
In the following Lemma, we use an auxiliary variable $S[i,j]$ that keeps the
set of items included in $G[i,j]$ and not just the profit from those items.
\begin{lemma}
First assume that $(i \neq a)$.
Let $B(i,w) \equiv G[i,w] \geq \max (G[i-1, w - w_i] + v_i, G[i-1, w])$ for $(w_a \leq w)$ and $G[i,w] \geq G[i-1, w]$, otherwise.
This predicate corresponds to any item $i$ different from $a$. The value with a bag of capacity $w$ is always greater than or equal to the choice of picking the item or not picking the item.
Let $B(a,w) \equiv G[a,w] \geq \max (G[a-1, w-w_a] + v_a, G[a-1, w])$ if $b \in S[a-1, w-w_a] \wedge (w_a \leq w)$ and $G[a,w] \geq G[a-1,w]$, otherwise.
Then, $B(i,w)$ is lattice-linear for all $i$ and $w$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Suppose that $B(i,w)$ is false for some $i$ and $w$. Unless $G[i,w]$ is increased, it can never become true.
\end{proof}
\section{Introduction}
It has been shown that the Lattice Linear Predicate (LLP) algorithm solves many combinatorial optimization problems such as the shortest path problem, the stable marriage problem and the market clearing price problem \cite{DBLP:conf/spaa/Garg20}.
In this paper, we show that many problems that can be solved using dynamic programming \cite{bellman1952theory} can also be solved in {\em parallel} using the LLP algorithm.
Dynamic programming is applicable to problems where it is easy to set up a recurrence relation
such that the solution of the problem can be derived from the solutions of problems with smaller sizes.
One can solve the problem using recursion; however, recursion may result in many duplicate computations.
By using memoization, we can avoid recomputing previously computed values. We assume that the problem is solved using dynamic programming with
such bottom-up approach in this paper.
The LLP algorithm views solving a problem as searching for an element in a finite distributive lattice \cite{Birk3, davey, Gar:2015:bk} that satisfies a given predicate $B$. The predicate
is required to be closed under the operation of meet (or, equivalently lattice-linear, defined in Section \ref{sec:back}). For all the problems considered in the paper,
the longest subsequence problem, the optimal binary search tree problem and the Knapsack problem, the predicate is indeed closed under meets.
Any finite distributive lattice can be equivalently characterized by a finite poset of its join-irreducibles from Birkhoff's theorem \cite{Birk3, davey}.
The LLP algorithm works on the finite poset in parallel to find the least element in the distributive lattice that satisfies the given predicate.
It starts with the bottom element of the lattice and marches towards the top element of the lattice in a {\em parallel} fashion by advancing
on any chain of the poset for which the current element is {\em forbidden}.
There are also some key differences between dynamic programming (the bottom-up approach) and the LLP algorithm. The usual dynamic programming problem seeks a structure that
minimizes (or maximizes) some scalar. For example, the longest subsequence problem asks for the subsequence in an array $A[1..n]$ that maximizes the sum.
In contrast, the LLP algorithm seeks to minimize or maximize
a {\em vector}. In the longest subsequence problem with the LLP approach, we are interested in the longest subsequence in the array $A[1..i]$ for each $i \leq n$ that ends at index $i$. Thus, instead of
asking for a scalar, we ask for the vector of size $n$.
We get an array $G[1..n]$ and the solution to the original problem is just the maximum value in the array $G$.
Similarly, the optimal binary search tree problem \cite{knuth1971optimum} asks for the construction of an optimal binary search tree
on $n$ symbols such that each symbol $i$ has probability $p_i$ of being searched. Our goal is to find the binary search tree
that minimizes the expected cost of search in the tree.
The LLP problem seeks the optimal binary search
tree for all ranges $i \ldots j$ instead of just one range $1..n$.
Finally, the knapsack problem \cite{horowitz1974computing,ibarra1975fast}
asks for the maximum valued subset of items that can be fit in a knapsack such that the profit is maximized and the total weight of the knapsack is at most $W$. The LLP problem seeks the maximum profit obtained by
choosing items from $1..i$ and the total weight from $1..W$.
In all these problems, traditionally we are seeking a single structure that optimizes a single scalar; whereas the LLP algorithm asks for a vector.
It turns out that that in asking for an optimal {\em vector} instead of an optimal {\em scalar}, we do not lose much since the existing solutions also
end up finding the optimal solutions for the subproblems. The LLP algorithm returns a vector $G$ such that $G[i]$ is optimal for $i$.
The second difference between dynamic programming and the LLP algorithm is in terms of parallelism.
The dynamic programming solution does not explicitly refers to parallelism in the problem. The LLP algorithm
has an explicit notion of parallelism. The solution uses an array $G$ for all problems and the algorithm requires the components of $G$ to be advanced
whenever they are found to be {\em forbidden}. If $G[i]$ is forbidden for multiple values of $i$, then $G[i]$ can be advanced for all those values in parallel.
The third difference between dynamic programming and the LLP algorithm is in terms of synchronization required during parallel execution of the algorithm. In case of dynamic programming, if the recursive formulas are evaluated in parallel it is assumed that the values used are correct. In contrast,
suppose that we check for $G[i]$ and $G[j]$ to be forbidden concurrently such that $G[i]$ ends up using an old value of
$G[j]$, the LLP algorithm is still correct.
The only requirement we have for parallelism is that when $G[i]$ uses a value of $G[j]$, it should either be the most recent value
of $G[j]$ or some prior value. A processor that is responsible for keeping $G[i]$ may get old value from $G[j]$ in a parallel setting when it gets this value from a cache. In a message passing system, it may get the old value of $G[j]$ if the message to update $G[j]$ has not yet arrived at the processor with $G[i]$. Thus, LLP algorithms are naturally parallel with little synchronization overhead.
The fourth difference between dynamic programming and the LLP algorithm is that we can use the LLP algorithm to solve a constrained version
of the problem, so long as the constraint itself is lattice-linear. Suppose that we are interested in the longest subsequence such that successive elements differ by at least $2$.
It can be (easily) shown that this constraint is lattice-linear. Hence, the LLP algorithm is applicable because we are searching for an element that satisfies a conjunction
of two lattice-linear predicates. Since the set of lattice-linear predicates is closed under conjunction, the resulting predicate is also lattice-linear and
the LLP algorithm is applicable. Similarly, the predicate that the symbol $i$ is not a parent of symbol $j$ is lattice-linear and the constrained optimal binary search tree
algorithm returns the optimal tree that satisfies the given constraint. In the Knapsack problem, it is easy to solve the problem with the additional constraint that if
the item $x$ is included in the Knapsack, then the item $y$ is also included.
We note here that our goal is not to improve the time or work complexity of the algorithms, but to provide a single parallel algorithm that solve all of these problems and their constrained versions. Furthermore, the parallel algorithm we propose has no synchronization overhead, i.e., they only require read-write atomicity.
This paper is organized as follows. Section \ref{sec:back} gives background on the LLP method.
Section \ref{sec:prog} gives the programming notation used to express LLP algorithms in the paper.
Section \ref{sec:longest} applies the LLP method to the longest subsequence problem.
Section \ref{sec:optimalBST} give a parallel algorithm for the optimal binary search tree construction problem.
Section \ref{sec:knapsack} gives an LLP algorithm for the knapsack problem.
\section{Background}
\label{sec:back}
In this section, we cover the background information on the LLP Algorithm \cite{DBLP:conf/spaa/Garg20}.
\input{LLP-common}
\input{longestSequence}
\input{binarySearchTree}
\input{knapsack}
\section{Conclusions}
In this paper, we have shown that many dynamic programming problems can be solved using a single {\em parallel} Lattice-Linear Predicate algorithm.
In particular, LLP algorithm solves the problem of the longest increasing subsequence, the optimal binary search tree and the knapsack problem. In addition, it solves the constrained versions
of these problems. The parallel algorithms described in the paper works correctly with read-write atomicity of variables without any use of {\em locks}.
\section{Longest Increasing Subsequences}
\label{sec:longest}
We are given an integer array as input. For simplicity, we assume that all entries are distinct.
Our goal is find for each index $i$ the length of the longest increasing sequence
that ends at $i$. For example, suppose the array $A$ is {\tt
\{35 38 27 45 32\}}.
Then, the desired output is {\tt
\{1 2 1 3 2\}}. The corresponding longest increasing subsequences are: {\tt (35), (35, 38), (27), (35, 38, 45), (27, 32).}
We can define a graph $H$ with indices as vertices. For this example, we have five vertices numbered
$v_1$ to $v_5$.
We draw an edge from $v_i$ to $v_j$ if $i$ is less than $j$ and $A[i]$ is also less than $A[j]$.
This graph is clearly acyclic as an edge can only go from a lower index to a higher index.
We use $pre(j)$ to be the set of indices which have an incoming edge to $j$.
The length of the longest increasing subsequence ending at index $j$ is identical to the
length of the longest path ending at $j$.
To solve the problem using LLP, we model it as a search for the smallest vector $G$ that
satisfies the constraint $B \equiv \forall j:G[j] \geq 1 \wedge \forall j: G[j] \geq \max \{G[i] + 1~|~ i \in pre(j) \}$.
To understand $B$, we first consider a stronger predicate $B_* = (G[1] = 1) \wedge \forall j: G[j] = \max \{1, \max \{G[i] + 1~|~ i \in pre(j) \} \}$.
The interpretation of $G[j]$ in $B_*$ is that it is the length of the longest path that ends in $j$.
Thus, in the longest increasing subsequence problem we are searching for the vector that satisfies the predicate $B_*$.
Instead of searching for an element in the lattice that satisfies $B_*$, we search for the least element in the lattice that satisfies $B$.
This allows us to solve for the constrained version of the problem in which we are searching for an element that satisfies
an additional lattice-linear constraint.
The underlying lattice we consider is that of all vectors of natural numbers less than or equal to the maximum element
in the lattice. A vector in this lattice is {\em feasible} if it satisfies $B$.
We first show that the constraint $B$ is lattice-linear.
\noindent
\begin{lemma}
The constraint $B \equiv (\forall j:G[j] \geq 1) \wedge (\forall j: G[j] \geq \max \{G[i] + 1~|~ i \in pre(j) \})$ is lattice-linear.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Since the predicate $B$ is a conjunction of two predicates, it is sufficient to show that each of them is lattice-linear from
Lemma \ref{lem:basic-LLP}(b). The first conjunct is lattice linear because the constant function $1$ is monotone. The second conjunct
can be viewed as a conjunction over all $j$. For a fixed $j$, the predicate $G[j] \geq \max \{G[i] + 1~|~ i \in pre(j)$ is lattice-linear
from Lemma \ref{lem:basic-LLP}(a).
\end{proof}
Our goal is to find the smallest vector in the lattice that satisfies $B$.
Now, LLP algorithm can be formulated as \ref{fig:alg-longest}.
\begin{algorithm}
\SetAlgoRefName{LLP-Longest-Increasing-Subsequence}
$P_j$: Code for thread $j$\\
{\bf input}: $A$:array of int;\\
{\bf var} $G$: array[$1$ \ldots $n$] of int;\\
{\bf init}: $G[j] = 1$;\\
\hspace*{0.2in} $pre(j) := \{ i \in 1..j-1 | A[i] < A[j] \}$;\\
{\bf ensure}: $G[j] \geq \max \{G[i] + 1~|~ i \in pre(j)\}$;\\
\caption{Finding the Longest Increasing Subsequence. \label{fig:alg-longest}}
\end{algorithm}
This algorithm starts with all values as $1$ and increases the $G$ vector till it satisfies the constraint
$G[j] \geq \max \{G[i] + 1~|~ i \in pre(j) \}$.
The above algorithm, although correct, does not preclude $G[j]$ from getting updated multiple times.
To ensure that no $G[j]$ is updated more than once, we introduce a boolean $fixed$ for each index such that
we update $G[j]$ only when it is not fixed and all its predecessors are fixed. With this change, our algorithm becomes \ref{fig:alg-longest2}.
\begin{algorithm}
\SetAlgoRefName{LLP2-Longest-Increasing-Subsequence}
$P_j$: Code for thread $j$\\
{\bf input}: $A$:array of int;\\
{\bf var} $G$: array[$1$ \ldots $n$] of int;\\
\hspace*{0.2in} $fixed$: array[$1$ \ldots $n$] of boolean;\\
{\bf init}: $G[j] = 1; fixed[j] := false;$ \\
\hspace*{0.2in} $pre(j) := \{ i \in 1..j-1 | A[i] < A[j] \}$;\\
{\bf forbidden}: $\neg fixed[j] \wedge (\forall i \in pre(j): fixed[i] )$;\\
\hspace*{0.2in} {\bf advance}: $G[j] := \max \{G[i] + 1~|~ i \in pre(j)\}$;\\
\hspace*{0.2in} \hspace*{0.2in} \hspace*{0.2in} $fixed[j] := true$;\\
\caption{Finding the Longest Increasing Subsequence. \label{fig:alg-longest2}}
\end{algorithm}
Let us now analyze the complexity of the algorithm. The sequential complexity is simple because we can maintain the list
of all vertices that are forbidden because all its predecessors are fixed. Once we have processed a vertex, we never process it again.
This is similar to a sequential algorithm of topological sort.
In this case, we examine a vertex exactly once only after all its predecessors are fixed. The time complexity of this algorithm is
$O(n^2)$.
For the parallel time complexity, assume that we have $n^2$ processors available. Then, in time $O(\log n)$, one can determine whether the
vertex is forbidden and advance it to the correct value if it is forbidden. This is because for every $j$, we simply need to check that all vertices
in $pre(j)$ are fixed and $j$ is not fixed. By using a parallel {\em reduce} operation, we can check in $O(\log n)$ time whether $j$ is forbidden.
If the longest path in the graph $H$ is $\Delta$, then the
algorithm takes $O(\Delta \log n)$ time.
Now, let us consider the situation where each thread $j$ writes the value of $fixed[j]$ and $G[j]$ without using any synchronization.
If any thread $j$ reads the old value of $fixed[i]$ for some $i$ in $pre(j)$, it will not update $fixed[j]$ at that point. Eventually, it will read the correct value of $fixed[i]$,
and perform $advance$. We do assume in this version that if a process reads $fixed[i]$ as true, then it reads the correct value of $G[i]$, because $fixed[i]$ is updated
after $G[i]$.
Consequently, we get the following result.
\begin{lemma}
There exists a parallel algorithm for the longest increasing subsequence problem which uses just read-write atomicity and solves the problem in $O(\Delta \log n)$ time.
\end{lemma}
We now add lattice-linear constraints to the problem. Instead of the longest increasing subsequence, we may be interested in the longest increasing subsequence that satisfies an additional predicate.
\begin{lemma}
All the following predicates are lattice linear.
\begin{enumerate}
\item
For any $j$, $G[j]$ is greater than or equal to the longest increasing subsequence of odd integers ending at $j$.
\item
$G[j]$ is greater than or equal to the longest increasing subsequence such that $j^{th}$ element in the subsequence exceeds $(j-1)^{th}$ element by at least $k$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
\begin{enumerate}
\item
Since lattice-linear predicates are closed under conjunction, it is sufficient to focus on a fixed $j$. If $G[j]$ is less than the length of the longest increasing subsequence of odd integers ending at $j$, then the index $j$ is forbidden. Unless $j$ is increased the predicate can never become true.
\item
We view this predicate as redrawing the directed graph $H$ such that we draw an edge from $v_i$ to $v_j$ if $i$ is less than $j$ and $A[i]+k$ is less than or equal to $A[j]$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proof}
We note here that the problem can also be solved in parallel using repeated squaring of an appropriate matrix. We do not discuss that method here since it is not work-optimal and generally not efficient in practice.
|
\section{Introduction}
\vspace{-0.5em}
\begin{wrapfigure}[19]{R}{0.5\textwidth}
\vspace{-1em}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.2\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/pusher_020.png}
\end{subfigure}%
~
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.78\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/pusher_results_v2.png}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{{\footnotesize \textbf{MaxEnt RL is robust to disturbances.} {\em (Left)} \, We applied both standard RL and MaxEnt RL to a manipulation task without obstacles, but added obstacles (red squares) during evaluation. We then plot the position of the object when evaluating the learned policies {\em (Center)}\, on the original environment and {\em (Right)}\, on the new environment with an obstacle. The stochastic policy learned by MaxEnt RL often navigates around the obstacle, whereas the deterministic policy from standard RL almost always collides with the obstacle. \label{fig:teaser}}}
\end{wrapfigure}
Many real-world applications of reinforcement learning (RL) require control policies that not only maximize reward but continue to do so when faced with environmental disturbances, modeling errors, or errors in reward specification. These disturbances can arise from human biases and modeling errors, from non-stationary aspects of the environment, or actual adversaries acting in the environment. A number of works have studied how to train RL algorithms to be robust to disturbances in the environment (e.g., ~\citet{morimoto2005robust, pinto2017robust, tessler2019action}). However, designing robust RL algorithms requires care, typically requiring an adversarial optimization problem and introducing additional hyperparameters~\citep{pinto2017robust, tessler2019action}. Instead of designing a new robust RL algorithm, we will instead analyze whether an existing RL method, MaxEnt RL, offers robustness to perturbations. MaxEnt RL methods are based on the maximum entropy principle, and augmented the expected reward objective with an entropy maximization term~\citep{ziebart2008maximum}. Prior work has conjectured that such algorithms should learn robust policies~\citep{haarnoja2017reinforcement, huang2019svqn}, on account of the close connection between maximum entropy methods and robustness in supervised learning domains~\citep{grunwald2004game, ziebart2010modeling}. However, despite decades of research on maximum entropy RL methods~\citep{kappen2005path, todorov2007linearly, toussaint2009robot, theodorou2010generalized}, a formal characterization of the robustness properties of such approaches has proven elusive. To our knowledge, no prior work formally proves that MaxEnt RL methods are robust, and no prior work characterizes the disturbances against which these methods are robust.
Showing how to obtain robust policies from existing MaxEnt RL methods, which already constitute a significant portion of the RL methods in use today~\citep{abdolmaleki2018maximum, haarnoja2018soft, vieillard2020munchausen}, would be useful because it would enable practitioners to leverage existing, tried-and-true methods to solve robust RL problems.
Stochastic policies, of the sort learned with MaxEnt RL, inject noise into the actions during training, thereby preparing themselves for deployment in environments with disturbances.
For example, in the robot pushing task shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:teaser}, the policy learned by MaxEnt RL pushes the white puck to the goal using many possible routes. In contrast, (standard) RL learns a deterministic policy, always using the same route to get to the goal. Now, imagine that this environment is perturbed by adding the red barrier in Fig.~\ref{fig:teaser}. While the policy learned by (standard) RL always collides with this obstacle, the policy learned by MaxEnt RL uses many routes to solve the task, and some fraction of these routes continue to solve the task even when the obstacle is present.
While a number of prior works have articulated the intuition that the stochastic policies learned via MaxEnt RL should be robust to disturbances~\citep{levine2018reinforcement, abdolmaleki2018maximum, lee2019tsallis}, no prior work has actually shown that MaxEnt RL policies are provably robust, nor characterized the \emph{set} of disturbances to which they are robust.
Applications of MaxEnt RL methods to problems that demand robustness are likely hampered by a lack of understanding of \emph{when} such methods are robust, what kinds of reward functions should be used to obtain the desired type of robustness, and how the task should be set up.
The goal in our work is to make this notion precise, proving that MaxEnt RL is already a robust RL algorithm, and deriving the robust set for these policies.
The main contribution of this paper is a theoretical characterization of the robustness of existing MaxEnt RL methods.
Specifically, we show that the MaxEnt RL objective is a nontrivial \emph{lower bound} on the robust RL objective, for a particular robust set.
Importantly, these two objectives use different reward functions: to learn a policy that maximizes a reward function on a wide range of dynamics functions, one should apply MaxEnt RL to a \emph{pessimistic} version of that reward function.
MaxEnt RL is \emph{not} robust with respect to the reward function it is trained on.
As we will show, the robust set for these methods is non-trivial, and in some important special cases can be quite intuitive.
To our knowledge, our results are the first to formally show robustness of standard MaxEnt RL methods to dynamics perturbations and characterize their robust set.
Importantly, our analysis and experiments highlight that robustness is only achieved for relatively large entropy coefficients.
We validate our theoretical results on a set of illustrative empirical experiments.
\vspace{-0.5em}
\section{Related Work}
\label{sec:related-work}
\vspace{-0.5em}
The study of robustness in controls has a long history, with robust or $H_\infty$ control methods proposing provably robust solutions under various assumptions on the true dynamics~\citep{zhou1996robust, doyle2013feedback}. RL offers an appealing alternative, since robust RL methods can in principle learn robust policies \emph{without} knowing the true dynamics. However, policies learned by standard RL algorithms often flounder in the face of environmental disturbances~\citep{rajeswaran2016epopt, peng2018sim}.
The problem of learning robust policies that achieve high reward in the face of \emph{adversarial} environmental disturbances, often called \emph{robust RL}, has been well studied in the literature~\citep{bagnell2001solving, nilim2003robustness, morimoto2005robust, pinto2017robust, tessler2019action, russel2019beyond, kamalaruban2020robust, russel2020entropic, russel2021lyapunov, derman2021twice}. Prior robust RL methods are widely-applicable but often require many additional hyperparameters or components. For example, ~\citet{bagnell2001solving} modify the Bellman backup in a Q-learning by solving a convex optimization problem in an inner loop, and ~\citet{tessler2019action} trains an additional adversary policy via RL.
Robust RL is different from robust control in the traditional sense, which focuses on stability independent of any reward function~\citep{zhou1996robust, doyle2013feedback}.
Robust RL problem involves estimating a policy's returns under ``similar'' MDPs, a problem that has been studied in terms of distance metrics for MDPs~\citep{lecarpentier2020lipschitz}.
Robust RL is different from maximizing the \emph{average} reward across many environments, as done by methods such as domain randomization~\citep{sadeghi2016cad2rl, rajeswaran2016epopt, peng2018sim}.
Closely related to robust RL are prior methods that are robust to disturbances in the reward function~\citep{hadfield2017inverse, bobu2020less, michaud2020understanding}, or aim to minimize a cost function in addition to maximizing reward~\citep{chow2017risk, achiam2017constrained, chow2019lyapunov, carrara2019budgeted, tang2019worst, thananjeyan2020recovery}.
Robust RL is also different from the problem of learning transferable or generalizable RL agents~\citep{lazaric2012transfer, zhang2018study, justesen2018illuminating, cobbe2019quantifying}, which focuses on the average-case performance on new environments, rather than the worst-case performance.
\vspace{-0.5em}
\section{Preliminaries}
\label{sec:preliminaries}
\vspace{-0.5em}
We assume that an agent observes states $\cs$, takes actions $\ca \sim \pi(\ca \mid \cs)$, and obtains rewards $r(\cs, \ca)$.
The initial state is sampled \mbox{$\mathbf{s_1} \sim p_1(\mathbf{s_1})$}, and subsequent states are sampled \mbox{$\mathbf{s_{t+1}} \sim p(\mathbf{s_{t+1}} \mid \cs, \ca)$}. We will use $p^\pi(\tau)$ to denote the probability distribution over trajectories for policy $\pi$. Episodes have $T$ steps, which we summarize as a trajectory \mbox{$\tau \triangleq (\mathbf{s_1}, \mathbf{a_1}, \cdots, \mathbf{s_T}, \mathbf{a_T})$}.
Without loss of generality, we can assume that rewards are undiscounted, as any discount can be addressed by modifying the dynamics to transition to an absorbing state with probability $1 - \gamma$.
The standard RL objective~is:
\begin{equation*}
\argmax_\pi \;\mathbb{E}_{\tau \sim p^\pi(\tau)}\bigg[ \sum_{t=1}^T r(\cs, \ca) \bigg], \quad \text{where} \quad p^\pi(\tau) = p_1(\mathbf{s_1}) \prod_{t=1}^T p(\mathbf{s_{t+1}} \mid \cs, \ca) \pi(\ca \mid \cs) d \tau
\end{equation*}
is the distribution over trajectories when using policy $\pi$.
In fully observed MDPs, there always exists a deterministic policy as a solution~\citep{puterman2014markov}.
The MaxEnt RL objective is to maximize the sum of expected reward and conditional action entropy.
Formally, we define this objective in terms of a policy $\pi$, the dynamics $p$ and the reward function $r$:
\begin{equation}
J_\text{MaxEnt}(\pi; p, r) \triangleq \mathbb{E}_{\ca \sim \pi(\ca \mid \cs), \mathbf{s_{t+1}} \sim p(\mathbf{s_{t+1}} \mid \cs, \ca)} \bigg[ \sum_{t=1}^T r(\cs, \ca) + \alpha {\mathcal{H}}_\pi[\ca \mid \cs] \bigg], \label{eq:maxent-obj}
\end{equation}
where ${\mathcal{H}}_\pi[\ca \mid \cs] = \int_{{\mathcal{A}}} \pi(\ca \mid \cs) \log \frac{1}{\pi(\ca \mid \cs)} d\ca$ denotes the entropy of the action distribution. The \emph{entropy coefficient} $\alpha$ balances the reward term and the entropy term; we use $\alpha = 1$ in our analysis. As noted above, the discount factor is omitted because it can be subsumed into the dynamics.
Our main result will be that maximizing the MaxEnt RL objective (Eq.~\ref{eq:maxent-obj}) results in robust policies.
We quantify robustness by measuring the reward of a policy when evaluated on a \emph{new} reward function $\tilde{r}$ or dynamics function $\tilde{p}$, which is chosen adversarially from some set:
\begin{equation*}
\max_\pi \min_{\tilde{p} \in \tilde{{\mathcal{P}}}, \tilde{r} \in \tilde{{\mathcal{R}}}} \mathbb{E}_{\tilde{p}(\mathbf{s_{t+1}} \mid \cs, \ca), \pi(\ca \mid \cs)}\bigg[ \sum_{t=1}^T \tilde{r}(\cs, \ca) \bigg].
\end{equation*}
This \emph{robust RL} objective is defined in terms of the sets of dynamics $\tilde{{\mathcal{P}}}$ and reward functions $\tilde{{\mathcal{R}}}$. Our goal is to characterize these~sets. The robust RL objective can be interpreted as a two-player, zero-sum game. The aim is to find a Nash equilibrium.
Our goal is to prove that MaxEnt RL (with a \emph{different reward function}) optimizes a lower bound this robust objective, and to characterize the robust sets $\tilde{{\mathcal{P}}}$ and $\tilde{{\mathcal{R}}}$ for which this bound holds.
\section{MaxEnt RL and Robust Control}
\label{sec:robust-control}
In this section, we prove the conjecture that MaxEnt RL is robust to disturbances in the environment.
Our main result is that MaxEnt RL can be used to maximize a lower bound on a certain robust RL objective. Importantly, doing this requires that MaxEnt RL be applied to a different, pessimistic, version of the target reward function.
Before presenting our main result, we prove that MaxEnt RL is robust against disturbances to the reward function. This result is a simple extension of prior work, and we will use this result for proving our main result about dynamics robustness
\subsection{Robustness to Adversarial Reward Functions}
\label{sec:robust-control-rewards}
We first show that MaxEnt RL is robust to some degree of misspecification in the reward function. This result may be useful in practical settings with learned reward functions~\citep{fu2018variational,xu2019positive, michaud2020understanding} or misspecified reward function~\citep{amodei2016concrete, clark2016faulty}.
Precisely, the following result will show that applying MaxEnt RL to one reward function, $r(\cs, \ca)$, results in a policy that is guaranteed to also achieve high return on a range of other reward functions, $\tilde{r}(\cs, \ca) \in \tilde{{\mathcal{R}}}$:
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:reward-robustness}
Let dynamics $p(\mathbf{s_{t+1}} \mid \cs, \ca)$, policy $\pi(\ca \mid \cs)$, and reward function $r(\cs, \ca)$ be given. Assume that the reward function is finite and that the policy has support everywhere (i.e., $\pi(\ca \mid \cs) > 0$ for all states and actions). Then there exists a positive constant $\epsilon>0$ such that the MaxEnt RL objective $J_\text{MaxEnt}$ is equivalent to the robust RL objective defined by the robust set~$\tilde{{\mathcal{R}}}(\pi)$:
\begin{equation*}
\min_{\tilde{r} \in \tilde{{\mathcal{R}}}(\pi)} \mathbb{E} \Big[\sum_t \tilde{r}(\cs, \ca) \Big] = J_\text{MaxEnt}(\pi; p, r) \quad \forall \pi,
\end{equation*}
where the adversary chooses a reward function from the set
\begin{equation}
\tilde{{\mathcal{R}}}(\pi) \triangleq \left\{ \tilde{r}(\cs, \ca) \; \bigg \vert \; \mathbb{E}_\pi \Big[\sum_t \log \int_{{\mathcal{A}}} \exp(r(\cs, \ca') - \tilde{r}(\cs, \ca')) d\ca'\Big] \le \epsilon \right\}. \label{eq:robust-set-rewards}
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
Thus, when we use MaxEnt RL with some reward function $r$, the policy obtained is guaranteed to also obtain high reward on all similar reward functions $\tilde{r}$ that satisfy Eq.~\ref{eq:robust-set-rewards}.
We discuss how MaxEnt RL can be used to learn policies robust to arbitrary sets of reward functions in Appendix~\ref{sec:reducing-robust-control}. The proof can be found in Appendix~\ref{appendix:reward-robustness-proof}, and is a simple extension of prior work~\citep{grunwald2004game, ziebart2011maximum}. Our proof does not assume that the reward function is bounded nor that the policy is convex.
While the proof is straightforward, it will be useful as an intermediate step when proving robustness to dynamics in the next subsection.
The robust set $\tilde{{\mathcal{R}}}$ corresponds to reward functions $\tilde{r}$ that are not too much smaller than the original reward function: the adversary cannot decrease the reward for any state or action too much.
The robust set $\tilde{{\mathcal{R}}}$ depends on the policy, so the adversary has the capability of looking at which states the policy visits before choosing the adversarial reward function $\tilde{r}$. For example, the adversary may choose to apply larger perturbations at states and actions that the agent frequently visits.
\subsection{Robustness to Adversarial Dynamics}
\label{sec:robust-control-dynamics}
We now show that MaxEnt RL learns policies that are robust to perturbations to the dynamics. Importantly, to have MaxEnt RL learn policies that robustly maximize one a reward function, we will apply MaxEnt RL to a different, pessimistic reward function:
\begin{equation}
\bar{r}(\cs, \ca, \mathbf{s_{t+1}}) \triangleq \frac{1}{T} \log r(\cs, \ca) + {\mathcal{H}}[\mathbf{s_{t+1}} \mid \cs, \ca]. \label{eq:bar-r}
\end{equation}
The $\log(\cdot)$ transformation is common in prior work on learning risk-averse policies~\citep{mihatsch2002risk}. The entropy term rewards the policy for vising states that have stochastic dynamics, which should make the policy harder for the adversary to exploit.
In environments that have the same stochasticity at every state (e.g., LG dynamics), this entropy term becomes a constant and can be ignored. In more general settings, computing this pessimistic reward function would require some knowledge of the dynamics. Despite this limitation, we believe that our results may be of theoretical interest, taking a step towards explaining the empirically-observed robustness properties of MaxEnt~RL.
To formally state our main result, we must define the range of ``similar'' dynamics functions against which the policy will be robust. We use the following divergence between two dynamics functions:
\begin{equation}
d(p, \tilde{p}; \tau) \triangleq \sum_{\cs \in \tau} \log \iint_{{\mathcal{A}}\times{\mathcal{S}}} \frac{p(\mathbf{s_{t+1}}' \mid \cs, \ca')}{\tilde{p}(\mathbf{s_{t+1}}' \mid \cs, \ca')} d \ca' d\mathbf{s_{t+1}}'. \label{eq:d}
\end{equation}
This divergence is large when the adversary's dynamics $\tilde{p}(\mathbf{s_{t+1}} \mid \cs, \ca)$ assign low probability to a transition with high probability in the training environment $\tilde{p}$.
Our main result shows that applying MaxEnt RL to the pessimistic reward function results in a policy that is robust to these similar dynamics functions:
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:dynamics-robustness}
Let an MDP with dynamics $p(\mathbf{s_{t+1}} \mid \cs, \ca)$ and reward function $r(\cs, \ca) > 0$ be given. Assume that the dynamics have finite entropy (i.e., ${\mathcal{H}}[\mathbf{s_{t+1}} \mid \cs, \ca]$ is finite for all states and actions). Then there exists a constant $\epsilon > {\mathcal{H}}_{\pi^*}[\ca \mid \cs]$
such that the MaxEnt RL objective with dynamics $p$ and reward function $\bar{r}$ is a lower bound on the robust RL objective
\begin{equation*}
\min_{\tilde{p} \in \tilde{{\mathcal{P}}}(\pi)} J_\text{MaxEnt}(\pi; \tilde{p}, r) \ge \exp(J_\text{MaxEnt}(\pi; p, \bar{r}) + \log T),
\end{equation*}
where the robust set is defined as
\begin{equation}
\tilde{{\mathcal{P}}} \triangleq \bigg\{ \tilde{p}(\mathbf{s}' \mid \mathbf{s}, \mathbf{a}) \; \bigg \vert \; \mathbb{E}_{\substack{\pi(\ca \mid \cs)\\ p(\mathbf{s_{t+1}} \mid \cs, \ca)}} \left[ d(p, \tilde{p}; \tau) \right] \le \epsilon \bigg\}. \label{eq:dynamics-robust-set}
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
In defining the robust set, the adversary chooses a dynamics function from the robust set $\tilde{{\mathcal{P}}}$ independently at each time step; our next result (Lemma~\ref{lemma-epsilon}) will describe the value of $\epsilon$ in more detail.
The proof, presented in Appendix~\ref{appendix:dynamics-robustness-proof}, first shows the robustness to reward perturbations implies robustness to dynamics perturbations and then invokes Theorem~\ref{thm:reward-robustness} to show that MaxEnt RL learns policies that are robust to reward perturbations.
This result can be interpreted in two ways. First, if a user wants to acquire a policy that optimizes a reward under many possible dynamics, we should run MaxEnt RL with a specific, pessimistic reward function $\bar{r}(\cs, \ca, \mathbf{s_{t+1}})$. This pessimistic reward function depends on the environment dynamics, so it may be hard to compute without prior knowledge or a good model of the dynamics. However, in some settings (e.g., dynamics with constant additive noise), we might assume that ${\mathcal{H}}[\mathbf{s_{t+1}} \mid \cs, \ca]$ is approximately constant, in which case we simply set the MaxEnt RL reward to $\bar{r}(\cs, \ca, \mathbf{s_{t+1}}) = \log r(\cs, \ca)$.
Second, this result says that every time a user applies MaxEnt RL, they are (implicitly) solving a robust RL problem, one defined in terms of a different reward function. This connection may help explain why prior work has found that the policies learned by MaxEnt RL tend to be robust against disturbances to the environment~\citep{haarnoja2018learning}.
Theorem~\ref{thm:dynamics-robustness} relates one MaxEnt RL problem to another (robust) MaxEnt RL problem. We can also show that MaxEnt RL maximizes a lower bound on an \emph{unregularized} RL problem.
\begin{corollary}\label{thm:combined}
Under the same assumptions as Theorem~\ref{thm:reward-robustness} and~\ref{thm:dynamics-robustness}, the MaxEnt RL problem is a lower bound on the robust RL objective:
\begin{equation*}
\min_{\tilde{p} \in \tilde{{\mathcal{P}}}(\pi), \tilde{r} \in \tilde{{\mathcal{R}}}(\pi)} \mathbb{E}_{\tilde{p}(\mathbf{s_{t+1}} \mid \cs, \ca), \pi(\ca \mid \cs)} \left[ \sum_t \tilde{r}(\cs, \ca) \right] \ge \exp(J_\text{MaxEnt}(\pi; p, \bar{r}) + \log T),
\end{equation*}
where the robust sets $\tilde{{\mathcal{P}}}(\pi)$ and $\tilde{{\mathcal{R}}}(\pi)$ as defined as in Theorem~\ref{thm:reward-robustness} and~\ref{thm:dynamics-robustness}.
\end{corollary}
Our next result analyzes the size of the robust set by providing a lower bound on $\epsilon$. Doing so proves that Theorem~\ref{thm:dynamics-robustness} is non-vacuous and will also tell us how to increase the size of the robust set.
\begin{lemma} \label{lemma-epsilon}
Assume that the action space is discrete. Let a reward function $r(\cs, \ca)$ and dynamics $p(\mathbf{s_{t+1}} \mid \cs, \ca)$ be given. Let $\pi(\ca \mid \cs)$ be the corresponding policy learned by MaxEnt RL. Then the size of $\epsilon$ (in Eq.~\ref{eq:dynamics-robust-set}) satisfies the following:
\begin{align*}
\epsilon &= T \cdot \mathbb{E}\hspace{-0.5em}_{\substack{\ca \sim \pi(\ca \mid \cs),\\ \mathbf{s_{t+1}} \sim p(\mathbf{s_{t+1}} \mid \cs, \ca)}} \hspace{-0.5em} \left[ {\mathcal{H}}_{\tilde{p}}[\mathbf{s_{t+1}} \mid \cs, \ca] + {\mathcal{H}}_\pi[\ca \mid \cs] \right] \ge T \cdot \mathbb{E}\hspace{-0.5em}_{\substack{\ca \sim \pi(\ca \mid \cs),\\ \mathbf{s_{t+1}} \sim p(\mathbf{s_{t+1}} \mid \cs, \ca)}}\hspace{-0.5em}\left[ {\mathcal{H}}_\pi[\ca \mid \cs] \right].
\end{align*}
\end{lemma}
This result provides an exact expression for $\epsilon$. Perhaps more interesting is the inequality, which says that the size of the robust set is at least as large as the policy's entropy. For example, if MaxEnt RL learns a policy with an entropy of 10 bits, then $\epsilon \ge 10$. This result immediately tells us how to increase the size of the robust set: run MaxEnt RL with a larger entropy coefficient $\alpha$. Many popular implementations of MaxEnt RL automatically tune the entropy coefficient $\alpha$ so that the policy satisfies an entropy constraint~\citep{haarnoja2018applications}. Our derivation here suggests that the entropy constraint on the policy corresponds to a lower bound on the size of the robust set.
The constraint in the definition of the robust set holds in expectation. Thus, the adversary can make large perturbations to some transitions and smaller perturbations to other states, as long as the average perturbation is not too large. Intuitively, the constraint value $\epsilon$ is the adversary's ``budget,'' which it can use to make large changes to the dynamics in just a few states, or to make smaller changes to the dynamics in many states.
\subsection{Worked Examples}
\label{sec:worked-examples}
This section provides worked examples of our robustness results. The aim is to build intuition for what our results show and to show that, in simple problems, the robust set has an intuitive interpretation.
\paragraph{Reward robustness.}
We present two worked examples of reward robustness. To simplify analysis, we consider the following, smaller robust set, which effectively corresponds to a weaker adversary:
\begin{equation}
\left \{ r(\cs, \ca) \; \bigg \vert \; \log \int_{{\mathcal{A}}} \exp(r(\cs, \ca) - \tilde{r}(\cs, \ca)) d\ca' \le \frac{\epsilon}{T} \right \} \subseteq \tilde{{\mathcal{R}}}. \label{eq:reward-robust-subset}
\end{equation}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\vspace{-2em}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/maxent_robust_v3.png}
\vspace{-2em}
\caption{{\footnotesize \textbf{MaxEnt RL and Robustness to Adversarial Reward Functions}:
{\em (Left)} \, Applying MaxEnt RL to one reward function (red dot) yields a policy that is guaranteed to get high reward on many other reward functions (blue curve). {\em (Center)} \, For each reward function $(r(a=1), r(a=2))$ on that blue curve, we evaluate the expected return of a stochastic policy. The robust RL problem (for rewards) is to choose the policy whose worst-case reward (dark blue line) is largest. {\em (Right)} \, Plotting the MaxEnt RL objective (Eq.~\ref{eq:maxent-obj}) for those same policies, we observe that the MaxEnt RL objective is identical to the robust RL objective .}}
\label{fig:example}
\vspace{-1.em}
\end{figure}
For the \textbf{first example}, define a 2-armed bandit with the following reward function and corresponding robust set:
\begin{equation*}
r(\mathbf{a}) = \begin{cases}
2 & \mathbf{a} =1 \\
1 & \mathbf{a} = 2 \end{cases}, \; \tilde{{\mathcal{R}}} = \left\{\tilde{r} \;\Big\vert\; \log \int_{{\mathcal{A}}} \exp(r(\mathbf{a}) - \tilde{r}(\mathbf{a})) d\mathbf{a} \le \epsilon \right\}.
\end{equation*}
Fig.~\ref{fig:example} (left) plots the original reward function, $r$ as a red dot, and the collection of reward functions, $\tilde{{\mathcal{R}}}$, as a blue line. In the center plot we plot the expected reward for each reward in $\tilde{{\mathcal{R}}}$ as a function of the action $\mathbf{a}$. The robust RL problem in this setting is to choose the policy whose worst-case reward (dark blue line) is largest. The right plot shows the MaxEnt RL objective. We observe that the robust RL objective and the MaxEnt RL objectives are equivalent.
For the \textbf{second example}, we use a task with a 1D, bounded action space ${\mathcal{A}} = [-10, 10]$ and a reward function composed of a task-specific reward $r_\text{task}$ and a penalty for deviating from some desired action $\mathbf{a}^*$: $r(\mathbf{s}, \mathbf{a}) \triangleq r_{\text{task}}(\mathbf{s}, \mathbf{a}) - (\mathbf{a} - \mathbf{a}^*)^2$.
The adversary will perturb this desired action by an amount $\Delta a$ and decrease the weight on the control penalty by 50\%, resulting in the following reward function:
$\tilde{r}(\mathbf{s}, \mathbf{a}) \triangleq r_{\text{task}}(\mathbf{s}, \mathbf{a}) - \frac{1}{2}(\mathbf{a} - (\mathbf{a}^* + \Delta \mathbf{a}))^2$.
In this example, the subset of the robust set in Eq.~\ref{eq:reward-robust-subset} corresponds to perturbations $\Delta \mathbf{a}$ that satisfy
\begin{equation*}
\Delta \mathbf{a}^2 + \frac{1}{2} \log (2 \pi) + \log (20) \le \frac{\epsilon}{T}.
\end{equation*}
Thus, MaxEnt RL with reward function $r$ yields a policy that is robust against adversaries that perturb $\mathbf{a}^*$ by at most $\Delta \mathbf{a} = {\mathcal{O}}(\sqrt{\epsilon})$.
See Appendix~\ref{appendix:reward-robustness-example} for the full derivation.
\paragraph{Dynamics robustness.}
The set of dynamics we are robust against, $\tilde{{\mathcal{P}}}$, has an intuitive interpretation as those that are sufficiently close to the original dynamics $p(\mathbf{s_{t+1}} \mid \cs, \ca)$. This section shows that, in the case of linear-Gaussian dynamics (described at the end of this subsection), this set corresponds to a bounded L2 perturbation of the next state.
Because the robust set in Theorem~\ref{thm:dynamics-robustness} is defined in terms of the policy, the adversary can intelligently choose where to perturb the dynamics based on the policy's behavior. Robustness against this adversary also guarantees robustness against an adversary with a smaller robust set, that does not depend on the policy:
\begin{equation*}
\left\{ \tilde{p}(\mathbf{s_{t+1}} \mid \cs, \ca) \; \bigg \vert \; \log \iint_{{\mathcal{A}}\times{\mathcal{S}}} e^{\log p(\mathbf{s_{t+1}} \mid \cs, \ca) - \log \tilde{p}(\mathbf{s_{t+1}} \mid \cs, \ca) } d \ca' d\mathbf{s_{t+1}}' \le \frac{\epsilon}{T} \right\} \subseteq \tilde{{\mathcal{P}}}.
\end{equation*}
We will use this subset of the robust set in the following worked example.
Consider an MDP with 1D, bounded, states and actions $\cs, \ca \in [-10, 10]$. The dynamics are $p(\mathbf{s_{t+1}} \mid \cs, \ca) = {\mathcal{N}}(\mathbf{s_{t+1}}; \mu = A\cs + B\ca, \sigma = 1)$ the reward function is $r(\cs, \ca) = \|\cs\|_2^2$, and episodes have finite length $T$. Note that the dynamics entropy ${\mathcal{H}}[\mathbf{s_{t+1}} \mid \cs, \ca]$ is constant.
We assume the adversary modifies the dynamics by increasing the standard deviation to $\sqrt{2}$ and shifts the bias by an amount $\beta$, resulting in the dynamics $\tilde{p}(\mathbf{s_{t+1}} \mid \cs, \ca) = {\mathcal{N}}(\mathbf{s_{t+1}}; \mu = A\cs + B\ca + \beta, \sigma = \sqrt{2})$. The robust set defined in Theorem~\ref{thm:dynamics-robustness} specifies that the adversary can choose any value of $\beta$ that satisfies $\frac{1}{2} \beta^2 + \log(8 \sqrt{\pi}) + \log(20) \le \epsilon$. To apply MaxEnt RL to learn a policy that is robust to any of these adversarial dynamics, we would use the pessimistic reward function specified by Theorem~\ref{thm:dynamics-robustness}: $\bar{r}(\cs, \ca, \mathbf{s_{t+1}}) = \frac{2}{T} \log \|\cs\|_2$. See Appendix~\ref{appendix:dynamics-robustness-example} for the full derivation.
\subsection{Limitations of Analysis}
We identify a few limitations of our analysis that may provide directions for future work.
First, our definition of the robust set is different from the more standard $H_\infty$ and KL divergence constraint sets used in prior work. Determining a relationship between these two different sets would allow future work to claim that MaxEnt RL is also robust to these more standard constraint sets (see~\citet{lecarpentier2020lipschitz}). On the other hand, MaxEnt RL may not be robust to these more conventional constraint sets. Showing this may inform practitioners about what sorts of robustness they should \emph{not} except to reap from MaxEnt RL.
A second limitation is the construction of the augmented reward: to learn a policy that will maximize reward function $r$ under a range of possible dynamics functions, our theory says to apply MaxEnt RL to a different reward function, $\bar{r}$, which includes a term depending on the dynamics entropy. While this term can be ignored in special MDPs that have the same stochasticity at every state, in more general MDPs it will be challenging to estimate this augmented reward function. Determining more tractable ways to estimate this augmented reward function is an important direction for future work.
\vspace{-0.5em}
\section{Numerical Simulations}
\label{sec:experiments}
\vspace{-0.5em}
This section will present numerical simulations verifying our theoretical result that MaxEnt RL is robust to disturbances in the reward function and dynamics function. We describe our precise implementation of MaxEnt RL, standard RL, and all environments in Appendix~\ref{appendix:experiments}.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\vspace{-2em}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/action_robust_comparison_v2.png}
\vspace{-1.5em}
\caption{{\footnotesize MaxEnt RL is competitive with prior robust RL methods.}} \label{fig:action-robust}
\vspace{-1.5em}
\end{figure}
\paragraph{Comparison with prior robust RL methods.}
We compare MaxEnt RL against two recent robust RL methods, PR-MDP and NR-MDP~\citep{tessler2019action}. These methods construct a two-player game between a player that chooses actions and a player that perturbs the dynamics or actions. This recipe for robust RL is common in prior work~\citep{pinto2017robust}, and we choose to compare to~\citet{tessler2019action} because it is a recent, high-performing instantiation of this recipe.
We also include the DDPG baseline from~\citet{tessler2019action}. We evaluate all methods on the benchmark tasks used in~\citet{tessler2019action}, which involve evaluating in an environment where the masses are different from the training environment. We ran MaxEnt RL with both small and large entropy coefficients, evaluating the final policy for 30 episodes and taking the average performance. We repeated this for 5 random seeds to obtain the standard deviation. The results shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:action-robust} suggest that MaxEnt RL \emph{with a large entropy coefficient $\alpha$} is at least competitive, if not better, than prior purpose-designed robust RL methods. Note that MaxEnt RL is substantially simpler than PR-MDP and NR-MDP.
\paragraph{Intuition for why MaxEnt RL is robust.}
To build intuition into why MaxEnt RL should yield robust policies, we compared MaxEnt RL (SAC~\citep{haarnoja2018soft}) with standard RL (TD3~\citep{fujimoto2018addressing}) on two tasks. On the pusher task, shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:teaser}, a new obstacle was added during evaluation. On the button task, shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:dynamics-button}, the box holding the button was moved closer or further away from the robot during evaluation.
\emph{Note that the robust RL objective corresponds to an adversary choosing the worst-case disturbances to these environments.}
Fig.~\ref{fig:teaser} \emph{(right)} and Fig.~\ref{fig:dynamics-button} \emph{(center)} show that MaxEnt RL has learned many ways of solving these tasks, using different routes to push the puck to the goal and using different poses to press the button. Thus, when we evaluate the MaxEnt RL policy on perturbed environments, it is not surprising that some of these strategies continue to solve the task.
In contrast, the policy learned by standard RL always uses the same strategy to solve these tasks, so the agent fails when a perturbation to the environment makes this strategy fail. Quantitatively, Fig.~\ref{fig:dynamics-obstacle} and~\ref{fig:dynamics-button} (right) show that the MaxEnt RL policy is more robust than a policy trained with standard RL.
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\centering
\vspace{-2em}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.33\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/pusher_results_bar.png}
\caption{\vspace{-0.5em}Pusher: New Obstacle \label{fig:dynamics-obstacle}}
\end{subfigure}
\rule[0.5cm]{0.05em}{2.7cm}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.63\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[align=c, width=0.24\linewidth]{figures/button.png}
\includegraphics[align=c, width=0.24\linewidth]{figures/button_trace.png}
\includegraphics[align=c, width=0.49\linewidth]{figures/button_results_y.png}
\caption{Button: Moved Goal \label{fig:dynamics-button}}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{{\footnotesize \textbf{Robustness to changes in the dynamics}: MaxEnt RL policies learn many ways of solving a task, making them robust to perturbations such as {\em (Left)} \, new obstacles and {\em (Right)} \, changes in the goal location.
\label{fig:dynamics}}}
\vspace{-1.5em}
\end{figure*}
\begin{wrapfigure}[13]{R}{0.5\textwidth}
\centering
\vspace{-1em}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/lava_point_env_v2.png}
\vspace{-2em}
\caption{{\footnotesize MaxEnt RL is not standard RL + noise.}}
\label{fig:lava}
\vspace{-1em}
\end{wrapfigure}
In many situations, simply adding noise to the deterministic policy found by standard RL can make that policy robust to some disturbances. MaxEnt RL does something more complex, dynamically adjusting the amount of noise depending on the current state. This capability allows MaxEnt RL policies to have lower entropy in some states as needed to ensure high reward. We study this capability in the 2D navigation task shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:lava}. The agent starts near the top left corner and gets reward for navigating to the bottom right hand corner, but incurs a large cost for entering the red regions. The policy learned by MaxEnt RL has low entropy initially to avoid colliding with the red obstacles, and then increases its entropy in the second half of the episode. To study robustness, we introduce a new ``L''-shaped obstacle for evaluation. The policy learned by MaxEnt RL often navigates around this obstacle, whereas the policy from standard RL always collides with this obstacle.
Adding independent Gaussian noise to the actions from the standard RL policy can enable that policy to navigate around the obstacle, but only at the cost of entering the costly red states.
\paragraph{Testing for different types of robustness.}
Most prior work on robust RL focuses on changing static attributes of the environment, such as the mass or position of objects~\citep{tessler2019action, kamalaruban2020robust}. However, our analysis suggests that MaxEnt RL is robust against a wider range of perturbations, which we probe in our next set of experiments.
\begin{wrapfigure}{r}{0.5\textwidth}
\centering
\vspace{-0.5em}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/pusher_disturbance_results_v2.png}
\vspace{-2em}
\caption{{\footnotesize \textbf{Robustness to dynamic perturbations}: MaxEnt RL is robust to random external forces applied to the environment dynamics. \label{fig:dynamics-force}}}
\end{wrapfigure}
First, we introduced perturbations in the middle of an episode. We took the pushing task shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:teaser} and, instead of adding an obstacle, perturbed the XY position of the puck after 20 time steps. By evaluating the reward of a policy while varying the size of this perturbation, we can study the range of disturbances to which MaxEnt RL is robust. We measured the performance of MaxEnt RL policies trained with different entropy coefficients $\alpha$. %
The results shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:dynamics-force} indicate all methods perform well on the environment without any disturbances, but only the MaxEnt RL trained with the largest entropy coefficient is robust to larger disturbances.
This experiment supports our theory that the entropy coefficient determines the size of the robust set.
Our analysis suggests that MaxEnt RL is not only robust to random perturbations, but is actually robust against \emph{adversarial} perturbations. We next compare MaxEnt RL and standard RL in this setting. We trained both algorithms on a peg insertion task shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:dynamic-perturbations} \emph{(left)}. Visualizing the learned policy, we observe that the standard RL policy always takes the same route to the goal, whereas the MaxEnt RL policy uses many different routes to get to the goal. For each policy we found the worst-case perturbation to the hole location using CMA-ES~\citep{hansen2016cma}. For small perturbations, both standard RL and MaxEnt RL achieve a success rate near 100\%. However, for perturbations that are 1.5cm or 2cm in size, only MaxEnt RL continues to solve the task. For larger perturbations neither method can solve the task. In summary, this experiment highlights that MaxEnt RL is robust to \emph{adversarial} disturbances, as predicted by the theory.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\vspace{-2em}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[align=c, width=.2\linewidth]{figures/peg_insertion_env.png}
\includegraphics[align=c, width=.3\linewidth]{figures/peg_trace_v3.png}
\includegraphics[align=c, width=.4\linewidth]{figures/peg_minimax_100.png}
\end{subfigure}
\vspace{-1em}
\caption{{\footnotesize Robustness to adversarial perturbations of the environment dynamics. \label{fig:dynamic-perturbations}}}
\vspace{-1em}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/minmax_only_v2.png}
\vspace{-1.7em}
\caption{{\footnotesize MaxEnt RL policies are robust to disturbances in the reward function.
\label{fig:mujoco}}}
\vspace{-1.5em}
\end{figure}
Finally, our analysis suggests that MaxEnt RL is also robust to perturbations to the reward function. To test this theoretical result, we apply MaxEnt RL on four continuous control tasks from the standard OpenAI Gym~\citep{brockman2016openai} benchmark. We compare to SVG-0~\citep{heess2015learning} (which uses stochastic policy gradients) and to fictitious play~\citep{brown1951iterative}. In the RL setting, fictitious play corresponds to modifying standard RL to use an adversarially-chosen reward function for each Bellman update.
We evaluate the policy on an adversarially chosen reward function, chosen from the set defined in Equation~\ref{eq:robust-set-rewards}. The analytic solution for this worst-case reward function is \mbox{$\tilde{r}(\cs, \ca) = r(\cs, \ca) - \log \pi(\ca \mid \cs)$}.
Both MaxEnt RL and standard RL can maximize the cumulative reward (see Fig.~\ref{fig:mujoco-full} in Appendix~\ref{appendix:experiments}), but only MaxEnt RL succeeds as maximizing the worst-case reward, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:mujoco}. In summary, this experiment supports our proof that MaxEnt RL solves a robust RL problem for the set of rewards specified in Theorem~\ref{thm:reward-robustness}.
\section{Discussion}
\label{sec:discussion}
In this paper, we formally showed that MaxEnt RL algorithms optimize a bound on a robust RL objective. This robust RL objective uses a different reward function than the MaxEnt RL objective.
Our analysis characterizes the robust sets for both reward and dynamics perturbations, and provides intuition for how such algorithms should be used for robust RL problems. To our knowledge, our work is the first to formally characterize the robustness of MaxEnt RL algorithms, despite the fact that numerous papers have conjectured that such robustness results may be possible. Our experimental evaluation shows that, in line with our theoretical findings, simple MaxEnt RL algorithms perform competitively with (and sometimes better than) recently proposed adversarial robust RL methods on benchmarks proposed by those works.
Of course, MaxEnt RL methods are not necessarily the \emph{ideal} approach to robustness: applying such methods still requires choosing a hyperparameter (the entropy coefficient), and the robust set for MaxEnt RL is not always simple. Nonetheless, we believe that the analysis in this paper,
represents an important step towards a deeper theoretical understanding of the connections between robustness and entropy regularization in RL. We hope that this analysis will open the door for the development of new, simple algorithms for robust RL. %
{\footnotesize
\paragraph*{Acknowledgments}
We thank Ofir Nachum, Brendan O'Donoghue, Brian Ziebart, and anonymous reviewers for their feedback on an early drafts. BE is supported by the Fannie and John Hertz Foundation and the National Science Foundation GFRP (DGE 1745016).
}
{\footnotesize
\input{references.bbl}
}
\clearpage
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
Correlative microscopy has become ubiquitous in bio-medical research.
The technique consists in observing the same sample under different complementary imaging modalities in order to gain more insight.
The most known association is undoubtedly correlative light-electron microscopy (CLEM), but it is possible to combine other imaging modalities \cite{Walter2020}.
The process includes a registration step in which the images of the different modalities are overlaid by estimating the transformation linking them. \\
In this work, we only consider point-based registration requiring a set of matched points, either fiducial points \cite{Kukulski2012}, anatomical or other natural landmarks \cite{Luckner2018} or cloud of points, which can be used in this context after a segmentation step by representing a contour or a surface by a cloud of points \cite{paul-gilloteaux2017}.
All these usages can be modeled under a unique paradigm, that we will refer to as point-based registration in the following, and we will name points used for the registration as fiducial points, as opposed to points not used for the registration, called points of interest (POIs).
The localization of fiducial points is prone to error, due to imaging resolution, method of localization or of sampling,... This will create a registration error for all points of the image \cite{Moghari2009,Fitzpatrick2001,Cohen2013}, having consequences on the overlaying of points of interest.
There is a clear need in the bio-medical community to estimate errors in registration, as reflected by the reporting done in biological papers using correlative approaches (see Fig. \ref{fig:error_information}).
In correlative imaging, usual intensity metrics to assess the quality of the registration are usually not directly applicable due to the discrepancy of contents and scales. This is why generic cross-validation methods like leave-one-out are usually used to estimate the registration error as global values, based on fiducial points \cite{Schorb2013}. In \cite{paul-gilloteaux2017}, error map representation based on the local average expected target registration error was proposed, using the statistical framework for rigid registration developed in \cite{Fitzpatrick2001}. \\
The case of rigid transformations and estimated error distribution has been developed by Moghari and Abolmaesumi \cite{Moghari2009}. Unfortunately the rigid model can be too specific and fail to account for more general sample deformations.
Cohen and Ober \cite{Cohen2013} developed an error-in-variable model solving for affine transformations. However due to their assumption of heteroscedastic noise it is necessary to estimate the noise distribution of each fiducial point which may not be possible from a practical point of view. \\
In this work, we provide a complete framework for the estimation of rigid and affine transformations providing at the same time error estimation for multidimensional image registration. We propose a new formulation for affine registration based on a multivariate linear regression modeling. In addition, we develop the maximum likelihood error estimation proposed in \cite{Moghari2009} under the rigid registration constraints. These asymptotic expressions of the covariance matrix of the registration errors allow us to give a graphical representation of local accuracy as confidence ellipses at 95\%, as opposed to an estimation of the average error. Finally we demonstrate the application of these methods using simulations and real data.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.5\linewidth}
\centering
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=5cm]{figures/target.png}}
\centerline{(a)}\medskip
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.5\linewidth}
\centering
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=5cm]{figures/source.png}}
\centerline{(b)}\medskip
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.5\linewidth}
\centering
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=5cm]{figures/merge.png}}
\centerline{(c)}\medskip
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.5\linewidth}
\centering
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=5cm]{figures/leave_one_out_fractionperformedcorrelations2.png}}
\centerline{(d)}\medskip
\end{minipage} \hfill
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.5\linewidth}
\centering
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=5cm]{figures/Error_map.png}}
\centerline{(e)}\medskip
\end{minipage} \hfill
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.5\linewidth}
\centering
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=5cm]{figures/ellipse.png}}
\centerline{(f)}\medskip
\end{minipage}
\caption{Error representation in correlative imaging. (a) target (electron microscopy) with fiducials used; (b) registered source (fluorescence microscopy in red, bright field in inverted gray); (c) overlay of registered source and target, showing discrepancy of POIs (black and red); (d) Leave-one-out information as in \cite{Schorb2013}, only on fiducials; (e) Average expected error map as in \cite{paul-gilloteaux2017}; (f) Confidence ellipses at 95\% for POIs as we propose. Zoom for full resolution.}
\label{fig:error_information}
\end{figure}
\section{METHODS}
\subsection{General affine registration problem modeling}
\label{affine_registration_problem}
In our framework, in order to find the transformation linking a source image and a target image of respective dimension $r$ and $m$ (that are typically 2 or 3 for $2D$ or $3D$ images), each fiducial point of the source image is assigned a corresponding point on the target image.
We denote by $X$ the matrix containing the coordinates of the $n$ observed fiducial points $x_i\in\mathbb R^r$ ($i=1,\dots,n$) of the source image, stacked in rows so that $X$ is a $n\times r$ matrix. We similarly denote by $Y$ the matrix of size $n\times m$ containing the $n$ observed fiducial points $y_i\in\mathbb R^m$ of the target image.
Let $Z=[\mathds{1}\ X]$ be the matrix of size $n\times (r+1)$ where all components of the first column are 1.
If the transformation between $X$ and $Y$ was affine, we would have exactly $Y=Z\beta$ for some matrix $\beta$ of size $(r+1)\times m$. In practice of course this relation is just an approximation of the true transformation and a modeling error has to be added. Another error, the so-called localization error, comes from the resolution limit of the images and the possible presence of noise, that make the coordinates of the fiducial points inaccurate and so the theoretical relation -- even it was true -- imprecise for the observed fiducial points.
However, $X$ and $Y$ gather the observed locations of fiducial points (and not the theoretical locations of them) and thus already include the localization errors. For this reason, we do not deal with an errors-in-variables model as studied in \cite{Cohen2013}.
We consider the following model relating $Y$ and $X$:
\begin{equation}\label{model1}
\underset{(n \times m)}{Y} = \underset{(n \times (r + 1))}{\begin{bmatrix} \mathds{1} & X \end{bmatrix}} \times \underset{((r + 1) \times m)}{\beta} + \underset{(n \times m)}{\epsilon},
\end{equation}
where $\epsilon$ is a random matrix error of size $n \times m$. Accordingly, each row $\epsilon_i$ of $\epsilon$ is a vector of dimension $m$ corresponding to the random modeling error associated to the $i$-th pair of observed fiducial points $(x_i,y_i)$.
We assume that the $\epsilon_i$'s are independent, centered and follow the same multidimensional Gaussian distribution in $\mathbb R^m$ with unknown variance $\Sigma$ of size $m\times m$, i.e. $\epsilon_i\sim \mathcal{N}_{m}(0, \Sigma)$ for all $i=1,\dots,n$. We do not assume any particular constraints on $\beta$ and $\Sigma$ apart, for the latter, to be a well-defined covariance matrix. This means that our setting includes as particular cases: i) rigid transformation, the case where the affine transformation reduces to a translation combined with a rotation, as considered for instance in \cite{Fitzpatrick2001,Moghari2009,paul-gilloteaux2017}; ii) isotropic errors, when $\Sigma$ is proportional to the identity matrix; and iii) uncorrelated errors in each direction, the case when $\Sigma$ is diagonal. Our general setting thus accounts for a general affine transformation and a general error that can be anisotropic and correlated along the different directions of the image. In this setting, $\beta$ and $\Sigma$ are unknown.
Our goal is then to be able to predict the location $y_0$ of a POI in the target image associated to $x_0$ in the source image, and to get a confidence region for the registration error, here the error associated to this prediction. We provide in the following sections analytic expressions of these confidence regions, making their computation fast and reliable. We consider the general affine model first and then discuss the more constrained rigid model.
\subsection{Error estimation for an affine model}
\label{model_affine}
The affine model \eqref{model1} is a multivariate linear regression model, see for instance \cite[Chapter 7]{johnson2007}. The maximum likelihood estimators of $\beta$ and $\Sigma$ are respectively $\hat{\beta} = (Z^{'}Z)^{-1}Y$ and $\hat{\Sigma} =\hat{\epsilon}'\hat{\epsilon}/n$, where $\hat{\epsilon} = Y - Z\hat{\beta}$ is the residuals matrix and where we recall that $Z$ denotes the matrix $[\mathds{1}\ X]$.
Once the model is fitted, we can predict the position $y_0\in\mathbb R^m$ in the target image of a point of interest $x_0\in\mathbb R^r$ observed in the source image. Let $z_{0} = (1, x_{0}')'\in\mathbb R^{r+1}$, then according to the affine model \eqref{model1}, $y_0=\beta' z_0+\epsilon_0$ for an error $\epsilon_0\sim \mathcal{N}_{m}(0, \Sigma)$ independent of all $\epsilon_i$'s, $i=1,\dots,n$, meaning that $\epsilon_0$ is independent of $\epsilon$. The prediction of $y_0$ is then $\hat y_0= \hat{\beta}^{'}z_{0}$ and the prediction error is:
$$y_{0} - \hat y_0 = (\beta - \hat{\beta})^{'}z_{0} + \epsilon_{0}.$$
This error is distributed as a centered Gaussian distribution in $\mathbb R^m$ with variance $(1 + z_{0}^{'}(Z^{'}Z)^{-1}z_{0}) \Sigma$. Plugging the estimate $\hat\Sigma$, we obtain that the confidence ellipsoidal region $\mathcal E(y_0)$ of $y_0$ at the significance level $\alpha$ is given by the inequality, see \cite{johnson2007}: for all $y\in\mathcal E(y_0)$,
\begin{multline*}
(y - \hat{\beta}^{'}z_{0})^{'}\left(\frac{n}{n - r - 1}\hat{\Sigma}\right)^{-1}(y - \hat{\beta}^{'}z_{0})
\\ \leq (1 + z_{0}^{'}(Z^{'}Z)^{-1}z_{0})\left(\frac{m(n - r - 1)}{n - r -m}\right)F_{m, n - r - m}(1 - \alpha),
\end{multline*}
where $F_{m, n - r -m}(1 - \alpha)$ denotes the $(1 - \alpha)^{th}$ percentile of a Fisher's law with parameters $m$ and $n - r - m$. By construction, $\mathcal E(y_0)$ has a probability $1-\alpha$ to contain the unknown location $y_0$. This confidence region is available analytically, making its computation fast and accurate, and importantly, it depends on the source location $x_0$ through $z_0$.
\subsection{Error Estimation under the constraints of the rigid model}
\label{model_rigid}
Rigid models are considered in \cite{Fitzpatrick2001} and \cite{Moghari2009}, among others. They correspond to the particular case of \eqref{model1} where $r=m$ and $\beta'=[t\ R_\theta]$ is composed of a translation vector $t\in\mathbb R^m$ and of a rotation matrix $R_\theta$ of size $m\times m$. Here $\theta$ is the parameter of size $m(m-1)/2$ characterizing the rotation. The transformation matrix $\beta$ of a rigid motion thus involves $m(m+1)/2$ free parameters against $m(m+1)$ in the affine case.
As in the affine case we assume that each error $\epsilon_i$ independently follows a $\mathcal N_m(0,\Sigma)$ and a maximum likelihood procedure can be used to estimate the unknown parameters $\beta$ (under the above constraints) and $\Sigma$. In the general case, this optimization problem amounts to find $t$, $\theta$ and $\Sigma$ that maximize
\begin{multline*}
n\log\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{(2\pi)^{m}|\Sigma|}}\right) \\ - \frac{1}{2}\sum_{i = 1}^{n} [y_{i} - (R_{\theta} x_{i} + t)]'\Sigma^{-1}[y_{i} - (R_{\theta} x_{i} + t)].
\end{multline*}
This problem, discussed in \cite{Moghari2009}, does not admit a closed-form solution and some numerical optimization procedure are needed to solve it in the general case. However, in the particular case where the errors are assumed to be isotropic, meaning that $\Sigma$ is proportional to the identity matrix, this problem reduces to a constrained least squares optimization problem known as the orthogonal Procrustes problem. An analytic solution in this setting is known, see \cite{Schonemann1966,Kabsch1978}. In our implementation, we use the latter solution in the isotropic case, while we use a numerical solver in the general case.
For a rigid model, the prediction of the target point $y_0=R_{\theta} x_0 + t + \epsilon_0$ associated to a new source point $x_0$ is $\hat y_0= R_{\hat\theta} x_0 + \hat t$, where $\hat\theta$ and $\hat t$ are the maximum likelihood estimates. The registration error is thus $y_0-\hat y_0= e(\hat t, \hat \theta) + \epsilon_0$ where $e(\hat t, \hat \theta)=(R_\theta - R_{\hat\theta})x_0 + (t-\hat t)$ is an estimation error independent of $\epsilon_0$ (as $\epsilon_0$ is independent of $\epsilon$). Accordingly, the covariance matrix of the registration error is $\Sigma_e + \Sigma$ where $\Sigma_e$ is the covariance matrix of $e(\hat t, \hat \theta)$. By the law of propagation of uncertainties, $\Sigma_{e}$ is asymptotically equal to
$J_{e} \Sigma_{\hat t, \hat \theta} J_{e}^{'}$ where $J_e$ is the Jacobian matrix of the function $e$ and $\Sigma_{\hat t, \hat \theta}$ is the covariance matrix of $(\hat t, \hat \theta)$.
Denoting by $q=m(m-1)/2$ the dimension of $\theta$, $J_e$ is the $m\times (m+q)$ matrix given by
$$J_e=-\left(I_m \ |\ \partial_1 R_{\hat\theta} x_0 \ |\ \dots \ |\ \partial_q R_{\hat\theta} x_0\right),$$ where $I_m$ is the identity matrix of size $m$ and $\partial_k R_\theta$ denotes the (element-wise) derivative of the matrix $R_\theta$ with respect to the element $\theta_k$ ($k=1,\dots,q$) of $\theta$.
As to $\Sigma_{\hat t, \hat \theta}$, it is asymptotically equivalent to the inverse Fisher information matrix of the model, in agreement with the asymptotic efficiency of the maximum likelihood estimator $(\hat t, \hat \theta)$ \cite{Rao1992}, i.e.
$\Sigma_{\hat t, \hat \theta}\sim \mathcal I^{-1} (t,\theta,\Sigma; X)$ where $\mathcal I$ is the block matrix
\begin{equation*}\label{fisher}
\mathcal I (t,\theta,\Sigma; X) =\left(\begin{array}{c@{}|@{} c}
\mathcal I_{tt} & $\quad $ \begin{matrix} \mathcal I_{t\theta_1} & \cdots & \mathcal I_{t\theta_q} \end{matrix} \\ \hline
\begin{matrix} \mathcal I_{t\theta_1}' \\ \vdots \\ \mathcal I_{t\theta_q}'\end{matrix} & \mathcal I_{\theta\theta}
\end{array}\right).
\end{equation*}
The computation of $\mathcal I$ is approximated by linearisation in \cite{Moghari2009} when $m=3$ and under the hypothesis that $\theta$ is small, but exact formulas can be derived. Specifically, we have
\begin{align*}
\mathcal I_{tt} &= n\Sigma^{-1},\\
\mathcal I_{t\theta_k} &= \sum_{i=1}^n \Sigma^{-1}\partial_k R_\theta x_i, \quad k=1,\dots,q,\\
\mathcal I_{\theta\theta} &=\left[ \sum_{i=1}^n x_i'\partial_k R_\theta\Sigma^{-1}\partial_l R_\theta x_i\right]_{k,l =1,\dots,q}.
\end{align*}
In our implementation, we use these exact formulas. In the end, the asymptotic approximation of the variance of the registration error in the rigid case writes $J_{e} \hat\Sigma_{\hat t, \hat \theta} J_{e}^{'} + \hat \Sigma$, where $\hat\Sigma_{\hat t, \hat \theta}=\mathcal I (\hat t,\hat \theta,\hat\Sigma; X)$. Based on this variance, asymptotic confidence ellipsoidal region can be constructed, exactly as carried out in the affine case.
\section{RESULTS}
\label{results}
\subsection{Accuracy of confidence region and of registration}
In addition to test on real data as demonstrated on Figure \ref{fig:error_information}, simulations were performed with rigid and affine transformations and 10, 25 and 100 fiducial points. Here we present the results for $95^{th}$ percentile of the used Fisher's law, but any $\alpha$ could be used. When we compute a 95\% prediction ellipse then theoretically the estimated point lies within the ellipse 95\% of the time. Simulations are repeated 10 000 times. Prediction ellipses are computed for 100 points of interest drawn from a uniform distribution in the square of size 1024x1024 pixels. Fiducial points were drawn from a Gaussian distribution centered at the point (256, 256) with isotropic variance equal to 500 in each direction.\\
The coverage rate is defined as the number of times the noisy point of interest lies within the computed prediction ellipse, divided by the number of iterations. This statistic is used to check whether the computed confidence ellipses are correct. The mean area of the prediction ellipses gives an indication of the size of the estimated error and allows to assess the quality of the registration.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\begin{minipage}[b]{1.0\linewidth}
\centering
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=12cm]{figures/plot_affine_affine_gaussian.png}}
\end{minipage}
\caption{Coverage and mean area of prediction ellipses at different test points for affine model computed with analytic and leave-one-out methods using 10, 25, or 100 fiducial points under an affine transformation}
\label{fig:loo}
\end{figure}
Table \ref{tbl:rigid} compares the distribution of the coverage rate of 95\% prediction ellipses computed with the analytic methods of the rigid and affine models under a rigid or affine transformation. Coverage rates distribution lies at 95\% with high precision and accuracy. Distribution of coverage rates for the rigid model is shifted above 95\% because the model assumes an asymptotic minimum variance. The distribution converges towards 95\% when the number of fiducial points is increased. The affine model can still produce good estimations with rigid transformation and is more robust than the rigid model.
We use the same variant of leave-one-out method as described in \cite{Schorb2013}. In this flavor, the prediction area is the disk whose radius is the 95th quantile of the measured errors. Results presented in figure \ref{fig:loo} show that with our method the coverage rate is correctly constant at 95\% and the mean area of predicted ellipses increase with the distance to the nearest fiducial point. The leave-one-out method underestimates the registration error since the registration error estimated by the leave-one-out method is the same at any location. As shown in figure \ref{fig:error_information}(f), our confidence ellipses can be a useful indication for the biologist in order to associate unknown structures (here q-dots used for demonstration as POIs, when other structures were used as fiducials), and complementary of the error maps proposed Fig.\ref{fig:error_information}(e). \ref{fig:error_information}.
\begin{table}[h]
\caption{\label{tbl:rigid}Distribution of the coverage rate of 95\% prediction ellipses (Cov\%, target value is 95\%) for rigid and affine models (model) computed with analytic method under rigid and affine transformations (Transfo) using 10 and 100 fiducial points}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ |c|c|c|c| }
\hline
Transfo & Model & Cov\% n=10 & Cov\% n=100 \\
& & mean/STD & mean/STD \\
\hline
rigid & rigid & 99.35 / 0.08&95.68 / 0.21\\
rigid & affine & 94.98 / 0.14 &94.57 / 0.22\\
affine & rigid & 3.53 / 17.51&2.00 / 14.07\\
affine & affine & 95.05 / 0.21&94.62 / 0.34\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\subsection{Testing the influence of attenuation bias in our bio-medical context}
\begin{table}[h]
\caption{\label{tbl:attenuation_bias}Distribution of coverage rates (min, mean, STD, max, 99\% confidence interval for mean coverage rate) for 95\% prediction ellipses obtained by simulation (model affine/transformation affine) including attenuation bias under the condition of microscopy for 10, 25 and 100 fiducial points}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ |c|c|c|c|c|c| }
\hline
n & min & mean & STD & max & CI 99\% of mean \\
\hline
10 & 94.54 & 94.94 & 0.13 & 95.31 & $\begin{bmatrix}94.90,94.97\end{bmatrix}$\\
25 & 94.61 & 95.07 & 0.21 & 95.48 & $\begin{bmatrix}95.02,95.13\end{bmatrix}$\\
100 & 94.08 & 94.68 & 0.28 & 95.33 & $\begin{bmatrix}94.61,94.75\end{bmatrix}$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
As explained in section \ref{affine_registration_problem}, our observations $X$ and $Y$ in model (\ref{model1}) include the localization error, and assume that both fiducials and POIs observations contains noise. If we change the paradigm such that $X$ does not include a localization error (which could indeed be negligible in case of very different scale), we are back to an errors-in-variable problem and we could suffer from the attenuation bias.
In a microscopy context, localization are often sought to have a subpixelic resolution. Taking into account a broader range of case, assuming a 3 pixels radius of error in the localization sounds a reasonable assertion for fiducial points in the image with less resolution.
So if we model the localization error in pixels according to $\mathcal{N}\left(0, I_2 \right)$ then the localization error lies within +/- 3 pixels. Results presented in table \ref{tbl:attenuation_bias} clearly indicate there is a bias when we assume both noise since computed 99\% confidence intervals for the mean coverage rate does not includes 95\% which is the theoretical value. However the bias never exceeded 1\% deviation from the theoretical value. We conclude the attenuation bias in our context is negligible.
\section{DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION}
In this article we described the problem of point-based registration as a linear least squares regression problem and propose tools for registration error estimation. We show through simulations that the registration by linear regression in the affine case is more robust than the rigid method. We demonstrate that cross-validation registration error estimation like leave-one-out may be unreliable because it underestimates the registration error. We provide an implementation of registration and error estimation under rigid and affine models in 2D and 3D as an ICY plugin \cite{deChaumont2012}. This method provides analytic registration error estimation through prediction ellipses which is a visual and intuitive way of assessing the physical matching of two unknown structures and the registration quality. Furthermore our source code is released and available at \url{https://github.com/anrcrocoval/ec-clem} with video example on real data \url{https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rz1_MLqn6-k}. Other registration methods can be used to account for non-linear deformations in biological samples \cite{Holden2008}. Due to the non-linear property, registration error is difficult to estimate, but our method could be directly extended to a local affine registration framework to take into account local deformation.
\bibliographystyle{plain}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:introduction}
Visual data is being generated at an unprecedented scale. People share billions of photos daily on social media~\citep{trends_2014}. There is one security camera for every 4 people in China and the United States~\citep{WSJ_security_cameras}. Even your home can be watched by smart devices taking photos~\citep{butler2015privacy,dai2015towards}. Learning from the visual data has led to computer vision applications that promote the common good, e.g., better traffic management~\citep{malhi2011vision} and law enforcement~\citep{sajjad2020raspberry}. However, it also raises privacy concerns, as images may capture sensitive information such as faces, addresses, and credit cards~\citep{orekondy2018connecting}.
Extensive research has focused on preventing unauthorized access to sensitive information in private datasets~\citep{fredrikson2015model,shokri2017membership}. However, \emph{are publicly available datasets free of privacy concerns?} Taking the popular ImageNet dataset~\citep{deng2009imagenet} as an example, there are only 3 people categories\footnote{\texttt{scuba diver}, \texttt{bridegroom}, and \texttt{baseball player}} in the 1000 categories of the ImageNet Large Scale Visual Recognition Challenge (ILSVRC)~\citep{russakovsky2015imagenet};
nevertheless, the dataset exposes many people co-occurring with other objects in images~\citep{prabhu2020large}, e.g., people sitting on chairs, walking dogs, or drinking beer (Fig.~\ref{fig:examples}).
It is concerning since ILSVRC is freely available for academic use\footnote{\url{https://image-net.org/request}} and widely used by the research community.
In this paper, we attempt to mitigate ILSVRC's privacy issues. Specifically, we construct a privacy-enhanced version of ILSVRC and gauge its utility as a benchmark for image classification and as a dataset for transfer learning.
\begin{figure*}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{figures/examples.pdf}
\caption{Most categories in ImageNet Challenge~\citep{russakovsky2015imagenet} are not people categories. However, the images contain many people co-occurring with the object of interest, posing a potential privacy threat. These are example images (with faces blurred or overlaid) of \texttt{barber chair}, \texttt{husky}, \texttt{beer bottle}, \texttt{volleyball} and \texttt{military uniform}.}
\label{fig:examples}
\end{figure*}
\smallsec{Face annotation}
As an initial step, we focus on a prominent type of private information---faces. To examine and mitigate their privacy issues, we first annotate faces in ImageNet using face detectors and crowdsourcing. We use Amazon Rekognition to detect faces automatically, and then refine the results through crowdsourcing on Amazon Mechanical Turk to obtain accurate annotations.
We have annotated {\numtotalimages} images in ILSVRC, resulting in {\numfaces} faces from {\numimageswithfaces} images (17\% of all images have at least one face). Many categories have more than 90\% images with faces, even though they are not people categories, e.g., \texttt{volleyball} and \texttt{military uniform}. Our annotations confirm that faces are ubiquitous in ILSVRC and pose a privacy issue. We release the face annotations to facilitate subsequent research in privacy-aware visual recognition on ILSVRC.
\smallsec{Effects of face obfuscation on classification accuracy}
Obfuscating sensitive image areas is widely used for preserving privacy~\citep{mcpherson2016defeating}. We focus on two simple obfuscation methods: blurring and overlaying (Fig.~\ref{fig:examples}), whose privacy effects have been analyzed in prior work~\citep{oh2016faceless,li2017effectiveness,hasan2018viewer}. Using our face annotations, we construct face-obfuscated versions of ILSVRC. \emph{What are the effects of using them for image classification?} At first glance, it seems inconsequential---one should still recognize a car even when the people inside have their
faces blurred. Indeed, we verify that validation accuracy drops only slightly (0.1\%--0.7\% for blurring, 0.3\%--1.0\% for overlaying) when using face-obfuscated images to train and evaluate. We analyze this drop in detail (identifying categories which are particularly affected), but this key result demonstrates that we can train privacy-aware visual classifiers on ILSVRC which remain highly competitive, with less than a 1\% accuracy drop.
\smallsec{Effects on feature transferability}
Besides a classification benchmark, ILSVRC also serves as pretraining data for transferring to domains where labeled images are scarce~\citep{girshick2015fast,liu2015deep}. So a further question is: \emph{Does face obfuscation hurt the transferability of features learned from ILSVRC?}
We investigate by pretraining on the original/obfuscated images and finetuning on 4 downstream tasks: object recognition on CIFAR-10~\citep{krizhevsky2009learning}, scene recognition on SUN~\citep{xiao2010sun}, object detection on PASCAL VOC~\citep{everingham2010pascal}, and face attribute classification on CelebA~\citep{liu2015faceattributes}. They include both classification and spatial localization, as well as both face-centric and face-agnostic recognition.
In all of the 4 tasks, models pretrained on face-obfuscated images perform closely with models pretrained on original images, suggesting that visual features learned from face-obfuscated pretraining are equally transferable. Again, this encourages us to adopt face obfuscation as an additional protection on visual recognition datasets without worrying about detrimental effects on the dataset's utility.
\smallsec{Contributions}
Our contributions are twofold. First, we obtain accurate face annotations in ILSVRC, facilitating subsequent research on privacy protection. We will release the code and the annotations. Second, to the best of our knowledge, we are the first to investigate the effects of privacy-aware face obfuscation on large-scale visual recognition. Through extensive experiments, we demonstrate that training on face-obfuscated images does not significantly compromise accuracy on both image classification and downstream tasks, while providing some privacy protection. Therefore, we advocate for face obfuscation to be included in ImageNet and to become a standard step in future dataset creation efforts.
\section{Related Work}
\label{sec:related_work}
\smallsec{Privacy-preserving machine learning (PPML)}
Machine learning frequently uses private datasets~\citep{chen2019gmail}. Research in PPML is concerned with an adversary trying to infer the private data. The privacy breach can happen to the trained model. For example, \emph{model inversion attack} recovers sensitive attributes (e.g., gender) of an individual given the model's output~\citep{fredrikson2014privacy,fredrikson2015model,hamm2017minimax,li2019deepobfuscator,wu2019p3sgd}. \emph{Membership inference attack} infers whether an individual was included in training~\citep{shokri2017membership,nasr2019comprehensive,hisamoto2020membership}. \emph{Training data extraction attack} extracts verbatim training data from the model~\citep{carlini2019secret, carlini2020extracting}. For defending against these attacks, \emph{differential privacy} is a general framework~\citep{chaudhuri2008privacy}. It requires the model to behave similarly whether or not an individual is in the training data.
Privacy breaches can also happen in training/inference. To address hardware/software vulnerabilities, researchers have used \emph{enclaves}---a hardware mechanism for protecting a memory region from unauthorized access---to execute machine learning workloads~\citep{ohrimenko2016oblivious,tramer2018slalom}. Machine learning service providers can run their models on users' private data encrypted using \emph{homomorphic encryption}~\citep{gilad2016cryptonets,brutzkus2019low,juvekar2018gazelle,bian2020ensei,yonetani2017privacy}. It is also possible for multiple data owners to train a model collectively without sharing their private data using federated learning~\citep{mcmahan2017communication,bonawitz2017practical,li2020federated} or secure multi-party computation~\citep{shokri2015privacy,melis2019exploiting,hamm2016learning,pathak2010multiparty,hamm2016learning}.
Our work differs from PPML. PPML focuses on private datasets, whereas we focus on public datasets with private information. ImageNet, like other academic datasets, is publicly available to researchers. There is no point preventing an adversary from inferring the data. However, public datasets can also expose private information about individuals, who may not even be aware of their presence in the data. It is their privacy we are protecting.
\smallsec{Privacy in visual data}
To mitigate privacy issues with public visual datasets, researchers have attempted to obfuscate private information before publishing the data.
\citet{frome2009large} and \citet{uittenbogaard2019privacy} use blurring and inpainting to obfuscate faces and license plates in Google Street View.
nuScenes~\citep{caesar2020nuscenes} is an autonomous driving dataset where faces and license plates are detected and then blurred. Similar method is also used for the action dataset AViD~\citep{piergiovanni2020avid}.
We follow this line of work to obfuscate faces in ImageNet but differ in two critical ways. First, to the best of our knowledge, we are the first to thoroughly analyze the effects of face obfuscation on visual recognition. Second, prior works use only automatic methods such as face detectors, whereas we additionally employ crowdsourcing. Human annotations are more accurate and thus more useful for following research on privacy preservation in ImageNet. Most importantly, automated face recognition methods are known to contain racial and gender biases~\citep{buolamwini2018gender}; thus using them alone is likely to result in more privacy protection to members of majority groups. A manual verification step helps partially mitigate these issues.
Finally, we note that face obfuscation alone is not sufficient for privacy protection.
\citet{orekondy2018connecting} constructed Visual Redactions, annotating images with 42 privacy attributes, including faces, names, and addresses. Ideally, we should obfuscate all such information; however, this may not be immediately feasible. Obfuscating faces (omnipresent in visual datasets) is an important first step.
\smallsec{Privacy guarantees of face obfuscation}
Unfortunately, face obfuscation does not provide any formal guarantee of privacy. Both humans and machines may be able to infer an individual's identity from face-obfuscated images, presumably relying on cues outside faces such as height and clothing~\citep{chang2006people,oh2016faceless}. Researchers have tried to protect sensitive image regions against attacks, e.g., by perturbing the image adversarially to reduce the performance of a recognizer~\citep{oh2017adversarial,ren2018learning,sun2018natural,wu2018towards,xiao2020evade}. However, these methods are tuned for a particular model and provide no privacy guarantee either.
Further, privacy guarantees may reduce dataset utility as shown by \citet{cheng2021can}. Therefore, we choose two simple local methods---blurring and overlaying---instead of more sophisticated alternatives. Overlaying removes all information in a face bounding box, whereas blurring removes only partial information.
Their effectiveness for privacy protection can be ascertained only empirically, which has been the focus of prior work~\citep{oh2016faceless,li2017effectiveness,hasan2018viewer} but is beyond the scope of this paper.
\smallsec{Visual recognition from degraded data}
Researchers have studied visual recognition in the presence of various image degradation, including blurring~\citep{vasiljevic2016examining}, lens distortions~\citep{pei2018effects}, and low resolution~\citep{ryoo2016privacy}. These undesirable artifacts are due to imperfect sensors rather than privacy concerns. In contrast, we intentionally obfuscate faces for privacy's sake.
\smallsec{Ethical issues with datasets}
Datasets are important in machine learning and computer vision. But recently they have been called out for scrutiny~\citep{paullada2020data}, especially regarding the presence of people. A prominent issue is imbalanced representation, e.g., underrepresentation of certain demographic groups in data for face recognition~\citep{buolamwini2018gender}, activity recognition~\citep{zhao2017men}, and image captioning~\citep{hendricks2018women}.
For ImageNet, researchers have examined and attempted to mitigate issues such as geographic diversity, the category vocabulary, and imbalanced representation~\citep{shankar2017no,stock2018convnets,dulhanty2019auditing,yang2020towards}. We focus on an orthogonal issue: the privacy of people in the images. \citet{prabhu2020large} also discussed ImageNet's privacy issues and suggested face obfuscation as one potential solution. Our face annotations enable face obfuscation to be implemented, and our experiments support its effectiveness. Concurrent work \citep{asano2021pass} addresses the privacy issue by collecting a dataset of unlabeled images without people.
\smallsec{Potential negative impacts} The main concern we see is giving the impression of privacy \emph{guarantees} when in fact face obfuscation is an imperfect technique for privacy protection. We hope that the above detailed discussion and this clarification will help mitigate this issue. Another important concern is disparate impact on people of different demographics as a result of using automated face detection methods; as mentioned above, we hope that incorporating a manual annotation step will help partially alleviate this issue so that similar privacy preservation is afforded to all.
\section{Annotating Faces in ILSVRC}
We annotate faces in ILSVRC~\citep{russakovsky2015imagenet}. The annotations localize an important type of sensitive information in ImageNet, making it possible to obfuscate the sensitive areas for privacy protection.
It is challenging to annotate faces accurately, at ImageNet's scale while under a reasonable budget. Automatic face detectors are fast and cheap but not accurate enough, whereas crowdsourcing is accurate but more expensive. Inspired by prior work~\citep{kuznetsova2018open, yu2015lsun}, we devise a two-stage semi-automatic pipeline that brings the best of both worlds. First, we run the face detector by Amazon Rekognition on all images in ILSVRC. The results contain both false positives and false negatives, so we refine them through crowdsourcing on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Workers are given images with detected bounding boxes, and they adjust existing boxes or create new ones to cover all faces.
Please see \hyperref[appendix:ui]{Appendix A} for detail.
\smallsec{Annotation quality}
\begin{table}[h]
\small
\centering
\caption{The number of false positives (\textit{FPs}) and false negatives (\textit{FNs}) on validation images from 20 categories challenging for the face detector. Each category has 50 images. The \textit{A} columns are after automatic face detection, whereas the \textit{H} columns are human results after crowdsourcing.}
\begin{tabular}{@{}lllll@{}}
\toprule
Category & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\#FPs} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\#FNs} \\
\cmidrule(r){2-3} \cmidrule(r){4-5}
& A & H & A & H \\
\midrule
\texttt{irish setter} & 12 & 3 & 0 & 0 \\
\texttt{gorilla} & 32 & 7 & 0 & 0 \\
\texttt{cheetah} & 3 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\
\texttt{basset} & 10 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
\texttt{lynx} & 9 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\
\texttt{rottweiler} & 11 & 4 & 0 & 0 \\
\texttt{sorrel} & 2 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\
\texttt{impala} & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
\texttt{bernese mt. dog} & 20 & 3 & 0 & 0 \\
\texttt{silky terrier} & 4 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
\midrule
\texttt{maypole} & 0 & 0 & 7 & 5 \\
\texttt{basketball} & 0 & 0 & 7 & 2 \\
\texttt{volleyball} & 0 & 0 & 10 & 5 \\
\texttt{balance beam} & 0 & 0 & 9 & 5 \\
\texttt{unicycle} & 0 & 1 & 6 & 1 \\
\texttt{stage} & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
\texttt{torch} & 2 & 1 & 1 & 1 \\
\texttt{baseball player} & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
\texttt{military uniform} & 3 & 2 & 2 & 0 \\
\texttt{steel drum} & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 \\
\midrule
Average & 5.50 & 1.25 & 2.15 & 0.95 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\label{table:quality}
\end{table}
To analyze the quality of the face annotations, we select 20 categories on which the face detector is likely to perform poorly. Then we manually check validation images from these categories; the results characterize an upper bound of the overall annotation accuracy.
Concretely, first, we randomly sample 10 categories under the \texttt{mammal} subtree in the ImageNet hierarchy (the left 10 categories in Table~\ref{table:quality}). Images in these categories contain many false positives (animal faces detected as humans). Second, we take the 10 categories with the greatest number of detected faces (the right 10 categories in Table~\ref{table:quality}). Images in those categories contain many people and thus are likely to have more false negatives. Each of the selected categories has 50 validation images, and two graduate students manually inspected all face annotations on them, including the face detection results and the final crowdsourcing results.
\begin{table}[h]
\small
\centering
\caption{Some categories grouped into supercategories in WordNet~\citep{miller1998wordnet}. For each supercategory, we show the fraction of images with faces. These supercategories have fractions significantly deviating from the average of the entire ILSVRC (17\%).}
\makebox[1 \linewidth][c]{
\resizebox{1 \linewidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{@{}llll@{}}
\toprule
Supercategory & \#Categories & \#Images & w/ face (\%) \\
\midrule
\texttt{clothing} & 49 & 62,471 & 58.90 \\
\texttt{wheeled vehicle} & 44 & 57,055 & 35.30 \\
\texttt{musical instrument} & 26 & 33,779 & 47.64 \\
\texttt{bird} & 59 & 76,536 & 1.69 \\
\texttt{insect} & 27 & 35,097 & 1.81 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
}
}
\label{table:supercategories}
\end{table}
The errors are shown in Table~\ref{table:quality}. As expected, the left 10 categories (mammals) have some false positives but no false negatives. In contrast, the right 10 categories have very few false positives but some false negatives. Crowdsourcing significantly reduces both error types. This demonstrate that we can obtain high-quality face annotations using the two-stage pipeline, but face detection alone is less accurate. Among the 20 categories, we have on average 1.25 false positives and 0.95 false negatives per 50 images. However, our overall accuracy on the entire ILSVRC is much higher as these categories are selected deliberately to be error-prone.
\smallsec{Distribution of faces in ILSVRC}
\begin{figure*}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{figures/face_distr.pdf}
\caption{\textit{Left}: The fraction of images with faces for the 1000 ILSVRC categories. 106 categories have more than half images with faces. 216 categories have more than 25\%. \textit{Right}: A histogram of the number of faces per image, excluding the {\numimageswithoutfaces} images with no face.}
\label{fig:face_distr}
\end{figure*}
\begin{table*}[h]
\centering
\caption{Validation accuracies on ILSVRC using original images, face-blurred images, and face-overlaid images. The accuracy drops slightly but consistently when blurred (the $\Delta_{\mathrm{b}}$ columns) or overlaid (the $\Delta_{\mathrm{o}}$ columns), though overlaying leads to larger drop than blurring. Each experiment is repeated 3 times; we report the mean accuracy and its standard error (SEM).}
\begin{adjustbox}{max width=\textwidth}
\begin{tabular}{@{}lllllllllll@{}}
\toprule
Model & \multicolumn{5}{c}{Top-1 accuracy (\%)} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{Top-5 accuracy (\%)} \\
\cmidrule(r){2-6} \cmidrule(r){7-11}
& Original & Blurred & $\Delta_{\mathrm{b}}$ & overlaid & $\Delta_{\mathrm{o}}$ & Original & Blurred & $\Delta_{\mathrm{b}}$ & overlaid & $\Delta_{\mathrm{o}}$ \\
\midrule
AlexNet & \underline{56.0} $\pm$ 0.3 & \underline{55.8} $\pm$ 0.1 & 0.2 & 55.5 $\pm$ 0.2 & 0.6 & \textbf{78.8} $\pm$ 0.1 & \underline{78.6} $\pm$ 0.1 & 0.3 & 78.2 $\pm$ 0.2 & 0.7 \\
SqueezeNet & \textbf{56.0} $\pm$ 0.2 & \underline{55.3} $\pm$ 0.0 & 0.7 & 55.0 $\pm$ 0.2 & 1.0 & \textbf{78.6} $\pm$ 0.2 & \underline{78.1} $\pm$ 0.0 & 0.5 & 77.6 $\pm$ 0.1 & 1.0 \\
ShuffleNet & \textbf{64.7} $\pm$ 0.2 & \underline{64.0} $\pm$ 0.1 & 0.6 & 63.7 $\pm$ 0.0 & 1.0 & \textbf{85.9} $\pm$ 0.0 & \underline{85.5} $\pm$ 0.1 & 0.5 & 85.2 $\pm$ 0.2 & 0.8 \\
VGG11 & \textbf{68.9} $\pm$ 0.0 & \underline{68.2} $\pm$ 0.1 & 0.7 & 67.8 $\pm$ 0.2 & 1.1 & \textbf{88.7} $\pm$ 0.0 & \underline{88.3} $\pm$ 0.1 & 0.4 & 87.9 $\pm$ 0.0 & 0.8 \\
VGG13 & \textbf{69.9} $\pm$ 0.1 & \underline{69.3} $\pm$ 0.1 & 0.7 & 68.8 $\pm$ 0.0 & 1.2 & \textbf{89.3} $\pm$ 0.1 & \underline{88.9} $\pm$ 0.0 & 0.4 & 88.5 $\pm$ 0.1 & 0.8 \\
VGG16 & \textbf{71.7} $\pm$ 0.1 & \underline{70.8} $\pm$ 0.1 & 0.8 & 70.6 $\pm$ 0.1 & 1.1 & \textbf{90.5} $\pm$ 0.1 & \underline{89.9} $\pm$ 0.1 & 0.6 & 89.6 $\pm$ 0.0 & 0.9 \\
VGG19 & \textbf{72.4} $\pm$ 0.0 & \underline{71.5} $\pm$ 0.0 & 0.8 & 71.2 $\pm$ 0.2 & 1.2 & \textbf{90.9} $\pm$ 0.1 & \underline{90.3} $\pm$ 0.0 & 0.6 & 90.1 $\pm$ 0.1 & 0.8 \\
MobileNet & \textbf{65.4} $\pm$ 0.2 & 64.4 $\pm$ 0.2 & 1.0 & \underline{64.3} $\pm$ 0.2 & 1.0 & \textbf{86.7} $\pm$ 0.1 & \underline{86.0} $\pm$ 0.1 & 0.7 & 85.7 $\pm$ 0.1 & 0.9 \\
DenseNet121 & \textbf{75.0} $\pm$ 0.1 & \underline{74.2} $\pm$ 0.1 & 0.8 & 74.1 $\pm$ 0.1 & 1.0 & \textbf{92.4} $\pm$ 0.0 & \underline{92.0} $\pm$ 0.1 & 0.4 & 91.7 $\pm$ 0.0 & 0.7 \\
DenseNet201 & \textbf{77.0} $\pm$ 0.0 & \underline{76.6} $\pm$ 0.0 & 0.4 & 76.1 $\pm$ 0.1 & 0.9 & \textbf{93.5} $\pm$ 0.0 & \underline{93.2} $\pm$ 0.1 & 0.2 & 92.9 $\pm$ 0.1 & 0.6 \\
ResNet18 & \textbf{69.8} $\pm$ 0.2 & \underline{69.0} $\pm$ 0.2 & 0.7 & 68.9 $\pm$ 0.1 & 0.8 & \textbf{89.2} $\pm$ 0.0 & \underline{88.7} $\pm$ 0.0 & 0.5 & 88.7 $\pm$ 0.1 & 0.6 \\
ResNet34 & \textbf{73.1} $\pm$ 0.1 & 72.3 $\pm$ 0.4 & 0.8 & \underline{72.4} $\pm$ 0.1 & 0.7 & \textbf{91.3} $\pm$ 0.0 & \underline{90.8} $\pm$ 0.1 & 0.5 & 90.7 $\pm$ 0.0 & 0.6 \\
ResNet50 & \textbf{75.5} $\pm$ 0.2 & \underline{75.0} $\pm$ 0.1 & 0.4 & 74.9 $\pm$ 0.0 & 0.6 & \textbf{92.5} $\pm$ 0.0 & \underline{92.4} $\pm$ 0.1 & 0.1 & 92.2 $\pm$ 0.0 & 0.3 \\
ResNet101 & \textbf{77.3} $\pm$ 0.1 & \underline{76.7} $\pm$ 0.1 & 0.5 & 76.7 $\pm$ 0.1 & 0.6 & \textbf{93.6} $\pm$ 0.1 & \underline{93.3} $\pm$ 0.1 & 0.3 & 93.1 $\pm$ 0.1 & 0.5 \\
ResNet152 & \textbf{77.9} $\pm$ 0.1 & \underline{77.3} $\pm$ 0.1 & 0.6 & 77.0 $\pm$ 0.3 & 0.9 & \textbf{93.9} $\pm$ 0.0 & \underline{93.7} $\pm$ 0.0 & 0.4 & 93.3 $\pm$ 0.3 & 0.6 \\
\midrule
Average & \textbf{70.0} & \underline{69.4} & 0.7 & 69.1 & 0.9 & \textbf{89.1} & \underline{88.6} & 0.4 & 88.4 & 0.7 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{adjustbox}
\label{table:overall_accuracy}
\end{table*}
Using our two-stage pipeline, we annotated all {\numtotalimages} images in ILSVRC. Among them, {\numimageswithfaces} images (17\%) contain at least one face. And the total number of faces adds up to {\numfaces}.
Fig.~\ref{fig:face_distr} \textit{Left} shows the fraction of images with faces for different categories, ranging from 97.5\% (\texttt{bridegroom}) to 0.1\% (\texttt{rock beauty}, a type of saltwater fish). 106 categories have more than half images with faces. 216 categories have more than 25\%.
Among the 243K images with faces, Fig.~\ref{fig:face_distr} \textit{Right} shows the number of faces per image. 90.1\% images contain less than 5. But some of them contain as many as 100 (a cap due to Amazon Rekognition).
Most of those images capture sports scenes with a crowd of spectators, e.g., images from \texttt{baseball player} or \texttt{volleyball}.
Since ILSVRC categories are in the WordNet~\citep{miller1998wordnet} hierarchy, we can group them into supercategories in WordNet. Table~\ref{table:supercategories} lists a few common ones that collectively cover 215 categories. For each supercategory, we calculate the fraction of images with faces. Results suggests that supercategories such as \texttt{clothing} and \texttt{musical instrument} frequently co-occur with people, whereas \texttt{bird} and \texttt{insect} seldom do.
\section{Effects of Face Obfuscation on Classification Accuracy}
\label{sec:image_classification}
Having annotated faces in ILSVRC, we now investigate how face obfuscation---a widely used technique for privacy preservation~\citep{fan2019practical,frome2009large}---impacts image classification.
\smallsec{Face obfuscation method}
We experiment with two simple obfuscation methods---blurring and overlaying. For overlaying, we cover faces with the average color in the ILSVRC training data: a gray shade with RGB value $(0.485, 0.456, 0.406)$. For blurring, we use a variant of Gaussian blurring. It achieves better visual quality by removing the sharp boundaries between blurred and unblurred regions (Fig.~\ref{fig:examples}). Let $I$ be an image and $M$ be the mask of face bounding boxes. Applying Gaussian blurring to them gives us $I_{blurred}$ and $M_{blurred}$. Then we use $M_{blurred}$ as the mask to composite $I$ and $I_{blurred}$: $I_{new} = M_{blurred} \cdot I_{blurred} + (1 - M_{blurred}) \cdot I$. Due to the use of $M_{blurred}$ instead of $M$, we avoid sharp boundaries in $I_{new}$.
Please see \hyperref[appendix:blurring]{Appendix B} for detail.
\begin{figure*}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{figures/accuracies_groupped.pdf}
\caption{The average drop in category-wise accuracies vs. the fraction of blurred area in images. \textit{Left}: \textcolor{ggplot2red}{Top-1 accuracies}. \textit{Right}: \textcolor{ggplot2blue}{Top-5 accuracies}. The accuracies are averaged across all different model architectures and random seeds.}
\label{fig:accuracies_groupped}
\end{figure*}
\smallsec{Experiment setup and training details}
To study the effects of face obfuscation on classification, we benchmark various deep neural networks including AlexNet~\citep{krizhevsky2017imagenet}, VGG~\citep{simonyan2014very}, SqueezeNet~\citep{iandola2016squeezenet}, ShuffleNet~\citep{zhang2018shufflenet}, MobileNet~\citep{howard2017mobilenets}, ResNet~\citep{he2016deep}, and DenseNet~\citep{huang2017densely}. Each model is studied in three settings: (1) original images for both training and evaluation; (2) face-blurred images for both; (3) face-overlaid images for both.
Different models share a uniform implementation of the training/evaluation pipeline. During training, we randomly sample a $224 \times 224$ image crop and apply random horizontal flipping. During evaluation, we always take the central crop and do not flip. All models are trained with a batch size of 256, a momentum of 0.9, and a weight decay of $10^{-4}$. We train with SGD for 90 epochs, dropping the learning rate by a factor of 10 every 30 epochs. The initial learning rate is 0.01 for AlexNet, SqueezeNet, and VGG; 0.1 for other models. Each experiment takes 1--7 days on machines with 2 CPUs, 16GB memory, and 1--6 Nvidia GTX GPUs.
\smallsec{Overall accuracy}
Table~\ref{table:overall_accuracy} shows the validation accuracies. Each training instance is replicated 3 times with different random seeds, and we report the mean accuracy and its standard error (SEM). The $\Delta$ columns are the accuracy drop when using face-obfuscated images (original minus blurred). For both blurring and overlaying, we see a small but consistent drop in top-1 and top-5 accuracies. For example, with blurring, top-5 accuracies drop 0.1\%--0.7\% with an average of only $0.4\%$. Overlaying leads to slightly larger drops averaged at $0.7\%$ since it removes more information.
It is expected to incur a small but consistent drop. On the one hand, face obfuscation removes information that might be useful for classification. On the other hand, it should leave intact most ILSVRC categories since they are non-human. Though not surprising, our results are encouraging. They assure us that we can train privacy-aware visual classifiers on ImageNet with less than 1\% accuracy drop.
\smallsec{Category-wise accuracies and the fraction of blur}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{figures/occlusion.pdf}
\caption{The average drop in category-wise accuracies caused by blurring vs. the fraction of object area covered by faces. \textit{Left}: \textcolor{ggplot2red}{Top-1 accuracies}. \textit{Right}: \textcolor{ggplot2blue}{Top-5 accuracies}. The accuracies are averaged across all different model architectures and random seeds.}
\label{fig:occlusion}
\end{figure*}
To gain insights into the effects on individual categories, we break down the accuracy into the 1000 ILSVRC categories. We hypothesize that if a category has a large fraction of obfuscated area, it will likely incur a large accuracy drop.
To support the hypothesis, we focus on blurring and first average the accuracies for each category across different models. Then, we calculate the correlation between the accuracy drop and the fraction of blurred area: $r=0.28$ for top-1 accuracy and $r=0.44$ for top-5 accuracy. The correlation is not strong but is statistically significant, with p-values of $6.31 \times 10^{-20}$ and $2.69 \times 10^{-49}$ respectively.
The positive correlation is also evident in Fig.~\ref{fig:accuracies_groupped}. On the x-axis, we divide the blurred fraction into 5 groups from small to large. On the y-axis, we show the average accuracy drop for categories in each group. Using \textcolor{ggplot2blue}{top-5 accuracy} (Fig.~\ref{fig:accuracies_groupped} \textit{Right}), the drop increases monotonically from 0.30\% to 4.04\% when moving from a small blurred fraction (0\%--1\%) to a larger fraction ($\geq 8\%$).
The pattern becomes less clear in \textcolor{ggplot2red}{top-1 accuracy} (Fig.~\ref{fig:accuracies_groupped} \textit{Left}). The drop stays around $0.5\%$ and begins to increase only when the fraction goes beyond 4\%. However, top-1 accuracy is a worse metric than top-5 accuracy (ILSVRC's official metric), because top-1 accuracy is ill-defined for images with multiple objects. In contrast, top-5 accuracy allows the model to predict 5 categories for each image and succeed as long as one of them matches the ground truth. In addition, top-1 accuracy suffers from confusion between near-identical categorie (like \texttt{eskimo dog} and \texttt{siberian husky}), an artifact we discuss further below.
In summary, our analysis of category-wise accuracies aligns with a simple intuition---if too much area is obfuscated, models will have difficulty classifying the image.
\smallsec{Most impacted categories}
Besides the size of the obfuscated area, another factor is whether it overlaps with the object of interest. Most categories in ILSVRC are non-human and should have very little overlap with faces. However, there are exceptions. \texttt{Mask}, for example, is indeed non-human. But masks are worn on the face; therefore, obfuscating faces will make masks harder to recognize. Similar categories include \texttt{sunglasses}, \texttt{harmonica}, etc. Due to their close spatial proximity to faces, the accuracy is likely to drop significantly in the presence of face obfuscation.
To quantify this intuition, we calculate the overlap between objects and faces. Object bounding boxes are available from the localization task of ILSVRC. Given an object bounding box, we calculate the fraction of area covered by face bounding boxes. The fractions are then averaged across different images in a category.
Results in Fig.~\ref{fig:occlusion} show that blurring leads to larger accuracy drop for categories with larger fractions covered by faces. Some noteable examples include \texttt{mask} (24.84\% covered by faces, 8.71\% drop in top-5 accuracy), \texttt{harmonica} (29.09\% covered by faces, 8.93\% drop in top-5 accuracy), and \texttt{snorkel} (30.51\% covered, 6.00\% drop). The correlation between the fraction and the drop is $r=0.32$ for \textcolor{ggplot2red}{top-1 accuracy} and $r=0.46$ for \textcolor{ggplot2blue}{top-5 accuracy}.
Fig.~\ref{fig:cams} showcases images from \texttt{harmonica} and \texttt{mask} and their blurred versions. We use Grad-CAM~\citep{selvaraju2017grad} to visualize where the model is looking at when classifying the image. For original images, the model can effectively localize and classify the object of interest. For blurred images, however, the model fails to classify the object; neither does it attend to the correct region.
In summary, the categories most impacted by face obfuscation are those overlapping with faces, such as \texttt{mask} and \texttt{harmonica}. These categories have much lower accuracies when using obfuscated images, as obfuscation removes visual cues necessary for recognizing them.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{figures/cams.pdf}
\caption{Images from \texttt{mask} and \texttt{harmonica} with Grad-CAM~\citep{selvaraju2017grad} visualizations of where a ResNet152~\citep{he2016deep} model looks at. Original images on the left; face-blurred images on the right.}
\label{fig:cams}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{figures/dogs.pdf}
\caption{Images from \texttt{eskimo dog} and \texttt{siberian husky} are very similar. However, \texttt{eskimo dog} has a large accuracy drop when using face-blurred images, whereas \texttt{siberian husky} has a large accuracy increase.}
\label{fig:dogs}
\end{figure}
\smallsec{Disparate changes for visually similar categories}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\end{figure}
\begin{table*}[t]
\centering
\caption{Visually similar categories whose top-1 accuracy varies significantly---but in opposite directions. However, the pattern evaporates when using top-5 accuracy or average precision.}
\begin{adjustbox}{max width=\textwidth}
\begin{tabular}{@{}llllllllll@{}}
\toprule
Category & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Top-1 accuracy (\%)} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Top-5 accuracy (\%)} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Average precision (\%)} \\
\cmidrule(r){2-4} \cmidrule(r){5-7} \cmidrule(r){8-10}
& Original & Blurred & $\Delta$ & Original & Blurred & $\Delta$ & Original & Blurred & $\Delta$ \\
\midrule
\texttt{eskimo dog} & \textbf{50.8} $\pm$ 1.1 & 38.0 $\pm$ 0.4 & 12.8 & \underline{95.5} $\pm$ 0.4 & \underline{95.1} $\pm$ 0.2 & 0.4 & \underline{19.4} $\pm$ 0.8 & \underline{19.9} $\pm$ 0.5 & $-$ 0.5 \\
\texttt{siberian husky} & 46.3 $\pm$ 1.8 & \textbf{63.2} $\pm$ 0.8 & $-$ 16.9 & \underline{97.0} $\pm$ 0.4 & \underline{97.2} $\pm$ 0.3 & -0.2 & \underline{29.2} $\pm$ 0.3 & \underline{29.6} $\pm$ 0.5 & $-$ 0.4 \\
\midrule
\texttt{projectile} & \textbf{35.6} $\pm$ 0.9 & 21.7 $\pm$ 1.0 & 13.9 & \underline{86.2} $\pm$ 0.4 & \underline{85.5} $\pm$ 0.4 & 0.7 & \underline{23.1} $\pm$ 0.4 & \underline{22.5} $\pm$ 0.5 & 0.6 \\
\texttt{missile} & 31.6 $\pm$ 0.7 & \textbf{45.8} $\pm$ 0.8 & $-$ 14.2 & \underline{81.5} $\pm$ 0.7 & \underline{81.8} $\pm$ 0.4 & $-$ 0.3 & \underline{20.4} $\pm$ 0.3 & \underline{21.1} $\pm$ 0.6 & $-$ 0.7 \\
\midrule
\texttt{tub} & \textbf{35.5} $\pm$ 1.5 & 27.9 $\pm$ 0.6 & 7.6 & \textbf{79.4} $\pm$ 0.6 & 75.6 $\pm$ 0.5 & 3.8 & \textbf{19.9} $\pm$ 0.4 & 18.8 $\pm$ 0.2 & 1.1 \\
\texttt{bathtub} & 35.4 $\pm$ 1.0 & \textbf{42.5} $\pm$ 0.4 & $-$ 7.1 & 78.9 $\pm$ 0.3 & \textbf{80.8} $\pm$ 1.2 & $-$ 1.9 & \textbf{27.4} $\pm$ 0.8 & 25.1 $\pm$ 0.6 & 2.3 \\
\midrule
\texttt{american chameleon} & \textbf{63.0} $\pm$ 0.4 & 54.7 $\pm$ 1.2 & 8.3 & \underline{97.0} $\pm$ 0.5 & \underline{96.6} $\pm$ 0.5 & 0.4 & \underline{40.0} $\pm$ 0.2 & \underline{39.3} $\pm$ 0.5 & 0.7 \\
\texttt{green lizard} & 42.0 $\pm$ 0.6 & \textbf{45.6} $\pm$ 1.2 & $-$ 3.6 & \textbf{91.3} $\pm$ 0.3 & 89.7 $\pm$ 0.2 & 1.6 & \underline{22.6} $\pm$ 0.8 & \underline{22.4} $\pm$ 0.1 & 0.2 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{adjustbox}
\label{table:top1_outliers}
\end{table*}
Our last observation focuses on categories whose top-1 accuracies change drastically. Intriguingly, they come in pairs, consisting of one category with decreasing accuracy and another visually similar category with increasing accuracy. For example, \texttt{eskimo dog} and \texttt{siberian husky} are visually similar (Fig.~\ref{fig:dogs}). When using face-blurred images, \texttt{eskimo dog}'s top-1 accuracy drops by 12.8\%, whereas \texttt{siberian husky}'s increases by 16.9\%. It is strange since most images in these two categories do not even contain human faces. More examples are in Table~\ref{table:top1_outliers}.
\texttt{Eskimo dog} and \texttt{siberian husky} images are so similar that the model faces a seemingly arbitrary choice. We examine the predictions and find that models trained on original images prefer \texttt{eskimo dog}, whereas models trained on blurred images prefer \texttt{siberian husky}. It is the different preferences over these two competing categories that drive the top-1 accuracies to change in different directions. To further investigate, we include two metrics that are less sensitive to competing categories: top-5 accuracy and average precision. In Table~\ref{table:top1_outliers}, the pairwise pattern evaporates when these metrics. A pair of categories no longer have drastic changes, and the changes do not necessarily go in different directions. The results show that models trained on blurred images are still good at recognizing \texttt{eskimo dog}, though \texttt{siberian husky} has an even higher score.
\section{Effects on Feature Transferability}
\label{sec:transfer_learning}
Visual features learned on ImageNet are effective for a wide range of tasks~\citep{girshick2015fast,liu2015deep}. We now investigate the effects of face obfuscation on feature transferability to downstream tasks. Specifically, we compare models without pretraining and models pretrained on original/blurred/overlaid images by finetuning on 4 tasks: object recognition, scene recognition, object detection, and face attribute classification. They include both classification and spatial localization, as well as both face-centric and face-agnostic recognition.
Details are in \hyperref[appendix:details]{Appendix E}.
\smallsec{Object and scene recognition on CIFAR-10 and SUN}
CIFAR-10~\citep{krizhevsky2009learning} contains images from 10 object categories such as \texttt{horse} and \texttt{truck}. SUN~\citep{xiao2010sun} contains images from 397 scenes such as \texttt{bedroom} and \texttt{restaurant}. Like ImageNet, they are not people-centered but may contain people.
We finetune models to classify images in these two datasets and show the results in Table~\ref{table:cifar} and Table~\ref{table:sun}. For both datasets, pretraining helps significantly; models pretrained on blurred or overlaid images perform closely with those pretrained on original images. The results show that visual features learned on face-obfsucated images have no problem transferring to face-agnostic downstream tasks.
\begin{table}[t]
\small
\centering
\caption{Top-1 accuracy on CIFAR-10~\citep{krizhevsky2009learning} of models without pretraining and pretrained on original/blurred/overlaid images.}
\begin{tabular}{@{}lllll@{}}
\toprule
Model & No pretrain & Original & Blurred & Overlaid \\
\midrule
AlexNet & 83.3 $\pm$ 0.2 & 90.6 $\pm$ 0.0 & \underline{90.9} $\pm$ 0.0 & \textbf{91.1} $\pm$ 0.0 \\
ShuffleNet & 92.3 $\pm$ 0.3 & \textbf{95.7} $\pm$ 0.0 & \underline{95.4} $\pm$ 0.1 & \underline{95.2} $\pm$ 0.1 \\
ResNet18 & 92.8 $\pm$ 0.1 & \underline{96.1} $\pm$ 0.1 & \underline{96.1} $\pm$ 0.1 & \underline{96.1} $\pm$ 0.1 \\
ResNet34 & 90.6 $\pm$ 0.9 & \underline{96.9} $\pm$ 0.1 & \underline{97.0} $\pm$ 0.0 & \underline{97.1} $\pm$ 0.2 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\label{table:cifar}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[t]
\small
\centering
\caption{Results of finetuning on SUN~\citep{xiao2010sun}}
\begin{tabular}{@{}lllll@{}}
\toprule
Model & No pretrain & Original & Blurred & Overlaid \\
\midrule
AlexNet & 26.2 $\pm$ 0.6 & \underline{46.3} $\pm$ 0.1 & \textbf{46.5} $\pm$ 0.1 & \underline{46.2} $\pm$ 0.0 \\
ShuffleNet & 33.8 $\pm$ 0.7 & \textbf{51.2} $\pm$ 0.1 & \underline{50.4} $\pm$ 0.3 & 49.3 $\pm$ 0.3 \\
ResNet18 & 36.9 $\pm$ 4.8 & \underline{55.0} $\pm$ 0.2 & \underline{55.0} $\pm$ 0.1 & \underline{55.1} $\pm$ 0.1 \\
ResNet34 & 40.3 $\pm$ 0.4 & \underline{57.8} $\pm$ 0.0 & \underline{57.9} $\pm$ 0.1 & \underline{57.8} $\pm$ 0.1 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\label{table:sun}
\end{table}
\smallsec{Object detection on PASCAL VOC}
Next, we finetune models for object detection on PASCAL VOC~\citep{everingham2010pascal}. We choose it instead of COCO~\citep{lin2014microsoft} because it is small enough to benefit from pretraining. We finetune a FasterRCNN~\citep{ren2015faster} object detector with a ResNet50 backbone pretrained on original/blurred/overlaid images. The results do not show a significant difference between them (79.40 $\pm$ 0.31, 79.29 $\pm$ 0.22, and 79.39 $\pm$ 0.02 in mAP).
PASCAL VOC includes \texttt{person} as one of its 20 object categories. And one could hypothesize that the model detects people relying on face cues. However, we do not observe a performance drop in face-obfuscated pretraining, even considering the AP of the \texttt{person} category (84.40 $\pm$ 0.14 original, 84.80 $\pm$ 0.50 blurred, and 84.47 $\pm$ 0.05 overlaid).
\smallsec{Face attribute classification on CelebA}
But what if the downstream task is entirely about understanding faces? Will face-obfuscated pretraining fail? We explore this question by classifying face attributes on CelebA~\citep{liu2015faceattributes}. Given a headshot, the model predicts multiple face attributes such as \texttt{smiling} and \texttt{eyeglasses}.
CelebA is too large to benefit from pretraining, so we finetune on a subset of 5K images. Table~\ref{table:celeba} shows the results in mAP. There is a discrepancy between different models, so we add a few more models. But overall, blurred/overlaid pretraining performs competitively. This is remarkable given that the task relies heavily on faces. A possible reason is that the model only
learns low-level face-agnostic features during pretraining and learns face features in finetuning.
In all of the 4 tasks, pretraining on obfuscated images does not hurt the transferability of the learned feature. It suggests that one could use face-obfuscated ILSVRC for pretraining without degrading the downstream task, even when the downstream task requires an understanding of faces.
\begin{table}[h]
\small
\centering
\caption{mAP of face attribute classification on CelebA~\citep{liu2015faceattributes}, using subset of 5K training images.}
\begin{tabular}{@{}lllll@{}}
\toprule
Model & No pretrain & Original & Blurred & Overlaid \\
\midrule
AlexNet & 41.8 $\pm$ 0.5 & \textbf{55.5} $\pm$ 0.7 & 50.7 $\pm$ 0.8 & 52.5 $\pm$ 0.4 \\
ShuffleNet & 36.5 $\pm$ 0.7 & \textbf{55.6} $\pm$ 1.2 & 52.5 $\pm$ 1.0 & 53.5 $\pm$ 1.4 \\
ResNet18 & 45.1 $\pm$ 1.0 & \underline{51.7} $\pm$ 1.9 & \underline{51.8} $\pm$ 1.0 & \underline{52.0} $\pm$ 0.6 \\
ResNet34 & 49.4 $\pm$ 2.4 & \underline{55.6} $\pm$ 2.4 & \underline{56.5} $\pm$ 1.9 & \underline{56.4} $\pm$ 2.3 \\
ResNet50 & \underline{48.7} $\pm$ 1.3 & 42.8 $\pm$ 0.9 & \underline{50.9} $\pm$ 2.7 & \underline{50.4} $\pm$ 0.5 \\
VGG11 & 48.7 $\pm$ 0.3 & 56.0 $\pm$ 0.7 & \underline{57.4} $\pm$ 0.6 & \underline{58.1} $\pm$ 0.9 \\
VGG13 & 47.2 $\pm$ 0.8 & \underline{58.4} $\pm$ 0.6 & \underline{59.0} $\pm$ 0.5 & \underline{58.2} $\pm$ 0.4 \\
MobileNet & 43.8 $\pm$ 0.2 & \underline{49.4} $\pm$ 0.8 & \underline{49.9} $\pm$ 1.3 & \underline{49.6} $\pm$ 1.3 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\label{table:celeba}
\end{table}
\section{Conclusion}
We explored how face obfuscation affects recognition accuracy on ILSVRC. We annotated faces in the dataset and benchmarked deep networks on images with faces blurred or overlaid. Experimental results demonstrate face obfuscation enhances privacy with minimal impact on accuracy.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
Thank you to Arvind Narayanan, Sunnie S. Y. Kim, Vikram V. Ramaswamy, Angelina Wang, and Zeyu Wang for detailed feedback, as well as to the Amazon Mechanical Turk workers for the annotations. This work is partially supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 1763642.
\section{Semi-Automatic Face Annotation}
\label{appendix:ui}
We describe our face annotation method in detail. It consists of two stages: face detection followed by crowdsourcing.
\smallsec{Stage 1: Automatic face detection}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{figures/aws_faces.pdf}
\caption{Face detection results on ILSVRC by Amazon Rekognition. The first row shows correct examples. The second row shows false positives, most of which are animal faces. The third row shows false negatives. }
\label{fig:aws_faces}
\end{figure}
First, we run the face detection API provided by Amazon Rekognition\footnote{\url{https://aws.amazon.com/rekognition}} on all images in ILSVRC, which can be done within one day and \$1500. We also explored services from other vendors but found Rekognition to work the best, especially for small faces and multiple faces in one image (Fig.~\ref{fig:aws_faces} \textit{Top}).
However, face detectors are not perfect. There are false positives and false negatives. Most false positives, as Fig.~\ref{fig:aws_faces} \textit{Middle} shows, are animal faces incorrectly detected as humans. Meanwhile, false negatives are rare; some of them occur under poor lighting or heavy occlusion. For privacy preservation, a small number of false positives are acceptable, but false negatives are undesirable. In that respect, Rekognition hits a suitable trade-off for our purpose.
\smallsec{Stage 2: Refining faces through crowdsourcing}
\begin{figure*}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{figures/ui.pdf}
\caption{The UI for face annotation on Amazon Mechanical Turk. \textit{Left}: The worker is given an image with inaccurate face detections. They correct the results by adjusting existing bounding boxes or creating new ones. Each HIT (Human Intelligence Task) have 50 images, including 3 gold standard images for which we know the ground truth answers. \textit{Right}: The worker loses a life when making a mistake on gold standard images. They will have to start from scratch after losing both 2 lives.}
\label{fig:ui}
\end{figure*}
After running the face detector, we refine the results through crowdsourcing on Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk). In each task, the worker is given an image with bounding boxes detected by the face detector (Fig.~\ref{fig:ui} \textit{Left}). They adjust existing bounding boxes or create new ones to cover all faces and not-safe-for-work (NSFW) areas. NSFW areas may not necessarily contain private information, but just like faces, they are good candidates for image obfuscation~\citep{prabhu2020large}.
For faces, we specifically require the worker to cover the
mouth, nose, eyes, forehead, and cheeks. For NSFW areas, we define them to include nudity, sexuality, profanity, etc. However, we do not dictate what constitutes, e.g., nudity, which is deemed to be subjective and culture-dependent. Instead, we encourage workers to follow their best judgment.
The worker has to go over 50 images in each HIT (Human Intelligence Task) to get rewarded. However, most images do not require the worker's action since the face detections are already fairly accurate. The 50 images include 3 gold standard images for quality control. These images have verified ground truth faces, but we intentionally show incorrect annotations for the workers to fix. The entire HIT resembles an action game. Starting with 2 lives, the worker will lose a life when making a mistake on gold standard images. In that case, they will see the ground truth faces (Fig.~\ref{fig:ui} \textit{Right}) and the remaining lives. If they lose both 2 lives, the game is over, and they have to start from scratch at the first image. We found this strategy to improve annotation quality.
We did not distinguish NSFW areas from faces during crowdsourcing. Still, we conduct a study demonstrating that the final data contains only a tiny number of NSFW annotations compared to faces. The number of NSFW areas varies significantly across different ILSVRC categories. \texttt{Bikini} is likely to contain much more NSFW areas than the average. We examined all 1,300 training images and 50 validation images in \texttt{bikini}. We found only 25 images annotated with NSFW areas (1.85\%). The average number for the entire ILSVRC is expected to be much smaller. For example, we found 0 NSFW images among the validation images from the categories in Table 1.
\section{Face Blurring Method}
\label{appendix:blurring}
\begin{figure*}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{figures/blurring_method.pdf}
\caption{The method for face blurring. It avoids sharp boundaries between blurred and unblurred regions. $I$: the original image; $M$: the mask of enlarged face bounding boxes; $I_{new}$: the final face-blurred image.}
\label{fig:blurring}
\end{figure*}
As illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:blurring}, we blur human faces using a variant of Gaussian blurring to avoid sharp boundaries between blurred and unblurred regions.
Let $\mathbb{D} = [0, 1]$ be the range of pixel values; $I \in \mathbb{D}^{h \times w \times 3}$ is an RGB image with height $h$ and width $w$ (Fig.~\ref{fig:blurring} \textit{Middle}). We have $m$ face bounding boxes annotated on $I$:
\begin{equation}
\{(x_{0}^{(i)}, y_{0}^{(i)}, x_{1}^{(i)}, y_{1}^{(i)})\}_{i=1}^{m}.\footnote{We follow the convention for coordinate system in PIL.}
\end{equation}
First, we enlarge each bounding box to be
\begin{equation}
\left( x_{0}^{(i)} - \frac{d_i}{10}, y_{0}^{(i)} - \frac{d_i}{10}, x_{1}^{(i)} + \frac{d_i}{10}, y_{1}^{(i)} + \frac{d_i}{10} \right),
\end{equation}
where $d_i$ is the length of the diagonal. Out-of-range coordinates are truncated to $0$, $h - 1$, or $w - 1$.
Next, we represent the union of the enlarged bounding boxes as a mask $M \in \mathbb{D}^{h \times w \times 1}$ with value $1$ inside bounding boxes and value $0$ outside them (Fig.~\ref{fig:blurring} \textit{Bottom}). We apply Gaussian blurring to both $M$ and $I$: \begin{eqnarray}
M_{blurred} & = & Gaussian \left( M, \frac{d_{max}}{10} \right) \\
I_{blurred} & = & Gaussian \left( I, \frac{d_{max}}{10} \right),
\end{eqnarray}
where $d_{max}$ is the maximum diagonal length across all bounding boxes on image $I$. Here $\frac{d_{max}}{10}$ serves as the radius parameter of Gaussian blurring; it depends on $d_{max}$ so that the largest bounding box can be sufficiently blurred.
Finally, we use $M_{blurred}$ as the mask to composite $I$ and $I_{blurred}$:
\begin{equation}
I_{new} = M_{blurred} \cdot I_{blurred} + (1 - M_{blurred}) \cdot I.
\end{equation}
$I_{new}$ is the final face-blurred image. Due to the use of $M_{blurred}$ instead of $M$, we avoid sharp boundaries in $I_{new}$.
\section{Original Images for Training and Obfuscated Images for Evaluation}
We use obfuscated images to evaluate PyTorch models~\citep{paszke2019pytorch}\footnote{\url{https://pytorch.org/docs/stable/torchvision/models.html}} trained on original images. We experiment with 5 different methods for face obfuscation: (1) blurring; (2) overlaying with the average color in the ILSVRC training data: a gray shade with RGB value $(0.485, 0.456, 0.406)$; (3--5) overlaying with red/green/blue patches.
Results in top-5 accuracy are in Table~\ref{table:pretrained}. Not surprisingly, face obfuscation lowers the accuracy, which is due to not only the loss of information but also the mismatch between data distributions in training and evaluation. Nevertheless, all obfuscation methods lead to only a small accuracy drop (0.7\%--1.5\% on average), and blurring leads to the smallest drop. The reason could be that blurring does not conceal all information in a bounding box compared to overlaying.
\begin{table*}[ht]
\small
\centering
\caption{Top-5 accuracies of models trained on original images but evaluated on images obfuscated using different methods. \textit{Original}: original images for validation; \textit{Mean}: validation images overlaid with the average color in the ILSVRC training data; \textit{Red/Green/Blue}: images overlaid with different colors; \textit{Blurred}: face-blurred images; $\Delta_{\mathrm{b}}$: Original minus blurred.}
\begin{tabular}{@{}llllllll@{}}
\toprule
Model & Original & Red & Green & Blue & Mean & Blurred & $\Delta_{\mathrm{b}}$ \\
\midrule
AlexNet~\citep{krizhevsky2017imagenet} & \textbf{79.1} & 76.7 & 77.1 & 76.7 & 77.8 & \underline{78.2} & 0.8\\
GoogLeNet~\citep{szegedy2015going} & \textbf{89.5} & 87.9 & 88.2 & 87.9 & 88.3 & \underline{88.7} & 0.9\\
Inception v3~\citep{szegedy2016rethinking} & \textbf{88.7} & 86.7 & 87.0 & 86.6 & 87.2 & \underline{87.7} & 0.9\\
SqueezeNet~\citep{iandola2016squeezenet} & \textbf{80.6} & 78.6 & 79.0 & 78.5 & 79.4 & \underline{79.7} & 0.9\\
ShuffleNet~\citep{zhang2018shufflenet} & \textbf{88.3} & 86.6 & 86.8 & 86.6 & 87.0 & \underline{87.4} & 1.0 \\
VGG11~\citep{simonyan2014very} & \textbf{88.6} & 87.1 & 87.4 & 87.0 & 87.6 & \underline{87.8} & 0.8\\
VGG13 & \textbf{89.3} & 87.9 & 88.1 & 87.9 & 88.2 & \underline{88.5} & 0.8 \\
VGG16 & \textbf{90.4} & 89.1 & 89.1 & 88.9 & 89.3 & \underline{89.7} & 0.7 \\
VGG19 & \textbf{90.9} & 89.4 & 89.5 & 89.2 & 89.7 & \underline{90.1} & 0.8 \\
MobileNet~\citep{howard2017mobilenets} & \textbf{90.3} & 88.9 & 89.1 & 88.9 & 89.2 & \underline{89.5} & 0.8\\
MNASNet~\citep{tan2019mnasnet} & \textbf{91.5} & 90.0 & 90.2 & 90.2 & 90.4 & \underline{90.8} & 0.7\\
DenseNet121~\citep{huang2017densely} & \textbf{92.0} & 90.7 & 90.8 & 90.7 & 91.0 & \underline{91.3} & 0.7 \\
DenseNet161 & \textbf{93.6} & 92.5 & 92.5 & 92.3 & 92.8 & \underline{93.0} & 0.6\\
DenseNet169 & \textbf{92.8} & 91.6 & 91.7 & 91.6 & 91.9 & \underline{92.2} & 0.6\\
DenseNet201 & \textbf{93.4} & 92.2 & 92.3 & 92.0 & 92.3 & \underline{92.7} & 0.7\\
ResNet18~\citep{he2016deep} & \textbf{89.1} & 87.5 & 87.6 & 87.5 & 87.8 & \underline{88.3} & 0.8\\
ResNet34 & \textbf{91.4} & 89.8 & 90.0 & 89.8 & 90.2 & \underline{90.7} & 0.8\\
ResNet50 & \textbf{92.9} & 91.7 & 91.8 & 91.5 & 91.8 & \underline{92.2} & 0.7\\
ResNet101 & \textbf{93.6} & 92.3 & 92.4 & 92.3 & 92.5 & \underline{92.9} & 0.7\\
ResNet152 & \textbf{94.1} & 92.9 & 93.0 & 92.9 & 93.1 & \underline{93.4} & 0.6\\
ResNeXt50~\citep{xie2017aggregated} & \textbf{93.7} & 92.5 & 92.6 & 92.4 & 92.8 & \underline{93.0} & 0.7\\
ResNeXt101 & \textbf{94.5} & 93.5 & 93.5 & 93.3 & 93.5 & \underline{93.9} & 0.6\\
Wide ResNet50~\citep{zagoruyko2016wide} & \textbf{94.1} & 92.9 & 93.0 & 92.9 & 93.1 & \underline{93.4} & 0.7\\
Wide ResNet101 & \textbf{94.3} & 93.2 & 93.3 & 93.1 & 93.4 & \underline{93.7} & 0.6\\
\midrule
Average & \textbf{90.7} & 89.3 & 89.4 & 89.2 & 89.6 & \underline{89.9} & 0.7 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\label{table:pretrained}
\end{table*}
\section{Obfuscated Images for Training and Original Images for Evaluation}
Vice versa, we also experiment with training on blurred images while evaluating on original images. This setting is practically relevant because models used in real-world products may be trained on privacy-preserved data but deployed in the wild without any obfuscation. Results are shown in Table~\ref{table:blur_train_original_eval}. Similarly, training on blurred images lowers the accuracy by only a small amount (0.25\%--1.04\% in top-5 accuracy, with an average of 0.67\%).
\begin{table}[ht]
\centering
\caption{Validation accuracies on original ILSVRC images of models trained on original/blurred images. Training on blurred images lead to a small but consistent accuracy drop.}
\begin{adjustbox}{max width=\textwidth}
\begin{tabular}{@{}lllllll@{}}
\toprule
Model & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Top-1 accuracy (\%)} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Top-5 accuracy (\%)} \\
\cmidrule(r){2-4} \cmidrule(r){5-7} & Original training & Blurred training & $\Delta$ & Original training & Blurred training & $\Delta$ \\
\midrule
AlexNet & \textbf{56.0} $\pm$ 0.3 & 55.3 $\pm$ 0.0 & 0.7 & \textbf{78.8} $\pm$ 0.1 & 78.0 $\pm$ 0.1 & 0.9 \\
SqueezeNet & \textbf{56.0} $\pm$ 0.2 & 54.9 $\pm$ 0.1 & 1.1 & \textbf{78.6} $\pm$ 0.2 & 77.6 $\pm$ 0.1 & 1.0 \\
ShuffleNet & \textbf{64.7} $\pm$ 0.2 & 63.7 $\pm$ 0.0 & 1.0 & \textbf{85.9} $\pm$ 0.0 & 85.1 $\pm$ 0.0 & 0.9 \\
VGG11 & \textbf{68.9} $\pm$ 0.0 & 67.9 $\pm$ 0.2 & 1.0 & \textbf{88.7} $\pm$ 0.0 & 87.9 $\pm$ 0.1 & 0.8 \\
VGG13 & \textbf{69.9} $\pm$ 0.1 & 69.0 $\pm$ 0.2 & 1.0 & \textbf{89.3} $\pm$ 0.1 & 88.6 $\pm$ 0.1 & 0.7 \\
VGG16 & \textbf{71.7} $\pm$ 0.1 & 70.6 $\pm$ 0.1 & 1.1 & \textbf{90.5} $\pm$ 0.1 & 89.8 $\pm$ 0.1 & 0.7 \\
VGG19 & \textbf{72.4} $\pm$ 0.0 & 71.2 $\pm$ 0.1 & 1.2 & \textbf{90.9} $\pm$ 0.1 & 90.1 $\pm$ 0.0 & 0.8 \\
MobileNet & \textbf{65.4} $\pm$ 0.2 & 64.0 $\pm$ 0.2 & 1.4 & \textbf{86.7} $\pm$ 0.1 & 85.6 $\pm$ 0.1 & 1.0 \\
DenseNet121 & \textbf{75.0} $\pm$ 0.1 & 74.1 $\pm$ 0.0 & 0.9 & \textbf{92.4} $\pm$ 0.0 & 91.8 $\pm$ 0.0 & 0.6 \\
DenseNet201 & \textbf{77.0} $\pm$ 0.0 & 76.5 $\pm$ 0.1 & 0.5 & \textbf{93.5} $\pm$ 0.0 & 93.2 $\pm$ 0.0 & 0.3 \\
ResNet18 & \textbf{69.8} $\pm$ 0.2 & 68.6 $\pm$ 0.2 & 1.1 & \textbf{89.2} $\pm$ 0.0 & 88.5 $\pm$ 0.1 & 0.7 \\
ResNet34 & \textbf{73.1} $\pm$ 0.1 & 72.0 $\pm$ 0.4 & 1.1 & \textbf{91.3} $\pm$ 0.0 & 90.6 $\pm$ 0.2 & 0.7 \\
ResNet50 & \textbf{75.5} $\pm$ 0.2 & 74.9 $\pm$ 0.1 & 0.6 & \textbf{92.5} $\pm$ 0.0 & 92.2 $\pm$ 0.1 & 0.3 \\
ResNet101 & \textbf{77.3} $\pm$ 0.1 & 76.6 $\pm$ 0.0 & 0.7 & \textbf{93.6} $\pm$ 0.1 & 93.2 $\pm$ 0.0 & 0.4 \\
ResNet152 & \textbf{77.9} $\pm$ 0.1 & 77.2 $\pm$ 0.2 & 0.7 & \textbf{93.9} $\pm$ 0.0 & 93.6 $\pm$ 0.0 & 0.4 \\
\midrule
Average & \textbf{70.0} & 69.1 & 0.9 & \textbf{89.1} & 88.4 & 0.7 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{adjustbox}
\label{table:blur_train_original_eval}
\end{table}
\iffalse
\smallsec{Training and evaluating on obfuscated images}
Following the same experiment setup in Sec.~4, we train and evaluate models using images with faces overlaid using the average color (Fig.~\ref{fig:overlay}).
Table~\ref{table:overlay_accuracy} shows the overall validation accuracies of overlaying and blurring. The results are similar to Table~3 in the paper: we incur a small but consistent accuracy drop (0.33\%--0.97\% in top-5 accuracy) when using face-overlaid images. The drop is larger than blurring (an average of 0.69\% vs. 0.42\% in top-5 accuracy), which is consistent with our previous observation in Table~\ref{table:pretrained}.
\begin{table*}[ht]
\centering
\caption{Validation accuracies on ILSVRC using original images, face-blurred images, and face-overlaid images. The accuracy drops slightly but consistently when blurred (the $\Delta_{\mathrm{b}}$ columns) or overlaid (the $\Delta_{\mathrm{o}}$ columns), though overlaying leads to larger drop than blurring. Each experiment is repeated 3 times; we report the mean accuracy and its standard error (SEM).}
\begin{adjustbox}{max width=\textwidth}
\begin{tabular}{@{}lllllllllll@{}}
\toprule
Model & \multicolumn{5}{c}{Top-1 accuracy (\%)} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{Top-5 accuracy (\%)} \\
\cmidrule(r){2-6} \cmidrule(r){7-11}
& Original & Blurred & $\Delta_{\mathrm{b}}$ & overlaid & $\Delta_{\mathrm{o}}$ & Original & Blurred & $\Delta_{\mathrm{b}}$ & overlaid & $\Delta_{\mathrm{o}}$ \\
\midrule
AlexNet & \underline{56.04} $\pm$ 0.26 & \underline{55.83} $\pm$ 0.11 & 0.21 & 55.47 $\pm$ 0.24 & 0.57 & \textbf{78.84} $\pm$ 0.12 & \underline{78.55} $\pm$ 0.07 & 0.29 & 78.17 $\pm$ 0.19 & 0.66 \\
SqueezeNet & \textbf{55.99} $\pm$ 0.18 & \underline{55.32} $\pm$ 0.04 & 0.67 & 55.04 $\pm$ 0.22 & 0.95 & \textbf{78.60} $\pm$ 0.17 & \underline{78.06} $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.54 & 77.63 $\pm$ 0.11 & 0.97 \\
ShuffleNet & \textbf{64.65} $\pm$ 0.18 & \underline{64.00} $\pm$ 0.07 & 0.64 & 63.68 $\pm$ 0.03 & 0.96 & \textbf{85.93} $\pm$ 0.02 & \underline{85.46} $\pm$ 0.05 & 0.47 & 85.17 $\pm$ 0.17 & 0.76 \\
VGG11 & \textbf{68.91} $\pm$ 0.04 & \underline{68.21} $\pm$ 0.13 & 0.72 & 67.83 $\pm$ 0.16 & 1.07 & \textbf{88.68} $\pm$ 0.03 & \underline{88.28} $\pm$ 0.05 & 0.40 & 87.88 $\pm$ 0.04 & 0.80 \\
VGG13 & \textbf{69.93} $\pm$ 0.06 & \underline{69.27} $\pm$ 0.10 & 0.65 & 68.75 $\pm$ 0.02 & 1.18 & \textbf{89.32} $\pm$ 0.06 & \underline{88.93} $\pm$ 0.03 & 0.40 & 88.54 $\pm$ 0.06 & 0.79 \\
VGG16 & \textbf{71.66} $\pm$ 0.06 & \underline{70.84} $\pm$ 0.05 & 0.82 & 70.57 $\pm$ 0.10 & 1.09 & \textbf{90.46} $\pm$ 0.07 & \underline{89.90} $\pm$ 0.11 & 0.56 & 89.57 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.88 \\
VGG19 & \textbf{72.36} $\pm$ 0.02 & \underline{71.54} $\pm$ 0.03 & 0.83 & 71.21 $\pm$ 0.15 & 1.16 & \textbf{90.87} $\pm$ 0.05 & \underline{90.29} $\pm$ 0.01 & 0.58 & 90.10 $\pm$ 0.05 & 0.76 \\
MobileNet & \textbf{65.38} $\pm$ 0.18 & 64.37 $\pm$ 0.20 & 1.01 & \underline{64.34} $\pm$ 0.16 & 1.04 & \textbf{86.65} $\pm$ 0.06 & \underline{85.97} $\pm$ 0.06 & 0.68 & 85.73 $\pm$ 0.07 & 0.92 \\
DenseNet121 & \textbf{75.04} $\pm$ 0.06 & \underline{74.24} $\pm$ 0.06 & 0.79 & 74.06 $\pm$ 0.05 & 0.97 & \textbf{92.38} $\pm$ 0.03 & \underline{91.96} $\pm$ 0.10 & 0.42 & 91.70 $\pm$ 0.03 & 0.68 \\
DenseNet201 & \textbf{76.98} $\pm$ 0.02 & \underline{76.55} $\pm$ 0.04 & 0.43 & 76.06 $\pm$ 0.07 & 0.93 & \textbf{93.48} $\pm$ 0.03 & \underline{93.22} $\pm$ 0.07 & 0.23 & 92.86 $\pm$ 0.06 & 0.61 \\
ResNet18 & \textbf{69.77} $\pm$ 0.17 & \underline{69.01} $\pm$ 0.17 & 0.65 & 68.94 $\pm$ 0.07 & 0.83 & \textbf{89.22} $\pm$ 0.02 & \underline{88.74} $\pm$ 0.03 & 0.48 & 88.67 $\pm$ 0.11 & 0.56 \\
ResNet34 & \textbf{73.08} $\pm$ 0.13 & 72.31 $\pm$ 0.35 & 0.78 & \underline{72.37} $\pm$ 0.10 & 0.71 & \textbf{91.29} $\pm$ 0.01 & \underline{90.76} $\pm$ 0.13 & 0.53 & 90.70 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.59 \\
ResNet50 & \textbf{75.46} $\pm$ 0.20 & \underline{75.00} $\pm$ 0.07 & 0.38 & 74.92 $\pm$ 0.01 & 0.55 & \textbf{92.49} $\pm$ 0.02 & \underline{92.36} $\pm$ 0.07 & 0.13 & 92.15 $\pm$ 0.03 & 0.33 \\
ResNet101 & \textbf{77.25} $\pm$ 0.07 & \underline{76.74} $\pm$ 0.09 & 0.52 & 76.68 $\pm$ 0.10 & 0.58 & \textbf{93.59} $\pm$ 0.09 & \underline{93.31} $\pm$ 0.05 & 0.28 & 93.11 $\pm$ 0.08 & 0.48 \\
ResNet152 & \textbf{77.85} $\pm$ 0.12 & \underline{77.28} $\pm$ 0.09 & 0.57 & 76.98 $\pm$ 0.29 & 0.88 & \textbf{93.93} $\pm$ 0.04 & \underline{93.67} $\pm$ 0.01 & 0.42 & 93.34 $\pm$ 0.26 & 0.59 \\
\midrule
Average & \textbf{70.02} & \underline{69.37} & 0.66 & 69.13 & 0.90 & \textbf{89.05} & \underline{88.63} & 0.42 & 88.36 & 0.69 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{adjustbox}
\label{table:overlay_accuracy}
\end{table*}
\fi
\section{Details of Transfer Learning Experiments}
\label{appendix:details}
\smallsec{Image classification on CIFAR-10, SUN, and CelebA}
Object recognition on CIFAR-10~\citep{krizhevsky2009learning}, scene recognition on SUN~\citep{xiao2010sun}, and face attribute classification on CelebA~\citep{liu2015faceattributes} are all image classification tasks. For any model, we simply replace the output layer and finetune for 90 epochs. Hyperparameters are almost identical to those in Sec. 4, except that the learning rate is tuned individually for each model on validation data. Note that face attribute classification on CelebA is a multi-label classification task, so we apply binary cross-entropy loss to each label independently.
\smallsec{Object detection on PASCAL VOC}
We adopt a FasterRCNN~\citep{ren2015faster} object detector with a ResNet50 backbone pretrained on original or face-obfuscated ILSVRC. The detector is finetuned for 10 epochs on the trainval set of PASCAL VOC 2007 and 2012~\citep{everingham2010pascal}. It is then evaluated on the test set of 2007.
The system is implemented in MMDetection~\citep{mmdetection}. We finetune using SGD with a momentum of 0.9, a weight decay of $10^{-4}$, a batch size of 2, and a learning rate of $1.25 \times 10^{-3}$. The learning rate decreases by a factor of 10 in the last epoch. |
\section{The Key points of the talk}
There is a strong need to rethink the way performance appraisals are done for software engineers, particularly in scale-up agile companies. Traditional methods for performance reviews and appraisals require a significant investment from a team’s capacity which does not suit the dynamic nature of agile teams \cite{cappelli2016performance, alanatlas,rejab2018transition, al2018individuals,goler2016let}. Such investment is wasted if the feedback is not timely and relevant to the team’s working conditions. In other words, performance reviews need to be agile, by allowing frequent relevant feedback and continuous visibility of an engineers’ growth. At Robusta\footnote{https://robustastudio.com/}, we attempted to automate the appraisal process while maintaining its value through performance dashboards. This talk includes the following key points from our experience:
\subsection{Background and Motivation}
Robusta is a software house providing design, development and support of custom products for its clients. Robusta handles large and complex projects for multiple clients simultaneously in Egypt and Germany. The engineering function officially uses Scrum or Kanban; however, the development team, including managers, are required to adapt the process to the unpredictable demands on delivery while maintaining the agile values.
One realization from Google's project Oxygen \cite{garvin2013google}, is that software engineers hate micromanagement but are keen to get frequent feedback about their growth from their managers. Therefore, even with the intense time-pressure and uncertainty in delivery, mentoring and leveling up the team are among the top priorities for a scaleup such as Robusta. With a strong competition in the market for the best engineers, maintaining a healthy growth culture is key to the success of the company.
\subsection{Design \& Implementation}
Identifying how to evaluate agile software engineers is a difficult problem \cite{alnaji2015performance}. Some work in literature explore this topic \cite{pack2010evaluating, rejab2018transition, turley1995competencies}, but none addresses the case for teams with dynamic allocations and unpredictable project conditions. With a focus on growth, we came up with
an initial dashboard design that is customizable, enables automation and accommodates exceptional cases.
There are three main aspects to our design: the high level structure, the competencies and the metrics. The high level structure is inspired by several growth framework published by technology companies such as Medium \cite{medium}, Expert 360 \cite{expert360} and Spotify \cite{spotify}. The structure includes six main topics: (a) efficiency \& quality, (b) technical competencies,(c) recruitment, (d) leadership, (e) learning \& development and (f) community. These six topics act as goals that cover all aspects of growth for all the engineers in different roles. For each topic, engineers are rated according to their impact level: (a) individual, (b) across teams, (c) across the organization or (d) industry.
Under each topic, relevant competencies are identified.
In addition, multiple metrics are extracted from projects' data to describe how an engineer meets a certain competency. Relying on multiple metrics for the same competency helps in clarifying cases for teams working under different conditions.
The selected metrics can be (a) quantitative, directly calculated from project's data or (b) qualitative, aggregated from peer's feedback for the engineer. The metrics can change based on engineers' feedback or to reflect any change in the corresponding working conditions.
The review dashboard is currently an internal product at Robusta in its alpha release phase. The chosen metrics are aggregated from Jira, Gitlab and peer feedback responses from Google forms. The whole dashboard is presented on google sheets using Google's Apps Script.
In the talk, we will present a demo of the dashboards and discuss the rationale for choosing the different metrics and competencies.
\subsection{Results and Lessons Learned}
Not only did the dashboards accelerate the performance review process, but also they had an unexpected impact on the team's morale and perception of the appraisal process. Data enthusiasts were excited about the data analysis involved and process enthusiasts were excited about alignment and organization. In the meantime, supervisors were relieved from the preparation overhead and the threat of subjectivity in such process. Furthermore, the structure and metrics introduced in the dashboards enforced consistency and alignment about process and expectations in the engineering function. Overall, bringing such attention to the alignment on quality, process, learning \& development, community and leadership has brought about a new spirit in the engineering function that appreciates growth as a whole, not just meeting delivery needs.
The current version of the dashboards is only a start. It helped us attract valuable feedback about additional metrics and additional sources for data collection. There were some concerns about the validity of the metrics and if they truly reflect the exceptional circumstances for different projects. The dashboard can accommodate the proposed changes to the metrics to fit under the existing competencies. We look forward to sharing lessons learned about the results of the experience with practitioners and academics in the field.
\section*{Speaker's Biography}
Fatma Meawad is a computer scientist and the Director of Engineering
at Robusta. Fatma holds a PhD in Computer Science from the University of South Wales, a Masters in Advanced Computing from the University Of Birmingham and a BSc in Computer Science from the American University in Cairo. Fatma has 10 years of experience teaching Computer Science at different Universities in the UK, Egypt, and Singapore. As an academic, Fatma is well known for establishing strong engagements with industry to
enhance the quality of education, especially in the area of software
engineering. Fatma’s latest research achievements are in mobile health
and personal informatics. As an associate professor at Singapore
Institute of Technology (SIT), Fatma led multiple research grants in
leveraging multimodal sensing for developing context-aware
psychologically-sound interventions for chronic pain patients.
\section*{Acknowledgment}
I would like to thank Ahmed Alfy, the Chief Technology Officer at Robusta for the insightful discussions and for providing the gitlab data.
\bibliographystyle{./bibliography/IEEEtran}
|
\section{Introduction}
The aviation industry brings tremendous amount of social and economic benefits. It has been observed the size of the air transportation industry has doubled every 15 years \cite{aviationbenefit2019}, and was expected to continue growing \cite{market_outlook} prior to COVID-19. In 2018 alone, airlines around the world carried a total of 4.3 billion passengers while the total global economic impact of the industry reached USD 2.7 Trillion in 2016 \cite{aviationbenefit2019}. Furthermore, even though the industry continues to grow and more people are flying everyday, aviation safety has improved over the past decades as seen on Figure~\ref{fig:fatalities}.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\linewidth]{Images/year_in_safety_for_commercial.jpg}
\caption{Commercial Aviation Fatalities from FY96 to FY19 \cite{FAA_safety}}
\label{fig:fatalities}
\end{figure}
The number of fatalities for commercial air carriers decreased from 81 per 100 million persons on board in 1996 to 0.6 in 2019, which is below the target rate set by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). This reduction is the result of the efforts undertaken by agencies such as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), and others. In particular, these efforts led to better certification standards, better operating procedures, and decision-support systems \cite{model_env_safety}. However, it is important to keep reducing the accident rate even further so that we do not observe a rise in the number of accidents given the industry's expected continued growth \cite{reduce_accident_rate_faa, market_outlook}. In order to significantly improve safety, the aviation industry has been moving towards a proactive approach to safety assessment and vulnerability identification, which consists of characterizing potential risks in terms of anomalies or deviations from nominal operations and the precursors to adverse events. This knowledge can be leveraged to increase awareness of emerging vulnerabilities amongst the operators and be incorporated into automated monitoring tools to flag the risks before they result in a near-miss, incident or accident \cite{aviation_safety_blog}.
Extensive data collection and advancement in data-mining methodologies are key enablers to proactive risk management in aviation \cite{Logan2008, aviation_safety_blog}. Airline programs such as the Flight Operations Quality Assurance (FOQA) have enabled the creation of large, and heterogeneous data sets. FOQA is a voluntary safety program that is designed to make commercial aviation safer. Data is collected using devices such as Quick Access Recorder (QAR) or directly from Flight Data Recorder (FDR) \cite{FAA_FOQA}. Traditional techniques of flight data analysis have focused on a continuous cycle of data collection from on-board recorders, retrospective analysis of flight-data records, identification of operational safety exceedances, design and implementation of corrective measures, and monitoring to assess their effectiveness. Airlines work with the FAA to reduce and eliminate safety risks, and flight safety divisions within airlines generally use FOQA data to perform exceedence and statistical analyses. Exceedence analysis consist of setting specific limits to the recorded airborne data so that particular parameters that fall outside of the normal operating conditions can be flagged \cite{FAA_FOQA}. The level of exceedence can be programmed for different severities of events. These profiles are used to create distributions of various criteria, which enables airlines to evaluate flight risk levels and trend known vulnerabilities over time \cite{FAA_FOQA}. A validation step at the end of each analysis is performed to determine the nature of corrective actions required and to store valid events in databases for analyzing trends \cite{FAA_FOQA}.
Research efforts have been made towards advancing the development of data-driven methodologies, applying data science techniques, and using modern machine learning, including deep learning algorithms, in the context of aviation safety \cite{anomaly_detection_review_survey, precursor_jamey, precursor_vijay, precursor_vijay2, survey_data_mining, Matthews2013, Puranik2018_AD, Puranik2019_AD}.
Majority of the data mining effort in aviation is directed at detecting anomalies in aviation data~\cite{MKL, flight_anomaly_dbscan_GT, anomaly_detection_gaussian, flight_anomaly_detection_real_time, Puranik2018_AD, survey_data_mining, vae, corrado} and leveraging unsupervised learning techniques due to lack of labeled data. Data mining has also been applied towards predictive maintenance in aviation~\cite{anomaly_detection_review_survey} and predicting future trajectory states~\cite{puranik2020_towards}. While identifying anomalies is important, it is also critical to investigate the causal factors or precursors to these anomalies or other safety events in order to understand them better and prevent them in the future. Recent literature has focused on identifying precursors to safety events and anomalies using FOQA data~\cite{precursor_vijay, precursor_jamey, data_driven_precursor}. Precursors can be defined as any event that are correlated to a safety incident and occurs prior the incident itself \cite{precursor_vijay}. They are useful for forecasting safety events, and provide insights to why the event happened. Knowing the precursors can then be used to initiate actions to avoid events from occurring \cite{data_driven_precursor}. Therefore, being able to identify and monitor precursors is an important step towards proactive safety enhancement in aviation operations. One of the main challenges in identification of precursors observed in literature is the lack of subject-matter-expert validated labels for the identified anomalies and safety events. To account for the lack of labels usually encountered, this paper proposes the application of a weakly-supervised learning technique called multi-class multiple-instance learning (MIL)~\cite{li2018multiclass} to detect different multiple adverse events and their precursors.
Considering the above observations, the main aim of this paper is the development of a methodology that leverages highly dimensional aviation data to predict multiple adverse events and discover their precursors. This work will use a flight-level label called a bag-label in MIL terminology to predict the anomalies at the flight-level and identify their precursors along with their occurrence in-time during a flight. The current framework uses a deep learning model constructed as multi-headed convolutional neural network (CNN) where each flight sensor gets its own CNN and the multi-headed architecture is designed to work with the MIL framework. Successful implementation of the methodology uses the flight's data to 1) predict adverse events, and 2) determine the precursors to the predicted adverse events. One major benefit from this framework over current approaches will be the extension of binary classifiers to perform multi-class predictions and the ability to retrieve the precursors with little to no post-processing. Additional benefits will include transferability of the model due its multi-head architecture, knowledge discovery to help analysts find root causes of safety events faster, and relative simplicity of the model to provide better transparency and explainability (compared to previous architectures).
\section*{Nomenclature}
\input{Nomenclature}
\section{Introduction}
The aviation industry brings tremendous amount of social and economic benefits. It has been observed that the size of the air transportation industry has doubled every 15 years \cite{aviationbenefit2019}, and was expected to continue growing \cite{market_outlook} prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. In 2018 alone, airlines around the world carried a total of 4.3 billion passengers while the total global economic impact of the industry reached USD 2.7 Trillion in 2016 \cite{aviationbenefit2019}. Furthermore, even though the industry continues to grow and more people are flying everyday, aviation safety has improved over the past decades as seen on Figure~\ref{fig:fatalities}.
\begin{figure}[hbt!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\linewidth]{year_in_safety_for_commercial.jpg}
\caption{Commercial Aviation Fatalities from FY96 to FY19 \cite{FAA_safety}}
\label{fig:fatalities}
\end{figure}
The number of fatalities for commercial air carriers decreased from 81 per 100 million persons on board in 1996 to 0.6 in 2019, which is below the target rate set by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). This reduction is the result of the efforts undertaken by agencies such as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the FAA, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), and others. In particular, these efforts led to better certification standards, better operating procedures, and decision-support systems \cite{model_env_safety}. However, it is important to keep reducing the accident rate even further so that we do not observe a rise in the number of accidents given the industry's expected continued growth \cite{reduce_accident_rate_faa, market_outlook}. In order to significantly improve safety, the aviation industry has been moving towards a proactive approach to safety assessment and vulnerability identification, which consists of characterizing potential risks in terms of anomalies or deviations from nominal operations and the precursors to adverse events. This knowledge can be leveraged to increase awareness of emerging vulnerabilities amongst the operators and be incorporated into automated monitoring tools to flag the risks before they result in near-misses, incidents, or accidents \cite{aviation_safety_blog}.
Extensive data collection and advancement in data-mining methodologies are key enablers to proactive risk management in aviation \cite{Logan2008, aviation_safety_blog}. Airline programs such as the Flight Operations Quality Assurance (FOQA) have enabled the creation of large, and heterogeneous data sets. FOQA is a voluntary safety program that is designed to make commercial aviation safer. Data is collected using devices such as Quick Access Recorder (QAR) or directly from Flight Data Recorder (FDR) \cite{FAA_FOQA}. Traditional techniques of flight data analysis have focused on a continuous cycle of data collection from on-board recorders, retrospective analysis of flight-data records, identification of operational safety exceedances, design and implementation of corrective measures, and monitoring to assess their effectiveness. Airlines work with the FAA to reduce and eliminate safety risks, and flight safety divisions within airlines generally use FOQA data to perform exceedence and statistical analyses. Exceedence analysis consist of setting specific limits to the recorded airborne data so that particular parameters that fall outside of the normal operating conditions can be flagged \cite{FAA_FOQA}. The level of exceedence can be programmed for different severities of events. These profiles are used to create distributions of various criteria, which enables airlines to evaluate flight risk levels and trend known vulnerabilities over time \cite{FAA_FOQA}. A validation step at the end of each analysis is performed to determine the nature of corrective actions required and to store valid events in databases for analyzing trends \cite{FAA_FOQA}.
Research efforts have been made towards advancing the development of data-driven methodologies, applying data science techniques, and using modern machine learning, including deep learning algorithms, in the context of aviation safety \cite{anomaly_detection_review_survey, survey_data_mining, Matthews2013, Puranik2018_AD, Puranik2019_AD, Tong2018, deshmukh2019incremental}.
Majority of the data mining effort in aviation is directed at detecting anomalies in aviation data~\cite{MKL, flight_anomaly_dbscan_GT, anomaly_detection_gaussian, flight_anomaly_detection_real_time, Puranik2019_AD, Puranik2018_AD, survey_data_mining, vae, corrado} and leveraging unsupervised learning techniques due to lack of labeled data. Data mining has also been applied towards predictive maintenance in aviation~\cite{anomaly_detection_review_survey} and predicting future trajectory states~\cite{puranik2020_towards, Lee2021}. While identifying anomalies is important, it is also critical to investigate the causal factors or precursors to these anomalies or other safety events in order to understand them better and prevent them in the future. Recent literature has focused on identifying precursors to safety events and anomalies using FOQA data~\cite{precursor_vijay, precursor_jamey, data_driven_precursor}. Precursors can be defined as any event that are correlated to a safety incident and occurs prior the incident itself \cite{precursor_vijay}. They are useful for forecasting safety events, and provide insights to why the event happened. Knowing the precursors can then be used to initiate actions to avoid events from occurring \cite{data_driven_precursor}. Therefore, being able to identify and monitor precursors is an important step towards proactive safety enhancement in aviation operations. One of the main challenges in identification of precursors observed in literature is the lack of subject-matter-expert validated labels for the identified anomalies and safety events. To account for the lack of labels usually encountered, this paper proposes the application of a weakly-supervised learning technique called multi-class multiple-instance learning (MIL)~\cite{li2018multiclass} to detect different multiple adverse events and their precursors.
Considering the above observations, the main aim of this paper is the development of a methodology that leverages highly dimensional aviation data to predict multiple adverse events and discover their precursors. This work will use a flight-level label called a bag-label in MIL terminology to predict the anomalies at the flight-level and identify their precursors along with their occurrence in-time during a flight. The current framework uses a deep learning model constructed as multi-headed convolutional neural network (CNN) where each flight sensor gets its own CNN and the multi-headed architecture is designed to work with the MIL framework. Successful implementation of the methodology uses the flight's data to 1) predict adverse events, and 2) determine the precursors to the predicted adverse events. One major benefit from this framework over current approaches will be the extension of binary classifier to perform multi-class predictions and the ability to retrieve the precursors with little to no post-processing. Additional benefits will include transferability of the model due its multi-head architecture, knowledge discovery to help analysts find root causes of safety events faster, and relative simplicity of the model to provide better transparency and explainability (compared to previous architectures).
\section{Background}
This section presents recent work conducted related to anomaly detection, precursor mining, and other applications of deep learning models in aviation safety. The data source utilized for this work is also presented along with the definition of multiple-instance learning and its accompanying assumptions.
\subsection{Previous Work}
Focusing on precursors to anomalies is important as it allows identifying potential causes to safety hazards. Recent work shows a growing interest in detecting precursors in various domains. Multiple techniques have been explored and the most relevant ones are summarized in this subsection.
Yue Ning et al.~\cite{precursor_MIL_text} presented an approach for precursor identification using nested Multi-Instance Learning (n-MIL). In their work, they forecast societal events in different cities. At the instance level, the probability of an article published on a given day is modeled using a simple logistic function. These probabilities are then aggregated over a day, and finally the probabilities for different days are aggregated together up to a certain number of days before the event, creating the nested structure. The authors explain that the probability of a news article on a given day can be used to estimate how related an article is to the target. Since the articles with higher probabilities influenced the classifier decision, they are likely to be precursors of the predicted societal event.
Janakiraman et al.~\cite{precursor_vijay} proposed to use a Deep Temporal Multiple-Instance Learning (DT-MIL) framework, which combines Multiple-Instance Learning and recurrent neural networks, in this case a gated recurrent unit (GRU), to mine precursors in FOQA data. In this approach, the individual time steps are considered low-level instances and the whole flight is considered a bag. The labels (occurrence of adverse event) are given at the bag level but the methodology takes advantage of MIL and uses the low-level instances to correctly predict the bag label, which allows to infer the instance-level label. The time-steps at which the probability of a safety event occurring is greater than a defined threshold are retrieved. The region of time for which the probability (called the precursor score) of a safety event occurring is high is then analyzed during post processing, where each feature is perturbed one at a time. The precursors are identified by finding the features whose perturbations had more significant impacts in reducing the precursor score. The DT-MIL model is also referred to as a newer version of the Automatic Discovery of Precursors in Time Series
(ADOPT) \footnote{\url{https://github.com/nasa/ADOPT}}, which is different from the architecture presented in \cite{precursor_vijay2}.
Ackley et al.~\cite{precursor_jamey} have used a sequential backward selection technique along with Random Forest classification models for predicting Unstable Approach adverse events. They have identified the critical parameters using a cumulative feature importance score and grouped them into various categories of parameters (such as energy-related, configuration-related, etc.) that contribute significantly towards the identification of the adverse event. Their analysis is conducted at fixed altitudes above the event detection trigger altitude of 1000 feet above touchdown. Similarly, Lee et al.~\cite{Lee2020} have also used a Random Forest algorithm to identify precursors to two different aviation safety events using supervised learning. The normalized precursor score is obtained using a Gini importance for all parameters contained in the classification model.
Melynk et al.~\cite{Melnyk2013_precursor} have proposed a framework for detecting precursors to aviation safety incidents due to human factors based on Hidden Semi-Markov Models. They performed an empirical evaluation of their models against traditional anomaly detection algorithms and demonstrated better performance on synthetic and flight simulator data. Mangortey et al.~\cite{Mangortey2020} used a variety of clustering techniques to identify clusters of nominal operations and subsequently determine important parameters that differentiate outliers from those nominal clusters. Despite presenting interesting insights, their method is still unsupervised and lacks validation.
\subsection{Dashlink Flight Data}
The proposed framework is demonstrated using a publicly available data set obtained from NASA's DASHlink website, which is a collaborative sharing network for researchers in the Data Mining and Systems Health Management field\footnote{\url{https://c3.nasa.gov/dashlink/resources/?page=3&sort=-created&type=28}}. Flight data were recorded from a single type of regional jet operating in commercial service over a three-year period. The data contains detailed aircraft dynamics, system performance, and other engineering parameters but are de-identified such that it cannot be traced back to a particular manufacturer or airline. Since this data set is not part of any airline's FOQA program, additional preprocessing is required to create FOQA-like flags and label safety events for individual flights, where the labeling was created by using domain-based rules. The definitions of resulting adverse events are presented in Table~\ref{tab:adverse event}.
\begin{table}[hbt!]
\caption{Adverse Events Labeling}
\label{tab:adverse event}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|} \hline
\textbf{Adverse Event} & \textbf{Comments} \\
\hline \hline
High Speed in Approach & Flagged at 1,000 ft \\ \hline
Low Speed in Approach & Flagged at 1,000 ft \\ \hline
High Rate of Descent in Approach & Flagged between 1,000 - 500 ft \\ \hline
High Bank in Approach & Flagged between 1,000 - 400 ft \\ \hline
High Path Angle in Approach & Flagged at 1,000 ft \\ \hline
Low Path Angle in Approach & Flagged at 1,000 ft \\ \hline
Deviation from Localizer & Flagged between 1,000 - 500ft \\ \hline
Deviation below Glideslope & Flagged between 1000 - 500ft \\ \hline
Flaps Late Setting at Landing & None \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
Each of these events are characterized by a severity level ranging from 1 to 3, with 3 being the most severe. For this work, only flights without any safety events and the ones with safety events with a severity level 3 will be considered. This will allow limited overlaps between normal and abnormal operations. Moreover, to ensure a multi-class problem instead of a multi-label one, flights with multiple adverse events were omitted. The high speed in approach, and the high path angle in approach events were selected for this work because of their higher frequency in the data set. It is noted that the methodology developed in this work is applicable to any similar data set containing time series data of aircraft parameters and the known occurrence of an event.
\subsection{Multiple-Instance Learning}
The multiple-instance learning framework is used when labels are only available in sets called bags \cite{MIL}, and each bag contains many instances. The learning task is therefore supervised, but since the labels are not provided for each instance, we say that the task is weakly supervised. This framework is of interest because it alleviates the burden of weak supervision, which is common to many fields as labelling data is costly. In particular, it is useful in the context of aviation because of the lack of labeled data. In this context, we can consider the bag to be a flight and the instances to be the time-steps of the features. Furthermore, positive bags are flights that had a safety event while negative bags are the ones with no events recorded. The standard MIL assumption, which is used in this work, states that all negative bags contain only negative instances, and that all positive bags contain at least one positive instance \cite{MIL}. This means a flight experiencing an event have at least one abnormal time-step that caused the whole flight to be considered a positive bag. Flights can later be divided into training, validation, and testing sets, and the performances of a chosen model can then be evaluated on those two subsets.
The learning task for this work is a classification problem. In a classification application, the task is to use given data and assign it to one of multiple predefined classes. In particular, given time-series from sensor data, we can assign the series a label such as a safety event \cite{survey_data_mining}. MIL classification task can be performed at the bag and instance level. However, the methodology developed in this work will use the bag label to infer the instance label of each feature at each time-step. In other words for example if we classify a bag as positive, the algorithm will determine (infer) the time instances that enabled the classification of the bag.
\section{Methodology}
The Intelligent Methodology for the Discovery of Precursors of Adverse Events (IM-DoPE) developed in this work is described in this section. The four steps of the methodology as seen in Fig. \ref{fig:imdope} are the data processing, the development of the model, the extraction of precursors and the derivation of precursor scores. These steps allow for the discovery of precursors related to adverse events of interest, which can be used to provide insights into the cause of these events.
\begin{figure}[hbt!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{IMDOPE_3.png}
\caption{Intelligent Methodology for the Discovery of Precursors of Adverse Events}
\label{fig:imdope}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Data Processing}
The DASHlink sample flight data is recorded at 1 Hz frequency, therefore no effort was placed in re-sampling the data set at the same frequency, as this is a sufficiently high frequency. The data set had already been cleaned prior to accessing it as no missing data was observed. Subsequent tasks mainly focused on selecting events of interest, dimensionality reduction, data interpolation, and data formatting.
\subsubsection{Event Definition and Selection}
As previously stated, 2 adverse events were selected for this work due to their higher frequency in the available data set. These events are pre-defined and characterized by the deviation of certain aircraft parameters from accepted nominal behaviors. Fig \ref{fig:flcounts}, shows the counts of nominal flights, and adverse flights that experienced one of the two events. As seen in the figure, the high speed event was the most commonly observed event among the available data followed by the high path angle event.
\begin{figure}[hbt!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.58\linewidth]{flight_counts_3.png}
\caption{Flight Counts for Nominal and Adverse Flights}
\label{fig:flcounts}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Feature Selection}
The dimensionality of the data was reduced by leveraging the correlations among the features. Certain parameters (e.g. computed airspeed and true airspeed) are different but convey similar information. This is due to the redundancy of parameters, the aircraft's physics, and the derivation of parameters \cite{precursor_jamey}. Using the data, a correlation matrix was created. For each pair of features, the Pearson's correlation coefficient is computed. The coefficient is a measure of the strength of the association between the features in the pair\footnote{Data Analysis - Pearson's Correlation Coefficient: \url{http://learntech.uwe.ac.uk/da/Default.aspx?pageid=1442}}. The Pearson correlation coefficient for two random variables $X$ and $Y$ is given by:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:correlation}
\rho = \frac{\sigma_{XY}^2}{\sqrt{\sigma_{XX}^2\sigma_{YY}^2}}
\end{equation}
The correlation coefficient $\rho$ is bounded between $-1 < \rho < 1$, and values closer to 1 signify strong positive correlation while values closer to -1 suggest strong negative correlation. In eq. \ref{eq:correlation}, $\sigma_{XX}^2$ is the sample variance for the variable $X$, and $\sigma_{YY}^2$ the one for the variable $Y$, and $\sigma_{XY}^2$ the co-variance between $X$ and $Y$. Since features are considered highly correlated if they have a correlation coefficient higher than $0.9$ \cite{corrcoef}, a threshold of $\rho=0.90$ was set so that for a given pair of features, with the absolute value of their correlation coefficient greater or equal to the threshold, one of the correlated features was removed. Note that the absolute value of the correlated coefficient between feature pairs was taken since since feature can be highly negatively correlated. For this work, only non highly correlated continuous variables were used as the input feature space. In addition to the correlation-based feature selection, trivial precursors were removed. This step was performed to avoid observing one of the speed parameters as precursors to the high speed event.
\subsubsection{Data resampling}
All the events of interest for this work are flagged at a 1,000 ft above touch-down. Given the large number of flights and the differences between each of them, re-sampling the data was necessary to ensure uniformity across all flights. Thus, starting from a distance of 20 nautical miles away from the 1,000 ft mark, flights were re-sampled at every quarter nautical miles. Each flight therefore contains 81 data points or time steps. A Python code was developed to interpolate each feature to retrieve their values at every quarter mile distance, yielding a data set similar to table \ref{tab:resampled} for each flight. Fig. \ref{fig: interpolation} shows two examples of interpolated data. The original flight data contained 281 points for each feature while the interpolated data only contain 30 points.
\begin{figure}[hbt!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.9\textwidth]{interp.png}
\caption{Example of Altitude and Ground Speed Interpolations}
\label{fig: interpolation}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}[hbt!]
\caption{Example Results of Interpolating Parameters For a Given Flight}
\label{tab:resampled}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ccccc} \hline\hline
\textbf{Distance away from 1,000 ft} & \textbf{Feature 1} & \textbf{Feature 2} & \dots & \textbf{Feature d}\\\hline \hline
20 & X & X & \dots & X \\
19.75 & X & X & \dots & X \\
\vdots & X & X & \dots & X \\
0 & X & X & \dots & X \\ \hline\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\subsubsection{Data Formatting}
In practice, modern algorithms such as Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs), and Recurrent Neural Networks (RNNs) usually take as inputs 3 dimensional tensors. In order to account for this, data from each flight, as specified in table \ref{tab:resampled}, is concatenated together into a tensor as as shown on fig. \ref{fig:tensor}, with $X^f_{i,j}$ referring to feature $j$ for flight $f$ at time step $i$.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{tensor.png}
\caption{Flight Data Reshaping}
\label{fig:tensor}
\end{figure}
The data takes a 3 dimensional form where the first dimension (N) corresponds to the batch size or the number of flights that the deep learning algorithm will process at once. The second dimension (L) is the number of time-steps in each flight equal to 81 for this work. Finally the last dimension (D) refers to the number of features/aircraft parameters which corresponds to 58 continuous variables.
\subsection{Model Architecture}\label{subsection:model architecture}
The model architecture was chosen to take advantage of the Multiple-Instance Learning (MIL) framework, the feature extraction capabilities of Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) \cite{multiheadedcnn, Goodfellow-et-al-2016}, and the temporal pattern recognition ability of Recurrent Neural Networks (RNNs) yielding a MHCNN-RNN architecture. This architecture choice allows the aircraft's parameters to be initially processed individually by the MHCNNs, which yields feature maps. The complex (time-dependent) correlations between the feature maps are then learned by the RNN. The model was developed using PyTorch \cite{NEURIPS2019_9015}, a high performance Python deep learning library.
\subsubsection{Architecture Selection}\label{subsub:architecture selection}
\begin{figure}[hbt!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.85\linewidth]{architecture.png}
\caption{Layer configuration with output size of layer}
\label{fig:architecture1}
\end{figure}
The MHCNN-RNN architecture combines a Multi-Head CNN (MHCNN) to a Gated Recurrent Unit (GRU), a type of RNN, as shown on fig. \ref{fig:architecture1}. The MHCNN is effective at processing each feature independently \cite{multiheadedcnn}. This allows the model to find relevant patterns in each aircraft parameter, which subsequently leads to the identification of the parameters that are highly correlated to the adverse event. Indeed, the most important aircraft parameters are the ones that helped the algorithm correctly predict an anomaly, and therefore can be considered precursors to the anomaly. A window-based approach was used to process the data with the MHCNN, allowing for information extraction of each feature at different time regions. The window is defined by the kernel size of the CNN and the networks all use a stride of 1, such that overlapping windows are created. Some instances of time are more useful than others to predict an anomaly and this approach allows the algorithm to have a more granular extraction of features. Similar to the architecture proposed in \cite{multiheadedcnn}, four CNNs are used in each head to process the time-series and expand the unique channel of each time series as seen in fig \ref{fig:architecture1} and fig \ref{fig:architecture2}, resulting in the extraction of relevant information from each window of the time-series. In Figure \ref{fig:architecture1}, $k_1, k_2 \text{ and } k_3$ represent the number of channels, and $W_{N_1}, W_{N_2}, \text{ and } W_{N_3}$ represent the length of the time series after each convolution operation. The length of the time series after each operation depends on CNN parameters such as the kernel size, the stride, and whether or not padding was used.The first three convolutional layers use batch normalization to reduces the internal co-variance shift, and bring a regularization effect \cite{multiheadedcnn}, and each normalization is followed by a ReLU activation function which has become a default function to use when developing neural networks due to its many advantages \cite{MLmystery_relu}. The fourth convolutional layer reduces the number of channels back to 1, and applies a sigmoid activation function, allowing the output (or feature map) to be interpreted as the probability of a given feature to be a precursor. The chronological order of the feature maps was kept, which helped maintain the temporal information of the data. A concatenation step was then performed to combine the feature maps of each aircraft parameters into a 3 dimensional precursor score tensor.
The concatenated tensor is the input to the GRU, which processes the features all together unlike the MHCNN that processed the features independently. This layer learns the temporal patterns present in the extracted information by the previous convolutional layers. The GRU is appropriate for handling temporal data due to its structure characterized by two gates: the update and reset gates \cite{Goodfellow-et-al-2016}. Both of these gates are used to select which information to keep and which to ignore, and allow the GRU to handle long-term dependencies better than simpler architectures \cite{Goodfellow-et-al-2016}. An hyperbolic tangent activation is then applied to the output of the GRU and followed by a time distributed dense layer that squeezes all the features into one unique dimension, allowing for additional approximation capability \cite{precursor_vijay}. The output is passed through a sigmoid function, and can be interpreted as the probability that a precursor occurs at a given instances of time. Finally to classify a given flight as positive (event occurred), it is assumed that if any instance of time is positive then the whole flight would be labeled as positive (MIL assumption). Thus, a max pooling layer is used to get the maximum probability across time to classify the flight. A threshold is set such that a flight is positive only if the maximum probability across time is greater or equal to the threshold. The architecture is thus expected to achieve two critical goals:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Label the bag for identifying adverse events
\item Extract precursors and the time instance at which they occur
\end{enumerate}
Although the two approaches are similar because they take advantage of the MIL framework for precursor mining, it is important to note the differences between this architecture and the previously developed algorithm ADOPT \cite{precursor_vijay}. The architecture proposed in this paper is designed such that the precursor probabilities for each feature can be extracted directly from the neural network layers, this approach aims at creating a more interpretable model. ADOPT can only identify temporal precursors directly, and needs to perform a sensitivity analysis during a post-processing step, which consist of perturbing one individual feature at a time and measuring its effect on the time instance probabilities to determine precursors in the feature space. This method potentially misses interactions between features. Thus being able to retrieve precursors by leveraging the combination of the MHCNNs (extraction of individual information for each parameter) and the GRU (extraction of temporal interactions of parameters) mitigates this drawback while eliminating the overhead required to setup the post-processing analysis.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{Architecture_view_2_ex.png}
\caption{Layer configuration showing where the precursor score is extracted}
\label{fig:architecture2}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Multi-Class Extension}\label{subsub:multiclass}
\paragraph{Multiple Binary Classifiers}
The architecture described in \ref{subsub:architecture selection} corresponds to a binary classifier. Both IM-DoPE and ADOPT make use of binary classifiers as their task is not only to correctly predict the occurrence of an adverse event but to also identify precursors to the event. Both models could be extended to include multiple outputs allowing for the training of multiple events at once \cite{precursor_vijay}. However, for this work the multi-class model is obtained by combining multiple binary classifiers since it was observed that they performed well at completing their individual tasks. Two popular approaches of combining the classifiers are the "one-vs-all" and the "one-vs-one" strategies \cite{GALAR20111761}. The first strategy learns to classify one class at a time, where the class is distinguished from the other ones. The second strategy requires creating multiple classifiers for different pairs of classes. In this work, the approach taken is a mix between the two strategies. Indeed, 2 classifiers are trained for each event, similarly to "one-vs-all" approach, but each of them are trained to either recognize the event or the default nominal operation. This approach was chosen to allow for the interpretation of nominal flights when performing predictions and to avoid training extensive number of models. When using the models to perform an inference, the output class is chosen to be the output of the model with the highest probability (i.e. the highest confidence) that is greater than a specified threshold. If none of the probabilities are greater than the threshold, then the output is defaulted to the class corresponding to normal operations since each model either predicts an event or normal operation. When using sigmoid functions, the decision threshold is problem dependent and could be treated as a hyperparameter to tune. However, a default decision threshold of 0.5 was used for this work since it yielded good performances for the model. The advantages of this architecture are the clear interpretability of the probability of a flight experiencing a given event or not, and the easier learning task that the model has to accomplish.
\paragraph{Multiple Output Nodes}
The binary architecture can also be changed to include multiple output nodes, such that the output after the last max pool layer is of size $(batch size, c)$ where $c$ is the number of classes to predict. The sigmoid layer before the final max pooling was kept to ensure that for each class/anomaly, the probability that the flight experiences each of them is bounded between 0 and 1. Indeed this allows for multi-labeling, which is a use case in aviation since multiple events could occur during the same flight. Using a sigmoid layer is different than using a softmax layer, which would require the sum of the probabilities of each event to be 1. This architecture was preferred over the usage of a softmax layer because it could handle both multi-class, and multi-label problems. In fact for this work the model was trained using flights that experienced only one anomaly at a time, and therefore learned to keep the probabilities of non-occurring events low while keeping the ones of occurring events higher. Thus, for each flight the class with the highest probability was chosen as the final output class. The advantage of this architecture is the convenience of being able to train one model instead of multiple binary classifiers.
\subsubsection{Hyperparameter Search}
Given the novelty of the chosen architecture for the precursor mining task, there is a lack of knowledge on what parameters to choose for the model, and on how to train it. To mitigate this problem, a hyperparameter search was performed to determine the optimal parameters of the architecture for each event. A grid-search is the most straight-forward strategy to perform a hyperparameter search, as it entails searching through the space created by all possible combinations of hyperparameters. This means that each parameter is given an array of values to try, and the model is evaluated using metrics described in \ref{subsub:metrics} for each of the parameters combinations. Table \ref{tab:hyperparam} defines the hyperparameter space containing 36 possible combinations.
\begin{table}[hbt!]
\caption{Hyperparaneters and Search Space}
\label{tab:hyperparam}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{cc} \hline \hline
\textbf{Hyperparameter} & \textbf{Search Range} \\
\hline \hline
Convolutional Layers 1,2,3 kernel sizes & [8, 5, 3],
[6, 3, 2] \\
Convolutional Layers 1,2,3 output channels & [10, 15, 20],
[16, 32, 64],
[32, 64, 128] \\
Learning Rate & 0.001, 0.0001 \\
Weight Decay (L2 regularization) & 0.01, 0.001, 0.0001 \\
Mini-batch size percent & 1\% of training set size \\
Optimizer & ADAM \cite{Kingma2015AdamAM}\\
Number of epochs & 30 \\ \hline \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
Similarly to \cite{ml_gdp_gs_coincidence}, the data set was divided into 3 subsets: the training set, the validation set, and the testing set as seen on fig. \ref{fig:datasplit}. Stratified subsets are used to ensure that the proportion of nominal flights to abnormal flights remain consistent in each subset. Additionally, stratified mini-batch were used during the training process. The training set was used to train the model using a given set of hyperparameters (i.e. one hyperparameter combination). Google Colab's Tesla V100 16 GB of RAM GPU was leveraged to train the models. The performances of the models on the validation set was used to determine the best model.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.7\textwidth]{datasplit_3jpg.png}
\caption{Data Split for Model Training, Hyperparameter Tuning, and Model Evaluation}
\label{fig:datasplit}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Classification Metrics}\label{subsub:metrics}
Several metrics are used to quantitatively evaluate the model's performance. The evaluation allows for the selection of the best model obtained from the hyperparameter search and its assessment on new unseen data (i.e. on the test set). The best model correctly forecast the occurrence of an adverse event and therefore is best suited to determine the aircraft's parameters that are the most correlated to the event. The following metrics were used for the model selection and evaluation:
\begin{enumerate}
\item \textbf{Confusion Matrix}: Contains the counts for true positives, true negatives, false positives and false negatives \cite{ML}, as shown by: \begin{table}[hbt!]
\caption{Confusion Matrix}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{p{5cm}p{5cm}p{5cm}} \hline\hline
& \textbf{Predicted: No Event} & \textbf{Predicted: Event}
\\
\hline\hline
\textbf{Actual: No Event}
& True Negative (TN) & False Positive (FP)
\\
\textbf{Actual: Event}
& False Negative (FN) & True Positive (TP)
\\
\hline\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{CMa}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\item \textbf{Precision}: Measures the proportion of positively labeled examples that are actually positive \cite{MLBOOK}. The closer to one the better, the following equation defines the precision:
\begin{equation}
\text{precision}= \frac{TP}{TP+FP}
\end{equation}
\item \textbf{Recall}: Measures the the fraction of positives labels that were actually detected \cite{MLBOOK}. The closer to one the better, the following equation defines the recall:
\begin{equation}
\text{recall} = \frac{TP}{TP+FN}
\end{equation}
\item \textbf{F1 score}: Harmonic mean of the the precision and recall \cite{MLBOOK}. The closer to one the better, the following equation defines the recall:
\begin{equation}
\text{F1 score}= \frac{2\times TP}{2\times TP+FN+FP}
\end{equation}
\item \textbf{Distance From ADOPT (DFA)}: Metric created to measure the resemblance in the precursor score ranking of IM-DoPE and ADOPT \cite{precursor_vijay2}. Assuming precursor scores $p_i$ for feature i ranked between 0 and 1, N flights, and d feature, the DFA for each combination of hyperparameters is given by:
\begin{equation} \label{sse}
sse_{j} = \frac{1}{d} \sum^d_i \left( p_{i,IMDoPE}- p_{i, ADOPT} \right)^2
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{dfa}
\text{DFA} = \frac{1}{N}\sum^{N}_{j} sse_{j}
\end{equation}
DFA for a combination of hyperparameters is the mean sum square error between the precursor scores of ADOPT and IM-DoPE, therefore the closer to zero, the more alike the rankings of the two algorithms are. The precursor score sum square errors are averaged across all features \ref{sse}, and across all flights \ref{dfa}. ADOPT has been validated by expert for few events such as an high speed exceedence and can thus be used as a second-hand validation if no human expert is available.
\end{enumerate}
\subsection{Precursor Identification}
\subsubsection{Raw Precursor Scores}
Once acceptable performances are achieved by the model, it can be used to identify precursors. The precursor score $p_i,t$ of each feature $i$ at time step $t$ is extracted directly from the architecture. As seen on fig. \ref{fig:p_out}, the raw precursor score for each feature can be extracted from the last convolution layer of each head. The raw scores are bounded between 0 and 1 due to the sigmoid function used in the fourth convolulational layer. From empirical results, it was observed that the model learns to set non-important parameters to $0.5$. As an example on Fig. \ref{fig:p_out}, the rudder position, the rudder pedal, and the spoiler position are deemed not important by the model since their individual scores remain at $0.5$ for last 20 nautical miles before a 1,000 ft. On the other hand, the radio altitude was flagged as a precursor. As the less important features go through the different convolutional layers, they get reduced to zero. This zeroed out feature is then passed through the sigmoid activation resulting in a raw score of $0.5$.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.99\textwidth]{precursor_extraction.png}
\caption{Extraction of Precursors for a High Speed Event}
\label{fig:p_out}
\end{figure}
The identified precursors have instance of time (precursor score over time) at which they are more correlated to the event of interest (grayed area in Fig. \ref{fig:p_out} and \ref{fig:p_temp_out}). The combination of GRU and dense layer allows for the extraction of these time instances, as seen in Fig. \ref{fig:p_temp_out}. Similar to ADOPT, abnormal flights will have the precursor score increase towards 1 and nominal flights will have the score fall towards 0. Additionally, since the precursors are more correlated to an event at time windows identified by the GRU, an overall score can be given to the precursor by averaging its $p_{i,t}$ values within an identified window $T$.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.85\textwidth]{p_time.png}
\caption{Extraction of Precursors Score Over Time from Dense Layer for a High Speed Event}
\label{fig:p_temp_out}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Adjusted Precursor Scores}\label{subsub: adj precursor score}
A more natural way to express the precursor score is to have a score of zero for parameters that are not important. Therefore, the raw precursor scores were adjusted.
The adjusted precursor score $p_{i}$ of feature $i$ is therefore defined by the following equation:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:pprime}
p_{i} = \frac{1}{|T|} \sum_{t} \left(| p_{i,t} - 0.5| \right) , \forall t \in T \text{ where } T \subseteq L
\end{equation}
where $|T|$ is the number of time steps within the time window $T$. The adjusted precursor score is thus bounded between $0$ and $0.5$. From this definition, it can be seen that features with higher scores are flagged as precursors.
\section{Results and Discussion}
\subsection{Quantitative Results}
\paragraph{Multiple Binary Classifiers}
For each event, 36 combination of hyperparameters were evaluated and the best classifiers were selected. Table \ref{tab:results} summarises the quantitative results obtained when evaluating the models on the test set.
\begin{table}[hbt!]
\caption{Model Evaluation Results (Binary Classifications with Multiple Binary Classifiers)}
\label{tab:results}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{cccccc} \hline \hline
\textbf{Event} & \textbf{Algorithm} & \textbf{F1 Score} & \textbf{Precision} & \textbf{Recall} & \textbf{DFA}\\
\hline \hline
High Speed & IM-DoPE & 0.90 & 0.84 & 0.97 & 0.0392\\
High Path Angle & IM-DoPE & 0.83 & 0.81 & 0.87 & 0.0152\\ \hline
High Speed & ADOPT & 0.88 & 0.90 & 0.86 & N/A\\
High Path Angle & ADOPT & 0.70 & 0.56 & 0.90 & N/A\\ \hline \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
While the best MHCNN-RNN model achieves high performances, better results for the classical classification metrics are obtained for the high speed event due to the higher number of training examples and the the smaller imbalance in the classes. However, the larger DFA metric for the high speed event suggest a greater difference with ADOPT feature ranking for this event. Note that the DFA values obtained are still relatively good as it is among the lowest DFA values obtained as seen on fig. \ref{fig:combi_f1_dfa}.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.99\textwidth]{combination_f1_dfa.png}
\caption{F1 Score and DFA for All Combinations (High Speed Event)}
\label{fig:combi_f1_dfa}
\end{figure}
Additionally, best model of IM-DoPE performs better than ADOPT when using the same training set, and testing set. It is however important to note that while a grid-search was performed for IM-DoPE for each event, the default setting of ADOPT were used. Some models obtained during the grid-search have lower scores that are worse than the ones obtained from using ADOPT default settings. For example, on fig \ref{fig:combi_f1_dfa}, several models reached scores lower than 0.88.
The binary classifiers are then combined as explained in \ref{subsub:multiclass} in order to obtain a multi-class classifier. Similar to binary classification, each metric can be computed for each class. For instance, the precision of the high speed class is the number of flights that actually faced a high speed event over the total number of flight that were labeled as a high speed event by the classifier. Table \ref{tab:results_mc} presents similar scores as in table \ref{tab:results} showing that even when combined, each model learns to identify its positive class correctly. The confusion matrix in \ref{tab:CM} confirms this behavior, as the numbers of FP and TN for each class are relatively low.
\begin{table}[hbt!]
\caption{Model Evaluation Results (Multi-Class Classifications with Multiple Binary Classifiers)}
\label{tab:results_mc}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{cccc} \hline \hline
\textbf{Event} & \textbf{F1 Score} & \textbf{Precision} & \textbf{Recall}\\
\hline \hline
Nominal & 0.91 & 0.97 & 0.85 \\
High Speed & 0.90 & 0.84 & 0.97 \\
High Path Angle & 0.82 & 0.80 & 0.83 \\ \hline \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[hbt!]
\caption{Confusion Matrix (Multi-Class Classifications with Multiple Binary Classifiers)}
\label{tab:CM}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{cccc} \hline \hline
& \textbf{Predicted Nominal} & \textbf{Predicted High Speed} & \textbf{Predicted High Path Angle}\\ \hline\hline
\textbf{Actual Nominal} & 1717 (47\%) & 263 (7.2\%) & 33 (0.9\%) \\
\textbf{Actual High Speed} & 38 (1.0\%) & 1422 (39\%) & 1 ($2.7 \times 10^{-4} \%$) \\
\textbf{Actual High Path Angle} & 16 (0.44\%) & 12 (0.33\%) & 138 (3.8\%) \\ \hline \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\paragraph{Multiple Output Nodes}
Similarly, the multiple output nodes architecture was trained using the same list of hyperparameters. After training, the best set of hyperparameters can be chosen using the validation set and the final performances of the model on the unseen test set can be evaluated. The results of this evaluation are presented in table \ref{tab:results_mc_mon}. On one hand from the results obtained, it can be seen that there are slight improvements in the F1 score of the nominal and high speed classes thanks to the respective increase in the recall and precision scores. On the other hand, the ability to accurately predict the high path angle anomalies decreased. In fact, this model architecture is able to find most flights that experienced the high path angle event, but has a higher number of false positive than the other multi-class model leading to a much lower F1 score.
\begin{table}[hbt!]
\caption{Model Evaluation Results (Multi-Class Classifications with Multiple Output Nodes)}
\label{tab:results_mc_mon}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{cccc} \hline \hline
\textbf{Event} & \textbf{F1 Score} & \textbf{Precision} & \textbf{Recall}\\ \hline \hline
Nominal & 0.93 & 0.93 & 0.92 \\
High Speed & 0.92 & 0.95 & 0.89 \\
High Path Angle & 0.69 & 0.55 & 0.92 \\ \hline \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\subsection{Identified Precursors}
Even though both the multiple binary models and the multiple output nodes model can be used along with the precursor identification part of the IM-DoPE methodology, the combination of multiple binary classifiers yielded better results, and therefore was chosen to perform the identification of precursors. The results are presented in the following subsections.
\subsubsection{Average Adjusted Precursor Scores}
As previously mentioned, the final model is expected to predict adverse events and identify their precursors. The adjusted precursor score can be obtained for each feature and each flight. Considering true positive flights only, the average adjusted precursor score can be determined and the precursors can be identified on a fleet level, as seen in table \ref{tab:precursor_score} for the top 5 precursors of each event. Noticeable differences are observed in the precursor rankings for the two events. For example the glideslope deviation and the pitch angle are characteristics of a high path angle event while the N1 target relates to engine power which can be related to speed. Some resemblances are also observed, for instance the altitude is seen to be the precursor for both events. This is expected since the altitude above touch-down is used to define both events.
The trained model can also be used to analyze individual flights. Two flights experiencing a high speed event, and a high path angle event respectively, are analyzed \ref{subsub:hs} and in \ref{subsub:hp}.
\begin{table}[hbt!]
\caption{Average Adjusted Precursor Scores for High Speed and High Path Angle Events}
\label{tab:precursor_score}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c|cc} \hline \hline
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{Precursor Rank}} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{Average Adjusted Precursor Score}} \\
& High Speed Event & High Path Angle Event\\ \hline\hline
\#1 & Altitude: 0.31 & Radio Altitude:0.31 \\
\#2 & Radio Altitude : 0.28 & Glideslope Deviation: 0.24 \\
\#3 & N1 Target: 0.25 & Pitch Angle: 0.21 \\
\#4 & Body Longitudinal Acceleration: 0.23 & Altitude: 0.18\\
\#5 & Lateral Acceleration: 0.14 & Flight Path Acceleration: 0.12\\
\hline\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\subsubsection{High Speed Event Flight Analysis}\label{subsub:hs}
When performing an inference using the trained model, the precursor scores can be extracted from the model's MHCNN outputs. Following previously highlighted steps in \ref{subsub: adj precursor score}, the adjusted precursor score can be computed and used to identify the precursors for a flight. Fig. \ref{fig:adjusted_p_hs} shows the precursor ranking obtain for a flight that experienced a high speed event. Similar precursors were identified by ADOPT for this flight. The top 5 precursors were the altitude, the radio altitude, the flight path acceleration and the N1 target. Additionally, the the total pressure was also identified by ADOPT as a top precursor. Once the precursors are discovered, the aircraft's parameters can then be plotted to assess the them.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.65\textwidth]{ranking_precursor_hs_short.png}
\caption{Precursor Ranking for a High Speed Event}
\label{fig:adjusted_p_hs}
\end{figure}
In particular, the time series is of interest when the precursor score over time is greater than the $0.5$ threshold, which occurs at around 1.5 nautical miles away from a 1,000 ft above touch-down on fig. \ref{fig:precursor_fl_data_hs} (grey shaded area). On the figure, the red and blue curves in the first cell represent the precursor at different time steps obtained from the high speed and high path angle classifiers, respectively. Since the flying conditions do not correspond to a high path angle event, the classifier for the event cannot find precursors, while the classifier for the high speed event detects abnormal pattern leading to the identification of precursors. Note that if only the high path angle binary classifier was used, the model would have confidently classified the flight as normal. In the remaining cells, the dotted blue line represents the feature value. For instance this flight reached a pitch angle of 5 degrees 7.5 nautical miles away from a 1,000 ft. The dotted black line represents the mean nominal values for each feature at every time steps and the shaded purple region is defined as $\pm 2$ standard deviations away from the mean. From the figure and knowledge of the precursors it can be inferred that a potential cause to the excessive speed experienced by the flight at a 1,000 ft is correlated to the combination of negative accelerations (body longitudinal acceleration and flight path acceleration) and low pitch angle in the last 2.5 nautical miles. The oil temperature of the flight is also plotted to show that even though it has a lower values than the mean of nominal flights, the relatively low precursor score obtained is likely due to the fact that the temperature is relatively constant and is not highly correlated to the event.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.9\textwidth]{Hs_score_flight_data_2.png}
\caption{Precursor Score and Aircraft's Parameters during a High Speed Event}
\label{fig:precursor_fl_data_hs}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{High Path Angle Event Flight Analysis}\label{subsub:hp}
Similar to the high speed event case, precursor to the high path angle event can be probed from the model. Again, the identified precursors provide a list of aircraft's parameters that can be assessed through visualization. For the selected flight the presence of a dominating precursor is observed. Indeed, there is a larger difference between the top two precursor than there was for the high speed event, as seen on fig. \ref{fig:adjusted_p_hp}. This larger difference suggest a highly abnormal glideslope deviation. Moreover, the glideslope was also identified by ADOPT as the top parameter. Other important parameters were the pitch angle, the radio altitude, the airbrake position, and the flight path acceleration.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.65\textwidth]{ranking_precursor_hp_short.png}
\caption{Precursor Ranking for a High Path Angle Event}
\label{fig:adjusted_p_hp}
\end{figure}
The abnormal behavior is confirmed by fig. \ref{fig:adjusted_p_hp} since the glideslope deviation is much greater than 2 times the standard deviation. The potential cause of the event is likely mainly related to the high deviation in the glideslope. However, other precursors such as the pitch angle and the flight path acceleration are also identified and observed to have abnormal patterns. It is important to note that these two parameters can also be precursors to the high speed event as previously observed. This flight in particular was not classified as a high speed event but some of the parameters behaved similarly to how they would behave during such event. This led the high speed event classifier to increase the precursor score over time probability to be closer to 1. Ultimately, the multi-class classifier correctly labeled this flight as a high path angle event because the high path angle classifier had a stronger confidence.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.9\textwidth]{Hp_score_flight_data_2.png}
\caption{Precursor Score and Aircraft's Parameters during a High Path Angle Event}
\label{fig:precursor_fl_data_hp}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Discussion of Results}
The MHCNN-RNN architecture yields satisfying results. The scores obtained from the conventional classification metrics show the model's ability to extract information from the data in order to make accurate predictions. In fact, the model accurately forecast the events since it predicts them before they actually occur, though variability in the prediction is observed. The model also identifies precursors, and it was observed that different precursors are discovered for different events. which is expected. The high speed top precursors relate more to poor energy management while the precursors for the high path angle include trajectory related parameters, as seen in table \ref{tab:precursor_score}. The identified precursors are partially validated given their resemblances with ADOPT identified precursors, which is characterized by the low DFA values. Additional support towards the validation of the discovered precursors is obtained through visualization and observing that the precursors exhibited abnormal behaviors, outside of nominal operations.
\section{Conclusion}
The work presented in this paper tackles the precursor mining task. A public flight data set was leveraged to create FOQA-like labels. After performing the required preprocessing steps, a novel architecture for the task was developed to take advantage of the Multi-Instance Learning framework, the feature extraction capabilities of Convolutional Neural Networks and the temporal pattern recognition capabilities of Recurrent Neural Networks. On one hand binary classifiers were trained to predict both high speed and high path angle events, and on the other the MHCNN-RNN architecture was modified to handle multiple outputs. In both cases, a grid-search was implemented to determine the best parameters for the neural networks, and thus the best model for the prediction the safety events. For the multiple binary classifier case, the best two models were then combined to form an unique multi-class classifier. For both multi-class extensions, the final models were evaluated on a test set and high scores were observed for classification metrics such as F1 score, precision, and recall, in particular when combining binary classifiers. Furthermore, the binary models were then used to identify precursors and provide the average precursor score across all flights that experienced each of the two events. Finally, visualizations were used to observe the behaviors of the identified precursors, which exhibited patterns different from normal flight operations. Future work will include enhancing the interpretability of the precursor score tensor. While empirically the parameters that deviate from $0.5$ are understood to be correlated to the event of interest, the meaning of the direction of the deviation (greater than or lower than $0.5$) needs to be investigated. Further improvements to the model can be made towards increasing the prediction window, and allowing the classification of unknown precursors instead of defaulting unknown behaviors to the nominal class. Additionally, the lower scores for the modified MHCNN-RNN could be due to the class imbalance, especially the lower number of high path angle events. Future work will also explore methodologies to handle class imbalance, and extend the learning task to a multi-label problem.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
The authors would like to thank Dr. Nikunj Oza, Dr. Milad Memarzadeh, and Dr. Hamed Valizadegan for the feedback and insights they provided.
|
\subsection{Bounded Model Checking}
\label{sec:bmc}
In this section, we give an overview of the Bounded Model Checking (BMC) technique, which we use for checking invariant properties of Stateflow{} programs.
BMC is a refutation-based verification technique, in which a symbolic representation of the system behavior is unrolled for a predefined number~$k$ of steps, called the \emph{reachability diameter}. It has been shown that checking a property over a finite set of states can be reduced to checking the satisfiability of a corresponding propositional formula. Thus, the goal of BMC is to generate a formula that is satisfiable if there exists a violation of the property in some execution of length up to~$k$. The reduction of the model-checking problem to a satisfiability problem is motivated by the increase in the computational power of modern solvers, which tend to be more efficient in solving large formulas as compared to techniques based on BDDs~\cite{demoura03BMCrefutationtoverification}.
To be able to formally define the BMC problem for invariant properties, we first recall some additional background concepts. A common way of capturing program behavior is via a \emph{transition system} (TS), formally defined as follows.
\begin{definition}[Transition System]
\label{def:path-ts}
A \emph{transition system} is a tuple $\mathit{TS} = (C, C_0, \rightarrow)$, where: $C$ is a finite set of \emph{configurations}, $C_0 \subseteq C$ a set of \emph{initial configurations}, and $\mathit{\rightarrow \subseteq C \times C}$ a \emph{transition relation}.
Let $\pi$ be a finite or infinite sequence of configurations, written $\pi = c_0, c_1, \ldots, c_n$ or $\pi = c_0, c_1, c_2 \ldots$, respectively. The sequence $\pi$ is called:
\begin{itemize}
\item a \emph{path} of $\mathit{TS}$, written path($\pi$), if $\forall c_i, c_{i+1} \in \pi.\ (c_i, c_{i+1}) \in \rightarrow$, and
\item an \emph{initialized path}, if path($\pi$) and $c_0 \in C_0$.
\end{itemize}
A finite path $\pi = c_0, c_1, \ldots, c_n$ is said to be of \emph{length}~$n$.
\end{definition}
Transition systems are a useful concept for reasoning about the \emph{concrete computations} of programs. A configuration $\mathit{c \in C}$ of a program is a pair $\mathit{c = (l, v)}$, where $l$~is a control point in the program, and $v$~is a mapping between the program variables and values taken from their respective domains.
When programs contain variables that range over infinite domains, it can be more efficient to reason about their behaviors in a \emph{symbolic} way, through a set of predicates. This gives rise to the notion of symbolic transition system (STS).
\begin{definition}[Symbolic Transition System]
\label{def:sts-with-predicates}
A \emph{symbolic transition system} is a pair $S = (I, R)$, where the unary predicate~$I(\cdot)$ is a first-order logic (FOL) formula over the components of configurations representing the initial set of configurations, and the binary predicate~$R(\cdot, \cdot)$ is a formula representing the ``next-state" transition relation, satisfying the equivalences:
\begin{align*}
&\mathit{I(c) \: \Leftrightarrow c \in C_0}\\
&\mathit{R(c,c')\: \Leftrightarrow (c,c') \in \ \rightarrow}
\end{align*}
\end{definition}
Every initialized path in $\mathit{S}$ of length~$k$ can be characterized by the formula:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:path-encoding}
\mathit{path} (c_0, c_1, \ldots, c_k) \: \triangleq \: I(c_0) \land \bigwedge\limits_{i=0}^{k - 1} R(c_i,c_{i+1}),
\end{equation}
and then, the existence of an initialized path of length~$k$ is equivalent to the satisfiability of the formula $\mathit{path} (x_0, x_1, \ldots, x_k)$, where $x_i$ is a variable representing a configuration.
Since BMC operates over a subset of the reachable configurations, contained within the given reachability diameter~$k$, in this work we use the term \emph{$k$-bounded invariant property} to denote an invariant property that holds over the reachability diameter~$k$.
Let $\varphi$ be a unary predicate over configurations, i.e., a property. We define the corresponding $k$-bounded invariant property, denoted~$\varphi^k$, as the formula:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:k-bounded-invariance-definition}
\forall c_0, c_1, \dots, c_k.\ (\mathit{path} (c_0, c_1, \dots, c_k) \Rightarrow \bigwedge\limits_{i=0}^{k} \varphi (c_i))
\end{equation}~
\noindent
To disprove such a $k$-bounded invariant property, it is sufficient to show that there exists a configuration within the reachability diameter for which $\varphi^k$~does not hold. A path containing such a configuration is called a \emph{counter-example}, and is characterized by the logical negation of the above formula, i.e.:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:counter-example-definition}
\exists c_0, c_1, \dots, c_k.\ (path(c_0, c_1, \dots c_k) \land
\bigvee\limits_{i=0}^{k} \neg \varphi (c_i))
\end{equation}~
Given that the predicates $I$, $R$, and $\varphi$ can be expressed as FOL formulas, where some function and predicate symbols are potentially interpreted by some background theory, it is obvious how the refutation of $k$-bounded invariant properties can be reduced to an SMT problem. In case that there exists a satisfying assignment for (\ref{eq:counter-example-definition}), a counter-example for the invariant property is generated. Conversely, if there exists no such satisfying assignment, the $k$-bounded invariant property holds.
\section{Conclusion}
\label{sec:conclusions}
We presented a technique for symbolic analysis of Stateflow{} programs with respect to invariant properties using bounded model checking (BMC). To this end, we developed a symbolic structural operational semantics (SSOS) for the Stateflow{} language. Our semantics is built on top of the work by Hamon and Rushby~\cite{hamon2004operationalsemanticsstateflow,hamon2007operationalsemanticsstateflow}, by converting each of their rules, in a uniform manner, into a symbolic form.
We characterized the relationship between the two semantics by exhibiting a simulation relation between them. Next, we defined the bounded invariant checking problem for STS over symbolic configurations, as induced for a given Stateflow{} program by the set of the SSOS operational rules, and presented informally a procedure for deriving the initial and next state predicates of the STS. Finally, we showed how to generate, from the STS, a set of quantifier-free FOL assertions in SMT-LIB format suitable for analysis using state-of-the-art SMT solvers. The main benefit of our work is that it lays down the foundations for
the development of tools for the scalable verification of complex industrial Stateflow{} models by means of existing symbolic techniques, which we demonstrated with bounded invariant checking on the running Stateflow{} program example for different values of the depth bound~\emph{k}. We showed that even though in its current state the tool cannot exhaustively verify Stateflow{} models, it still represents a viable choice for fast detection of design errors within a traces of finite length. Even though we initially planned to compare our approach against the state-of-the-practice SLDV tool, we had to withdraw from our idea once we discovered the license constraints imposed by Mathworks. Unfortunately, this happened in the final stage of this work, when it was already too late to steer the validation into a different direction.
Currently, we are working on automating the remaining parts of our technique, and packaging it into a user-friendly and easy to use tool-set. Our goal is to fully automate the transformation of the Stateflow{} programs into a symbolic representation, to be used as input to (bounded) invariant checkers, either applied to Stateflow{} programs in isolation, or as part of already existing frameworks for symbolic analysis of Simulink models (see, e.g., \cite{filipovikj2019boundedinvariancechecking}). Once we have fully developed the tool-set, we will perform a more extensive evaluation of the approach, and compare its performance with that of state-of-the-art tools implementing alternative verification techniques.
Further, we plan to extend our formal characterization of the SSOS in terms of a stronger equivalence between the concrete and symbolic representations of Stateflow{} programs, to formally underpin the symbolic verification of a wider class of properties than invariant properties, such as LTL properties. Finally, we will explore the possibility of extending our BMC approach from refutation-based to a verification one, by adding induction~\cite{demoura03BMCrefutationtoverification}. Along this line of research, we plan to include the option of converting the generated STS into an input format for tools that implement more sophisticated model checking algorithms, such as Lustre~\cite{pilaud1987lustre} models for the Kind2~model~checker~\cite{champion16kind2}.
\paragraph{Acknowledgements.}
This work has been funded by the Swedish Governmental Agency for Innovation Systems (VINNOVA) under the AVerT project 2018-02727. The authors would also like to thank Gustav Ung for his valuable comments and constructive feedback.
\section{Characterization of the SSOS}
\label{sec:characterization-sos-ssos}
Our SSOS semantics is essentially an operational semantics for symbolic execution of Stateflow{} programs. It opens up the opportunity for application of a broader spectrum of verification techniques, such as: \emph{testing} (purely symbolic, or as a combination of symbolic and concrete (concolic) testing~\cite{godefroid05dartconcolictesting}) or \emph{bounded model checking}~\cite{biere2003boundedmodelchecking}. To be able to reason symbolically over Stateflow{} programs, however, one must first provide a formal characterization of the relationship between its concrete and symbolic execution. In this section, we prove two results that characterize this relationship. In Theorem~\ref{theo:theorem-1} we show that for each derivable SSOS transition there exists a corresponding derivable SOS transition. Conversely, in Theorem~\ref{theo:theorem-2} we show that for each derivable SOS transition there exists a derivable SSOS transition.
The connection is established in both cases by means of an interpretation of the symbolic values for which the Boolean expression added to the path condition holds.
First, we introduce some additional notation.
Let $\beta: \mathit{SEnv} \times \mathit{Env} \rightarrow \mathit{Env}$ be a function that transforms a symbolic environment~$\Delta$ into a concrete one~$\beta (\Delta, D)$ with the help of an environment~$D$ that serves as an interpretation of the symbolic values; for any $v \in \emph{Var}$, let $\beta (\Delta, D) (v)$ be defined as the value of the expression~$\Delta (v)$ in the (renamed) environment $D \circ g^{-1}$.
Similarly, let $\mathcal{B}: \mathit{BExpr}_{\mathit{Sym}} \rightarrow (\mathit{Env} \rightarrow \mathit{Bool})$ be a function that evaluates path conditions in concrete environments, so that $\mathcal{B} [\![\mathit{pc}]\!] (D)$ is the Boolean value of the path condition~$\mathit{pc}$ in $D \circ g^{-1}$.
Finally, observing that the transitions derived by the SSOS rules only (potentially) add a conjunct to the current path condition~$pc_k$ to obtain a new path condition~$pc^{k+1}$, let $pc^{k+1}_k$ denote this added conjunct (or~$\top$, if no conjunct is added).
\begin{theorem}
\label{theo:theorem-1}
If $(P_1, \langle \Delta_1, pc_1\rangle) $ $\xrightarrow[]{SSOS}$ $(P_2, \langle \Delta_2, pc_2\rangle , tv)$, then for all $D_0 \in \mathit{Env}$ such that $\mathcal{B}[\![pc_1^2]\!](\beta(\Delta_1, D_0)) = \top$, we have $(P_1, \beta(\Delta_1, D_0)) \xrightarrow[]{SOS} (P_2, \beta(\Delta_2, D_0))$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
For proving the result, we shall use the principle of \textit{Rule Induction}~(see, e.g., \cite[p.~41]{winskel1993formalsemanticsofprogramminglanguages}).
The principle states that, in order to prove that a given predicate over judgements holds for all judgements derivable by a given set of rules, one has to show that every rule preserves the predicate. In the statement of the theorem, the predicate to be proved is the one defined by the then-clause.
The complete proof has thus to consider each of the 27 rules of the SSOS. We include here only a few selected cases of the proof to illustrate the proof technique. As it can be seen from the given cases, all of them follow the same pattern, so it should be clear to the reader how the complete proof unfolds. \\
\noindent \textbf{Case 1.1. [t-FIRE]\textsubscript{SSOS}}
Since the two premises of the rule are not transitions over which the statement is proved, we can treat them as side conditions and assume them to be true (since otherwise one cannot apply the rule).
Next, let $\mathit{D_0 \in Env}$ be such that:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:t-fire-main}
\mathcal{B}[\![c]\!](\beta(\Delta_1, D_0)) = \top
\end{equation}
and let $D_1, D_2 \in Env \;.\; D_1 = \beta(\Delta_1, D_0)$ and $D_2 = $ $\beta(\Delta_2, D_0)$. Then, we have $e \vdash (c, D_1) \rightarrow D_1$ and $\mathit{e \vdash (a, D_1) \rightarrow D_2}$, and therefore $e \vdash (t, D_1) \rightarrow D_2,$ $\mathit{Fire(d, ta)}$,
where $\mathit{pc_2 = pc_1 \land c}$ and $\mathit{\Delta_2 = \aexpr{a}(\Delta_1)}$. The premises of the [t-Fire]\textsubscript{SOS} rule are thus true, and we can apply the rule to obtain the following:
\begin{equation*}
e \vdash (t, D_1) \rightarrow D_2, Fire(d, ta)
\end{equation*}
\noindent
which is what needed to be demonstrated.
\newline
\noindent \textbf{Case 1.2 [T-FIRE]\textsubscript{SSOS}}
Let $\mathit{D_0 \in Env}$, and $t = t.T$ be such that:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:T-fire-main}
\mathcal{B}[\![t.c]\!](\beta(\Delta_1, D_0)) = \top
\end{equation}
and let $\mathit{D_1, D_2 \in Env \;.\; D_1=}\beta\mathit{(\Delta_1, D_0), D_2=}\beta\mathit{(\Delta_2, D_0)}$.
\noindent From~(\ref{eq:T-fire-main}), and the induction hypothesis it follows:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:T-fire-premise}
\mathit{e, J \vdash (t, D_1) \rightarrow D_2, Fire(d, ta)}
\end{equation}
Now that the premise for [T-FIRE]\textsubscript{SOS} rule given in~(\ref{eq:T-fire-premise}) is true, we can apply the rule to obtain the following:
\begin{equation*}
\mathit{e, J \vdash (t.T, D_1) \rightarrow D_2, Fire(d, ta)}
\end{equation*}
\noindent which concludes the proof for the case.\newline
\noindent \textbf{Case 1.3 [SD-FIRE]\textsubscript{SSOS}}
Let $\mathit{D_0 \in Env}$ be such that:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:sd-int-fire-main}
\begin{split}
\mathcal{B}[\![pc_1^2]\!](\beta(\Delta_1,& D_0)) = \top, \; \mathcal{B}[\![pc_2^3]\!](\beta(\Delta_3, D_0)) = \top, \; \mathcal{B}[\![pc_3^4]\!](\beta(\Delta_4, D_0)) = \top
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\noindent where $\mathit{pc_2 = pc_1 \land pc_1^2,\: pc_3 = pc_2 \land pc_2^3,\: pc_4 = pc_3 \land pc_3^4}$.
Based on~(\ref{eq:sd-int-fire-main}), we know that
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\exists D_1, \dots, D_5 \in Env \;.\; &D_1 =\beta(\Delta_1, D_0), D_2 =\beta(\Delta_2, D_0), D_3 = \beta(\Delta_3, D_0), \\
&D_4 =\beta(\Delta_4, D_0), D_5 =\beta(\Delta_5, D_0)
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
\noindent From~(\ref{eq:sd-int-fire-main}) and the induction hypothesis, it follows that:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:sd-fire-premises}
\begin{split}
&e, J_0 \vdash (T_0, D_1) \rightarrow D_2, Fire(d, ta); \; e \vdash (a, D_2) \rightarrow D_3; \\&
\; e, J \vdash (C, D_3) \rightarrow D_4;\; e, J \vdash (A.ex, D_4) \rightarrow D_5
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Since the premises for [SD-FIRE]\textsubscript{SOS} rule given in~(\ref{eq:sd-fire-premises}) are true, we can apply the rule to obtain the following:
\begin{equation*}
e, J_O \vdash ((A,C,T_i,T_o,J), D_1) \rightarrow{} ((A,C',T_i,T_o,J), D_5), Fire(d,\diamond)
\end{equation*}
\noindent which is what needed to be shown.
\newline
\noindent \textbf{Case 1.4 [AND]\textsubscript{SSOS}}
Let $D_0 \in Env$ be such that the following holds:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:and-main}
\forall i \in [1, \dots, n] \;.\; \mathcal{B}[\![pc_i^{i+1}]\!](\beta(\Delta_i, D_0)) = \top;
\end{equation}
From the initial assumption and~(\ref{eq:and-main}), we know that:
\begin{equation*}
\mathit{\forall k \in [1,\; \dots,\; n+1] \;.\; \exists D_k \in Env \;.\; D_k = \,} \beta\mathit{(\Delta_k, D_0)}
\end{equation*}
From the induction hypothesis and~(\ref{eq:and-main}), it follows that:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:and-sos-premise}
\mathit{\forall i \in [1, \dots, n] \quad e, J \vdash (sd_i, D_i) \rightarrow sd_{i}', D_{i+1}, No}
\end{equation}
\noindent Since the premise for the [AND]\textsubscript{SSOS} rule~(\ref{eq:and-sos-premise}) is true, we can apply the rule to obtain the following:
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
e,J \vdash &(e,J \vdash (And\{s_0:sd_0 \cdots s_n:sd_n\}, D_1) \rightarrow{}\\
&(And\{s_0:sd'_0 \cdots s_n:sd'_n\}, D_{n+1}, No)
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
\noindent which is what was needed to be shown.
\newline
\noindent \textbf{Case 1.5 [OR-FIRE]\textsubscript{SSOS}}
Let $D_0 \in Env$ be such that the following holds:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:or-fire-main}
\mathcal{B}[\![pc_1^{2}]\!](\beta(\Delta_1, D_0)) = \top;
\end{equation}
Based on~(\ref{eq:or-fire-main}), the following holds:
\begin{equation*}
\mathit{\exists D_1, D_2 \in Env \;.\; D_1 = }\beta\mathit{(\Delta_1, D_0), D_2 = }\beta\mathit{(\Delta_2, D_0)}
\end{equation*}
From the inductive hypothesis and~(\ref{eq:or-fire-main}), it follows that:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:or-fire-premise}
\mathit{e,J \vdash (sd, D_1) \rightarrow (sd', D_2), Fire(p',a)}
\end{equation}
\noindent Since the premise for the [OR-FIRE]\textsubscript{SOS} rule~(\ref{eq:or-fire-premise}) is true, we can apply the rule to obtain the following:
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
e,J \vdash &(Or(s,p,T,SD[s:sd]), D_1, tv)\rightarrow{}(Or(\emptyset_s,p,T,SD[s:sd']), D_2, Fire(p',a))
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
\noindent which is what was needed to be shown.
\end{proof}
Our next result establishes the reverse direction.
\begin{theorem}
\label{theo:theorem-2}
If $(P_1, D_1) \xrightarrow[]{SOS} (P_2, D_2)$, then for all $pc_1 \in \mathit{BExpr_{Sym}}$, $\Delta_1 \in \mathit{SEnv}$ and $D_0 \in \mathit{Env}$ such that $\beta(\Delta_1, D_0) = D_1$, there exist $pc_2,\; pc_1^2 \in \mathit{BExpr_{Sym}}$ and $\Delta_2 \in \mathit{SEnv}$ such that $pc_2 = pc_1 \land pc_1^2$, $\mathcal{B}[\![pc_1^2]\!](\beta(\Delta_1, D_0)) = \top$, $\beta(\Delta_2, D_0) = D_2$ and $(P_1, \langle\Delta_1, pc_1 \rangle) \xrightarrow[]{SSOS} (P_2, \langle\Delta_2, pc_2 \rangle)$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Again, the proof is by Rule Induction. We only show two cases here. The rest of the cases are proved by following the scheme of the presented ones. \\
\noindent \textbf{Case 2.1. [t-FIRE]\textsubscript{SOS}}
Let us assume that a Stateflow{} program performs a concrete transition derivable using the [t-Fire]\textsubscript{SOS} rule. Lets assume that for arbitrary $\mathit{\langle \Delta_1, pc_1\rangle \in SS}$ the following holds:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:t-fire-main-sos}
\exists D_0 \in Env \: . \: \beta(\Delta_1, D_0) = D_1
\end{equation}
Also, we know that $\mathit{pc_1^2 = \mathcal{B}[\![c]\!](\beta(\Delta_1, D_0)) = \top}$, due to the inductive hypothesis. Consequently, the following also holds: $\mathit{\mathcal{B}[\![pc_1 \land c]\!](\beta(\Delta_1, D_0)) = \top}$. Based on~(\ref{eq:t-fire-main-sos}) and the true valuation of $\mathit{pc_1 \land c}$, the following also holds:
\begin{equation*}
e \vdash (t, \beta(\Delta_1, D_0)) \rightarrow \beta(\Delta_2, D_0), Fire(d, ta)
\end{equation*}
where $\mathit{pc_2 = pc_1 \land c}$ and $\mathit{\Delta_2 = \aexpr{a}(\Delta_1)}$. Based on~(\ref{eq:t-fire-main-sos}) and the induction hypothesis we derive the following: $\mathit{e \vdash (c, \langle \Delta_1, pc_1\rangle) \rightarrow \langle \Delta_1, pc_2\rangle}$ and $\mathit{e \vdash (a, \langle \Delta_1, pc_2\rangle) \rightarrow \langle \Delta_2, pc_2\rangle}$. If we now apply the [t-Fire]\textsubscript{SSOS} rule over the last two premises, we derive the following transition:
\begin{equation*}
e \vdash (t, \langle\Delta_1, pc_1\rangle) \rightarrow \langle\Delta_2, pc_2\rangle, Fire(d, ta))
\end{equation*}
\noindent which is what needed to be demonstrated.
\newline
\noindent \textbf{Case 2.2 [T-FIRE]\textsubscript{SOS}}
Let us assume that a Stateflow{} program performs a concrete transition derivable using the [T-Fire]\textsubscript{SOS} rule. Let us assume that for an arbitrary $\langle \Delta_1, pc_1\rangle \in SS$ the following holds:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:T-fire-main-sos}
\exists D_0 \in Env \: . \: \beta(\Delta_1, D_0) = D_1
\end{equation}
Also, we know that $pc_1^2 = \mathcal{B}[\![c]\!](\beta(\Delta_1, D_0)) = \top$, due to the inductive hypothesis. Consequently, the following also holds: $\mathcal{B}[\![pc_1 \land c]\!](\beta(\Delta_1, D_0)) = \top$. Based on~(\ref{eq:T-fire-main-sos}) and the truth valuation of the $pc_1 \land c$, the following also holds:
\begin{equation*}
e \vdash (t, \beta(\Delta_1, D_0)) \rightarrow \beta(\Delta_2, D_0), Fire(d, ta)
\end{equation*}
where $pc_2 = pc_1 \land c$ and $\Delta_2 = \aexpr{a}(\Delta_1)$. Based on~(\ref{eq:T-fire-main-sos}) and the induction hypothesis we derive the following: $e \vdash (c, \langle \Delta_1, pc_1\rangle) \rightarrow \langle \Delta_1, pc_2\rangle$ and $e \vdash (a, \langle \Delta_1, pc_2\rangle) \rightarrow \langle \Delta_2, pc_2\rangle$. If we now apply the [T-Fire]\textsubscript{SSOS} rule over the last two premises, we derive the following transition:
\begin{equation*}
e \vdash (t, \langle\Delta_1, pc_1\rangle) \rightarrow \langle\Delta_2, pc_2\rangle, Fire(d, ta)
\end{equation*}
\noindent which is what needed to be demonstrated.
\end{proof}
There are two important corollaries of the above two results, which we will only state here informally. First, both results lift naturally to \emph{executions}, i.e., to sequences of transitions. Note in particular how in Theorem~\ref{theo:theorem-2} the ``for all~$\mathit{pc}_1$ \ldots there exists~$\mathit{pc}_2$'' part allows the sequential composition of transitions. Second, when starting from a true path condition, as one does in symbolic execution, the \emph{satisfying assignments} for the path condition at the end of any symbolic path, viewed as interpreting environments, define precisely the concrete paths that follow the symbolic one.
Further, the executions in SOS and SSOS can be shown to \emph{simulate} each other with respect to processing external events. It is well-known that invariant properties are preserved by simulation, and thus, can be checked by symbolically executing the given Stateflow{} program.
Even if limited, this class of properties is important in industrial contexts, as our collaboration with Scania on formally verifying safety-critical embedded code generated from Simulink models has shown.
\section{Symbolic Structural Operational Semantics}
\label{sec:symbolicsos}
In this section, we present our SSOS semantics for the Stateflow{} imperative language, which we use as a basis for constructing an STS $\mathit{\widehat{S}}$ for a given Stateflow{} program. We start from the existing SOS semantics as in~\cite{hamon2004operationalsemanticsstateflow,hamon2007operationalsemanticsstateflow}, and transform each of the SOS rules uniformly in a corresponding symbolic counterpart.
From earlier (see Section \ref{sec:stateflow}), we know that the SOS rules for Stateflow{} programs are over judgments of the following form:
\begin{equation*}
\mathit{e \vdash (P, D) \rightarrow (P', D'), tv}
\end{equation*}~
Based on the set of SOS rules, one can induce a $TS = (C, C_0, \rightarrow)$, where $C$ is the set of concrete configurations, each configuration $c \in C$ being a tuple $c = (P, D)$, $C_0 \subseteq C$ is the set of initial configurations, and $\rightarrow \subset C \times C$ is the transition relation, composed of transitions derivable by the SOS rules.
In the original formalization, the sets of variables ($\mathit{Var}$) and values ($\mathit{Val}$), as well as the sets of actions ($\mathit{Act}$) and conditions ($\mathit{Cond}$) are considered to be a part of the action language which is distinct from the Stateflow{} language itself. The details for the actions and conditions are abstracted away; however, it is assumed that the semantics of the executing actions and the evaluating conditions is available via judgments of the form:
\begin{equation*}
\mathit{\textnormal{(i) } e \vdash (a, D) \hookrightarrow{} D' \textnormal{ and }\textnormal{(ii) } e \vdash (c, D) \rightarrow \top \: \vert \: \bot}
\end{equation*}
~
\noindent
which are read as follows: (i) evaluating an action ($a$) in a current environment ($D$) produces a new environment ($D'$), and (ii) evaluating a condition ($c$) in an environment ($D$) produces either true or false Boolean value.
The set of SSOS rules is created by uniformly transforming each of the SOS rules into a corresponding symbolic rule, by: i) replacing each valuation of the program variables, called \emph{environment} ($\mathit{D}$) with a symbolic representation ($\Delta$), and ii) adding a path condition ($\mathit{pc}$). Consequently, we update the action execution and condition evaluation, which evaluate over the symbolic environment and path condition, respectively. Following the basic principles of symbolic execution~\cite{king1976symbolicexecutionandtesting}, in the set of SSOS rules we treat the data component of the language in a symbolic way, whereas the control-flow remains concrete.
As we already discussed in Section~\ref{sec:bmc}, the set of all initialized paths of length \emph{k} of a Stateflow{} program can be symbolically encoded as formulas. In such a representation, the analysis operates over sets of environments, rather than with each environment individually. Conceptually, $\Delta$~represents a set of concrete environments that is characterized by a path formula that includes all concrete environments reachable at a particular point of execution, while $\mathit{pc}$ represents the path condition that encodes the conditions over data such that $\Delta$ is valid.
\input{sections/sos-rules/for-main-paper}
We define a \emph{symbolic configuration} $\mathit{sc} \in \mathit{SC}$ as a structure $\mathit{( P, \langle \Delta, pc\rangle)}$, where $P$~is any component from the imperative language from Table~\ref{tab:imperative-language}. We introduce a new set of \emph{symbolic variables} (symbols), denoted $\mathit{Sym}$, and a bijection $\mathit{g: Var \rightarrow Sym}$ between the program variables and the symbols. The path condition $pc$ is simply a Boolean expression over the set of symbols, whereas the \emph{symbolic environment} $\Delta \in \mathit{SEnv}$ is a mapping $\mathit{\Delta: \mathit{Var} \rightarrow \mathit{Expr_{Sym}}}$ from program variables to (arithmetic) expressions over symbols. Finally, we assume that symbolic action execution and symbolic condition evaluation are provided via semantic functions of type $\mathcal{SA}: \mathit{Act} \rightarrow (\mathit{SEnv} \rightarrow \mathit{SEnv})$ and $\mathcal{SB}: \mathit{Cond} \rightarrow (\mathit{SEnv} \rightarrow \mathit{BExpr_{Sym}})$, respectively.
We can now define the axioms for action execution and condition evaluation, for symbolic execution of Stateflow{} programs, as follows:
\begin{equation}
\hspace*{-3mm}
\begin{aligned}
&e \vdash (a, \langle\Delta_1, pc_1\rangle) \hookrightarrow{} \langle\Delta_2, pc_1\rangle ~~~\textnormal{~if } \Delta_2 = \aexpr{a}(\Delta_1)\\
&e \vdash (c, \langle\Delta_1, pc_1\rangle) \rightarrow \langle\Delta_1, pc_2\rangle ~~~~\textnormal{~if } pc_2 = pc_1 \land \bexpr{c}(\Delta_1)
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}~
\noindent
The initial symbolic configuration is $(P, \langle pc_0, \Delta_0\rangle)$, where $P$~is a component of the Stateflow{} imperative language, $\Delta_0 = g$, and $pc_0 = \top$.
The set of SOS rules can now be uniformly translated into a corresponding SSOS counter-part. In Figure~\ref{fig:illustrative-rules}, we show a subset of the SSOS rules, in addition to the [t-FIRE] rule from Figure~\ref{fig:t-fire-ssos-rule}.
The [t-FIRE] rule in Figure~\ref{fig:t-fire-ssos-rule} describes how a Stateflow{} transition ($t$) fires by appending the symbolic evaluation of the condition $t.c$ to the current path condition and by symbolically executing the condition action $t.ca$ over the current symbolic environment $\Delta$. When a transition fires, a transition event $Fire(t.d, t.ta)$ is generated. Going back to Figure~\ref{fig:illustrative-rules}, a transition list $T$ fires via the [T-FIRE] rule when one of its constituent transitions fires. The [SD-FIRE] rule describes how a Stateflow{} state fires when one of the transitions from the $T_o$ transition list fires. According to the rule, the firing of the transition is followed by symbolic evaluation of the pending action from the existing $Fire$ event, then symbolic execution and evaluation of the actions and conditions of the currently active inner component(s), and finally the symbolic evaluation of the $sd.ex$ state action. The last two rules, [AND] and [OR-FIRE] capture the correct sequence of elements processing when executing the \texttt{And} and \texttt{Or-}compositions, respectively. Executing an \texttt{And-}composition involves processing each of its constituent states from the state definition list ($SD$), whereas an \texttt{Or-}composition fires when the underlying $sd$ fires. Due to space limitations, Figure~\ref{fig:illustrative-rules} shows only a small fraction of the rules for illustrative purposes. The complete set of 27 SSOS rules is included in Appendix~\ref{sec:appendix-A}.
Since we are overloading the transition relation symbol ``$\mathit{\rightarrow}$'' in the SOS and SSOS rules, to avoid confusion, further in the paper we shall use ``$\mathit{\xrightarrow[]{SOS}}$'' for transitions derivable with the SOS rules, and ``$\mathit{\xrightarrow[]{SSOS}}$'' for transitions derivable with the SSOS rules.
\subsection{Stateflow{} Imperative Language: Formal Syntax and Structural Operational Semantics}
\label{sec:h-r-sos}
\input{sections/h-r-imperative-language}
In order to formalize Stateflow{}, Hamon and Rushby propose in~\cite{hamon2004operationalsemanticsstateflow,hamon2007operationalsemanticsstateflow} an imperative language that is a strict subset of the Stateflow{} graphical language. To the best of our knowledge, the imperative language supports most of the graphical language features except for the history nodes, and as such is expressive enough for most of the industrial Stateflow{} models. A \emph{Stateflow{} program} is simply a Stateflow{} model (re)written in the imperative language. The execution of Stateflow{} programs is formalised by a set of 27 rules presented in a structural operational semantics (SOS) style.
In the following, we give a brief overview of the language and its operational semantics.
The syntax of the Stateflow{} imperative language is given in Table~\ref{tab:imperative-language}. The language is based on the following syntactic categories: state ($s$), junction ($j$), event ($e$), action ($a$) and condition ($c$). A transition $t = (e_t, c, a_c, a_t, d)$ is composed of a transition event $e_t$, condition $c$, condition and transition actions $a_c$, $a_t$, respectively, and a destination~$d$ to which it fires. Transitions are grouped into transition lists. A junction definition list~$J$ associates a list of transitions with junctions. A state definition list $SD$ associates each state variable ($s$) with a state definition $sd = ((a,a,a), C, T_i, T_o, J$). Each $sd$ contains 3 actions, a composition~$C$, lists of internal and outgoing transitions $T_i$ and $T_o$, respectively, and a junction definition list $J$. Finally, the composition~$C$ can be of type $\mathtt{Or}(s_a, p, T, SD)$, where $s_a$ is the active state, $p$ is the path, $T$ is a transition list, and $SD$ is a list of state definitions; or of type $\mathtt{And}(b, SD)$, which has a Boolean value~$b$ signifying whether the component is active or not, a path~$p$, and a state definition list~$SD$. In the reminder of the manuscript, we will use the term \textit{Stateflow{} program} regardless if it is modeled using the original Stateflow{} graphical language or the imperative language as we are going to be handling only models that can be rewritten in the imperative language.
The execution of a Stateflow{} program consists of processing an input event through a sequence of discrete steps. The execution involves modifying the value of the program variables, raising output events, and changing the program control point by executing transitions. The operational semantics is formalised by a set of 27 layered rules, which precisely prescribe the sequence of actions involved in the processing of an event through the elements of the imperative language. The operational semantics has been validated against the simulation semantics of the Matlab Stateflow{} simulation engine by performing extensive simulations with Stateflow{} graphical models and comparing the output traces with the (SOS based) executions of the corresponding Stateflow{} programs~\cite{hamon2004operationalsemanticsstateflow}. In this work, we refer to executions derivable using the SOS rules as \emph{concrete}. The following judgment expresses the base form of event processing in Stateflow{} programs~\cite{hamon2004operationalsemanticsstateflow}:
\begin{equation*}
\mathit{e \vdash (P, D) \rightarrow (P', D'), tv}
\end{equation*}
\noindent which reads as follows: processing an event $e$ in an environment $D$ through a program component $P$ produces a new environment $D'$, a new program component $P'$ and a transition value $\mathit{tv}$. An environment $\mathit{D: Var \rightarrow Val}$ is a mapping from variables to values. $Env$ denotes the set of all possible environments; $P$ is an element of the Stateflow{} imperative language, whereas $\mathit{tv \in \{Fire(d,a) \: \vert \: No \: \vert \: End\}}$ is a transition value which indicates whether a transition has fired ($\mathit{Fire(d,a)}$) or not ($\mathit{No \: \vert \: End}$). All of the rules in the SOS extend and slightly differ from this general form~\cite{hamon2007operationalsemanticsstateflow}.
\begin{figure*}[t!]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.99\textwidth}
\centering
\begin{minipage}{.99\textwidth}
\infer{e \vdash ((e_0, c, ca, ta, d), D_1) \rightarrow{} D_2, Fire(d, ta)}{(e = e_0) \lor (e_0 = \emptyset{}) & e \vdash (c, D_1) \rightarrow{} \top & e \vdash (ca, D_1) \hookrightarrow D_2}
\end{minipage}
\caption{[t-FIRE]\textsubscript{SOS} rule~\cite{hamon2007operationalsemanticsstateflow}}
\label{fig:t-fire-sos-rule}
\end{subfigure}%
\\~\\
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.99\textwidth}
\centering
\begin{minipage}{.5\textwidth}
\infer{e \vdash ((e_0, c, ca, ta, d), \langle\Delta_1, pc_1 \rangle) \rightarrow{} \langle\Delta_2, pc_2 \rangle, Fire(d, ta)}{
\begin{array}{lc}
(e = e_0) \lor (e_0 = \emptyset{}) \\
e \vdash (c, \langle\Delta_1, pc_1 \rangle) \rightarrow{} \langle\Delta_1, pc_2 \rangle & e \vdash (ca, \langle\Delta_1, pc_2 \rangle) \hookrightarrow \langle\Delta_2, pc_2 \rangle
\end{array}}
\end{minipage}
\caption{[t-FIRE]\textsubscript{SSOS} rule}
\label{fig:t-fire-ssos-rule}
\end{subfigure}%
\caption{The [t-FIRE] rule in (a) SOS and (b) SSOS semantics.}
\end{figure*}
The [t-FIRE] rule for both SOS and SSOS semantics is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:t-fire-sos-rule} and Figure~\ref{fig:t-fire-ssos-rule}, respectively. The rule describes how a Stateflow{} transition fires, and intuitively it captures the following: in the concrete execution, if the evaluation of a condition evaluates to true ($\top$), and the execution of the condition action $ca$ modifies the environment, then a Stateflow{} program performs a transition, and raises a \emph{Fire} transition value. In Figure~\ref{fig:t-fire-ssos-rule}, we show an SSOS counter-part of the [t-FIRE] rule to visually illustrate the similarities and differences of the rules side-by-side. An intuitive explanation for the rule is given in Section
~\ref{sec:symbolicsos}.
For the complete set of SOS rules, we refer the interested reader to the original work by Hamon~and~Rushby~\cite{hamon2004operationalsemanticsstateflow,hamon2007operationalsemanticsstateflow}.
\subsection{Satisfiability Modulo Theories and Z3}
\label{sec:smt-z3}
The problem of determining whether a Boolean formula can be made true by assigning truth values to the constituent Boolean variables is known as the \emph{Boolean satisfiability problem} (SAT). A decision procedure for SAT is a procedure that generates a (satisfying) assignment for the variables for which a given formula is true, whenever the formula is satisfiable. \emph{Satisfiability Modulo Theories} (SMT) represents an extension of SAT, where some of the logic symbols are interpreted by a background theory~\cite{barrett18smtbookchapter}. An example of such a background modulo-theories are the theory equality, theory of integer numbers, theory of real numbers, etc.
Z3~\cite{demoura08z3} is a state of the art SMT solver and theorem prover developed by Microsoft Research. The input is a model specified in a text-based assertion language that follows the SMT-LIB standard~\cite{barret15smtlib}. Z3 provides a number of APIs for different programming languages, including C and Python, which enables the integration of the Z3 solver with other applications. The input model consists of a set of variables of specific types (also called sorts), and a set of assertions that express constraints over the variables. The basic command called \texttt{assert} is used to add an assertion to the internal stack of the solver. Once the stack is loaded with the set of assertions of interest, the satisfiability of the constraints is checked by the \texttt{check-sat} command. There are 3 possible outcomes from the decision procedure: \texttt{sat} which indicates that there exists an assignment of the variables satisfying the set of assertions, \texttt{unsat} indicating that there does not exist such a satisfying assignment, and \texttt{unknown} when the decision procedure cannot determine the satisfaction of the assertions on the stack.
\subsection{Stateflow{}}
\label{sec:stateflow}
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figures/timer-initialization-fixed.eps} \caption{Simple Stateflow{} diagram - timer example~\cite{hamon2004operationalsemanticsstateflow}.}
\label{fig:stateflow-scenario}
\end{figure}
Stateflow{}~\cite{stateflowug} is a graphical modeling language developed by Mathworks, integrated into the Matlab Simulink~\cite{simulinkug} modelling environment. The language provides means for modelling of hierarchical state machines through the following features: state transition diagrams, flowchart{}s, state transition tables, and truth tables. In our work, we focus on the state transition diagrams and flowchart{}s.
A Simulink Stateflow{} diagram can be broadly divided into two parts: \emph{control} and \emph{data}. The control part is modeled through the concepts of \emph{Stateflow state}, \emph{connective junction}, and \emph{transition}, whereas the data part is modelled through a set of \emph{data variables} and \emph{events}.
The control of the Stateflow{} diagram in Figure~\ref{fig:stateflow-scenario} consists of 6 Stateflow states, 4 connective junctions and 13 transitions. We have chosen the particular model as a running example because it has relatively simple control flow that helps us to illustrate our concepts, yet it yields an infinite state-space due to the unbounded integer variable \emph{min}. Each Stateflow{} state is decorated with a set of \emph{state actions}. The basic set of state actions (denoted as $A$) includes: \emph{entry ($en$)}, \emph{duration ($du$)} and \emph{exit ($ex$)}. Each action represents an atomic routine. A Stateflow state is either \emph{atomic} or \emph{composite}. Composite Stateflow states contain other states (called \emph{substates}) in their internal structure. Based on how their substates are composed, the composite states can be either \texttt{Or} or \texttt{And}. In \texttt{Or}-compositions there can be only one active substate, whereas in \texttt{And}-compositions, all of the substates are active in the same time. The parallelism in the context of \texttt{And}-compositions only means concurrent activation of its substates; the execution, however, is strictly sequential, according to a predefined order. \emph{Connective junction} (or simply \emph{junction} for short), is used for modelling different branches of execution when a Stateflow{} diagram moves from one control point into another. The junctions are represented as hollow circles (\emph{J1} to \emph{J4} in Figure~\ref{fig:stateflow-scenario}).
The dynamics of the control flow of a Stateflow{} diagram is modelled through a set of \textit{transitions} of the following format: $\mathit{s \xrightarrow{e, c, ca, ta} s'}$, where $s$ and $s'$ are the \emph{source} and the \emph{destination} state or junction, respectively, $e$ is the \emph{transition event} upon which a transition fires (we use the term \emph{``fires"} as a synonym for executing the transition), the firing of a transition is enabled by its \emph{transition condition} $c$; $\mathit{ca}$ is the \emph{conditional action} that is executed if the condition evaluates to true and before the transition execution is completed, and finally $\mathit{ta}$ is a \emph{transition action} that is performed after the transition execution is completed. Transitions can be either \emph{full transitions} (both source and destination are states) or \emph{transition segments} (at least source or destination are junction). The control-flow of a Stateflow{} program evolves only through completion of full transitions.
Transitions can be grouped in sets called \emph{transition lists}, based on a common source element. The internal execution of a transition list is strictly sequential following the order assigned at design-time. There are two types of transition lists: \emph{internal} and \emph{outgoing}, with the former being characteristic for states only, whereas the later one for both states and junctions. The action language is separate from the Stateflow{} itself, and the actions can be specified in the following languages: C, C++, Fortran, or Matlab.
The informal execution semantics of Stateflow{} models is very intricate and has been explained in detail in the Stateflow{} user guide published by Mathworks~\cite{stateflowug}. We omit here the details of the informal execution semantics, but give in the following section an overview of a formal one.
\section{Related Work}
\label{sec:related-work}
To the best of our knowledge, the present work is the first to define a symbolic operational semantics for any kind of Stateflow{} language, and a corresponding notion of STS over symbolic configurations. The main goal of this paper has been to establish the foundations for provably correct verification of Stateflow{} models using symbolic methods, while the development of a practical tool and its extensive evaluation has mostly been left as future work. Still, in this section we will outline some of the state-of-the-art approaches and tools for the formal analysis and verification of Stateflow{} models, and will draw some high-level parallels to our work.
The most common way of formally verifying Stateflow{} models is to propose and apply transformation rules for the basic Stateflow{} modeling constructs into some existing formal framework. Yang et al.~\cite{yang16stateflowtransformationase,jiang2019dependablecpsstateflow} propose a technique for transforming Stateflow{} models into {\scshape Uppaal}{} timed automata. The main idea of the technique is that by translating a Stateflow{} model into a timed automaton one creates a timed model, which can then be subjected to verification with respect to \emph{timing} and \emph{liveness} properties, based on an informal semantics of the Stateflow{} language. A similar endeavour is by Chen~\cite{chen10formalanalysisofstateflowdiagrams}, where an approach for formal analysis of Stateflow{} diagrams based on the PAL model checker is presented. Although claimed by the author that all of the Stateflow{} modeling principles are covered, the correctness of the formal model cannot be formally demonstrated. Meenakshi et al.~\cite{meenakshi2006toolfortranslatingsimulink} propose a tool for the transformation of Simulink models into the input language of a model checker. Similarly to the previous work, the main limitation of this work is proving the correctness of the transformation. Miyazawa et al.~\cite{miyazawa12refinementorientedmodelsofstateflow} provide a formalization of Stateflow{} in a refinement language called Circus. The main difference with our work lies in the fact that the they define formal semantics specific for the Circus language, whereas in our case the semantics are defined in generalized SOS-style. The consequence of this is the usability of the semantics, which in the case of Miyazawa et al.~\cite{miyazawa12refinementorientedmodelsofstateflow} are tool-specific, whereas in our case the proposed SSOS are not particularly bounded to any verification method or tool.
There exists a set of approaches that treat Stateflow{} models as hybrid system models, and apply corresponding modelling and analysis approaches. In this category, we can mention the approach by Alur et al.~\cite{alur2008symbolicanalysisforcoveragesimulinkstateflow}, which uses a combination of numerical simulation and symbolic analysis for Simulink/Stateflow{} models for improving the simulation coverage of the models. At the core of their technique lies a transformation of Simulink/Stateflow{} models into \emph{linear hybrid systems}, which are then used for the analysis of the models using backward image computation, in order to identify classes of inputs, which can then be analyzed using minimal numerical simulations. Zuliani et al.~\cite{zuliani10bayesiansimulinkstateflow} employ statistical model checking (SMC) based on Bayesian statistics to reason about the correctness of Stateflow{} models. By resorting to SMC they alleviate the state-space explosion problem of complex Stateflow{} models; however, the obtained results are in a form of probabilistic bounds, which cannot be directly applied for refining the Stateflow{} models. Duggirala et al.~\cite{duggirala15c2e2} propose the C2E2 tool, which can be used for verification of a broad class of hybrid and dynamic system models based on validated simulations. In contrast, the aim of our work is to establish the foundations for a symbolic analysis of completely discrete-time Stateflow{} models.
There is a body of work that is focused on defining a denotational semantics for Stateflow{} models. Hamon~\cite{hamon2005denotational} proposed a denotational semantics for the Stateflow{} imperative language, as a complement to the already existing SOS semantics, in order to formalize the compilation of Stateflow{} programs. The denotational semantics is particularly useful for code generation from Stateflow{} models. In later work, Bourbouh et al.~\cite{bourbouh2017automatedanalysisofstateflowmodels,bourbouh2020cocosim} extended and upgraded the denotational semantics of Hamon, and employed it for the compilation of Stateflow{} models into hierarchical state machines, and later also into Lustre models, for SMT-based formal analysis and verification, as well as for code generation. As this approach is very similar to ours, we aim to perform in the future a more detailed comparison, especially in terms of the generated analysis model as it is generated based on a different type of semantics. Auto-Gene~\cite{toom06geneauto} is an open-source toolset intended for code generation from high level modelling languages, including Simulink and Stateflow{}. The aim of the toolset is to use among others Simulink and Stateflow{} as input languages, from which it will automatically generate C code. It uses only a safe subset of the Simulink/Stateflow{} language in order to be able to provide support for the verification of properties such as termination, context independence, etc.
\section{From Stateflow{} Programs to SMT Solving}
\label{sec:transformation-and-smt-encoding}
In our work, we focus on using BMC for checking invariant properties over symbolic representation of Stateflow{} programs. In Section~\ref{sec:symbolicsos} we developed an SSOS for Stateflow{}, and exhibited in Section~\ref{sec:characterization-sos-ssos} a simulation relation between executions derived in SOS and SSOS, which is sufficient for the preservation of invariant properties. In the following, we show how we use the SSOS to relate Stateflow{} programs to STS over symbolic configurations. We define the \emph{k-bounded invariant checking} problem for the latter representation (Section~\ref{sec:stateflow-to-sts}), and show how this problem can be encoded as an SMT problem (Section~\ref{sec:sts-to-smt}).
\subsection{Bounded Invariant Checking for Stateflow Programs}
\label{sec:stateflow-to-sts}
In this section, we define a version of STS that encode the \emph{symbolic} behaviors of Stateflow{} programs, and then adapt the BMC problem to such transition systems.
\begin{definition}[STS over Symbolic Configurations]
\label{def:sts-kappa}
A \emph{symbolic transition system over the symbolic configurations} of a given Stateflow{} program is an STS $\widehat{S} = (\widehat{I}, \widehat{R})$, in the sense of Definition~\ref{def:sts-with-predicates}, but over the symbolic configurations and transitions of the program as induced by the SSOS rules.
\end{definition}
\vspace{-2mm}
\noindent $\widehat{I}(\cdot)$ and $\widehat{R}(\cdot, \cdot)$ are thus a unary ``initialization'' predicate and a binary ``next-state" predicate over the symbolic configurations of the program, respectively, which are quantifier-free FOL formulas over the components of symbolic configurations.
The formal relationship between an STS over symbolic configurations~$\widehat{S}$ and an ordinary STS~$S$ of a Stateflow{} program is given by the following result. %
\begin{proposition}
\label{theo:sts-sts-kappa-relationship}
Let SF be a Stateflow{} program, $S = (I, R)$ be an STS over its concrete configurations as induced by the SOS rules, and $\widehat{S} = (\widehat{I}, \widehat{R})$ be an STS over its symbolic configurations as induced by the SSOS rules. Then, the following equivalences hold: \\
\begin{equation*}
(1)~\widehat{I}(P, \langle pc, \Delta \rangle) \>\Leftrightarrow\> \, \exists D_0 \in \mathit{Env}.\ I(P, D_0) \>\land\> I(P, \beta(\Delta, D_0)) \>\land\> \mathcal{B}[\![pc]\!](\beta(\Delta, D_0))
\end{equation*}
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
(2)~ \widehat{R}((P, \langle pc, \Delta \rangle), (P', \langle pc', \Delta' \rangle)) & \Leftrightarrow\> \\
& \exists D_0 \in \mathit{Env}. \mathcal{B}[\![pc]\!](\beta(\Delta, D_0)) \land
\mathcal{B}[\![pc']\!](\beta(\Delta', D_0)) \>\\
&\land \ R((P, \beta(\Delta, D_0)), (P', \beta(\Delta', D_0))))
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
~\\\noindent\textbf{\textit{Direction~$(\Rightarrow)$ of (1)}.}\\
Assume that $\widehat{I}(P, \langle\Delta, pc\rangle) = \top$. From the definition of initial symbolic configuration (Section~\ref{sec:symbolicsos}), we know that that $pc = pc_0$ and $\Delta = \Delta_0$, and that $pc_0 = \top$ and $\Delta = g$. Since $pc = \top$, there must exist $D_0 \in Env$ such that $I(P, D_0)$, and $\beta(\Delta, D_0) = D$. Given that $\Delta = g$, it follows that $D = D_0$. Since $I(P, D_0) = \top$, then also $I(P, D) = \top$. \\
\noindent\textbf{\textit{Direction~$(\Leftarrow)$ of (1}).}\\
Assume that there exists $D_0 \in Env$ such that $I(P, D_0)$, $\mathcal{B}[\![pc]\!](\beta(\Delta, D_0)) = \top$, and $I(P, \beta(\Delta, D_0))$. If $I(P, \beta(\Delta, D_0)) = \top$, then $\beta(\Delta, D_0) = D$. $I(P, D_0) = \top$ and $I(P, D) = \top$ if and only if $D = D_0$. This is possible only if $\Delta = g$. Given the definition of initial symbolic configuration (Section~\ref{sec:symbolicsos}), the assumption $\mathcal{B}[\![pc]\!](\beta(\Delta, D_0)) = \top$, and $\Delta = g$, it follows that $\widehat{I}(P, \langle\Delta, pc\rangle) = \top$. \\
\noindent\textbf{\textit{Direction~$(\Rightarrow)$ of (2).}}\\
Assume that $\widehat{R}((P, \langle\Delta_1, pc_1\rangle), (P', \langle \Delta_2, pc_2 \rangle)) = \top$. According to Definition 3, if $\widehat{R}((P, \langle \Delta_1, pc_1 \rangle), (P', \langle \Delta_2, pc_2 \rangle)) = \top$, then there exists $(P, \langle \Delta_1, pc_1 \rangle) \xrightarrow{SSOS} (P', \langle \Delta_2, pc_2 \rangle)$. From Theorem~1, if $(P, \langle \Delta_1, pc_1 \rangle) \xrightarrow{SSOS} (P', \langle \Delta_2, pc_2 \rangle)$, then for all $D_0 \in Env$ such that $\mathcal{B}[\![pc_1]\!](\beta(\Delta_1, D_0)) = \top$, and $\mathcal{B}[\![pc_1^2]\!](\beta(\Delta_1, D_0)) = \top$, there is $(P, \beta(\Delta_1, D_0)) \xrightarrow{SOS} (P, \beta(\Delta_2, D_0))$. Using the result for the existence of an SOS transition, and Definition~2, we can conclude that:
\begin{equation*}
R((P, \beta(\Delta_1, D_0)), (P, \beta(\Delta_2, D_0))) = \top
\end{equation*}
\noindent\textbf{\textit{Direction~$(\Leftarrow)$ of (2).}}\\
Assume that there exists $D_0 \in Env$ such that $\mathcal{B}[\![pc_1]\!](\beta(\Delta_1, D_0)) = \top$, $\mathcal{B}[\![pc_2]\!](\beta(\Delta_2, D_0)) = \top$, and $R((P, \beta(\Delta_1, D_0)), (P', \beta(\Delta_2, D_0))) = \top$. From Definition~2, if $R((P, \beta(\Delta_1, D_0)), (P, \beta(\Delta_2, D_0))) = \top$, then $(P, \beta(\Delta_1, D_0))$ $\xrightarrow{SOS} (P, \beta(\Delta_2, D_0))$.
Based on the existence of $(P, \beta(\Delta_1, D_0)) \xrightarrow{SOS} (P, \beta(\Delta_2, D_0))$, and by following Theorem~2, we have that for all $pc_1 \in BExpr_{Sym}$, $\Delta_1 \in SEnv$, and $D_0 \in Env$ such that $\beta(\Delta_1, D_0) = D_1$, there exist $pc_1^2, pc_2 \in BExpr_{Sym}$, and $\Delta_2 \in SEnv$ such that $pc_2 = pc_1 \land pc_1^2$, $\mathcal{B}[\![pc_1^2]\!](\beta(\Delta_1, D_0)) = \top$, $\beta(\Delta_2, D_0) = D_2$ and $(P, \langle \Delta_1, pc_1\rangle) \xrightarrow{SSOS} (P', \langle\Delta_2, pc_2\rangle)$. Using the result for the derived SSOS transition, and Definition~3, we can conclude that $\widehat{R}((P, \langle\Delta_1, pc_1\rangle), (P', \langle\Delta_2, pc_2\rangle)) = \top$.
\end{proof}
Now, let~$\varphi$ be a predicate over the concrete configurations of a Stateflow{} program. Predicate $\varphi$ induces a corresponding predicate $\widehat{\varphi}(sc) \triangleq \varphi(sc[g^{-1}])$ over the symbolic configurations $\mathit{sc = (P, \langle pc, \Delta \rangle)}$, where~$g$ is the bijection from Section~\ref{sec:symbolicsos}. Assuming an interpretation for the \emph{path} and \emph{k-bounded invariant property} formulas for executions over symbolic configurations, the counter-example path formula~(\ref{eq:counter-example-definition}) for symbolic executions can be rewritten as follows:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:counter-example-definition-sts-kappa}
\exists sc_0, \dots, sc_k.\ (path(sc_0, \dots, sc_k) \land
\bigvee\limits_{i=0}^{k} \neg\widehat{\varphi}(sc_i))
\end{equation}~
\noindent
Based on formula~(\ref{eq:counter-example-definition-sts-kappa}), and along the lines of the definition of BMC for C programs given in~\cite{armando2009smt-bmc}, we derive the following.
\begin{theorem}
\label{theo:sts-kappa-bmc}
Let SF be a Stateflow{} program, $\widehat{S} = (\widehat{I}, \widehat{R})$ be an STS over its symbolic configurations, and $\varphi^k$ be a k-bounded invariant property. Then, the following two statements are equivalent:
\begin{enumerate}
\item SF satisfies the k-bounded invariant property $\varphi^k$.
\item The formula $path(sc_0, \dots sc_k) \land \bigvee\limits_{i=0}^{k} \neg\widehat{\varphi}(sc_i)$ is UNSAT.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} (By contradiction.)
Assume that a given Stateflow{} program does not satisfy the \emph{k-}bounded invariant property~$\varphi^k$, and that statement (2) holds. From the definition of \emph{k}-bounded invariant property, we know that such a property fails if there exists a path in which the last configuration violates~$\varphi$. From Definition~\ref{eq:counter-example-definition-sts-kappa}, we know that such a path exists if the formula given in (2) is satisfiable (SAT), which contradicts the initial assumption.
Assume that the formula in (2) is SAT, and that the statement (1) holds. The satisfiability of the formula says that there exists a reachable state $sc_i. \; i < k$, in which the negation of the property $\widehat{\varphi}$ holds, that is, $\widehat{\varphi}(sc_i) = \top$. In such case $\widehat{\varphi}^k$ is not an invariant, which contradicts our initial assumption.
\end{proof}
Now that we have formally defined BMC invariant checking for STS over symbolic configurations, we show how to construct the predicates~$\widehat{I}$ and~$\widehat{R}$ for a given Stateflow{} program.
\subsection{From Stateflow{} Programs to SMT Scripts}
\label{sec:sts-to-smt}
In this section, we describe a procedure for deriving an STS from a given Stateflow{} program using the set of SSOS rules, and the transformation of the STS predicates into quantifier-free FOL formulas that can be used for \emph{k-bounded invariant checking} over symbolic configurations, as defined in Theorem~\ref{theo:sts-kappa-bmc}.
Before deriving an STS $\widehat{S} = (\widehat{I}, \widehat{R})$ from a given Stateflow{} program, one must make a decision as to the \emph{granularity} of the transitions in executions. At its highest syntactic level, any Stateflow{} program is an \texttt{Or}-composition or an \texttt{And}-composition. Since our running example is an \texttt{Or}-composition, and since conceptually the procedure for \texttt{And}-compositions is virtually the same, in the following we focus on the \texttt{Or}-compositions only. We derive an STS in which the transitions between configurations correspond to transitions at the top \texttt{Or}-composition level. Due to the layered structure of the imperative language, each such transition consists of a series of transitions at the lower levels (see Table~\ref{tab:imperative-language} from Section~\ref{sec:h-r-sos}). Our approach to the derivation of the top-level transitions is to use our SSOS to perform \emph{symbolic execution} between any possible pair of consecutive control points of the program, for arbitrary values of the data. One should note that in general case, the derivation of the STS is not strictly bound to the top-level component, as it can be done against any syntactic class of the Stateflow imperative language.
As a result of our adopted modeling principle, the configurations for the induced STS are of the following type: $(Or, \langle pc, \Delta\rangle)$. Even though the program component during execution remains the same (the top-level \texttt{Or}-component), it can be the case that its internal configuration changes. The internal configuration of an \texttt{Or}-component is characterized by the set of active substates. Consequently, the \emph{program control points} correspond to the possible internal configurations at the top \texttt{Or}-composition level.
For instance, our running Stateflow{} example from Figure~\ref{fig:stateflow-scenario} has 5 program control points, namely: i) no active states, ii) \emph{Stop} and \emph{Reset}, iii) \emph{Stop} and \emph{Lap\_stop}, iv) \emph{Run} and \emph{Running}, and v) \emph{Run} and \emph{Lap}.
One way of modeling the program control points as defined above is to extend the set of variables $\mathit{Var}$ with a set of auxiliary Boolean variables ($\mathit{Var_C}$). For every control point~$\mathit{Or}$, the set of variables $\mathit{Var_C}$ can be partitioned into two subsets: the set $\mathit{Var_{C^+} = \{v \: | \: v \in \mathit{Var_C}, \: v = \top\}}$ corresponding to the active states of~$\mathit{Or}$, and $\mathit{Var_{C^-}} = \mathit{Var_C} \setminus \mathit{Var_{C^+}}$. Thus, the control point~$\mathit{Or}$ is characterized by the formula:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:orphi}
\Phi_{\mathit{Or}} \>\triangleq\> \bigwedge\limits_{v \, \in \, Var_{C^+}} v \; \land \bigwedge\limits_{v \, \in \, Var_{C^-}} \neg v
\end{equation}
The initial symbolic configuration for an STS of a Stateflow{} program given as an \texttt{Or}-composition is defined as $(Or_\emptyset, \langle pc_0, \Delta_0\rangle)$, where: $Or_\emptyset$ is an \textit{uninitialized} \texttt{Or}-component that has no active substates, $pc_0 = \top$, and $\Delta = g$ (see Section~\ref{sec:symbolicsos}). As explained, in our STS we only have transitions between symbolic configurations of the form $\mathit{(Or, \langle pc, \Delta \rangle)} \rightarrow \mathit{(Or', \langle pc', \Delta' \rangle)}$, where $Or$ and $Or'$ are consecutive program control points. To express the predicates $\widehat{I}$ and~$\widehat{R}$ as quantifier-free FOL formulas, we need to construct the quantifier-free FOL formulas for the~$pc$ and~$\Delta$ components of the symbolic configurations.
The path condition~$pc$ is a quantifier-free Boolean expression over symbols, and as such can be viewed as a quantifier-free FOL formula $\Phi_{pc}$. The symbolic environment~$\Delta$, on the other hand, is a mapping between program variables and arithmetic expressions over symbols. From~$\Delta$, one can construct a quantifier-free FOL formula modulo theory of arithmetic for~$\Phi_\Delta$, as follows:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:deltaphi}
\begin{aligned}
\Phi_\Delta \triangleq \bigwedge\limits_{v \in \mathit{Var}_D} v' = \Delta(v)
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\noindent where $\mathit{Var_D} = \mathit{Var} \setminus \mathit{Var_C}$.
Now that we have defined the construction of quantifier-free FOL formulas for each of the components of the symbolic configurations of an STS, we can construct, for any transition~$T_i$ between symbolic configurations, a quantifier-free FOL formula~($\Phi_{T_i}$) modulo theory of arithmetic, as follows:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:transitionphi}
\Phi_{T_i} \>\triangleq\> \Phi_{Or} \land \Phi_{pc_1^2} \Rightarrow \Phi_{Or'} \land \Phi_{\Delta'}
\end{equation}~
Finally, based on the formula~(\ref{eq:transitionphi}) and Proposition 1, we encode the predicates $\widehat{I}$~and~$\widehat{R}$ as the following quantifier-free FOL modulo theory of arithmetic formulas:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:i-and-r-fol}
\begin{aligned}
&\widehat{I} \ \triangleq \ \Phi_{\mathit{Or}_\emptyset} \land \Phi_{\Delta_0} \\
&\widehat{R} \ \triangleq \ \bigwedge\limits_{T_i \in T} \Phi_{T_i}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\noindent where $T$ is the set of all derivable SSOS transitions from the initial top-level composition. One way of computing~$T$ is to start from the initial program control point ($Or_\emptyset$) and derive all transitions between reachable program control points with a standard breadth-first or depth-first search algorithm.
The remaining step now is to encode the FOL formulas corresponding to the $\widehat{I}$ and $\widehat{R}$ predicates into the SMT-LIB script format, in order to be used as an input to an SMT-solver. We assume that the program data ($\mathit{Var_D}$) in the Stateflow{} program is composed of scalar variables, which are either numeric or Boolean. There are two ways of encoding the numeric variables for SMT: i)~using the theory of bit-vectors~\cite{ganesh07bitvector}, or ii)~directly as variables of the sort that corresponds to their numeric domain. The bit-vector encoding provides an accurate way of capturing the binary representation of the numeric values; however, the resulting formula depends on the size of the vector. The numeric representation, on the other hand, provides an encoding independent of the binary representation, but does not guarantee completeness for non-linear arithmetic expressions. In our case, the latter suffices. We model the \emph{events} using Boolean variables.
An earlier work shows how a sequence of C~commands can be converted into an SMT script~\cite{armando2009smt-bmc}, using the concepts of \emph{conditional normal form}, and \emph{single static assignment form} (SSA) (see, e.g., \cite{cytron1989ssa}). A program is in conditional normal form if all the statements are of the form \emph{if (c) then r}, where \emph{r} is either an assertion or an assignment. The SSA encoding principle requires each variable to be assigned only once, which means that for each assignment a \emph{fresh} variable is added to the set $\mathit{Var}$. For instance, $v_1^1$ is a fresh variable that represents the first intermediate assignment of the variable $v$ during the second execution step. This resolves the SMT-encoding for the sequential execution of the accumulated actions from the derived transitions.
\section{Background}
\label{sec:background}
In this section, we present an overview of the concepts on which we build our work. First, in Section~\ref{sec:stateflow} we give a succinct overview of the Stateflow{} modeling language. Next, in Section~\ref{sec:h-r-sos} we give a brief overview of the existing Stateflow{} imperative language and its SOS. In Section~\ref{sec:smt-z3} we recall the general concept of Satisfiability Modulo Theories (SMT) and the Z3 tool, and finally in Section~\ref{sec:bmc} we give an overview of Bounded Model Checking (BMC).
\input{./sections/stateflow.tex}
\input{./sections/stateflow-imperative-language.tex}
\input{sections/smt-and-z3}
\input{sections/bmc}
\section{Practical Evaluation of {\scshape SESf}{}}
\label{sec:evaluation-and-comparison}
In this section, we present the preliminary results from the initial practical evaluation of our approach (henceforth referred to as {\scshape SESf}{}). As benchmark, we use the Stopwatch running example from Section~\ref{sec:stateflow}. The main purpose of this evaluation is to obtain preliminary data for the practical usefulness of our approach, in terms of its ability to detect design errors, and the time it requires to detect them. Even though the most natural way to assess the applicability and the practical usefulness of our approach is to benchmark it against the SLDV tool on a wider set of use cases, in the end it was not possible due to the licensing constraints described in Section~\ref{sec:introduction}.
To this date, we have automated the following aspects of our approach: the generation of an underlying STS $\widehat{S} = (\widehat{I}, \widehat{R})$, the incremental unrolling of the predicate $\widehat{R}$ that models the program execution, and checking the satisfiability of the generated formula after each unrolling, using the Z3 solver. The only part that is not yet automated is the SMT-LIB encoding of the underlying STS.
Before we delve into the analysis, we explain the environmental setup for the evaluation. Our {\scshape SESf}{} tool requires that the Stateflow{} model is encoded into the imperative language, which is then provided as an input to the {\scshape SESf}{} tool. As the transformation of the graphical model into an imperative program is beyond the scope of this paper, we assume that there exists a tool that converts an original Stateflow{} model into a program written in the imperative language. The complete evaluation is performed on a standard MacBook Pro workstation with a 2,4 GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i5 processor and 8GB of RAM memory. We use Matlab version R2020b.
The set~$T$ of symbolic transitions at the program level is generated by a \emph{symbolic execution engine} which is implemented in Python. For each of the transitions, the symbolic execution engine generates a certificate for the correctness of the transition in the form of an SSOS \emph{derivation tree}~\cite{sesfGitLink}. The tool generates the set $T$ for the Stopwatch program, consisting of 22~transitions, within one second. Next, we manually encode the set~$T$ into SMT-LIB assertions, by following the procedure described in Section~\ref{sec:sts-to-smt}.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\resizebox{.7\columnwidth}{!}{
\input{figures/results-plot}
}
\caption{Evaluation results} \label{fig:fig:evaluation-results}
\end{figure}
Next, we proceed to the main part of the evaluation, where we measure the time required by the tool to find a violation for a given invariant property, i.e., a counter-example, which is completely automated. In order to test the time for finding a counter-example, we analyze the Stopwatch model against the following parametric invariant property: \emph{The value of cent is always between 0 and X}, for which we know that there exists a counter-example trace of a specific length since the $cent$ variables will increase up to 100. We then run the analysis for the following set of values for \emph{X}: $\{5, 10, 20, 40, 80, 99\}$. The {\scshape SESf}{} was able to provide a counter-example for each instance of the property. The results, in terms of time required to find the counter-example for each of the values of~\emph{X}, are given in Figure~\ref{fig:fig:evaluation-results}.
Following the data plot, we can see that the {\scshape SESf}{} tool was able to find violation for all the parameter values for the parametric safety property in a time frame ranging from several seconds to less than two minutes. Even though the obtained data can be best judged in a head-to-head comparison with the state-of-the-practice tool for formal verification of Stateflow{} models, we are unable to do so due to the aforementioned licensing issues. In spite of the limited validation presented in this section, we deem our approach and the prototype implementation to have potential for practical application as it was able to find the injected design errors within a reasonable time frame.
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:introduction}
Stateflow{}~\cite{stateflowug} is a proprietary graphical modelling language developed and maintained by Mathworks. It is an extension of a formalism for modelling complex systems through hierarchical state machines called Statecharts~\cite{harel1987statecharts}. The expansion and popularity of the Stateflow{} language is mostly due to its integration into the Matlab Simulink graphical development and simulation environment~\cite{simulinkug}, which makes it a standard tool for modeling (hierarchical) state-machines in many industrial domains, such as the automotive, avionics, and railway domains. The rich graphical formalism and the variety of supporting tools in the Matlab Simulink environment enable the development of highly complex software models, which in many instances are classified as \emph{safety-critical}. The correctness of safety critical systems is regulated by domain-specific safety standards (e.g., ISO26262~\cite{iso26262} in the automotive domain), which require correct operation of such systems at all times with strongly regulated error margins.
One way of enabling a high level of quality-assurance for safety-critical systems is to employ rigorous mathematics-based verification methods, popularly known as \emph{formal verification techniques}. The starting point of applying such techniques is the existence of a precise \emph{formal model} of the system design. To be able to generate such a model, besides a formal \emph{syntax}, the modeling language in which the system design is produced must have a precisely defined execution \emph{semantics}. However, even in its most comprehensive documentation~\cite{stateflowug}, the execution semantics of the Stateflow{} language has only been described informally. Still, Mathworks offers a tool, namely the Simulink Design Verifier~(SLDV)~\cite{stateflowug}, which provides features for test case generation and formal property checking. The SLDV tool is of a closed-source, proprietary nature, and not much information about the employed formal verification technique has been disclosed so far, except that it implements SAT-based model checking~\cite{hamon2008simulink}. According to Etienne et al.~\cite{etienne10usingsldv}, SLDV implements SAT-based bounded model checking and $k$-induction using the Prover SL DE tool~\cite{abdulla2004scadedesignverifier}, yet little information is presented as to how exactly the original Stateflow{} models are analysed. On top of the information scarcity, the SLDV tool is distributed under a license that explicitly forbids benchmarking or any other form of direct comparison with another approach or tool, be it commercial or of purely academic nature.
The problem of formal verification of Stateflow{} models has been addressed in a number of research endeavours, which have focused either on defining a formal semantics for the language~\cite{hamon2004operationalsemanticsstateflow,hamon2007operationalsemanticsstateflow,hamon2005denotational,bourbouh2017automatedanalysisofstateflowmodels}, aimed to be used as the basis for formal analysis, or propose a model-to-model transformation scheme of Stateflow{} models into some formal analysis framework, without having an underpinning formal semantics for Stateflow{} itself~\cite{yang16stateflowtransformationase,jiang2019dependablecpsstateflow,banphawatthanarak1999symbolic}. The Stateflow{} verification approaches predominantly focus on \emph{exhaustive} techniques, in order to determine whether a Stateflow{} model satisfies given property or not. However, due to the complex nature of the Stateflow{} models, particularly in industrial settings, generating a formal correctness certificate is often intractable, mostly due to the state-space explosion problem~\cite[p.~77]{katoen08principlesofmc}. In such cases, the verification task runs out of physical memory and fails, without providing much useful feedback to the designers.
Apart from this \emph{scalability} limitation, some of the approaches for model-to-model transformation (see e.g.~\cite{jiang2019dependablecpsstateflow}) lack the means to formally demonstrate the correctness of the formal analysis model w.r.t. the original Stateflow{} model, and consequently of the obtained analysis results.
In this work, we are tackling the aforementioned challenges for formal analysis of Stateflow{} models by presenting a technique that applies \emph{bounded model checking} (BMC)~\cite{biere2003boundedmodelchecking} over \emph{symbolic executions}~\cite{king1976symbolicexecutionandtesting} of Stateflow{} models. We adopt BMC as the underlying technique for verification for two main reasons: first, to leverage the power of SAT/SMT-based model checking~\cite{barrett18smtbookchapter}, and second, to alleviate the state-space explosion by incrementally exploring all system executions of bounded length~\cite{barrett18smtbookchapter}, until the problem becomes intractable. In this paper, we focus on checking \emph{invariant} properties, which are state properties that hold in all reachable states of a given program. Even though invariant properties represent just one class of properties, based on our previous and current experiences in collaboration with industrial partners, it is often considered to be the most important one for safety-critical systems.
There are two crucial aspects of our verification technique. Fist, we develop a provably correct transformation of Stateflow{} models into \emph{symbolic transition systems} (STS), and second, we encode the invariant checking problem for STS as a quantifier-free SMT problem that can be checked using any modern SMT solver.
\paragraph{Contributions}
Our verification technique consists of the following ingredients. First, we derive a set of symbolic structural operational semantics rules (SSOS). The SSOS rules are obtained by uniformly translating into symbolic counterparts the rules of an already existing SOS for Stateflow{}~\cite{hamon2004operationalsemanticsstateflow}. We build on top of this particular set of SOS rules, because it is the only available operational semantics for Stateflow{} that is suitable for our needs, and because the correctness of the rules has already been validated against the \emph{simulation semantics} of Stateflow{} (see~\cite{hamon2004operationalsemanticsstateflow}). The SSOS is needed for deriving STS at a suitably high level of granularity of the execution steps (which we choose to be the level of Stateflow{} program statements), abstracting from the intricate many-layered transitions of the original SOS.
As our second contribution, we present two theorems that show that the SOS and SSOS \emph{simulate} each other. This result is crucial for the correctness of our technique.
Our third contribution is a translation, using the SSOS, of Stateflow{} programs into STS over symbolic configurations, and the encoding of the STS and the given invariant property into a set of constraints in the SMT-LIB format~\cite{barret15smtlib}. The latter set of constraints can then be used as input to most of the modern SMT solvers. In our work, we use the Z3 SMT solver~\cite{demoura08z3} from Microsoft Research. Finally, we present preliminary evidence for the practical usefulness of our approach, by applying it on an illustrative Stateflow{} model. Even though initially we planned to compare our approach against the SLDV tool, in the end it was not possible due to the strict licensing constraints imposed by Mathworks.
\paragraph{Structure}
Our paper is organised as follows. In Section~\ref{sec:background} we outline the required background concepts that we use throughout the paper, including a brief overview of the Stateflow{} modelling language illustrated on a running example (Section~\ref{sec:stateflow}), the imperative Stateflow{} language and its formal execution semantics (Section~\ref{sec:h-r-sos}), and an overview of the SMT (Section~\ref{sec:smt-z3}) and BMC (Section~\ref{sec:bmc}) techniques. In Section~\ref{sec:symbolicsos} we present the SSOS for Stateflow{} programs, followed by the characterization of the relationship between the concrete and symbolic semantics in Section~\ref{sec:characterization-sos-ssos}. Next, in Section~\ref{sec:transformation-and-smt-encoding}, we show how an STS over symbolic configurations can be constructed using the SSOS rules (Section~\ref{sec:stateflow-to-sts}), followed by an informal encoding procedure into an SMT-LIB script (Section~\ref{sec:sts-to-smt}). Next, we show a preliminary evaluation of our approach, based on the running example (Section~\ref{sec:evaluation-and-comparison}). We give an overview of the related work in Section~\ref{sec:related-work}, and finally, in Section~\ref{sec:conclusions}, present our conclusions and outline some directions for future work.
\section{Complete Set of SSOS Rules}
\label{sec:appendix-A}
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\input{sections/sos-rules/transition-rules}
\caption{SSOS rules for transitions.}
\label{fig:t-rules-complete}
\end{figure}
In this appendix, we present the complete set of SSOS rules. The rules are divided in 5 categories, as follows: rules for transitions (Figure~\ref{fig:t-rules-complete}), transition lists (Figure~\ref{fig:T-rules-part-1}), state definitions (Figure~\ref{fig:sd-rules-complete}), \texttt{And-}compositions (Figure~\ref{fig:and-rules-complete}), and \texttt{Or-}compositions (Figure~\ref{fig:or-rules-part-1}, and Figure~\ref{fig:or-rules-part-2}).
The set of SSOS rules for \emph{transitions} is composed of 3~rules and is given in Figure~\ref{fig:t-rules-complete}. Intuitively, the rules describe the following. The [t-FIRE] rule describes how a Stateflow{} transition~$t$ fires by appending the symbolic evaluation of the condition $t.c$ to the current path condition and by symbolically executing the condition action $t.ca$ over the current symbolic environment $\Delta$. When a transition fires, a transition event $Fire(t.d, t.ta)$ is generated. The [t-NOT-ENABLED] rule is applicable when the event of the currently processed transition does not match the currently active event. Finally, the last rule [t-NO-FIRE] describes how a Stateflow{} transition does not fire because its guard does not evaluate to true. The processing of such transitions results in a new path condition, which is generated by appending the negation of the transition condition to the current path condition, while the symbolic environment remains the same.
\begin{figure}[ht!]
\centering
\input{sections/sos-rules/transition-list-rules}
\caption{SSOS rules for transition list (part 1).}
\label{fig:T-rules-part-1}
\end{figure}
Next comes the set of SSOS rules for \emph{transitions lists}~$T$, which is given in Figure~\ref{fig:T-rules-part-1}. The list is composed of 7~rules, as follows. [T-$\emptyset$] describes how an empty transition list is processed, rules [T-FIRE], [T-NO-LAST-1], [T-NO-LAST-2], and [T-NO], describe the sequential execution of the constituent transitions of the transition list. If a transition from a transition list fires to a junction ($j$), the list of transitions of that junction is processed in the following manner: the instantaneous processing of transitions until a transition is completed ([T-FIRE-J-F]), a final junction is reached ([T-END]) or the evaluation fails in which case the execution backtracks to resume using the [T-FIRE-J-N] rule.
\begin{figure*}[t!]
\centering
\input{sections/sos-rules/sd-rules}
\caption{SSOS rules for state definition.}
\label{fig:sd-rules-complete}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[t!]
\centering
\input{sections/sos-rules/and-rules}
\caption{SSOS rules for \texttt{And} composition.}
\label{fig:and-rules-complete}
\end{figure*}
The SSOS rules for \emph{state definitions} (5 in total) are given in Figure \ref{fig:sd-rules-complete}. The first rule, named [SD-NO], is applied when there is no enabled transition for the state definition, be it internal or output. The rule [SD-INT-FIRE] applies when some internal transition within a state definition fires, whereas [SD-FIRE] captures the behavior of the state definition when one of its outgoing transitions fires. [SD-INIT] represents the initialization behavior of the state definitions, and finally [SD-EXIT] describes the sequence of actions when a state definition is exited, when the state definition is placed inside another state.
The set of SSOS rules for \texttt{And}-\emph{compositions} is given in Figure~\ref{fig:and-rules-complete}, and contains the rules for updating ([AND]), initialization ([AND-INIT]) and exiting ([AND-EXIT]), respectively.
Finally, the set of SSOS rules for \texttt{Or}-compositions is given in Figure~\ref{fig:or-rules-part-1}, and Figure~\ref{fig:or-rules-part-2}, respectively. Rules [OR-EXT-FIRE], and [OR-EXT-FIRE] describe the situations where a transition within an \texttt{Or}-composition fires and the destination is within and outside the composition, respectively. The [OR-NO] rule describes a situation when no transition of an \texttt{Or}-composition fires, whereas the [OR-INT-FIRE] and [OR-FIRE] rules are applicable when an internal or external transition fires, respectively. The [OR-INT-NO-STATE] rule describes how an \texttt{Or}-composition without any internal components fires. The initialization of an \texttt{Or}-composition in situations when the composition enters the initial state, or an incoming transition comes into non-initial internal state, is handled by the [OR-INIT-$\emptyset_p$] and [OR-INIT] rules. Finally, the [OR-EXIT] rule describes the steps involved in exiting from an \texttt{Or}-composition.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\input{sections/sos-rules/or-rules}
\caption{SSOS rules for \texttt{Or} composition (part 1).}
\label{fig:or-rules-part-1}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\input{sections/sos-rules/or-rules-2}
\caption{SSOS rules for \texttt{Or} composition (part 2).}
\label{fig:or-rules-part-2}
\end{figure*}
\newpage
\newpage
\section{Appendix: SOS rules}
In this section, we give the SOS rules \cite{hamon2004operationalsemanticsstateflow,hamon2007operationalsemanticsstateflow}, which we refer throughout the paper.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\begin{minipage}{.5\textwidth}
[t-FIRE]
\begin{align*}
\frac{e \vdash (c, D_1) \rightarrow{} true \quad\quad e \vdash (a, D_1) \hookrightarrow D_2}
{e \vdash ((e_0, c, a_c, a_t, d), D_1) \rightarrow{} D_2, Fire(d, ta)}
\end{align*}\newline
[T-FIRE]
\begin{align*}
\frac{e \vdash (t, D_1) \rightarrow{} D_2, Fire(d, a)}
{e, J \vdash (t.T, D_1) \rightarrow{} D_2, Fire(t.d, ta)}
\end{align*}\newline
[SD-FIRE]
\begin{align*}
\frac{\splitdfrac{e, J_0 \vdash (T_o, D_1) \rightarrow{} D_2, Fire(d, a) \quad e \vdash (a, D_2) \rightarrow{} D_3}
{e \vdash (C, D_3) \Downarrow (C', D_4)
{\quad e \vdash (A.x, D_4) \hookrightarrow{} D_5}}}
{e, J_0 \vdash ((A,C,T_i,T_o,J), D_1) \rightarrow{} ((A,C',T_i,T_o,J), D_5, Fire(d, \diamond))}
\end{align*}\newline
[AND]
\begin{align*}
\frac{\forall i \in [1,\dots n] \quad e,J \vdash (sd_i, D_i) \rightarrow{} (sd'_i,D_{i+1}, No)}
{\splitdfrac{e,J,tv \vdash (And\{s_0:sd_0 \cdots s_n:sd_n\}, D_1}{\rightarrow{} (And\{s_0:sd'_0 \cdots s_n:sd'_n\}, D_{n+1}, No)}}[*]
\end{align*}
\newline $[*]\:(tv_i = No) \lor (tv_i = End)$\newline
[OR-FIRE]
\begin{align*}
\frac{e,J \vdash (sd, D_1)\rightarrow{} (sd', D_2, Fire(p', a))}
{\splitdfrac{e, J, tv \vdash (Or(s,p,T,SD[s:sd]), D_1)}{\rightarrow{} (Or(\emptyset_s,p,T,SD[s:sd']), D_2, Fire(p',a))}}[*]
\end{align*}
[*] $[\mathit{(tv = No) \: \lor (tv = \: End), \quad \neg prefix(p',p)}]$
\end{minipage}
\caption{The subset of SOS rules used in our paper.}
\label{fig:sos-rules-from-paper}
\end{figure} |
\section{Introduction}
The subject of this note is a ferromagnetic spin system with Hamiltonian $H\vcentcolon \{-1, 1\}^N \to {\mathbb{R}}$ defined by
\beq{eq:firsthdef} H(\sigma) = -\frac{1}{2}\sum_{ij} J_{ij} \sigma_i \sigma_j - \sum_i h_i \sigma_i, \qquad J_{ij} \geq 0 \end{equation}
and Gibbs expectation of $f\vcentcolon \{-1, 1\}^N \to {\mathbb{R}}$ given by
\[\mean{f} = \frac{1}{Z} \sum_\sigma f(\sigma) e^{-H(\sigma)}, \qquad Z = \sum_\sigma e^{-H(\sigma)}. \]
There is no loss of generality in assuming that $J_{ij} = J_{ji}$, which we will do from now on. The results below will be meaningful in the setting where $\max J_{ij} \to 0$ as $N \to \infty$.
The prototypical example of such a system is the Curie-Weiss model, which corresponds to the choice $J_{ij} = \beta N^{-1}$ with $\beta \geq 0$ and $h_i = h \in {\mathbb{R}}$ (see~\cite{MR2189669} for a comprehensive discussion and bibliography). The phase diagram of the Curie-Weiss model can be obtained by studying the observable $M = N^{-1} \sum_i \sigma_i$, whose Gibbs expectation satisfies the mean-field equation
\beq{eq:cwmf} \mean{M} = \tanh(h + \beta \mean{M})\end{equation}
in the thermodynamic limit $N \to \infty$. To understand~\eqref{eq:cwmf} heuristically, we note that
\[\mean{\sigma_i} = \Braket{\tanh\left(h + \frac{\beta}{N} \sum_{j \neq i} \sigma_j \right) }_i\]
where $\mean{\cdot}_i$ is the Gibbs expectation with the spin $\sigma_i$ removed. Since one expects $M$ to concentrate around its expectation both at high temperature (spins are approximately independent) and at low temperature when $h \neq 0$ (almost all spins take on the same value), it should be possible to pull the Gibbs expectation inside the $\tanh$. Although this intuition should extend also to the more general case~\eqref{eq:firsthdef}, rigorous treatments of~\eqref{eq:cwmf} rely strongly on the symmetries of the Curie-Weiss model. The classical approach (see~\cite[Ch.\,2]{MR3752129}) is to compute the entropy using that $H = -\frac{\beta}{2} N M^2 - h N M$ essentially depends on only one degree of freedom. Other proofs exploit this symmetry using the Hubbard-Stratonovich transformation~\cite{PhysRevLett.3.77,1957SPhD....2..416S}, Varadhan's lemma~\cite{MR203230}, or the exchangeability of certain spin configurations~\cite{MR2707160, MR2288072}.
We propose a simple dynamical method for establishing explicit finite-volume versions of the mean-field equations that are valid for general interactions. Setting $m_i = \mean{\sigma_i}$, the analogue of~\eqref{eq:cwmf} in the general setting is
\beq{eq:genmf} {\mathbf{m}} = \tanh({\mathbf{h}} + {\mathbf{J}} {\mathbf{m}}) \end{equation}
where ${\mathbf{m}} = (m_i)$, ${\mathbf{h}} = (h_i)$, ${\mathbf{J}} = (J_{ij})$, and the $\tanh$ of a vector is defined in an entrywise sense. To state our main result, we also introduce the notation
\[\hat{{\mathbf{h}}} = \min h_i, \qquad \|{\mathbf{J}}\|_{\infty, \infty} = \max_j \sum_i J_{ij}, \qquad \|{\mathbf{J}}\|_{1, \infty} = \max_{ij} J_{ij}.\]
The typical mean-field setting corresponds to $\|{\mathbf{J}}\|_{\infty, \infty} = {\mathcal{O}}(1)$ and $\|{\mathbf{J}}\|_{1, \infty} = {\mathcal{O}}(N^{-1})$ as $N \to \infty$.
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:main} Let ${\mathbf{h}} \geq 0$. Then
\[ \|{\mathbf{m}} - \tanh({\mathbf{h}} + {\mathbf{J}} {\mathbf{m}})\|_\infty \le \frac{\|{\mathbf{J}}\|_{1, \infty}}{\hat{{\mathbf{h}}}} \left(3 + \|{\mathbf{J}}\|_{\infty, \infty} + \log\left(1 + \frac{\|{\mathbf{J}}\|_{\infty, \infty}}{\hat{{\mathbf{h}}}} \right) \right).\]
\end{theorem}
Theorem~\ref{thm:main} is only informative when $\hat{{\mathbf{h}}} > 0$. However, when $\|{\mathbf{J}}\|_{1,\infty} \to 0$ as $N \to \infty$, the theorem is sufficient to study the physically relevant order of limits that first lets $N \to \infty$ and then lets ${\mathbf{h}} \to 0$. Moreover, one can arrange for both $\hat{{\mathbf{h}}}$ and the right hand side in Theorem~\ref{thm:main} to also vanish asymptotically if $\|{\mathbf{J}}\|_{1, \infty}$ does -- a point we will return to in Section~\ref{sec:applications}. To the best of our knowledge, quantitative bounds like Theorem~\ref{thm:main} are relatively scarce in the standard literature on the Curie-Weiss model. Stein's method for exchangeable pairs~\cite{MR2707160, MR2288072} yields concentration bounds for $M$ under the Gibbs measure with fluctuations of order $N^{-1/2}$. In particular, these bounds prove Theorem~\ref{thm:main} for the Curie-Weiss model with an error rate of $N^{-1/2}$. When ${\mathbf{h}} > 0$, our result improves the error rate to $N^{-1}$ while remaining valid for models with general interactions ${\mathbf{J}}$. There have also been recent developments concerning the fluctuations of general nonlinear functions of Bernoulli random variables whose gradients are close to a low-dimensional manifold \cite{MR3519474}. The application of these ideas to mean-field Gibbs measures was further explored in the works~\cite{MR3663625, pmlr-v75-jain18b, fluct-preprint}.
The general mean-field equations~\eqref{eq:genmf} are very common in the physics literature~\cite[Sec.\,3.2]{MR1007980}. Nevertheless, it was noted in~\cite[Sec.\,3.4]{MR2707160} that completely general interactions ${\mathbf{J}}$ seem to pose significant challenges for the existing mathematical strategies. It was also shown in~\cite[Thm.\,3.5]{MR2707160} that methods based on exchangeable pairs can yield analogues of the mean-field equations for certain conditional averages with high probability under the Gibbs measure, from which~\eqref{eq:genmf} follows at sufficiently high temperatures. Exchangeable pairs have also been used to analyze the rank-one case ${\mathbf{J}} = \mathbf{w}\mathbf{w}^\intercal$ with a regular and non-negative $\mathbf{w} \in {\mathbb{R}}^N$~\cite{MR4046512}. A different perspective can be found in the works~\cite{MR1989669,MR2219531}, which prove that the magnetizations of sufficiently high-dimensional or long-range systems approximately minimize the free energy of the associated mean-field theory. These are very strong results that, among many other things, imply the approximate validity of the mean-field equations but also rely on the powerful input of infrared bounds derived from reflection positivity.
There is a strong analogy between the mean-field equation and the subordination relations in random matrix theory and free probability. The central example of the latter is concerned with the resolvent $G(t, z) = (A_t - z)^{-1}$ of an $N \times N$ matrix $A_t = A_0 + \sqrt{t} \Phi$, where $A_0$ is a diagonal matrix and $\Phi$ is drawn from the Gaussian orthogonal ensemble. The main assertion, that the limiting empirical eigenvalue distribution of $A_t$ is given by the free convolution of the limiting empirical eigenvalue distribution of $A_0$ and a semicircular element, can be captured by the fact that
\[s_0(z) = \frac{1}{N} \sum_{\lambda \in \sigma(A_0)} \frac{1}{\lambda-z}, \qquad s_t(z) = \frac{1}{N} \sum_{\lambda \in \sigma(A_t)} \frac{1}{\lambda - z}\]
are analytic functions that map the half-plane ${\operatorname{Im}\,} z > 0$ into itself and satisfy
\beq{eq:subordination} s_t(z) = s_0(z + t s_t(z))\end{equation}
in the $N \to \infty$ limit~\cite{MR0475502}. To illustrate the connection to the mean-field equation, we consider the simplest case of~\eqref{eq:genmf} when $h_i = h > 0$ and $\sum_j J_{ij} = \beta$ for all $i$. In this case, one can construct a solution of~\eqref{eq:genmf} by letting each entry solve the scalar equation
\beq{eq:tracemf} m = \tanh(h + \beta m). \end{equation}
It is not hard to show that the positive solution $m = m(h)$ of~\eqref{eq:tracemf} extends to an analytic function of $h$ that maps the half-plane ${\operatorname{Re }\,} h > 0$ into itself. It follows that $\tilde{m}(z) = i m(-iz)$ is an analytic function of $\{{\operatorname{Im}\,} z > 0\}$ into itself with
\[\tilde{m}(z) = \tan (z + \beta \tilde{m}(z)).\]
It is a consequence of the Herglotz trick~\cite{MR3823190} that
\[\tan(z) = \sum_{\lambda \in \Lambda} \frac{1}{\lambda - z}, \qquad \Lambda = \pi ({\mathbb{Z}} + 1/2),\]
so $\tilde{m}$ is the Stieltjes transform of the free convolution of $\sum_{\lambda \in \Lambda} \delta_\lambda$ and a semicircular element. Expanding on this theme, the assertion of Theorem~\ref{thm:main} that the relation~\eqref{eq:tracemf} is not only valid asymptotically but that the error is small even in finite volumes when $\hat{{\mathbf{h}}} \gg \|{\mathbf{J}}\|_{1, \infty}$, is analogous to the local deformed semicircle law~\cite{MR3134604}. The proof of the local law depends crucially on the fact that
\beq{eq:wardid} \left| \parder{}{z} G_{ii}(t, z) \right| \le \sum_{k} |G_{ik}(t, z)|^2 = \frac{{\operatorname{Im}\,} G_{ii}(t, z)}{{\operatorname{Im}\,} z}.\end{equation}
Lemma~\ref{thm:corrbound}, which rests on the Lee-Yang theorem~\cite{PhysRev.87.410}, contains a similar inequality for $m_i$ that lies at the heart of Theorem~\ref{thm:main}.
It was observed in~\cite{MR0475502} that the subordination relation~\eqref{eq:subordination} is equivalent to the partial differential equation
\beq{eq:pde} \parder{}{t} s_t(z) = s_t(z) \parder{}{z} s_t(z).\end{equation}
In finite volumes, $s_t$ exactly satisfies a perturbed version of this transport equation, which enables a simple proof the local law by combining the analytic structure contained in~\eqref{eq:wardid} with an approximate characteristic curve~\cite{MR3920502,MR4049087}. Our approach to Theorem~\ref{thm:main} is to generalize this analysis by exploiting the identity
\beq{eq:corederid} \parder{}{J_{ij}} \mean{f} = m_i \parder{}{h_j} \mean{f} + m_j \parder{}{h_i} \mean{f} + \parder{^2}{h_i \partial h_j} \mean{f}. \end{equation}
The relationship between~\eqref{eq:corederid} and~\eqref{eq:pde} is most apparent in the Curie-Weiss model, where~\eqref{eq:corederid} yields
\[\parder{}{\beta} \mean{M} = \mean{M} \parder{}{h} \mean{M} + \frac{1}{2N} \parder{^2}{h^2} \mean{M},\]
which is the evolution studied in~\cite{MR3920502} without the stochastic terms. We note that similar differential \textit{inequalities} have been studied in a variety of models that go beyond the mean-field setting~\cite{MR894398,MR874906}.
This paper is structured as follows. In Section~\ref{sec:proof}, we use~\eqref{eq:corederid} to derive a transport equation in the general setting and prove the analogue of~\eqref{eq:wardid}. This allows us to extend the ideas of~\cite{MR3920502,MR4049087} concerning approximate characteristic curves to the present setting and prove Theorem~\ref{thm:main}. Then, in Section~\ref{sec:applications}, we present three sample applications of our method to Ka\'{c} interactions, randomly diluted models, and models with an asymptotically vanishing external field.
\section{Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:main}}\label{sec:proof}
Rearranging indices shows that Theorem~\ref{thm:main} follows if we can prove that
\beq{eq:toprove}|m_1 - \tanh(h_1 + {\mathbf{J}}_1^\intercal {\mathbf{m}})| \le \frac{\|{\mathbf{J}}_1\|_\infty}{\hat{{\mathbf{h}}}} \left(3 + \|{\mathbf{J}}_1\|_1 + \log\left(1 + \frac{\|{\mathbf{J}}_1\|_1}{\hat{{\mathbf{h}}}} \right) \right) \end{equation}
where ${\mathbf{J}}_1 = (J_{1i})$ is the first column of ${\mathbf{J}}$. By symmetry, we can write $H(\sigma) = H(1, \sigma)$, where
\[H(t, \sigma) = t \sum_i J_{1i} \sigma_1 \sigma_i + \sum_i h_i \sigma_i + H_1(\sigma_2, \dots, \sigma_N)\]
and $H_1$ does not depend on $\sigma_1$. Moreover, if ${\mathbf{m}}(t, {\mathbf{h}})$ denotes the vector of magnetizations under $H(t, \cdot)$, the identity~\eqref{eq:corederid} yields
\beq{eq:realpde} \parder{}{t} {\mathbf{m}}(t, {\mathbf{h}}) = m_1(t, {\mathbf{h}}) \parder{}{{\mathbf{J}}_1} {\mathbf{m}}(t, {\mathbf{h}}) + \parder{^2}{h_1 \partial {\mathbf{J}}_1} {\mathbf{m}}(t, {\mathbf{h}}) + ({\mathbf{J}}_1^\intercal {\mathbf{m}}) \parder{}{h_1} {\mathbf{m}}(t, {\mathbf{h}}),\end{equation}
where $\parder{}{{\mathbf{J}}_1} = {\mathbf{J}}_1^\intercal \nabla_{{\mathbf{h}}}$ is the directional derivative with respect to ${\mathbf{h}}$ in direction ${\mathbf{J}}_1$.
If we knew that the first two terms on the right hand side of~\eqref{eq:realpde} were negligible, then~\eqref{eq:realpde} would reduce to a transport equation that could be solved by varying $h_1$ along a suitable characteristic curve. We will prove the appropriate bounds for this purpose with the help of the following integral representation. Suppose that $f$ is a holomorphic function defined on a half-plane ${\operatorname{Re }\,} z > -\kappa$ such that ${\operatorname{Re }\,} f \geq 0$ and such that $f$ remains bounded as $z \to \infty$ along ${\mathbb{R}}$. Then,
\[f(z) = a + \int_{{\mathbb{R}}} \! \frac{1}{z + \kappa - i\lambda } \, \mu(d\lambda)\]
for some positive measure $\mu$ and $a \in {\mathbb{C}}$~\cite[Ch.\,5]{MR1307384}, which implies that
\[\left|f^\prime(z) \right| \le \frac{{\operatorname{Re }\,} f(z)}{{\operatorname{Re }\,} z + \kappa}.\]
We note that the use of integral representations of holomorphic functions to bound correlations is a classical idea (see for instance~\cite{MR2905800, MR432092}).
\begin{lemma} \label{thm:corrbound} For every $k$ and every ${\mathbf{s}} \geq 0$,
\[ \left| \parder{}{{\mathbf{s}}} m_k(t, {\mathbf{h}}) \right| \le \frac{\|{\mathbf{s}}\|_\infty}{\hat{{\mathbf{h}}}} \, m_k(t, {\mathbf{h}})\]
and
\[\left| \parder{^2}{h_1 \partial {\mathbf{s}}} m_k(t, {\mathbf{h}}) \right| \le \frac{\|{\mathbf{s}}\|_\infty}{\hat{{\mathbf{h}}}} \,\frac{m_k(t, {\mathbf{h}})}{h_1} \]
for all $t \geq 0$ and ${\mathbf{h}} > 0$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} If we fix $h_j$ with ${\operatorname{Re }\,} h_j > 0$ for $j \neq k$, the meromorphic function $f(h_k) = m_k(t, {\mathbf{h}})$ satisfies $f^\prime(h_k) = 1 - f^2(h_k)$ wherever it is analytic. Hence, combining the Picard-Lindel\"{o}f theorem with analytic continuation shows that there is some $\Gamma \in {\mathbb{C}}$ such that
\[f(h_k) = \tanh(h_k + \Gamma)\]
for all $h_k \in {\mathbb{C}}$. If ${\operatorname{Re }\,} {\mathbf{h}} > 0$, the Lee-Yang theorem asserts that the partition function $Z(t, {\mathbf{h}}) = \sum_{\sigma} e^{-H(t,\sigma)}$ cannot vanish and therefore $f$ cannot have a pole in this region. This is only possible when ${\operatorname{Re }\,} \Gamma \geq 0$ and therefore
\[{\operatorname{Re }\,} m_k(t, {\mathbf{h}}) = {\operatorname{Re }\,} f(h_k) \geq 0\]
whenever ${\operatorname{Re }\,} {\mathbf{h}} \geq 0$.
To prove the first bound, we fix ${\mathbf{h}} \geq 0$ and consider the function
\[f(z) = m_k(t, {\mathbf{h}} + z{\mathbf{s}}).\]
Then ${\operatorname{Re }\,} f > 0$ on the half-plane ${\operatorname{Re }\,} z > -\kappa$ with $\kappa = \hat{{\mathbf{h}}} / \|{\mathbf{s}}\|_\infty$ so
\[\left| \parder{}{{\mathbf{s}}} m_k(t, {\mathbf{h}}) \right| = \left| f^\prime(0) \right| \le \frac{{\operatorname{Re }\,} f(0)}{\kappa} = \frac{{\operatorname{Re }\,} m_k(t, {\mathbf{h}})}{\kappa}.\]
Since $m_k(t, {\mathbf{h}})$ is real when ${\mathbf{h}}$ is real, this is the first assertion of the lemma.
For the second bound, we use the auxiliary function
\[g(z) = \partial_1 m_k(t, {\mathbf{h}} + z{\mathbf{s}}).\]
Then $g$ is also holomorphic on ${\operatorname{Re }\,} z > -\kappa$ and considering the right hand side as a function of $h_1$ shows that
\[|g(z)| \le \frac{{\operatorname{Re }\,} m_k(t, {\mathbf{h}} + z{\mathbf{s}})}{{\operatorname{Re }\,} h_1}.\]
Letting $C$ be a positively oriented circle about $0$ of radius $\kappa$, we have
\[ \parder{^2}{h_1 \partial {\mathbf{s}}} m_k(t, {\mathbf{h}}) = g^\prime(0) = \oint_C \! \frac{g(\xi)}{\xi^2} \, d\xi\]
so
\[ \left|\parder{^2}{h_1 \partial {\mathbf{s}}} m_k(t, {\mathbf{h}}) \right| \le \frac{1}{2\pi \kappa} \int_0^{2\pi} \frac{{\operatorname{Re }\,} m_k({\mathbf{h}} + e^{i\theta} {\mathbf{s}})}{{\operatorname{Re }\,} h_1} \, d\theta = \frac{{\operatorname{Re }\,} m_k(t,{\mathbf{h}})}{\kappa \, {\operatorname{Re }\,} h_1} \]
using the mean value property of the harmonic function $z \to {\operatorname{Re }\,} m_k(t, {\mathbf{h}} + z{\mathbf{s}})$.
\end{proof}
With Lemma~\ref{thm:corrbound} in place, we now fix ${\mathbf{h}} \geq 0$ and define an approximate characteristic curve ${\mathbf{w}} = (w_i)$ for~\eqref{eq:realpde} by
\[\parder{}{t} w_i(t) = \begin{cases}-{\mathbf{J}}_1^\intercal {\mathbf{m}}(t, {\mathbf{w}}(t)) & i = 1\\ 0 & \mbox{else} \end{cases}, \qquad {\mathbf{w}}(1) = {\mathbf{h}}. \]
Since ${\mathbf{m}}$ is non-negative and uniformly Lipschitz continuous in ${\mathbf{h}} \geq 0$, such a curve exists and satisfies $\hat{{\mathbf{w}}}(t) \geq \hat{{\mathbf{h}}}$ for all $t \in [0, 1]$. The following lemma shows that any weighted average ${\mathbf{s}}^\intercal {\mathbf{m}}$ does not significantly change along the curve ${\mathbf{w}}(t)$, provided that $\|{\mathbf{s}}\|_\infty$ is small.
\begin{lemma}\label{thm:avgbound} Let ${\mathbf{s}} \geq 0$. Then
\[\sup_{t \in [0,1]} \left| {\mathbf{s}}^\intercal {\mathbf{m}}({\mathbf{h}}) - {\mathbf{s}}^\intercal {\mathbf{m}}(t, {\mathbf{w}}(t)) \right| \le \frac{\|{\mathbf{s}}\|_\infty}{\hat{{\mathbf{h}}}} \left(\|{\mathbf{J}}_1\|_1 + \log\left(1 + \frac{\|{\mathbf{J}}_1\|_1}{\hat{{\mathbf{h}}}} \right) \right).\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Inserting the characteristic curve into~\eqref{eq:realpde} and multiplying by ${\mathbf{s}}$, we obtain
\beq{eq:jfluct} {\mathbf{s}}^\intercal {\mathbf{m}}({\mathbf{h}}) - {\mathbf{s}}^\intercal {\mathbf{m}}(t, {\mathbf{w}}(t)) = \int_t^1 \! m_1(r, {\mathbf{w}}(r)) \parder{}{{\mathbf{J}}_1} {\mathbf{s}}^\intercal {\mathbf{m}}(r, {\mathbf{w}}(r)) + \parder{^2}{h_1 \partial {\mathbf{J}}_1} {\mathbf{s}}^\intercal {\mathbf{m}}(r, {\mathbf{w}}(r)) \, dr.\end{equation}
Combining the identity
\[\parder{}{{\mathbf{J}}_1} {\mathbf{s}}^\intercal {\mathbf{m}} = \parder{}{{\mathbf{s}}} {\mathbf{J}}_1^\intercal {\mathbf{m}}\]
with Lemma~\ref{thm:corrbound} shows that the first integral on the right hand side of~\eqref{eq:jfluct} is bounded by
\[\int_t^1 \! \left| m_1(r, {\mathbf{w}}(r)) \parder{}{{\mathbf{J}}_1} {\mathbf{s}}^\intercal {\mathbf{m}}(r, {\mathbf{w}}(r)) \right| \, dr \le \frac{\|{\mathbf{s}}\|_\infty \|{\mathbf{J}}_1\|_1}{\hat{{\mathbf{h}}}},\]
whereas the second integral is bounded by
\beq{eq:secondint}\int_t^1 \! \left| \parder{^2}{h_1 \partial {\mathbf{J}}_1} {\mathbf{s}}^\intercal {\mathbf{m}}(r, {\mathbf{w}}(r)) \right| \, dr \le \frac{\|{\mathbf{s}}\|_\infty}{\hat{{\mathbf{h}}}} \int_t^1 \! \frac{{\mathbf{J}}_1^\intercal {\mathbf{m}}(r, {\mathbf{w}}(r))}{w_1(r)} \, dr.\end{equation}
The right hand side of~\eqref{eq:secondint} can be calculated explicitly since $\parder{}{t} w_1(t) = - {\mathbf{J}}_1^\intercal {\mathbf{m}}(t, {\mathbf{w}}(t))$, which yields a final bound of
\[ \int_t^1 \! \left| \parder{^2}{h_1 \partial {\mathbf{J}}_1} {\mathbf{s}}^\intercal {\mathbf{m}}(r, {\mathbf{w}}(r)) \right| \, dr \le \frac{\|{\mathbf{s}}\|_\infty}{\hat{{\mathbf{h}}}} \log\left( \frac{w_1(t)}{h_1} \right)\le \frac{\|{\mathbf{s}}\|_\infty}{\hat{{\mathbf{h}}}} \log\left(1 + \frac{\|{\mathbf{J}}_1\|_1}{\hat{{\mathbf{h}}}} \right) .\]
\end{proof}
The evolution of $m_1$ along the characteristic curve is given by
\[\parder{}{t} m_1(t, {\mathbf{w}}(t)) = m_1(t, {\mathbf{w}}(t)) \parder{}{{\mathbf{J}}_1} m_1(t, {\mathbf{w}}(t)) + \parder{^2}{h_1 \partial {\mathbf{J}}_1} m_1(t, {\mathbf{w}}(t)).\]
By Lemma~\ref{thm:corrbound},
\[\left| m_1(t, {\mathbf{w}}(t)) \parder{}{{\mathbf{J}}_1} m_1(t, {\mathbf{w}}(t)) \right| \le \frac{\|{\mathbf{J}}_1\|_\infty}{\hat{{\mathbf{h}}}}\]
and
\[\left| \parder{^2}{h_1 \partial {\mathbf{J}}_1} m_1(t, {\mathbf{w}}(t)) \right| = 2 \left| m_1(t, {\mathbf{w}}(t)) \parder{}{{\mathbf{J}}_1} m_1(t, {\mathbf{w}}(t)) \right| \le \frac{2\|{\mathbf{J}}_1\|_\infty}{\hat{{\mathbf{h}}}},\]
so
\beq{eq:outerbound}\left| m_1({\mathbf{h}}) - \tanh(w_1(0)) \right| = \left| m_1(1, {\mathbf{w}}(1)) - m_1(0, {\mathbf{w}}(0)) \right| \le \frac{3\|{\mathbf{J}}_1\|_\infty}{\hat{{\mathbf{h}}}}. \end{equation}
Since
\[w_1(0) = h_1 + \int_0^1 \! {\mathbf{J}}_1^\intercal {\mathbf{m}}(t, {\mathbf{w}}(t)) \, dt,\]
Lemma~\ref{thm:avgbound} with ${\mathbf{s}} = {\mathbf{J}}_1$ implies that
\[\left| w_1(0) - h_1 - {\mathbf{J}}_1^\intercal {\mathbf{m}}({\mathbf{h}}) \right| \le \frac{\|{\mathbf{J}}_1\|_\infty}{\hat{{\mathbf{h}}}} \left( \|{\mathbf{J}}_1\|_1 + \log\left(1 + \frac{\|{\mathbf{J}}_1\|_1}{\hat{{\mathbf{h}}}} \right) \right).\]
Inserting this into~\eqref{eq:outerbound} and using the Lipschitz continuity of $\tanh$ completes the proof of~\eqref{eq:toprove}.
\section{Three applications}\label{sec:applications}
Our first two applications consist of showing that two classes of models have the same thermodynamic behavior as the Curie-Weiss model. In the first, we consider a system in a box $\Lambda \subset {\mathbb{Z}}^d$ with Ka\'{c} interactions
\[J_{ij} = \beta \lambda^d f(\lambda(i-j)), \qquad h_i = h > 0, \qquad i, j \in \Lambda\]
where $f$ is a bounded Riemann integrable probability density on ${\mathbb{R}}^d$ and $\beta, \lambda > 0$. Ka\'{c} interactions are ``physical'' in the sense that they yield a convex free energy, but this free energy still converges to the convex envelope of the Curie-Weiss free energy as $\lambda \to 0$~\cite{MR187835, MR148416}. This fact can be used to provide a justification of Maxwell's equal-area rule for the van der Waals isotherm (see also \cite[Ch.\,4]{MR3752129} for further details). There is also an extensive literature on Ka\'{c} interactions with fixed $\lambda > 0$ and related models -- we refer the reader to~\cite{MR1694123, MR1453742, MR1935654, MR1414119, MR2460018} and references therein.
Writing ${\mathbf{m}}_\Lambda$ for the vector of magnetizations corresponding to the box $\Lambda$, Theorem~\ref{thm:main} asserts that
\[\|{\mathbf{m}}_\Lambda - \tanh(h + {\mathbf{J}} {\mathbf{m}}_\Lambda)\|_{\infty} \le C \frac{\lambda^d}{h \log h} \]
for some absolute constant $C < \infty$. Translation invariance and standard convexity arguments show that there is some $m \in {\mathbb{R}}$ such that for any fixed $i \in {\mathbb{Z}}^d$ we have $m_{\Lambda, i} \to m$ as $\Lambda \to {\mathbb{Z}}^d$. By the dominated convergence theorem the limit $m$ still satisfies
\[\left| m - \tanh\left(h + \beta m \sum_{i} \lambda^d f(\lambda i) \right)\right| \le C \frac{\lambda^d}{h \log h}\]
and therefore $m = \tanh(h + \beta m)$ in the $\lambda \to 0$ limit.
The second model we consider is the randomly diluted model where
\[J_{ij} = \frac{\beta}{Np} \epsilon_{ij}, \qquad h_i = h > 0\]
and $\epsilon_{ij}$ are independent (up to symmetry) Bernoulli random variables with ${\mathbb{E} \,} \epsilon_{ij} = p$. In the case where $p = p(N)$ is chosen such that $Np \to \infty$ as $N \to \infty$, it was shown in~\cite{MR1239568} that the limiting magnetizations coincide with those of the Curie-Weiss model. Under this assumption, the variance of a weighted average is bounded by
\beq{eq:bernoullivar} {\mathbb{E} \,} \left| {\mathbf{J}}_1^\intercal \mathbf{x} - \frac{\beta}{N} \sum_i x_i \right|^2 \le \frac{\beta^2 \|\mathbf{x}\|_\infty^2}{Np} \to 0.\end{equation}
Applying the single-site bound~\eqref{eq:toprove}, it follows that
\[m_1 - \tanh(h + {\mathbf{J}}_1^\intercal {\mathbf{m}}) \to 0\]
in $L^2({\mathbb{P}})$ as $N \to \infty$. We write $m = N^{-1} \sum_i m_i$ and let $m_i^{(1)}$ denote the Gibbs mean of $\sigma_i$ with $\sigma_1$ removed. Using Lemma~\ref{thm:avgbound} and repeating the bound above yields
\[{\mathbf{J}}_1^\intercal {\mathbf{m}}(h) - \sum_{i > 1} J_{1i} m_i^{(1)}(h) \to 0\]
and
\[m - \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i > 1} m_i^{(1)}(h) \to 0\]
in $L^2({\mathbb{P}})$. Since $m_i^{(1)}$ is independent of ${\mathbf{J}}_1$, combining this with the bound~\eqref{eq:bernoullivar} shows that ${\mathbf{J}}_1^\intercal {\mathbf{m}} - \beta m \to 0$ in $L^2({\mathbb{P}})$. We conclude that both
\[m_1 - \tanh(h + \beta m) \to 0, \qquad m - \tanh(h + \beta m) \to 0\]
in $L^2({\mathbb{P}})$.
Finally, we consider a generic model with an asymptotically vanishing external field
\[\|{\mathbf{J}}\|_{1, \infty} = o(1), \qquad \hat{{\mathbf{h}}} = \|{\mathbf{J}}\|_{1, \infty}^{\frac{1}{2} - \delta}.\]
We assume a low-temperature condition of the form that there exists $\alpha > 1$, independent of $N$, such that for all $\mathbf{x} \geq 0$ there is some index $i$ with
\beq{eq:lowtemp}({\mathbf{J}} \mathbf{x})_i \geq \alpha \mathbf{x}_i.\end{equation}
Provided that $\|{\mathbf{J}}\|_{\infty, \infty} = {\mathcal{O}}(1)$, Theorem~\ref{thm:main} implies that
\[\tanh({\mathbf{h}} + {\mathbf{J}} {\mathbf{m}}) = {\mathbf{m}} + \boldsymbol \epsilon, \qquad \| \boldsymbol \epsilon\|_\infty = {\mathcal{O}}\left(-\|{\mathbf{J}}\|_{1, \infty}^{\frac{1}{2} + \delta} \log \|{\mathbf{J}}\|_{1, \infty} \right). \]
There exists some $K > 0$ such that $\alpha \tanh(x) > x$ when $x \in (0, K)$. If it were true that ${\mathbf{m}} \le K$, combining this with the fact that ${\mathbf{h}}, \boldsymbol \epsilon \to 0$ and ${\mathbf{h}} \gg \boldsymbol \epsilon$ as $N \to \infty$ would imply that
\[{\mathbf{J}} {\mathbf{m}} < \alpha {\mathbf{m}}\]
for sufficiently large $N$, contradicting~\eqref{eq:lowtemp}. We conclude that an external field strength of $\hat{{\mathbf{h}}} = \|{\mathbf{J}}\|_{1, \infty}^{\frac{1}{2} - \delta}$ is sufficient to select a positive Gibbs state in the sense that
\beq{eq:posgibbs} \liminf_{N \to \infty} \max_i m_i > 0.\end{equation}
Degenerate examples like the case where $J_{1i} = 0$ for all $i$ demonstrate that, in general, one cannot hope for a stronger statement than~\eqref{eq:posgibbs}. For the Curie-Weiss model, the previous argument shows that an external field strength of $h = N^{-\frac{1}{2} + \delta}$ is sufficient to select the positive Gibbs state below the critical temperature of $\beta = 1$. The book~\cite[Sec.\,III.1]{MR1026102} mentions that actually an external field strength of $h = N^{-1 + \delta}$ already suffices, but we have not been able to locate a mathematical proof of this assertion in the literature.
\bigskip
\minisec{Acknowledgments}
We thank M.\,Biskup, G.\,Genovese, and S.\,Warzel for their helpful comments. The work of P.\,S. is supported by the DFG grant SO 1724/1-1.
\bibliographystyle{abbrv}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
Mathematical models in many areas of science and engineering are described by parametric ordinary differential equations (ODEs) or partial differential equations (PDEs). The analytical solution of such ODEs and PDEs is usually intractable, therefore engineers prefer detailed numerical simulations of the models to obtain useful insights into the underlying processes. However, a detailed simulation of the model necessitates a very fine discretization of the governing ODEs or PDEs, both in space and time. The resulting discretized system of equations is referred to as the high-fidelity model or the full-order model (FOM). Numerical solutions of the FOM are computationally expensive to obtain, especially when computing resources are limited or when repeated simulations of the FOM are needed. The latter scenario is common in a multi-query task, such as uncertainty quantification, optimization, etc. With the goal of speeding up simulations, the area of model order reduction (MOR) has gained popularity in the last decades \cite{morAnt05,AntBG20,morBenetal21,morBenCOetal17,morBenGW15}. Different MOR algorithms have been proposed to obtain surrogate models for the FOMs. These surrogates are often referred to as reduced-order models (ROMs) since they have a reduced number of degrees of freedom compared to the FOMs. The simulation results of a suitably developed ROM are indistinguishable from those of the FOM, yet, the ROM incurs only a fraction of the computational cost spent on the FOM. This is a big advantage in real-time simulation or multi-query scenarios. Generally, there exist two classes of ROMs: projection-based ROMs \cite{morAnt05} which are obtained by projecting the original model onto an approximation subspace, and data-driven ROMs, which are obtained through a data fit \cite{morPehW16}. In the following, we shall limit ourselves to projection-based ROMs.
The Reduced Basis Method (RBM) is a popular, projection-based technique to obtain ROMs of parametric PDEs. The ansatz underlying the RBM is that the solution manifold of the parametric FOM can be well-approximated by a low-dimensional subspace. To achieve efficient online simulation, considerable efforts are made to explore the parameter space and collect solution snapshots in the offline stage. The greedy algorithm explores the parameter space based on suitable \textit{a posteriori} error estimators. At each iteration of the greedy algorithm, the parameter maximizing the estimated error over a training set is selected and the corresponding FOM is solved to obtain new snapshots. The training set is, in essence, a discrete representation of the parameter domain. The snapshots are used to construct a basis for the low-dimensional approximation space, followed by a (Petrov-)Galerkin projection to obtain the ROM. We refer to the recent books \cite{morHesRS16, morQuaMN16} and the survey works \cite{morCheQR17,morQuaRM11,morRozHP08} for a detailed exposition of the theoretical framework underpinning the RBM and also for applications of the RBM in a variety of problems.
The choice of the training set is critical for the success of the RBM. A poorly-sampled training set can result in an inadequate representation of all the solution modes, causing the ROM to fail to meet the desired tolerance criterion for a parameter not present in the training set. Therefore, it is common practice to adopt a finely-sampled training set. However, the computational cost of the offline stage scales with the cardinality of the training set, which becomes high for problems with high-dimensional parameter space. Therefore, a more efficient sampling strategy is desired.
Many works have attempted to address the issue of optimal training set sampling. Notable among them are: the Multi-Stage Greedy algorithm from \cite{morSen08} and the Adaptively Enriching Greedy algorithm in \cite{morHesSZ14}. In the former, the author suggests performing a set of greedy algorithms over randomly sampled training sets; then the resulting ROM is tested over a much larger random training set and the greedy algorithm is re-run on those points failing to meet the tolerance criterion in the larger training set. In the latter work, the authors propose a saturation criterion which is used to systematically remove parameters from a randomly-sampled training set. New random parameters are then added to the current training set. A larger training set serves as a safety check mechanism at every iteration. However, it may not be efficient, in general, to estimate a robust saturation criterion. The authors of \cite{morEftKP11,morHaaDO11} propose a localized RBM approach, where a hierarchical tree-based partitioning of the parameter domain is done and separate ROMs for each partition are generated. In \cite{morHesZ16}, the authors consider a two-stage approach that uses the ANOVA expansion together with parameter domain decomposition to address training set complexity. The work \cite{morMadS13} considers an anisotropic sampling of the parameter domain using an empirical norm derived from the truncated Hessian of the solution vector with respect to the parameter. No explicit partition of the parameter domain is considered. However, the basis vectors are determined in the online stage. Moreover, the method needs to compute the Hessian at each point in the training set in order to define a distance metric which is subsequently used to add more samples to the training set. The calculation of the Hessian can be very expensive, especially for non-stationary problems. The method proposed in \cite{morJiaCN17} makes only a subset of the finely sampled training set active at a given iteration of the greedy algorithm. A recent extension of this work \cite{morJiaC20} proposes hybrid strategies combining the ideas from \cite{morHesSZ14,morSen08}. Different strategies are proposed to identify the set of active parameters. The works \cite{morCheFB19,morTaineA15} propose a cheap surrogate model for a certain error estimator, based on Kriging and radial basis functions, respectively, and use it to obtain the estimated error for any parameter in a fine training set. A sparse grid-based construction for the training set is suggested in \cite{morPehZB13}.
The authors of \cite{morCheG19} perform an eigendecomposition of the Hessian matrix of the output variable with respect to the parameter to identify a small subspace of the high-dimensional parameter space by truncation. The parameters that constitute the training set for the RBM are then sampled from the identified eigenspace. In \cite{morTezBR18}, the so-called \emph{active subspace} \cite{morConDW14} of the parameter space is identified by relying on gradient information of the output with respect to the parameter. Both these works are limited to scalar-valued outputs and steady-state problems.
Most of the existing work related to adaptive training set sampling focuses on steady-state or quasi steady-state problems. To the best of our knowledge, only \cite{morCheFB19,morEftKP11,morHaaDO11,morTaineA15} address training set adaptivity for time-dependent problems. The works \cite{morEftKP11,morHaaDO11} propose a localization strategy that involves constructing multiple ROMs over local parameter domains, while \cite{morCheFB19,morTaineA15} consider adaptively enriching a coarse training set by observing a cheap error surrogate over a fine training set.
In this work, we present a goal-oriented training set sampling strategy that relies on the output quantity of interest (QoI). We aim at identifying the structure of the parameter dependency of the output through the empirical interpolation algorithm \cite{morBarMNetal04,morChaS10} or a pivoted QR decomposition and utilize this information to find out the parameter importance. Our proposed method is applicable to both steady-state and time-dependent problems with vector-valued outputs. Our central contribution is a two-stage algorithm to control the cardinality of the training set. In the first stage, a coarse RB approximation of the problem is obtained using a fine training set. Then, an approximate output snapshot matrix is derived by time integrating the coarse ROM at all the parameter samples in the fine training set. We apply the pivoted QR decomposition or, alternatively, the discrete empirical interpolation method (\textsf{DEIM}) (or its variants) to the approximate output snapshot matrix. This procedure identifies regions of the parameter space that have a greater contribution to the current RB approximation space. In the second stage, the fine training set is subsampled based on the parameter distribution identified using the pivoted QR decomposition or the \textsf{DEIM} algorithm and leads to a subsampled coarse training set. The RBM is continued over the coarse training set, until a targeted error tolerance is met.
The paper is organized as follows. In \Cref{sec:probsetting} we describe the preliminaries including the problem setting for the proposed methodology, the RBM and the related hyper-reduction techniques. In \Cref{sec:trngset} we detail the issue of training set sampling for the RBM and present our main algorithm for efficient training set subsampling. \Cref{sec:numerics} is dedicated to numerical examples through which we illustrate various aspects of the proposed subsampling strategy and demonstrate the speedup it offers for two numerical benchmark problems. We conclude by summarizing the proposed method and highlighting possible research directions for the near future.
Throughout this work, we have used $\operatorname{MATLAB}\textsuperscript{\textregistered}$ notation in the presentation of algorithms and numerical experiments.
\section{Preliminaries}
\label{sec:probsetting}
In this section, we present the continuous problem and the discretized system that the proposed subsampling strategy is valid for. Then, we briefly review the RBM and the associated issue of training set sampling. Afterwards, some hyper-reduction algorithms are reviewed in order to introduce our proposed subsampling algorithms.
\subsection{High-fidelity Models}
A wide variety of physical and engineering phenomena are modelled via PDEs. Consider the spatial domain $\Omega \subset \R^{d}$ with $(d = 1, 2, 3)$. Let a model of PDEs defined in $\Omega$ be denoted by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:pde}
\mathcal{L}\left(\bx{v}, \bx{w}, t, \bm{\mu} \right) = \bm{0},
\end{equation}
where $\bx{v}$ is the (vector-valued) state variable and describes the particular physical quantity the PDE models, $\bx{w} \in \Omega$ is the spatial variable, $0 \leq t \leq T$ denotes the time and $\bm{\mu} \in \mathcal{P} \subset \R^{p}$ defines the parameters. The above form is a general description of any time-dependent or steady-state problem with or without parameter variations. The output of the model is usually a function of the solution $\bx{v}$ and the parameter $\bm{\mu}$. After numerical discretization in space and time, we get
\begin{equation}\label{eq:odess}
\begin{aligned}
\bx{E}\, \bx{x}(t^{k},\bm{\mu}) &= \bx{A}\, \bx{x}(t^{k-1},\bm{\mu}) + \bx{f}\left (\bx{x}(t^{k-1},\bm{\mu}), \bm{\mu}\right) + \bx{B}\, \bx{u}(t^{k-1},\bm{\mu}),\\
\bx{y}\left(\bx{x}(t^{k},\bm{\mu}), \bm{\mu}\right) &= \bx{C}\, \bx{x}(t^{k},\bm{\mu}).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Here, $\bx{x}(t^{k}, \bm{\mu}) \in \R^{n}$ is the state vector, $\bx{u}(t^{k}, \bm{\mu}) \in \R^{m}$ is the input vector and $\bx{y}\left(\bx{x}(t^{k},\bm{\mu}), \bm{\mu}\right) \in \R^{q}$ is the output or quantity of interest. Further, $\bx{E}, \bx{A} \in \R^{n \times n}$, $\bx{B} \in \R^{n \times m}$ is the input matrix, $\bx{C} \in \R^{q \times n}$ is the output matrix and $\bx{f}\left(\bx{x}(t^{k},\bm{\mu}), \bm{\mu}\right) \in \R^{n}$ models the nonlinearity associated with the system.
\begin{remark}
The system matrices ($\bx{E}, \bx{A}, \bx{B} \, \text{and}\, \bx{C}$) can also be time- and/or parameter-dependent. However, we have not made this dependence explicit for the sake of keeping the notations concise. For the case of steady-state problems, the time dependence of the state, input and output vectors and system matrices vanishes and the system simply reads
\begin{equation}\label{eq:odess_static}
\begin{aligned}
\bx{E}\, \bx{x}(\bm{\mu}) &= \bx{f}\left (\bx{x}(\bm{\mu}), \bm{\mu}\right) + \bx{B}\, \bx{u}(\bm{\mu}),\\
\bx{y}(\bx{x}(\bm{\mu}), \bm{\mu}) &= \bx{C}\, \bx{x}(\bm{\mu}).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\end{remark}
The discretized system in \cref{eq:odess} or \cref{eq:odess_static} is also called the FOM and has a large number of degrees of freedom, i.e., $n$ is very large. The proposed subsampling strategy is applicable to both \cref{eq:odess,eq:odess_static}.
\subsection{Reduced Basis Method and the Training Set}
\label{sec:rbm}
The Reduced Basis Method relies on the observation that the solution manifold can be well-approximated by a \emph{low-dimensional} subspace $\mathcal{V}$. Let $\left[ \bx{v}_{1}, \, \bx{v}_{2}, \, \ldots, \, \bx{v}_{r} \right] =: \bx{V} \in \R^{n \times r}$ be a basis of the subspace $\mathcal{V}$. The approximated solution for any parameter is obtained by considering the ansatz $\bx{x}(t^{k}, \bm{\mu}) \approx \widetilde{\bm{x}}(t^{k}, \bm{\mu}) = \sum_{i = 1}^{r} z_{i} \bx{v}_{i}$. The parameter-dependent coefficients $\bx{z} = [z_{1}, \, z_{2}, \, \ldots, \, z_{r}]^{\textsf{T}}$ are obtained by solving the ROM
\begin{equation}\label{eq:odess_r}
\begin{aligned}
\bx{E}_{r}\, \bx{z}(t^{k},\bm{\mu}) &= \bx{A}_{r}\, \bx{z}(t^{k-1},\bm{\mu}) + \bx{f}_{r}\left(\bx{V} \bx{z}(t^{k-1},\bm{\mu}), \bm{\mu}\right) + \bx{B}_{r}\, \bx{u}(t^{k-1},\bm{\mu}),\\
\widetilde{\bx{y}}\left(\bx{z}(t^{k},\bm{\mu}), \bm{\mu}\right) &= \bx{C}_{r}\, \bx{z}(t^{k},\bm{\mu}),
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
derived through Galerkin projection of the FOM onto the low-dimensional subspace $\mathcal{V}$.
The reduced system matrices $\bx{E}_{r},\, \bx{A}_{r} \in \R^{r \times r}$, $\bx{B}_{r} \in \R^{r \times m}$ and $\bx{C}_{r} \in \R^{q \times r}$ are obtained as $\bx{E}_{r} := \bx{V}^{\textsf{T} } \bx{E} \bx{V}$, $\bx{A}_{r} := \bx{V}^{\textsf{T} } \bx{A} \bx{V}$, $\bx{B}_{r} := \bx{V}^{\textsf{T} } \bx{B}$ and $\bx{C}_{r} := \bx{C} \bx{V}$, respectively. Finally, $\bx{f}_{r} := \bx{V}^{\textsf{T}} \bx{f}\left( \bx{V} \bx{z}(t^{k-1},\bm{\mu}), \bm{\mu} \right)$.
The greedy algorithm or the POD-greedy (Proper Orthogonal Decomposition-greedy) algorithm are the most popular techniques for constructing the RBM approximation space for the steady-state system \cref{eq:odess_static} and the time-dependent system \cref{eq:odess}, respectively. In order to initialize the greedy algorithm, a training set $\Xi_{\textnormal{train}}$ is given \emph{a priori}, from which parameter samples are iteratively selected, so that the corresponding solution vector is iteratively added to the basis matrix $\bx{V}$. We summarize the (POD-)greedy algorithm in \cref{alg:rb}, which takes both the steady-state case and the time-dependent case into consideration. In Step 8 of \cref{alg:rb}, the snapshot matrix $\bm{\mathfrak{X}}$ for the time-dependent case consists of the solution vector at discretized time instances $\{t^{i}\}_{i=0}^{K}$ given by:
\begin{displaymath}
\bm{\mathfrak{X}}(\bm{\mu}) = \left[ \bx{x}(t^{0}, \bm{\mu}) \cdots \bx{x}(t^{K}, \bm{\mu}) \right ] \in \R^{n \times N_{t}},
\end{displaymath}
where $N_{t} := (K + 1)$. $\bx{U}_{\bar{\bm{\mathfrak{X}}}}$ in Step 10 is the left singular vector matrix obtained from the singular value decomposition (SVD) of $\bar{\bm{\mathfrak{X}}}$, i.e., $\bar{\bm{\mathfrak{X}}} = \bx{U}_{\bar{\bm{\mathfrak{X}}}} \Sigma_{\bar{\bm{\mathfrak{X}}}} \bx{V}_{\bar{\bm{\mathfrak{X}}}}^{\textsf{T}}$. Here, $\Sigma_{\bar{\bm{\mathfrak{X}}}}$ contains all the non-zero singular values of $\bar{\bm{\mathfrak{X}}}$: $\sigma_{1} \geq \sigma_{2} \geq \cdots \geq \sigma_{r_{X}} \geq 0$. If no alternative decision criterion is used, $r_{\text{POD}}$ is usually taken to be $1$. In Step 13, $\Delta(\bm{\mu})$ denotes an error estimator for the error in approximating the state variable or the output variable. The error estimator should be much cheaper to compute than the true error. For the sake of clarity, the sketched algorithm is the basic version of the RBM. Several enhancements in the form of primal-dual error estimation, hyper-reduction, adaptive basis construction, etc. exist \cite{morBenEEetal18, morCheFB20,morGreMetal07,morGreP05,morZhaetal15}.
\renewcommand{\algorithmicrequire}{\textbf{Input:}}
\renewcommand{\algorithmicensure}{\textbf{Output:}}
\renewcommand{\algorithmiccomment}[1]{// #1}
\begin{algorithm}[t!]
\caption{Reduced Basis Method (RBM)}
\label{alg:rb}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\REQUIRE{Training set ($\Xi$), tolerance for the ROM ($\texttt{tol}$), maximum iterations ($n_{\text{max}}$).}
\ENSURE{$\bx{V}$.}
\STATE{Initialize $\bx{V} = [\,\,]$, $\epsilon = 1 + \texttt{tol}$, \texttt{iter} = 1.}
\STATE Select $\bm{\mu}^{*}_{(1)}$ randomly from $\Xi_{\text{train}}$.
\WHILE{$\epsilon > \texttt{tol}\,\,\& \& \,\, \texttt{iter} \leq n_{\text{max}}$}
\IF{\textbf{steady-state}}
\STATE{Solve FOM \cref{eq:odess_static} at $\bm{\mu}^{*}_{(\texttt{iter})}$ and obtain solution $\bx{x}(\bm{\mu}^{*}_{(\texttt{iter})})$.}
\STATE{Set $\bx{V} \leftarrow{} \texttt{orth}\bigg(\left[ \bx{V} \,\, \bx{x}(\bm{\mu}^{*}_{(\texttt{iter})})\right]\bigg)$. \hfill \% \textit{\texttt{orth} means orthogonalizing $\bx{x}(\bm{\mu}^{*}_{(\texttt{iter})})$ against the column vectors in the current matrix $\bx{V}$.
}}
\ELSE{}
\STATE{Solve FOM \cref{eq:odess} at $\bm{\mu}^{*}_{(\texttt{iter})}$ and obtain snapshot matrix $\bm{\mathfrak{X}}$.}
\STATE Set $\bar{\bm{\mathfrak{X}}} = \bm{\mathfrak{X}} - \bx{V} \bx{V}^{\textsf{T}} \bm{\mathfrak{X}}$.
\STATE{Enrich $\bx{V}$ with $r_{\text{POD}}$ left singular vectors of $\bar{\bm{\mathfrak{X}}}$ as
$\bx{V} \leftarrow{} \texttt{orth}\left(\left[ \bx{V} \,\, \bx{U}_{\bar{\bm{\mathfrak{X}}}}(:\,,\,1 \, : \, r_{\text{POD}}) \right]\right)$.}
\ENDIF
\STATE{\texttt{iter} = \texttt{iter} + 1.}
\STATE{Set $\bm{\mu}^{*}_{(\texttt{iter})} = \operatorname{arg} \operatorname{max} \limits_{\bm{\mu} \in \Xi_{\text{train}}} \Delta(\bm{\mu})$.}
\STATE{$\epsilon = \Delta(\bm{\mu}^{*}_{(\texttt{iter})})$.}
\ENDWHILE
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
It is noticed that the standard greedy algorithm (\cref{alg:rb}) does not address the issue of properly choosing $\Xi_{\textnormal{train}}$. When the parameter space dimension is high ($p \gg 2$) or when the number of time steps $N_{t}$ is large, the overall computational cost for the greedy algorithm to construct $\bx{V}$ can be substantial. The technique considered in this work aims at reducing the offline cost by subsampling a fine training set. We detail this in \Cref{sec:trngset}. Before that, since it will be used later, we briefly review two hyper-reduction procedures --- the \textsf{DEIM} algorithm (and its variants) and the \textsf{Gappy-POD} method.
\subsection{Discrete Empirical Interpolation Method}
\label{subsec:deim}
\begin{algorithm}[t!]
\caption{Discrete Empirical Interpolation Method (\textsf{DEIM}) as in \cite{morChaS10}}
\label{alg:deim}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\REQUIRE{Snapshots of the nonlinear vector ($\bm{\mathfrak{F}}$), tolerance for the SVD ($\epsilon_{\text{SVD}}$).}
\ENSURE{$\bx{U}$, $\bx{P}$ and $\bx{I}$.}
\STATE{Perform SVD of $\bx{\mathfrak{F}}$; collect the first $\ell$ left singular vectors $\{ \bx{u}_{j} \}_{j = 1}^{\ell} \subset \R^{n}$.}
\STATE {Set $[\sim \, , p_{1}]\, =\, \operatorname{max}(|\bx{u}_{1}|)$. \hfill \% \textit{$|\cdot|$ denotes the absolute value.}}
\STATE Set $\bx{U} = \bx{u}_{1}$, $\bx{I} = p_{1}$ and $\bx{P} = [e_{p_{1}}]$.
\FOR{$i = 2\,\, \text{to}\,\, \ell$}
\STATE{Solve $\bx{P}^{\textsf{T}} \bx{U} \bm{\alpha} = \bx{P}^{\textsf{T}} \bx{u}_{i}$}.
\STATE{Define residual $\bx{r} = \bx{u}_{i} - \bx{U} \bm{\alpha}$}.
\STATE{Set $[\sim \, , p_{i}]\, =\, \operatorname{max}(|\bx{r}|)$}.
\STATE{Update $\bx{U} := [ \bx{U}\,\, \bx{u}_{i} ]$, $\bx{I} := [\bx{I}\,\, p_{i}]$ and $\bx{P} := [ \bx{P}\,\, e_{p_{i}} ]$.}
\ENDFOR
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
The \textsf{DEIM} algorithm \cite{morBarMNetal04,morChaS10,morGreMetal07} was introduced in the context of MOR, for efficient calculation of nonlinear or nonaffine terms of the ROM. The algorithm proceeds by collecting snapshots of the nonlinear vector in the FOM in \cref{eq:odess} or \cref{eq:odess_static} for different values of $\bm{\mu} \in \Xi_{\text{train}}$ given by
\begin{displaymath}
\bm{\mathfrak{F}} = \left[ \bx{f}\left (\bx{x}, \bm{\mu}_{1}\right) \cdots \bx{f}\left (\bx{x}, \bm{\mu}_{N_{\text{train}}}\right) \right ] \in \R^{n \times N_{\text{train}}}.
\end{displaymath}
In order to avoid any $n$-dependent operations to evaluate the nonlinear vector involved in simulating the ROM, \textsf{DEIM} considers an approximation of the nonlinear vector given by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:deim}
\bx{f}\left( \bx{x}, \bm{\mu} \right) \approx \widetilde{\bx{f}}\left( \bx{x}, \bm{\mu} \right) = \bx{U} \bm{\alpha},
\end{equation}
where $\bm{\alpha} \in \R^{\ell}$. The columns of $\bx{U} \in \R^{n \times \ell}$ are the interpolation basis vectors obtained via SVD of $\bm{\mathfrak{F}}$. The number of basis vectors $\ell$ can be determined through an information-theoretic criterion that depends on the relative energy content of the singular values $\{\sigma_{i}\}_{i=1}^{r_{X}}$ and reads $\frac{\sum\limits_{i=\ell+1}^{r_{X}} \sigma_i}{\sum\limits_{i=1}^{r_{X}} \sigma_i}~<~\epsilon_{\text{SVD}}$ where $\epsilon_{\text{SVD}}$ is a user-defined tolerance. Since \cref{eq:deim} is an overdetermined system with $n \gg \ell$, \textsf{DEIM} solves for $\bm{\alpha}$ by selecting $\ell$ rows from $\bx{U}$ and enforces interpolation as below:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:deim_interp}
\bx{P}^{\textsf{T}} \bx{f}\left( \bx{x}, \bm{\mu} \right) = \bx{P}^{\textsf{T}} \bx{U} \bm{\alpha}.
\end{equation}
The indices of the rows where interpolation is enforced are given by $\{p_{1}, \ldots, p_{\ell}\}$. The $i^{\text{th}}$ column denoted as $e_{p_{i}} \in \R^{n}$ of the matrix $\bx{P} \in \R^{n \times \ell}$ is essentially the $i^{\text{th}}$ canonical unit vector with zeros at all but the $p_{i}^{\text{th}}$ entry. A greedy procedure, shown in \cref{alg:deim}, is used to identify $\bx{P}$. The algorithm ensures that $\left( \bx{P}^{\textsf{T}} \bx{U} \right)$ is nonsingular, so that $\widetilde{\bx{f}}\left( \bx{x}, \bm{\mu} \right)$ at any parameter $\bm{\mu}$ is given by
\begin{displaymath}
\widetilde{\bx{f}}\left( \bx{x}, \bm{\mu} \right) = \bx{U} \left( \bx{P}^{\textsf{T}} \bx{U} \right)^{-1} \bx{P}^{\textsf{T}} \bx{f}\left( \bx{x}, \bm{\mu} \right),
\end{displaymath}
where $\bx{U} \left( \bx{P}^{\textsf{T}} \bx{U} \right)^{-1} \in \R^{n \times \ell}$ can be precomputed and stored. Moreover, the original nonlinear vector needs to be evaluated only at $\ell$ points, limiting the cost of evaluating the nonlinear vector to order $\ell$ and independent of $n$. The error in approximating the nonlinear vector is quantified as
\begin{equation}
\left \lVert \bx{f}(\bx{x}, \bm{\mu}) - \widetilde{\bx{f}}(\bx{x}, \bm{\mu}) \right \rVert_{2} \leq \lVert \left(\bx{P}^{\textsf{T}} \bx{U}\right)^{-1} \rVert_{2} \lVert \bx{f}(\bx{x}, \bm{\mu}) - \bx{U} \bx{U}^{\textsf{T}} \bx{f}(\bx{x}, \bm{\mu}) \rVert_{2}.
\end{equation}
The greedy choice of the interpolation indices in the \textsf{DEIM} algorithm is geared towards minimizing the term $\lVert \left(\bx{P}^{\textsf{T}} \bx{U}\right)^{-1} \rVert_{2}$ appearing in the error bound. At each iteration, the new sampling point is chosen as the one resulting in the maximum reduction in $\lVert \left(\bx{P}^{\textsf{T}} \bx{U}\right)^{-1} \rVert_{2}$.
Several variants of the \textsf{DEIM} algorithm have been proposed \cite{morDrmG16,morNegMA15,morPetal14,morPehDG18,morPehW15}. Among those, the \textsf{QDEIM} algorithm from \cite{morDrmG16} and the \textsf{DEIM}-based oversampling strategies proposed in \cite{morPehDG18} shall be of particular interest to our discussion in \Cref{sec:trngset}.
\subsubsection{QDEIM}
\label{subsec:qdeim}
In contrast to the original \textsf{DEIM} algorithm, the \textsf{QDEIM} approach from \cite{morDrmG16} relies on a column-pivoted QR decomposition to identify the interpolation points. This is different from the sequential, greedy choice of interpolation points in \textsf{DEIM} (see Steps 4 - 9 in \cref{alg:deim}).
\textsf{QDEIM} is proven to have a sharper error bound and is also computationally more efficient and straightforward to implement.
\subsubsection{KDEIM}
The \textsf{K} in the \textsf{KDEIM} algorithm refers to the \texttt{k-means} clustering algorithm. The \texttt{k-means} algorithm is applied to the matrix $\bx{U}$ of (truncated) left singular vectors obtained from SVD of the snapshot matrix $\bm{\mathfrak{F}}$, then rows with similar response are assigned to the same cluster. The standard \texttt{k-means} objective function is recast as a relaxed trace maximization problem which is then solved using the QR decomposition. We refer the interested reader to \cite{morPehDG18} for a deeper discussion. Another early work to consider QR decomposition based clustering in the context of MOR was \cite{morMliGB15}, which used it for reducing networked multi-agent systems.
\subsubsection{Gappy-POD}
The number of interpolation points of the \textsf{DEIM} algorithm and its variants discussed so far equals to the number $\ell$ of interpolation basis vectors. However, in many cases it is beneficial to consider $m > \ell$ interpolation points. The \textsf{Gappy-POD} method and other related approaches fall into this category \cite{morCaretal11,Eve95}. The coefficient matrix $\bx{P}^{\textsf{T}}\bx{U}$ of the linear system in \cref{eq:deim_interp} is no longer square and, therefore, does not possess a unique inverse; instead it is solved using the pseudoinverse. The \textsf{Gappy-POD} approximation of the nonlinear vector is given as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:gappypod}
\widetilde{\bx{f}}\left( \bx{x}, \bm{\mu} \right) = \bx{U} \left( \bx{P}^{\textsf{T}} \bx{U} \right)^{\dagger} \bx{P}^{\textsf{T}} \bx{f}\left( \bx{x}, \bm{\mu} \right),
\end{equation}
where the matrix $\bx{P}$ now has $m > \ell$ columns and we have $\bx{P}^{\textsf{T}} \bx{U} \in \R^{m \times \ell}$. In \cite{morPehDG18}, the authors discuss two different oversampling strategies. The first approach, called \textsf{Gappy-POD Eigenvector}, considers the optimization point of view -- newly added interpolation points are those that lead to the largest decrease of $\| \left( \bx{P}^{\textsf{T}} \bx{U} \right)^{\dagger} \|$. The second oversampling strategy, \textsf{Gappy-POD Clustering}, proposed in \cite{morPehDG18} can be viewed as \textsf{Gappy-POD} based on interpreting the QR decomposition as a clustering algorithm. The additional samples from $\ell + 1$ till $m$ are identified based on the mutual entropy of the columns. For a more elaborate discussion we refer to \cite{morPehDG18,Zhaetal}. In the next section, we aim to make use of \textsf{DEIM} and its variants, as well as \textsf{Gappy-POD} to select \emph{important} parameter samples from the parameter domain.
For the pseudocode and the details, we refer the reader to the work \cite{morDrmG16} for the \textsf{QDEIM} algorithm and the work \cite{morPehDG18} in case of the \textsf{KDEIM} and \textsf{Gappy-POD} algorithms.
\section{Proposed Subsampling Strategy for the Training Set}
\label{sec:trngset}
A representative training set $\Xi_{\text{train}}$ is crucial for RBM to obtain a ROM that satisfies the required tolerance. While a densely-sampled $\Xi_{\text{train}}$ is needed to accurately represent the parameter space, it incurs high computational cost. In contrast, a randomly sampled coarse training set may fail to capture all the variations of the solution over the parameter space and result in a ROM that fails to meet the tolerance. Therefore, a wisely sampled coarse training set is desired to make the greedy algorithm efficient while retaining the required accuracy of the ROM. We now discuss two observations that motivate our proposed approach for training set sampling.
\subsection{Motivating Observations} \label{subsec:motivation}
We detail two observations that pertain to the greedy algorithm in the RBM, the \textsf{DEIM} algorithm as well as the QR pivoting. We shall see that these two observations have motivated us to develop a subsampling strategy for the RBM training set.
\subsubsection{Greedy Parameters, QR Pivots, and DEIM Interpolation Points} \label{subsubsec:motivation1}
Our first observation concerns the parameters $\bm{\mu}^{*}$ selected by the greedy algorithm. The second observation is their resemblance to the QR pivots and the \textsf{DEIM} interpolation points.
From our experience, the greedy algorithm tends to repeatedly pick parameter samples from a small subset of the training set, especially for time-dependent problems. This same phenomenon has been reported in other existing works \cite{morGre12, morHaa17, morHaaO08, morMadS13, morNguRP09, morQuaRM11, morZhaetal15}. The solution (or output) vectors at these parameter values usually exhibit large variability. While the greedy algorithm scans through all the parameter samples in the training set, a majority of those samples are never picked. The fact that a few parameters get repeatedly picked reveals that there are still unresolved modes and hence more POD modes, corresponding to the selected parameter, are needed to get a good approximation. These few parameters picked by the greedy algorithm, usually represent solutions that are less smooth and hence are more difficult to approximate. An example of this phenomenon occurs in fluid dynamics problems where the low viscosity solutions develop shock and need a large number of POD modes to approximate. We illustrate this observation through the standard greedy algorithm applied to the discretized 1-D viscous Burgers' equation with $n = 1000$. The detailed description of the model is presented in \Cref{sec:numerics}. The parameter considered is the viscosity. We use $100$ equispaced parameter samples from the domain $\mathcal{P} = [0.005 \, , \, 1]$ to form the training set $\Xi_{\text{train}}$. A ROM with error below the tolerance $\texttt{tol} = 10^{-6}$ is requested from the greedy algorithm.
In \cref{tab:ill1a}, we provide the parameters picked by the greedy algorithm at each iteration from the training set. Noticeably, among the $100$ parameter samples in the training set, only $6$ contribute to generating the basis $\bx{V}$ that approximates the solution manifold. Of these $6$ samples, the sample $\mu = 0.005$ is picked fourteen times. This is not surprising since this parameter corresponds to the solution vector with the smallest viscosity and is the most difficult to approximate.
Next, we make an important connection between the parameters selected by the greedy algorithm and the pivots obtained through a pivoted QR decomposition of the transpose of the output snapshot matrix defined in \cref{eq:y_sshot}.
For the same viscous Burgers' equation, we collect the snapshots of the scalar-valued outputs $\bx{y}$ at all the parameters in $\Xi_{\textnormal{train}}$ into a snapshot matrix given by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:y_sshot}
\mathbf{\mathfrak{Y}} := \begin{bmatrix}
[\bx{y}(\bm{x}(t^{0},\bm{\mu}_{1}), \bm{\mu}_{1})]^{\textsf{T}} & \cdots & [\bx{y}(\bm{x}(t^{K}, \bm{\mu}_{1}), \bm{\mu}_{1})]^{\textsf{T}} \\
\vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
[\bx{y}(\bm{x}(t^{0},\bm{\mu}_{N_{\text{train}}}), \bm{\mu}_{N_{\text{train}}})]^{\textsf{T}} & \cdots & [\bx{y}(\bm{x}(t^{K}, \bm{\mu}_{N_{\text{train}}}), \bm{\mu}_{N_{\text{train}}})]^{\textsf{T}}
\end{bmatrix},
\end{equation}
Each row of the matrix consists of the snapshots of the output at $K+1$ time instances corresponding to a given parameter. Consider first the well-known pivoted QR decomposition of a matrix $\bx{D}$ given by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:pivqr}
\bx{D} \Pi = \bx{Q} \bx{R} = \begin{bmatrix}
\bx{R}_{11} & \bx{R}_{12} \\
0 & \bx{R}_{22}
\end{bmatrix},
\end{equation}
where $\bx{Q}$ is an orthogonal matrix and $\bx{R}$ is upper triangular. The pivots are given by the column permutation matrix $\Pi$.
\begin{table}[t!]
{\footnotesize
\captionsetup{position=top}
\caption{Greedy parameters and QR Pivots for the Burgers' equation.}
\label{tab:ill1}
\begin{center}
\subfloat[Greedy parameters picked by RBM.]{\label{tab:ill1a}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline
Parameter & 0.005 & 0.0151 & 0.0251 & 0.0352 & 0.0553 & 1 \\ \hline
Repetitions & 14 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1\\ \hline
\end{tabular}}
\\
\subfloat[First $10$ pivots for the QR decomposition of the transposed true output snapshot matrix $\mathbf{\mathfrak{Y}}$.]{\label{tab:ill1b}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline
Pivots & 0.005 & 0.0151 & 0.0251 & 0.0352 & 0.0553 & 0.1055 & 0.1859 & 0.3166 & 0.7487 & 1 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}}
\end{center}
}
\end{table}
\setlength\fheight{1.5cm}
\setlength\fwidth{0.99\columnwidth}
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\input{figures/Ex1_Burgers_StdGreedy_QR_parameters.tex}
\caption{Greedy parameters for the Burgers' equation and QR pivots of the true output snapshots matrix $\mathbf{\mathfrak{Y}}$.}
\label{fig:ill1}
\end{figure}
We apply the QR decomposition to $\mathbf{\mathfrak{Y}}^{\textsf{T}}$ and identify the pivots. A comparison of the parameters corresponding to the first ten pivots and the parameters selected in the greedy algorithm is shown in \cref{tab:ill1} and \cref{fig:ill1}. Of the ten pivots, six are identical with the greedy parameters. This close connection between the pivots of the QR decomposition and the greedy parameters chosen in the RBM has been, to the best of our knowledge, discussed only in \cite{morAntCF18, morNar20}. It is based on the interpretation of the QR decomposition as a greedy column selection procedure. Note that the application of a QR decomposition assumes the existence of the FOM solution for all the parameters in the training set. In practice, we do not have this information. Instead, we propose to apply the pivoted QR decomposition to the transpose of an approximate output snapshot matrix, in order to identify \emph{important} parameters which can then be used to subsample the fine training set in the RBM.
In \cref{subsec:deim}, the usage of \textsf{DEIM} and \textsf{QDEIM} algorithms were discussed in the context of MOR. The \textsf{DEIM} algorithm uses a greedy sparse sampling of the left singular vector matrix ($\bx{U}$) of the snapshots to identify interpolation points, whereas \textsf{QDEIM} performs a QR decomposition with column pivoting on $\bx{U}^{\textsf{T}}$. This implicates a similar phenomenon as observed above: QR with pivoting could select points of importance on different demands. It is also noticed that QR with pivoting connects the greedy algorithm with \textsf{DEIM} (\textsf{QDEIM}), which indicates that \textsf{DEIM} and \textsf{QDEIM} could also be used to select representative parameter samples if either is applied to the output snapshot matrix.
\cref{fig:ill1} shows that the pivots of the QR decomposition on $\mathbf{\mathfrak{Y}}^{\textsf{T}}$ gives similar points as those selected by the greedy algorithm. It then indicates that sample points selected by the greedy algorithm in a way are highly related to the interpolation points of \textsf{QDEIM}, if the same snapshot matrix is considered by both the greedy algorithm and \textsf{QDEIM}, which is, in our case, the output snapshot matrix $\mathbf{\mathfrak{Y}}$. By exploiting this interpretation, we propose to use \textsf{DEIM} or other variants of \textsf{DEIM} in order to adapt the training set during the greedy algorithm.
To further support and motivate our proposed scheme, in the next subsection, we show that \textsf{DEIM} also has the similar capability of identifying the most representative parameter samples for dynamics, as that exhibited by the greedy algorithm in the RBM.
\setlength\fheight{4cm}
\setlength\fwidth{4cm}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\subfloat[Singular value decay.]{\label{fig:deimilla}\input{figures/deim_illustration_sv.tex}}\par
\subfloat[Spatial greedy points.]{\label{fig:deimillb}\input{figures/deim_illustration_xgreedy.tex}}\hfill
\subfloat[Parameter greedy points.]{\label{fig:deimillc}\input{figures/deim_illustration_mugreedy.tex}}
\caption{Toy problem demonstrating anisotropic choice of interpolation points. The colourbars indicate the order of selection of the parameters. Points in the blue end of the spectrum were selected earlier while those in the green/yellow regions of the spectrum were picked later during the course of the algorithm.}
\label{fig:deimill}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{DEIM and Parametric Anisotropy}
\label{subsubsec:motivation2}
For a function of two variables $\bx{f}(\bx{x}, \bm{\mu}) : \R^{n} \times \R^{p} \to \R^{n}$, the \textsf{DEIM} algorithm first identifies a linear subspace $\bx{U}$ and a small subset of points in the $\bx{x}$ variable, based on the snapshots matrix $\mathbf{\mathfrak{F}}$. One can analogously consider the mapping $\bx{f}(\bm{\mu}, \bx{x}) : \R^{p} \times \R^{n} \to \R^{n}$ through a transpose of $\bx{\mathfrak{F}}$. However, now the \textsf{DEIM} algorithm identifies a small subset of points in the $\bm{\mu}$ variable. We illustrate this on a toy example from \cite{Aan09}.
Consider the following nonlinear, two parameter function:
\begin{equation}
\bx{f}(\bx{x}_{1}, \bx{x}_{2}, \bm{\mu}) = \dfrac{1 + \frac{\pi^{2}}{4}(\mu_{2} - \mu_{1} - (\mu_{1} + \mu_{2}) \bx{x}_{2})^{2} \sin^{2}(\frac{\pi}{2}(\bx{x}_{1} + 1) )}{1 + (\mu_{1} + \mu_{2}) \cos(\frac{\pi}{2}(\bx{x}_{1} + 1)) },
\end{equation}
where $\bx{x} := [\bx{x}_{1}, \bx{x}_{2}] \in \R^{n \times 2}$ is the spatial variable obtained from the discretization of the two dimensional domain $\Omega := [-1 \,, 1] \times [-1 \,, 1]$ with 50 points in each spatial direction, resulting in $n = 2500$. The parameter $\bm{\mu} := (\mu_{1}, \mu_{2}) \in \R^{2}$ belongs to the domain $\mathcal{P} := [-0.4 \,, 0.4] \times [-0.4 \,, 0.4]$.
We collect $1600$ snapshots of the function in the snapshots matrix $\mathbf{\mathfrak{F}} \in \R^{2500 \times 1600}$, based on uniform, equally spaced samples of the parameter. In \cref{fig:deimilla}, the singular values of the snapshot matrix $\mathbf{\mathfrak{F}}$ are plotted. The rapid decay clearly demonstrates the reducibility of this function. We apply a cut-off of $\epsilon_{\text{SVD}} = 10^{-10}$ for \cref{alg:deim} applied to both $\mathbf{\mathfrak{F}}$ and $\mathbf{\mathfrak{F}}^{\textsf{T}}$. The greedy interpolation points in \cref{fig:deimillb} are those corresponding to the indices in the row vector $\bx{I}$, obtained from applying \cref{alg:deim} to $\mathbf{\mathfrak{F}}$. The greedy points in \cref{fig:deimillc} are those $\bm{\mu}$ corresponding to the indices stored in $\bx{I}$, obtained from applying \cref{alg:deim} to $\mathbf{\mathfrak{F}}^{\textsf{T}}$. The distribution of the points determined by \textsf{DEIM} for both the spatial and parameter variable have a characteristic structure. The number of interpolation points with SVD truncation tolerance $\epsilon_{\text{SVD}} = 10^{-10}$ was $48$, a mere $3\%$ of the total points. The spatial greedy points illustrate that while the variable $x_{1}$ is equally important over the entire range of $[-1 \,, 1]$, the $x_{2}$ variable has almost all its variation concentrated at $x_{2} \in \{-1, 0, 1\}$. For the parameter variable, the greedy algorithm picks most of the samples from the boundary of the domain and from the diagonal going from the lower left to the upper right. There is a dense concentration of points around the corners $(-0.4, -0.4)$ and $(0.4, 0.4)$. The choice of the greedy points is closely related to the structure of the function $\bx{f}$ being approximated. In most of the existing MOR literature, the \textsf{DEIM} algorithm has been used mainly as a tool to speed up evaluations of nonlinear or nonaffine (parametric) functions in a ROM. However, through the toy example, we have demonstrated its capability to expose the nature of parametric dependence of a function. As seen in \cref{fig:deimillc}, it is able to identify the regions in the parameter space where the function has large variations.
\subsection{Subsampling the Training Set}
Based on the observations in \Cref{subsubsec:motivation1,subsubsec:motivation2}, it is evident that a substantial computational effort can be saved in the offline stage of the RBM if we appropriately (optimally) sample the training set. The rationale for the proposed approach is the following: the standard greedy algorithm scans through the entire training set at each iteration and evaluates the error estimator at each parameter. This approach can incur significant computational cost for training sets with a large number of parameters. The proposed algorithm aims at picking out a small subset of the training set containing the most informative parameters. As will be demonstrated numerically, the parameters match closely to those chosen by the standard greedy algorithm.
Based on our observation of \cref{fig:ill1} in \Cref{subsubsec:motivation1} and \cref{fig:deimill} in \Cref{subsubsec:motivation2}, we propose to apply the pivoted QR decomposition and the \textsf{DEIM} algorithm (and its variants) to the snapshot matrix of the approximate output vector $\widetilde{\bx{y}}\left(\bx{z}(t^{k},\bm{\mu}), \bm{\mu}\right)$. More specifically, we consider the output snapshot matrix given by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:yr_sshot}
\widetilde{\mathbf{\mathfrak{Y}}} := \begin{bmatrix}
[\widetilde{\bx{y}}(\bx{z}(t^{0},\bm{\mu}_{1}), \bm{\mu}_{1})]^{\textsf{T}} & \cdots & [\widetilde{\bx{y}}(\bx{z}(t^{K}, \bm{\mu}_{1}), \bm{\mu}_{1})]^{\textsf{T}} \\
\vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
[\widetilde{\bx{y}}(\bx{z}(t^{0},\bm{\mu}_{N_{\text{train}}}), \bm{\mu}_{N_{\text{train}}})]^{\textsf{T}} & \cdots & [\widetilde{\bx{y}}(\bx{z}(t^{K}, \bm{\mu}_{N_{\text{train}}}), \bm{\mu}_{N_{\text{train}}})]^{\textsf{T}}
\end{bmatrix} \in \R^{N_{\text{train}} \times q N_{t}}
\end{equation}
with each row containing the snapshots of the approximated output quantity at $K+1$ time instances corresponding to a given parameter sample.
\begin{remark}
In case of stead-state systems with a single output we apply the proposed subsampling approach on the approximate state snapshots. For this, we define $\widetilde{\mathbf{\mathfrak{Y}}} := \widetilde{\bm{\mathfrak{X}}}^{\textsf{T}}$, $\widetilde{\bm{\mathfrak{X}}}$ being the snapshot matrix of the approximate state vector ($\widetilde{\bm{x}}(\bm{\mu}) = \bx{V} \bx{z}(\bm{\mu})$) such that
\begin{displaymath}
\widetilde{\bm{\mathfrak{X}}} := \left[\widetilde{\bm{x}}(\bm{\mu}_{1}), \cdots, \widetilde{\bm{x}}(\bm{\mu}_{N_{\text{train}}})\right] \in \R^{n \times N_{\text{train}}}.
\end{displaymath}
For steady-state systems with multiple outputs, we define $\widetilde{\mathbf{\mathfrak{Y}}} := \left[\widetilde{\bx{y}}(\bm{\mu}_{1}), \cdots, \widetilde{\bx{y}}(\bm{\mu}_{N_{\text{train}}}) \right]^{\textsf{T}} \in~{\R^{N_{\text{train}} \times q}}$.
\end{remark}
Note that $\widetilde{\mathbf{\mathfrak{Y}}}$ can be obtained from a coarse or low-fidelity ROM of the original system without doing FOM simulation at all the parameter samples. We propose two sampling strategies: (i) apply pivoted QR decomposition to $\widetilde{\mathbf{\mathfrak{Y}}}^{\textsf{T}}$, (ii) apply \textsf{DEIM} or its variants to $\widetilde{\mathbf{\mathfrak{Y}}}$, in order to identify the structure of the parametric dependence of the output variable.
\begin{algorithm}[t!]
\caption{Reduced Basis Method with Training Set Subsampling (Scheme~1)}
\label{alg:rbadapt1}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\REQUIRE{Training set ($\Xi_{\text{train}}^{f}$), tolerance for the ROM ($\texttt{tol}$), coarse tolerance ($\texttt{tol}^{c}$), maximum iteration ($n_{g}$).}
\ENSURE{$\bx{V}$.}
\STATE{Initialize $\bx{V} = [\,\,]$, $\epsilon = 1 + \texttt{tol}$, \texttt{iter} = 1.}
\STATE Select $\bm{\mu}^{*}_{(1)}$ randomly from $\Xi_{\text{train}}^{f}$.
\hrulefill \\
\textbf{Stage 1}
\vspace{0.1cm}
\WHILE{$\epsilon > \texttt{tol}^{c}$}
\STATE{Solve FOM \cref{eq:odess} at $\bm{\mu}^{*}_{(\texttt{iter})}$ and obtain snapshot matrix $\bm{\mathfrak{X}}$.}
\STATE Set $\bar{\bm{\mathfrak{X}}} = \bm{\mathfrak{X}} - \bx{V} \bx{V}^{\textsf{T}} \bm{\mathfrak{X}}$.
\STATE{Enrich $\bx{V}$ with $r_{\text{POD}}$ left singular vectors of $\bar{\bm{\mathfrak{X}}}$ as
$\bx{V} \leftarrow{} \texttt{orth}\left(\left[ \bx{V} \,\, \bx{U}_{\bar{\bm{\mathfrak{X}}}}(:\,,\,1 \, : \, r_{\text{POD}}) \right]\right)$.}
\STATE{\texttt{iter} = \texttt{iter} + 1.}
\STATE{Set $\bm{\mu}^{*}_{(\texttt{iter})} = \operatorname{arg} \operatorname{max} \limits_{\bm{\mu} \in \Xi_{\text{train}}^{f}} \Delta(\bm{\mu})$.}
\STATE{$\epsilon = \Delta(\bm{\mu}^{*}_{(\texttt{iter})})$.}
\ENDWHILE
\\\hrulefill \\
\textbf{Stage 2}
\vspace{0.1cm}
\STATE Perform pivoted QR decomposition of $\widetilde{\mathbf{\mathfrak{Y}}}^{\textsf{T}}$, or apply \textsf{DEIM} or a \textsf{DEIM} variant to $\widetilde{\mathbf{\mathfrak{Y}}}$ and identify the indices $\mathbf{I}$ of the QR pivots or \textsf{DEIM} interpolation points.
\STATE Identify new training set $\Xi_{\textnormal{train}}$ using distribution of $\mathbf{I}$.
\WHILE{$\epsilon > \texttt{tol}\,\, \& \&\, \, \texttt{iter} \leq n_{g}$}
\STATE{Solve FOM \cref{eq:odess} at $\bm{\mu}^{*}_{(\texttt{iter})}$ and obtain snapshot matrix $\bm{\mathfrak{X}}$.}
\STATE Set $\bar{\bm{\mathfrak{X}}} = \bm{\mathfrak{X}} - \bx{V} \bx{V}^{\textsf{T}} \bm{\mathfrak{X}}$.
\STATE{Enrich $\bx{V}$ with $r_{\text{POD}}$ left singular vectors of $\bar{\bm{\mathfrak{X}}}$ as
$\bx{V} \leftarrow{} \texttt{orth}\left(\left[ \bx{V} \,\, \bx{U}_{\bar{\bm{\mathfrak{X}}}}(:\,,\,1 \, : \, r_{\text{POD}}) \right]\right)$.}
\STATE{\texttt{iter} = \texttt{iter} + 1.}
\STATE{Set $\bm{\mu}^{*}_{(\texttt{iter})} = \operatorname{arg} \operatorname{max} \limits_{\bm{\mu} \in \Xi_{\text{train}}} \Delta(\bm{\mu})$.}
\STATE{$\epsilon = \Delta(\bm{\mu}^{*}_{(\texttt{iter})})$.}
\ENDWHILE
\\\hrulefill
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
Once the distribution of the interpolation points is identified, we can then adapt the training set for subsequent iterations of the greedy algorithm. We now outline the proposed approach and discuss different computational strategies.
\begin{algorithm}[t!]
\caption{Reduced Basis Method with Training Set Subsampling (Scheme~2)}
\label{alg:rbadapt2}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\REQUIRE{Training set ($\Xi_{\text{train}}^{f}$), tolerance for the ROM ($\texttt{tol}$), maximum iteration ($n_{g}$).}
\ENSURE{$\bx{V}$.}
\STATE{Initialize $\bx{V} = [\,\,]$, $\epsilon = 1 + \texttt{tol}$, \texttt{iter} = 1.}
\STATE Select $\bm{\mu}^{*}_{(1)}$ randomly from $\Xi_{\text{train}}^{f}$.
\hrulefill \\
\textbf{Stage 1}
\vspace{0.1cm}
\WHILE{not terminated}
\STATE{Solve FOM \cref{eq:odess} at $\bm{\mu}^{*}_{(\texttt{iter})}$ and obtain snapshot matrix $\bm{\mathfrak{X}}$.}
\STATE Set $\bar{\bm{\mathfrak{X}}} = \bm{\mathfrak{X}} - \bx{V} \bx{V}^{\textsf{T}} \bm{\mathfrak{X}}$.
\STATE{Enrich $\bx{V}$ with $r_{\text{POD}}$ left singular vectors of $\bar{\bm{\mathfrak{X}}}$ as
$\bx{V} \leftarrow{} \texttt{orth}\left(\left[ \bx{V} \,\, \bx{U}_{\bar{\bm{\mathfrak{X}}}}(:\,,\,1 \, : \, r_{\text{POD}}) \right]\right)$.}
\STATE{\texttt{iter} = \texttt{iter} + 1.}
\STATE{Set $\bm{\mu}^{*}_{(\texttt{iter})} = \operatorname{arg} \operatorname{max} \limits_{\bm{\mu} \in \Xi_{\text{train}}^{f}} \Delta(\bm{\mu})$.}
\STATE{$\epsilon = \Delta(\bm{\mu}^{*}_{(\texttt{iter})})$.}
\STATE Perform pivoted QR decomposition of $\widetilde{\mathbf{\mathfrak{Y}}}^{\textsf{T}}$, or apply \textsf{DEIM} or a \textsf{DEIM} variant to $\widetilde{\mathbf{\mathfrak{Y}}}$ and identify the indices $\mathbf{I}$ of the QR pivots or \textsf{DEIM} interpolation points.
\IF{$\texttt{iter} \geq 2$}
\STATE Check if $\operatorname{length}(\bx{I}_{\texttt{iter - 1}}) == \operatorname{length}(\bx{I}_{\texttt{iter}})$. \STATE If true $\mathbf{break}$ and proceed to \textbf{Stage 2}.
\ENDIF
\ENDWHILE
\\\hrulefill \\
\textbf{Stage 2}
\vspace{0.1cm}
\STATE Identify new training set $\Xi_{\textnormal{train}}$ using distribution of $\mathbf{I}$.
\WHILE{$\epsilon > \texttt{tol}\,\, \& \&\, \, \texttt{iter} \leq n_{g}$}
\STATE{Solve FOM \cref{eq:odess} at $\bm{\mu}^{*}_{(\texttt{iter})}$ and obtain snapshot matrix $\bm{\mathfrak{X}}$.}
\STATE Set $\bar{\bm{\mathfrak{X}}} = \bm{\mathfrak{X}} - \bx{V} \bx{V}^{\textsf{T}} \bm{\mathfrak{X}}$.
\STATE{Enrich $\bx{V}$ with $r_{\text{POD}}$ left singular vectors of $\bar{\bm{\mathfrak{X}}}$ as
$\bx{V} \leftarrow{} \texttt{orth}\left(\left[ \bx{V} \,\, \bx{U}_{\bar{\bm{\mathfrak{X}}}}(:\,,\,1 \, : \, r_{\text{POD}}) \right]\right)$.}
\STATE{\texttt{iter} = \texttt{iter} + 1.}
\STATE{Set $\bm{\mu}^{*}_{(\texttt{iter})} = \operatorname{arg} \operatorname{max} \limits_{\bm{\mu} \in \Xi_{\text{train}}} \Delta(\bm{\mu})$.}
\STATE{$\epsilon = \Delta(\bm{\mu}^{*}_{(\texttt{iter})})$.}
\ENDWHILE
\\\hrulefill
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
The proposed sampling procedure consists of two stages. The first stage is identical to the standard RBM procedure outlined in \cref{alg:rb}. A finely sampled training set $\Xi_{\text{train}}^{f}$ is used. We consider two different stopping criteria for the first stage --- (a) the first stage runs until the maximum estimated error is below a coarse tolerance denoted by $\texttt{tol}^{c} > \texttt{tol}$, where \texttt{tol} is the desired error tolerance for the final ROM, or (b) at two successive iterations, the number of \textsf{DEIM} interpolation points or QR pivots does not change. The value of $\texttt{tol}^{c}$ is user-defined and is of order $\mathcal{O}(1)$ in this work. Based on the two stopping criteria, two different schemes of training set subsampling are presented in \cref{alg:rbadapt1,alg:rbadapt2}, respectively. For both algorithms, we do not reset the value of \texttt{iter} at the end of Stage 1, so the final value of \texttt{iter} upon convergence for \cref{alg:rbadapt1,alg:rbadapt2} is the total number of iterations required by either algorithms to converge to the desired tolerance. It is worth pointing out that an \textit{a posteriori} error estimator \cite{morCheFB20} is used in both stages of the proposed algorithms so that the parameter sample picked at each iteration is the one at which an estimated {\textit{output}} error is the largest. Furthermore, the adaptive basis enrichment technique proposed in \cite{morCheFB20} is implemented and serves as a possible solution to the issue of repeated parameter selection. The number of POD modes corresponding to a selected parameter sample is adaptively decided: when the estimated error is large, a higher number of POD modes ($r_{\text{POD}}$) for the selected parameter are added; otherwise fewer POD modes are added. This reduces the chance of the same parameter sample being repeatedly chosen at subsequent iterations. This adaptive basis enrichment is implemented for both stages of our proposed method. We now discuss several practical computational strategies in connection with Steps 11 and 12 in \cref{alg:rbadapt1} and Steps 12, 13 and 16 in \cref{alg:rbadapt2}.
\begin{remark}
The active subspaces method (ASM) is an approach for parameter space reduction that has been recently applied in the context of MOR \cite{morConDW14,morTezBR18,morRozHS20} mainly for the case of scalar valued outputs. The ASM identifies a set of important directions in the parameter space onto which the parameter vectors are projected. It does this by means of Monte Carlo sampling of the gradients (with respect to the parameter) of the scalar-valued output quantity at a selection of parameter samples. The \emph{active subspaces} are the eigenspaces of the (truncated) covariance matrix of the gradients. Compared to ASM, our approach differs in two significant ways. Firstly, the proposed subsampling strategy is applicable to vector-valued output quantities. Secondly, ASM requires calculation of the gradient of the output. Moreover, the user still has to define the training set over which the gradient samples are acquired. Our proposed approach does not require the calculation of any additional quantity.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
Our proposed subsampling strategy occuring in Step 11 of \cref{alg:rbadapt1} and Step 10 of \cref{alg:rbadapt2} shares similarity with the column subset selection problem (CSSP) in the fields of numerical linear algebra and data mining \cite{Mah12}. For some general data matrix $\bx{D} \in \R^{N \times M}$, the CSSP aims to identify $h < M$ independent columns of the matrix $\bx{D}$ such that the residual $\| \bx{D} - \bx{P}_{h} \bx{D} \|$ is minimized. Here, $\bx{P}_{h} = \bx{S} \bx{S}^{\dagger}$ is a projection matrix and $\bx{S} \in R^{N \times h}$ consists of the $h$ extracted columns from $\bx{D}$. A number of algorithms, both deterministic and randomized, have been proposed to solve the CSSP \cite{BouMD09,BroBP10,CivM12}. One popular approach is to apply some variant of the QR decomposition (column-pivoted, rank-revealing, hybrid, etc.) either to the data matrix \bx{D} or to the transpose of the (truncated) left (or right) singular matrix $\bx{U}$ (or $\bx{W}$) of $\bx{D}$. If we consider $\bx{D}$ as the approximate output snapshot matrix, then our proposed algorithm using pivoted QR (or \textsf{QDEIM}) can be seen as a special case of the CSSP.
\end{remark}
\subsubsection{Training Set Subsampling: Scheme 1}
We describe the proposed approach for the first scheme detailed in \cref{alg:rbadapt1}. In the first stage, a low-fidelity ROM is built with a coarse tolerance $\texttt{tol}^{c}$, over a finely sampled training set $\Xi_{\textnormal{train}}^{f}$. The intuition is that a low-fidelity approximation is sufficient to discover the parametric dependence of the output variable. At the end of the first stage, \textsf{DEIM} (or one of its variants) is applied to $\widetilde{\mathbf{\mathfrak{Y}}}$ to identify the interpolation points or a pivoted QR decomposition of $\widetilde{\mathbf{\mathfrak{Y}}}^{\textsf{T}}$ is used to identify the pivots. Once the set of interpolation points (or pivots) $p_{i}$ is identified, we proceed to suitably subsample the finely sampled training set based on the distribution of the identified interpolation points or pivots. Different possibilities exist to achieve this. A simple approach is to consider the training set for the second stage $\Xi_{\textnormal{train}}$ populated only by the identified interpolation points or pivots. Consider the fine training set $\Xi_{\textnormal{train}}^{f} := \{\bm{\mu}_{1}, \bm{\mu}_{2}, \ldots, \bm{\mu}_{N_{\text{train}}^{f}}\}$ with the subscript denoting the index corresponding to the position of a parameter in the set. Let $\bx{I}$ be the vector whose elements are the indices of the chosen interpolation points or pivots. We define the subsampled training set $\Xi_{\textnormal{train}}$ as the one consisting of all those parameters $\bm{\mu}_{z}$ from $\Xi_{\textnormal{train}}^{f}$ such that their indices are present in $\bx{I}$, i.e., $\Xi_{\textnormal{train}} := \{\bm{\mu}_{z; z \in \bx{I}}\}$. If there are only a few interpolation points, this approach would lead to a rapid second stage of the algorithm. However, there may exist the pitfall that it may result in an \textit{overfit} by which we mean that the resulting ROM after Stage 2 satisfies the desired tolerance \texttt{tol} only over the subsampled training set and does not generalize to other parameters in the parameter domain. We illustrate this phenomenon in the numerical tests. Another possible approach is to define a training budget $m$ for the second stage and use an oversampling strategy like the \textsf{Gappy-POD} to ensure that the training set for the second stage consists of a total of $m$ parameter samples.
\subsubsection{Training Set Subsampling: Scheme 2}
The first scheme of our proposed training set adaptation method requires a user-defined coarse tolerance. Choosing such a tolerance is rather heuristic. For some problems, a rough approximation may be enough to suitably capture all the parametric dependences, whereas a finer approximation may be needed for others. Therefore, for the second scheme we define a heuristic criterion that leads automatically to the second stage. To achieve this, we apply \textsf{DEIM} approximation (or a variant of \textsf{DEIM}) to the matrix $\widetilde{\mathbf{\mathfrak{Y}}}$ or the pivoted QR factorization to $\widetilde{\mathbf{\mathfrak{Y}}}^{\textsf{T}}$, at each iteration of the greedy algorithm. Whenever the \textsf{DEIM} interpolations or pivoted QR decompositions at two successive iterations turn out to be equal, we terminate the first stage. This can be easily calculated by comparing the number of interpolation indices or the pivot indices at two successive iterations. Then, the subsampling of the training set for the second stage is carried out with similar approaches as discussed above. Following this, the second stage is run, until the required tolerance \texttt{tol} is met. In \cref{alg:rbadapt2}, $\bx{I}_{\texttt{iter}}$ and $\bx{I}_{\texttt{iter - 1}}$ in Stage 1 refer to the vector containing the interpolation indices identified by \textsf{DEIM} or its variants, or the indices of the QR pivots at the current iteration and the previous iteration, respectively.
Each of the two schemes has its own benefits or shortcomings. For Scheme 1, the burden of choosing an appropriate coarse tolerance lies with the user. This is highly problem-dependent. In the limit that $\texttt{tol}^{c} = \texttt{tol}$, Scheme 1 is just the standard Greedy algorithm (\cref{alg:rb}) with fixed training set. If $\texttt{tol}^{c} \gg \texttt{tol}$, a very fast second stage can be ensured, leading to considerable speedup of the offline stage of the RBM. However, it is not known \textit{a priori} if the chosen coarse tolerance is good. Scheme 2, on the other hand, automatizes the switching from Stage 1 to Stage 2 of the subsampling strategy by considering a heuristic criterion for the subspace approximation of the snapshot matrix $\widetilde{\mathbf{\mathfrak{Y}}}$. But, this comes with the additional cost of performing the \textsf{DEIM} algorithm or the pivoted QR decomposition, repeatedly. The success of both schemes is also highly dependent on the strategy adopted to construct the subsampled training set. In the numerical tests, we shall consider two approaches. In the first approach, we consider as many parameters in the subsampled training set as the number of \textsf{DEIM} interpolation points or QR pivots. For the second approach, we fix the cardinality of the subsampled training set to be $m$ and then use oversampling strategies based on the \textsf{Gappy-POD} method to choose those $m$ parameters in a principled way.
\subsubsection{Complexity Analysis}
\label{subsec:compl_analysis}
The fine training set is used in Stage 1 of both \Cref{alg:rbadapt1,alg:rbadapt2}. However, the computational complexity is not high for \Cref{alg:rbadapt1}, since we use a coarse tolerance $\texttt{tol}^{c}$ in Stage 1, so that the greedy algorithm converges within much fewer steps than when using the user desired tolerance in Stage 2. The computational complexity will grow with the decrease of the coarse tolerance used in Stage 1. However, as we have observed, a moderate value of $\texttt{tol}^{c}$ is enough to figure out the parameter dependency of the output. The number of FOM simulations is indeed independent of the size of the fine training set, since the FOM simulation is implemented only at those ``selected" parameter samples.
The situation for \Cref{alg:rbadapt2} is different since it involves the DEIM or QR algorithms at each iteration (see Step 10) to compute the interpolation points. A fine training set will indeed increase the cost of this step. Nevertheless, one can readily use recent techniques based on randomized linear algebra (such as randomized SVD, randomized QR, etc.) to keep the costs under control, see \cite{morSai20,morDueG17}.
In this section, we roughly compare the computational complexity of the standard RBM without training set subsampling in \cref{alg:rb} to that of RBM using the two subsampling strategies introduced in \cref{alg:rbadapt1,alg:rbadapt2}. Our complexity analysis considers the worst-case costs involved with each algorithm and is meant as a simplified illustration of the benefits of subsampling the training set. For simplicity, we only count the dominant costs in each algorithm.
We begin by introducing some notation:
\begin{itemize}
\item Let $\mathcal{C}_{\text{FOM}} := O(n^{2})\cdot N_{t}$ denote the cost of solving the FOM (for e.g., \cref{eq:odess}) using some iterative scheme (GMRES, etc.), at a fixed parameter to obtain the snapshots.
\item Let $\mathcal{C}_{\text{SVD}} := O(n^{3})$ be the worst-case cost for performing the SVD.
\item Let $\mathcal{C}_{\text{Err}} := O(s)$ be the cost associated with evaluating the error estimator $\Delta(\bm{\mu})$ for a fixed parameter.
\item Note that the dimension of the snapshot matrix in \cref{eq:yr_sshot} is $N_{\text{train}}^{f} \times q N_{t}$. For large-scale systems, usually we have $N_{\text{train}}^{f} \leq n$, if using, e.g., a sparse grid sampling, and often $q N_{t} \leq n$. Therefore, the cost for the \textsf{DEIM} algorithm (or its variants) or the pivoted QR decomposition should be less than $O(n^{3})$. In general, we denote it as $\mathcal{C}_{\text{ss}} := O(n^{3})$.
\end{itemize}
The cost associated with \cref{alg:rb}, viz., $\mathcal{C}_{I}$ is:
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{C}_{\RomanNumeralCaps{1}} := \left( \mathcal{C}_{\text{FOM}} + \mathcal{C}_{\text{SVD}} + \mathcal{C}_{\text{Err}} \cdot N_{\textnormal{train}}^{f} \right) \cdot N_{I}
\end{align*}
with $N_{\textnormal{train}}^{f}$ being the cardinality of the fine training set and $N_{I}$ the number of iterations taken by the greedy algorithm to converge to the desired tolerance. The cost incurred by \cref{alg:rbadapt1}, $\mathcal{C}_{\RomanNumeralCaps{2}}$, is divided between Stage 1 and Stage 2. This is given by:
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{C}_{\RomanNumeralCaps{2}} :=& \overbrace{\big( \mathcal{C}_{\text{FOM}} + \mathcal{C}_{\text{SVD}} + \mathcal{C}_{\text{Err}} \cdot N_{\textnormal{train}}^{f} \big) \cdot N_{II,1}}^{\text{Stage 1 cost}} \\ &+ \underbrace{\mathcal{C}_{\text{ss}} + \big( \mathcal{C}_{\text{FOM}} + \mathcal{C}_{\text{SVD}} + \mathcal{C}_{\text{Err}} \cdot N_{\textnormal{train}} \big) \cdot N_{II,2}}_{\text{Stage 2 cost}}.
\end{align*}
In the above expression, $N_{II,1}, N_{II,2}$ are, respectively, the number of iterations of the greedy algorithm in Stage 1 and Stage 2 of \cref{alg:rbadapt1}. Typically, $N_{II,2} > N_{II,1}$ since we use a coarse tolerance for Stage 1. Moreover, $N_{\textnormal{train}}$ is the cardinality of the subsampled training set $\Xi_{\textnormal{train}}$. Finally, the computational cost of \cref{alg:rbadapt2}, $\mathcal{C}_{\RomanNumeralCaps{3}}$, is as follows:
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{C}_{\RomanNumeralCaps{3}} :=& \overbrace{\big( \mathcal{C}_{\text{FOM}} + \mathcal{C}_{\text{SVD}} + \mathcal{C}_{\text{Err}} \cdot N_{\textnormal{train}}^{f} + \mathcal{C}_{\text{ss}} \big) \cdot N_{III,1}}^{\text{Stage 1 cost}} \\ &+ \underbrace{\big( \mathcal{C}_{\text{FOM}} + \mathcal{C}_{\text{SVD}} + \mathcal{C}_{\text{Err}} \cdot N_{\textnormal{train}} \big) \cdot N_{III,2}}_{\text{Stage 2 cost}}
\end{align*}
with $N_{III,1}, N_{III,2}$ being, respectively, the number of iterations of the greedy algorithm in Stage 1 and Stage 2 of \cref{alg:rbadapt2}. For \cref{alg:rbadapt1} or \cref{alg:rbadapt2} to be computationally better alternatives to \cref{alg:rb}, we should have $\mathcal{C}_{I} > \mathcal{C}_{II}$ and $\mathcal{C}_{I} > \mathcal{C}_{III}$.
\paragraph{Cost benefit of \cref{alg:rbadapt1}:}
To compare the costs of \cref{alg:rb} and \cref{alg:rbadapt1}, we look at the expression $\mathcal{C}_{I} - \mathcal{C}_{II}$.
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{C}_{I} - \mathcal{C}_{II} :=&\, \mathcal{C}_{\text{FOM}} (N_{I} - N_{II,1} - N_{II,2})\\
&+ \mathcal{C}_{\text{SVD}} (N_{I} - N_{II,1} - N_{II,2})\\
&+ \mathcal{C}_{\text{Err}} (N_{\textnormal{train}}^{f} \cdot N_{I} - N_{\textnormal{train}}^{f} \cdot N_{II,1} - N_{\textnormal{train}} \cdot N_{II,2})\\
&- \mathcal{C}_{\text{ss}}.
\end{align*}
By assuming $N_{I} \approx N_{II,1} + N_{II,2}$ we have for the above expression
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{C}_{I} - \mathcal{C}_{II} \approx&\, \mathcal{C}_{\text{Err}} (N_{\textnormal{train}}^{f} - N_{\textnormal{train}}) N_{II,2} - \mathcal{C}_{\text{ss}}.
\end{align*}
For $N_{\textnormal{train}}^{f} \gg N_{\textnormal{train}}$, the first term would dominate leading to $\mathcal{C}_{I} > \mathcal{C}_{II}$. Thus, we see that computational cost incurred by \cref{alg:rbadapt1} is less than that of \cref{alg:rb}. In our analysis, we have assumed that $N_{I} \approx N_{II,1} + N_{II,2}$. While this helps to simplify the analysis, it does not always hold. As we shall see in \cref{sec:numerics}, for the example of Burgers' equation this assumption is true, while it does not hold for the thermal block example. A more relaxed assumption is $N_{I} \gtrapprox N_{II,1} + N_{II,2}$ using which, it can still be seen that $C_{I} > C_{II}$.
\paragraph{Cost benefit of \cref{alg:rbadapt2}:}
We look at the difference in costs $\mathcal{C}_{I} - \mathcal{C}_{III}$.
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{C}_{I} - \mathcal{C}_{III} :=&\, \mathcal{C}_{\text{FOM}} (N_{I} - N_{III,1} - N_{III,2})\\
&+ \mathcal{C}_{\text{SVD}} (N_{I} - N_{III,1} - N_{III,2})\\
&+ \mathcal{C}_{\text{Err}} (N_{\textnormal{train}}^{f} \cdot N_{I} - N_{\textnormal{train}}^{f} \cdot N_{III,1} - N_{\textnormal{train}} \cdot N_{III,2})\\
&- \mathcal{C}_{\text{ss}} N_{III,1}.
\end{align*}
By making the assumption $N_{I} \approx N_{III,1} + N_{III,2}$, we have for the above expression
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{C}_{I} - \mathcal{C}_{III} \approx&\, \mathcal{C}_{\text{Err}} (N_{\textnormal{train}}^{f} - N_{\textnormal{train}}) N_{III,2} - \mathcal{C}_{\text{ss}} N_{III,1}.
\end{align*}
Usually $N_{\textnormal{train}}^{f} \gg N_{\textnormal{train}}$ and moreover, $N_{III,1} < N_{III,2}$. Therefore, the first term would dominate, leading to $\mathcal{C}_{I} > \mathcal{C}_{III}$. Once again, we see that the RBM using the subsampling strategy (\cref{alg:rbadapt2}) incurs a smaller cost when compared to \cref{alg:rb}. In the case of \cref{alg:rbadapt2}, just like earlier, the assumption $N_{I} \approx N_{III,1} + N_{III,2}$ need not always hold. From the numerical tests in the next section, we actually have $N_{I} \gtrapprox N_{III,1} + N_{III,2}$. The numerical results in \cref{tab:burgers_v1,tab:burgers_v2} show that \cref{alg:rbadapt1,alg:rbadapt2} indeed achieve speedups that can only be secured when they possess less computational complexity than \cref{alg:rb}.
\begin{remark}[High-dimensional parameter spaces]
Both \Cref{alg:rbadapt1,alg:rbadapt2}, can be used when the parameter space is high-dimensional. The cost in Stage 2 will not be affected much, since a small training set identified from Stage 1 is used. The main increase in cost is due to the need to solve additional ROMs and estimate the error in Stage 1 of the proposed algorithms (Step 8 in \Cref{alg:rbadapt1,alg:rbadapt2}). If sparse grid sampling and a cheap error estimator are used, the cost will not increase fast. Actually, we can go a step further and make use of cheaply computable surrogate models of the error estimator as done in \cite{morCheFB19}. In that work, we considered a radial basis surrogate for the error estimator that is adaptively updated during the greedy algorithm. We only evaluate the actual error estimator over a few parameter samples. We then use this data to form a surrogate model, which can be used to evaluate the error for different parameter samples in the fine training set in Stage 1.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}[Role of output quantity of interest]
In many cases, there is often the requirement, based on the application, to have a good approximation for the entire state vector. However, in this work we have specifically focussed on a \emph{goal-oriented} approach. For several applications, like in control systems or fluid dynamics, only a small number of state variables may be of interest. By focussing on those states alone, the resulting ROM dimension can be considerably lowered when compared to the case where the entire state needs to be well approximated. Also, it is indeed true that different output QoIs may have different influences on the parameter samples chosen. However, if some QoIs give rise to quantities with similar emphasis, then they may result in similar parameter samples being chosen. For example, a QoI defined by the mean of the solution over the spatial domain and a QoI defined by the sum of the solution over the spatial domain should result in similar samples. But a QoI defined by the mean of the solution over space probably gives different samples from the QoI defined by the maximum of the state over the spatial domain.
\end{remark}
\section{Numerical Results}
\label{sec:numerics}
We test the proposed adaptive training set subsampling algorithm on two examples. They are:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Viscous Burgers' equation with one parameter,
\item thermal block with four parameters.
\end{enumerate}
The first example is a nonlinear system, while the other is linear. All numerical tests are carried out in $\operatorname{MATLAB}\textsuperscript{\textregistered}$ 8.5.0.197613 (R2015a) on a laptop with $\operatorname{Intel} \textsuperscript{\textregistered} \operatorname{Core} \textsuperscript{\texttrademark}$ i5-7200U @ 2.5 GHz and 8 GB of RAM. Next, we describe the metrics used in all the numerical tests:
\begin{itemize}
\item The results of the proposed algorithms (\cref{alg:rbadapt1,,alg:rbadapt2}) are compared against a standard implementation of the POD-Greedy algorithm (\cref{alg:rb}) with a fixed training set. The implementation adopts Galerkin projection.
The number of POD modes $r_{\text{POD}},\, r_{\text{EI}} $ to enrich the RB and \textsf{DEIM} bases is determined at each iteration based on the adaptive approach proposed in \cite{morCheFB20}. We have also used the primal-dual error estimator proposed by the authors of \cite{morCheFB20} for our implementation of \cref{alg:rb,alg:rbadapt1,alg:rbadapt2}. The dual RB basis required for the error estimator is generated separately.
\item The fixed training set used for \cref{alg:rb} and the initial fine training set used for \cref{alg:rbadapt1,,alg:rbadapt2} are the same.
\item For \cref{alg:rbadapt1,,alg:rbadapt2}, we apply (i) the pivoted QR decomposition to the transposed approximate output snapshot matrix $\widetilde{\mathbf{\mathfrak{Y}}}^{\textsf{T}}$ and, (ii) the \textsf{DEIM} variants on the approximate output snapshot matrix $\widetilde{\mathbf{\mathfrak{Y}}}$ as two approaches to subsample the fine training set.
\item The cut-off criterion to determine the number of pivots ($h$) for the pivoted QR decomposition in \cref{eq:pivqr} of the approximate output snapshot matrix in \cref{eq:yr_sshot} is based on the magnitude of the diagonal elements in the upper triangular matrix $\bx{R}$, i.e., we set $h = q$ based on the the smallest $q$ such that $|\bx{R}(q+1,q+1)|/|\bx{R}(1,1)| < \epsilon_{\text{QR}}$, with $q \in \{1, 2, \ldots, \min(N_{\text{train}}, N_{t})\}$. The pivoted QR decomposition can effectively identify the rank of a matrix with a small diagonal $\bx{R}(q+1,q+1)$. Although there are cases when the column pivoted QR decomposition fails, they are rare in practice \cite{Cha87}. A more robust rank-revealing QR factorization \cite{Cha87} can also be straightforwardly applied to our proposed subsampling algorithm. However, in this work, we simply use column pivoted QR. The intrinsic $\operatorname{MATLAB}\textsuperscript{\textregistered}$ command \texttt{qr} is used with the options $\texttt{vector}$ enabled, i.e., we call $[\bx{Q}, \bx{R}, p_{\text{qr}}] = \texttt{qr}(\widetilde{\mathbf{\mathfrak{Y}}}^{\textsf{T}},\,\,\textnormal{\textquotesingle}\texttt{vector}\textnormal{\textquotesingle})$. It returns the pivot indices $p_{\text{qr}}$ as a vector, from which we select the first $h$ as our subsampling indices, i.e., $\bx{I} = p_{\text{qr}}(1:h)$. Here, $\bx{I}$ is the vector whose elements are the indices of the QR pivots and it lets us choose the subsampled training set $\Xi_{\text{train}}$ for Stage 2 of our proposed method, based on the fine training set $\Xi_{\textnormal{train}}^{f}$ from Stage 1.
\item Our implementation of the \texttt{k-means} algorithm for \textsf{KDEIM} is based on the intrinsic $\operatorname{MATLAB}\textsuperscript{\textregistered}$ function \texttt{kmeans}. We use five different initializations and pick the best configuration among the five.
\item The maximum true error over the test set is defined as
\begin{displaymath}
\epsilon_{\text{t}}^{\text{max}} := \max \limits_{\bm{\mu} \in \Xi_{\textnormal{test}}} \left( \frac{1}{K+1} \sum_{k = 0}^{K} \| \bx{y}\left(\bx{x}(t^{k},\bm{\mu})\right) - \widetilde{\bx{y}}\left(\bx{z}(t^{k},\bm{\mu})\right) \| \right).
\end{displaymath}
\item Reported runtimes for all the algorithms are obtained by considering the median value of five independent runs.
\item The quantity Iterations reported in \cref{tab:burgers_v1,tab:burgers_v2,tab:thermal_v1,tab:thermal_v2,tab:thermal_oversample} refers to the total number of iterations (\texttt{iter}) of the corresponding greedy algorithm (\cref{alg:rb,alg:rbadapt1,alg:rbadapt2}) to converge to the desired tolerance.
\end{itemize}
\subsection{Viscous Burgers' Equation}
We consider the following viscous Burgers' equation defined on a 1-D domain $\Omega := [ 0 \,, 1]$:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial x}{\partial t} + x \frac{\partial x}{\partial w} &= \mu \frac{\partial^{2} x}{\partial w^{2}} + s(x,t), \,\,\, x(0, t) = 0 \,\, \&\,\, \frac{\partial x(1,t)}{\partial w} = 0,\\
y &= x(1,t),
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $s(x,t)$ denotes a forcing term defined later. The domain is discretized using the finite difference method with step size $\Delta w = 0.001$. We make use of a second order central difference discretization for the diffusion term and a first-order upwind scheme for the convection term. The resulting FOM is of dimension $n = 1000$. For the time variable $t \in [0 \,, 2]$, we make use of a first order implicit-explicit (IMEX) scheme with the diffusion term discretized implicitly and the nonlinear convection term discretized explicitly. The step size is $\Delta t = 0.001$. The constant input to the system is set to be $s(x,t) \equiv 1$ and the initial condition is $\bx{x}_{0} := \mathbf{0} \in \R^{n}$. The parameter domain of the viscosity $\mu$ is $\mathcal{P} := [0.005, \, 1]$. The training set $\Xi_{\text{train}}$ consists of $100$ equally spaced samples in $\mathcal{P}$. For the RBM, we fix the tolerance to be $\texttt{tol} = 1\cdot10^{-6}$. To validate the ROM, we use a test set $\Xi_{\textnormal{test}}$ containing 300 randomly sampled parameters, different from those in the training set.
\subsubsection{Greedy Algorithm with Fixed Training Set}
We begin by applying the standard greedy algorithm (\cref{alg:rb}) to the discretized model of the Burgers' equation. The greedy algorithm requires $t_{\text{greedy}} = 505.47$ seconds and $19$ iterations to converge to the defined tolerance of $1\cdot10^{-6}$. The resulting ROM has RB dimension $r_{\text{POD}} = 32$ along with $r_{\text{EI}} = 33$ basis vectors for the \textsf{DEIM} projection matrix. The maximum true error over the test set is $\epsilon_{\text{t}}^{\text{max}} = 2.07\cdot10^{-8}$. Although the POD-Greedy algorithm with a fixed training set results in a ROM that meets the specified tolerance, its offline time is high and there is scope for improvement by considering a subsampled training set.
\subsubsection{Greedy Algorithm Schemes 1 and 2}
We apply \cref{alg:rbadapt1,,alg:rbadapt2} to the Burgers' equation, making use of both pivoted QR and the two \textsf{DEIM} variants (\textsf{QDEIM} and \textsf{KDEIM}) to identify the interpolation points $\bx{I}$. Further, we consider three different SVD and QR cut-off tolerances ($\epsilon_{\text{SVD}}$, $\epsilon_{\text{QR}}$) for the pivoted QR and \textsf{DEIM} variants $\{1\cdot10^{-4}, 1\cdot10^{-6}, 1\cdot10^{-8} \}$ to highlight the progressive refinement of the adapted training set in `difficult regions' of the parameter space. The results are summarized in \cref{tab:burgers_v1,,tab:burgers_v2} for \cref{alg:rbadapt1,,alg:rbadapt2}, respectively. The matrix $\widetilde{\mathbf{\mathfrak{Y}}} \in \R^{100 \times 81}$, for either algorithms, was assembled by collecting the snapshots of the output vector at every $25^{\text{th}}$ time step. The training set in Stage 2 of both algorithms consists of interpolation points identified by QR, \textsf{QDEIM} or \textsf{KDEIM}. As revealed in the results, this choice is sufficient to produce ROMs that meet the required tolerance over the test set. For this example, there is not a big difference between the results of the two algorithms. Both schemes produce ROMs of almost identical RB, \textsf{DEIM} basis sizes ($r_{\text{POD}},\,r_{\text{EI}}$) and result in nearly the same maximum error over the test set.
We show the subsampled training sets resulting from \cref{alg:rbadapt2} using the pivoted QR, \textsf{QDEIM} and \textsf{KDEIM} variants, with different SVD, QR tolerances in \cref{fig:burgtrngset_minus4,fig:burgtrngset_minus6,fig:burgtrngset_minus8}. The black crosses denote those samples from the fine training set which were retained in Stage 2 of the algorithm. For the \textsf{QDEIM} variant, it is clear that the subsampled parameters are concentrated more around the lower viscosity regions of the parameter space. Thus, the method is able to successfully identify the \emph{physically more relevant} points. Moreover, the parameter samples identified by \textsf{QDEIM} are very close to the ones identified by the method using a pivoted QR decomposition. This is not surprising since the former determines the interpolation points through a pivoted QR decomposition of $\bx{U}^{\textsf{T}}$ ($\bx{U}$ is the left singular matrix of $\widetilde{\mathbf{\mathfrak{Y}}}$) whereas the latter applies the pivoted QR decomposition directly to $\widetilde{\mathbf{\mathfrak{Y}}}^{\textsf{T}}$. We also show the results of \textsf{KDEIM}, where the subsampled (selected) parameter samples and their corresponding clusters are presented. The subsampled points in this case are the centroids of the clusters. The clusters are smaller in size for the low viscosity regions, while they are comparatively larger in the high viscosity zone. The resulting subsampled training sets from \cref{alg:rbadapt1} display a similar trend.
For a given $\epsilon_{\text{SVD}}$ or $\epsilon_{\text{QR}}$, the runtimes for the \textsf{QDEIM} and \textsf{KDEIM} based training set adaptation are very close. Using the pivoted QR leads to a subsampled training set with one sample more than that generated by using \textsf{QDEIM} or \textsf{KDEIM}. This results in a marginally higher offline time for this method. One observation worth remarking is that, for some instances, using the \textsf{KDEIM} approach to identify the adapted training set leads to the greedy algorithm converging in fewer iterations. This is most likely due to the fact that the identified parameters in this case represent cluster centroids and are more representative of the average behaviour. This yields a more uniform approximation throughout the parameter domain, with each cluster average being well-represented. The \textsf{QDEIM} version, on the other hand, tends to identify points based on the SVD of the output snapshot matrix and tends to favour points away from the mean behaviour. We illustrate this in \cref{fig:err_plot_alg41} for the case of $\epsilon_{\text{SVD}} = 10^{-8}$ for \cref{alg:rbadapt1}. It is evident that while the subsampling strategy using \textsf{QDEIM} results in a smaller magnitude of the maximum error over the test set ($4.55\cdot10^{-8}$ vs. $6.88\cdot10^{-8}$), the approach using the \textsf{KDEIM}-based sampling leads to a more uniform distribution of the error over the test set.
\begin{landscape}
\centering
\begin{table}[t!]
\caption{Results of \cref{alg:rbadapt1} with varying $\epsilon_{\text{SVD}}$, $\epsilon_{\text{QR}}$ for Burgers' equation.}
\label{tab:burgers_v1}
\centering
\scriptsize
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\multirow{3}{*}{Method} & \multirow{3}{*}{Fixed} & \multicolumn{9}{c|}{Adapted} \\ \cline{3-11}
& & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{$\epsilon_{\text{SVD}}, \epsilon_{\text{QR}} = 1\cdot10^{-4}$} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{$\epsilon_{\text{SVD}}, \epsilon_{\text{QR}} = 1\cdot10^{-6}$} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{$\epsilon_{\text{SVD}}, \epsilon_{\text{QR}} = 1\cdot10^{-8}$} \\ \cline{3-11}
& & \small{\textsf{QDEIM}} & \small{\textsf{KDEIM}} & \small{QR}
& \small{\textsf{QDEIM}} & \small{\textsf{KDEIM}} & \small{QR} & \small{\textsf{QDEIM}}
& \small{\textsf{KDEIM}} & \small{QR} \\ \hline
$N_{\text{train}}$ & 100 & 7 & 7 & 8 & 11 & 11 & 12 & 15 & 15 & 15 \\ \hline
$\epsilon_{t}^{\text{max}}$ & $2.07 \cdot 10^{-8}$ & $4.22\cdot10^{-7}$ & $4.15\cdot10^{-7}$ & $3.43\cdot 10^{-8}$ &$1.87\cdot 10^{-8}$ & $1.87\cdot10^{-8}$ & $3.43\cdot 10^{-8}$ & $1.87\cdot10^{-8}$ & $1.84\cdot10^{-8}$ & $3.28\cdot 10^{-8}$\\ \hline
($r_{\text{POD}}, r_{\text{EI}}$) & (32,33) & (31,32) & (30,31) & (31,32) & (31,32) & (31,32) & (31,32) & (31,32) & (31,32) &(31,32) \\ \hline
Iterations (\texttt{iter}) & 19 & 17 & 17 & 17 & 18 & 18 & 17 & 18 & 18 & 17 \\ \hline
Offline time (s) & 505.47 & 91.00 & 91.16 & 94.90 & 110.10 & 110.35 & 109.54 & 125.07 & 125.59 & 120.53 \\ \hline
Speedup & - & 5.6 & 5.5 & 5.3 & 4.6 & 4.6 & 4.6 & 4.0 & 4.0 & 4.2 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\hfill
\begin{table}[b!]
\caption{Results of \cref{alg:rbadapt2} with varying $\epsilon_{\text{SVD}}$, $\epsilon_{\text{QR}}$ for Burgers' equation.}
\label{tab:burgers_v2}
\centering
\scriptsize
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\multirow{3}{*}{Method} & \multirow{3}{*}{Fixed} & \multicolumn{9}{c|}{Adapted} \\ \cline{3-11}
& & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{$\epsilon_{\text{SVD}}, \epsilon_{\text{QR}} = 1\cdot10^{-4}$} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{$\epsilon_{\text{SVD}}, \epsilon_{\text{QR}} = 1\cdot10^{-6}$} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{$\epsilon_{\text{SVD}}, \epsilon_{\text{QR}} = 1\cdot10^{-8}$} \\ \cline{3-11}
& & \small{\textsf{QDEIM}} & \small{\textsf{KDEIM}} & \small{QR} & \small{\textsf{QDEIM}} & \small{\textsf{KDEIM}} & \small{QR} & \small{\textsf{QDEIM}} & \small{\textsf{KDEIM}} & \small{QR} \\ \hline
$N_{\text{train}}$ & 100 & 7 & 7 & 8 & 11 & 11 & 12 & 15 & 15 & 15 \\ \hline
$\epsilon_{t}^{\text{max}}$ & $2.07 \cdot 10^{-8}$ & $4.22\cdot10^{-7}$ & $3.43\cdot10^{-7}$ & $3.43\cdot10^{-8}$ & $1.87\cdot 10^{-8}$ & $5.96\cdot10^{-8}$ & $3.43\cdot10^{-8}$ & $1.87\cdot10^{-8}$ & $2.59\cdot10^{-8}$ & $3.28\cdot10^{-8}$\\ \hline
($r_{\text{POD}}, r_{\text{EI}}$) & (32,33) & (31,32) & (30,31) & (31,32) & (31,32) & (31,32) & (31,32) & (31,32) & (30,31) & (31,32) \\ \hline
Iterations (\texttt{iter}) & 19 & 17 & 16 & 17 & 18 & 18 & 17 & 18 & 16 & 17 \\ \hline
Offline time (s) & 505.47 & 90.78 & 88.52 & 94.58 & 110.12 & 110.10 & 109.55 & 145.22 & 135.82 & 120.27 \\ \hline
Speedup & - & 5.6 & 5.7 & 5.3 & 4.6 & 4.6 & 4.6 & 3.5 & 3.7 & 4.2 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\end{landscape}
On average, for a given SVD tolerance, \cref{alg:rbadapt1} is faster than \cref{alg:rbadapt2}. This can be attributed to the fact that for the latter, the \textsf{DEIM} variant or the pivoted QR decomposition needs to be performed repeatedly to check the criterion in Step 12 of \cref{alg:rbadapt2}. Since this involves performing an SVD, the associated costs are higher. The proposed subsampling algorithms result in a noticeable speedup of the POD-Greedy algorithm. For \cref{alg:rbadapt1}, the maximum achieved speedup was $5.6$ for $\epsilon_{\text{SVD}} = 1\cdot10^{-4}$ using \textsf{QDEIM}. However, the least speedup noticed was $4.0$ for $\epsilon_{\text{SVD}} = 1\cdot10^{-8}$ using \textsf{QDEIM}. Also, for \cref{alg:rbadapt2} the maximum achieved speedup was $5.7$ for $\epsilon_{\text{SVD}} = 1\cdot10^{-4}$ using \textsf{KDEIM} while the minimum speedup was $3.5$ for $\epsilon_{\text{SVD}} = 1\cdot10^{-8}$ using \textsf{QDEIM}. Finally, we see from \cref{tab:burgers_v1,tab:burgers_v2} that the number of iterations to converge for \cref{alg:rb}, \cref{alg:rbadapt1,alg:rbadapt2} are nearly the same. Thus, our assumption in the analysis from \cref{subsec:compl_analysis} that $N_{I} \approx N_{II,1} + N_{II,2}$ and $N_{I} \approx N_{III,1} + N_{III,2}$ holds true.
\setlength\fheight{4cm}
\setlength\fwidth{0.9\columnwidth}
\begin{figure}[tp!]
\centering
\input{figures/Ex1_Burgers_TrngSet_1eminus04.tex}
\caption{\cref{alg:rbadapt2} for the Burgers' Equation with SVD, QR tolerance $\epsilon_{\text{SVD}}, \epsilon_{\text{QR}} = 1\cdot10^{-4}$. The crossmarks denote the parameters in the subsampled training set. For \textsf{KDEIM} each colour represents one cluster; the centroids of each of the clusters make up the subsampled training set.}
\label{fig:burgtrngset_minus4}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[tp!]
\centering
\input{figures/Ex1_Burgers_TrngSet_1eminus06.tex}
\caption{\cref{alg:rbadapt2} for the Burgers' Equation with SVD, QR tolerance $\epsilon_{\text{SVD}}, \epsilon_{\text{QR}} = 1\cdot10^{-6}$. The crossmarks denote the parameters in the subsampled training set. For \textsf{KDEIM} each colour represents one cluster; the centroids of each of the clusters make up the subsampled training set.}
\label{fig:burgtrngset_minus6}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[tp!]
\centering
\input{figures/Ex1_Burgers_TrngSet_1eminus08.tex}
\caption{\cref{alg:rbadapt2} for the Burgers' Equation with SVD, QR tolerance $\epsilon_{\text{SVD}}, \epsilon_{\text{QR}} = 1\cdot10^{-8}$. The crossmarks denote the parameters in the subsampled training set. For \textsf{KDEIM} each colour represents one cluster; the centroids of each of the clusters make up the subsampled training set.}
\label{fig:burgtrngset_minus8}
\end{figure}
\setlength\fheight{6cm}
\setlength\fwidth{6cm}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\subfloat[\textsf{QDEIM}.]{\label{fig:err_plot_alg41_qdeim}\input{figures/Ex1_Burgers_ErrPlot_v2_1_QDEIM.tex}}\hfill
\subfloat[\textsf{KDEIM}.]{\label{fig:err_plot_alg41_kdeim}\input{figures/Ex1_Burgers_ErrPlot_v2_1_KDEIM.tex}}
\caption{Error plot for \cref{alg:rbadapt1} with tolerance $\epsilon_{\text{SVD}} = 10^{-8}$ applied to the Burgers' equation. The error between the true and reduced outputs $\| \bx{y}\left(\bx{x}(t^{k},\bm{\mu})\right) - \widetilde{\bx{y}}\left(\bx{z}(t^{k},\bm{\mu})\right) \|$ is plotted over the duration of the simulation for all parameters in the test set.}
\label{fig:err_plot_alg41}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Thermal Block}
The second example is a benchmark model of the time-dependent heat transfer in a thermal block. The governing PDE is given by
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial \theta(\bx{w}, t, \bm{\mu})}{\partial t} + \nabla \cdot (-\gamma(\bx{w}, \bm{\mu})\nabla\theta(\bx{w}, t, \bm{\mu})) &= 0, \qquad t \in [0,\,T].
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
The domain $\Omega := (0 , 1) \times (0 , 1) \in \R^{2}$ is partitioned into five regions --- $\Omega = \Omega_{0} \cup \Omega_{1} \cup \Omega_{2} \cup \Omega_{3} \cup \Omega_{4}$ as shown in \cref{fig:cookie}. The left boundary of the domain ($\Gamma_{\text{in}}$) is associated with an input heat flux of unit magnitude, the top and bottom boundaries ($\Gamma_{\text{N}}$) are associated with a Neumann boundary condition with zero flux and finally the right boundary ($\Gamma_{\text{D}}$) is fixed at zero. The state variable is the temperature $\theta(\bx{w}, t)$ at a given spatial location $\bx{w} \in \Omega$, for a given time $t$. The initial condition is $\theta(\bx{w},0) = 0$. The output is the average temperature measured at $\Omega_{2}$. The problem is parametrized by the heat conductivity $\gamma$ in the subdomains ($\Omega_{0}, \Omega_{1}, \Omega_{2}, \Omega_{3}$ and $\Omega_{4}$); $\gamma(\bx{w}, \bm{\mu}) = 1$ when $\bx{w} \in \Omega_{0}$ and $\gamma(\bx{w}, \bm{\mu}) = \kappa_{i}$ whenever $\bx{w} \in \Omega_{i}$, $i = 1,2,3,4$.
We define the parameter vector $\bm{\mu} = [\kappa_{1}, \kappa_{2}, \kappa_{3}, \kappa_{4}]$. The governing PDE is discretized in space using linear finite elements with respect to a simplicial triangulation of the domain $\Omega$ obtained via the software \texttt{gmsh} \cite{gmsh09}. It is further discretized in time using the implicit Euler scheme for a time ranging from $t \in [0 \,, 1]$, with step size $\Delta t = 0.01$. The spatially discretized system has dimension $n = 7488$. For more details on the model and the spatial discretization, the reader is referred to \cite{morRavS20}. The discretized heat equation can be written in the form of \cref{eq:odess}. Since the problem is linear, we have $\bx{f} \equiv 0$. For the numerical results, the parameter $\bm{\mu}$ is sampled from the domain $\mathcal{P} := [{1\cdot10^{-5}} \,, {1\cdot10^{-2}}] \times [{1\cdot10^{-5}} \,, {1\cdot10^{-2}}] \times [{1\cdot10^{-4}} \,, 1] \times [{1\cdot10^{-1}} \,, 1]$. For purposes of illustration, we consider the three parameter version of the thermal block problem by fixing $\kappa_{4}$ to its mean value, i.e., $\kappa_{4} = 0.5$. The training set $\Xi_{\text{train}}$ consists of a tensor grid of $N_{\text{train}} = 6^{3} = 216$ parameters, with $6$ parameters sampled for each $\kappa_{i}, \,\, i = 1,\, 2,\, 3$. The test parameter set consists of 100 parameters, randomly sampled from $\mathcal{P}$. The tolerance for the greedy algorithm is set to be $\texttt{tol} = 1\cdot10^{-3}$.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale = 0.5]{figures/cookie_domain.png}
\caption{Thermal Block Example: Spatial domain and boundaries.}
\label{fig:cookie}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Greedy Algorithm with Fixed Training Set}
\setlength\fheight{4cm}
\setlength\fwidth{6cm}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\input{figures/Ex2_Thermal_Block_Fixed_Training_Set.tex}
\caption{Thermal Block: Fine training set with $216$ parameters and the $44$ greedy parameters picked by \cref{alg:rb}.}
\label{fig:thermal_fixed}
\end{figure}
Applying \cref{alg:rb} with a fixed training set to the thermal block example results in a ROM of dimension $r_{\text{POD}} = 74$, taking $53$ iterations to converge in $t_{\text{greedy}} = 694.73$ seconds. The maximum error over the test set is $\epsilon_{t}^{\text{max}} = 9.78 \cdot 10^{-4}$. In \cref{fig:thermal_fixed}, the training set $\Xi_{\textnormal{train}}$ and the greedy parameters identified by \cref{alg:rb} are shown. Of the $216$ parameters in the training set, only $44$ are chosen. The greedy parameters have a larger concentration at and around $(0.01, 0.01, 0.0001)$, the upper right corner of the figure. In fact, the regions around the vicinity of the upper and right wall of the grid posses many greedy samples near them.
\subsubsection{Greedy Algorithm Schemes 1 and 2}
Similar to the Burgers' equation, we now apply the proposed training set subsampling schemes to the thermal block example. We shall also illustrate the advantages of using oversampling. For both \cref{alg:rbadapt1,alg:rbadapt2}, we consider $\epsilon_{\text{QR}}, \epsilon_{\text{SVD}} = 1\cdot10^{-10}$ and a coarse tolerance $\texttt{tol}^{c} = 1$. The approximation to $\mathbf{\mathfrak{Y}}$ is obtained by taking snapshots at every time step of the implicit Euler scheme. The results are summarized in \cref{tab:thermal_v1} and \cref{tab:thermal_v2} for \cref{alg:rbadapt1,alg:rbadapt2}, respectively. The first scheme does not lead to a successful ROM for both \textsf{QDEIM} and \textsf{KDEIM} whereas using the pivoted QR decomposition on $\widetilde{\mathbf{\mathfrak{Y}}}^{\textsf{T}}$ to identify the subsampled training set produces a successful ROM. For the second scheme of the proposed algorithm, both \textsf{QDEIM} and \textsf{KDEIM} result in a subsampled training set of cardinality $N_{c} = 19$ while the pivoted QR approach gives $N_{c} = 20$. However, both QR and \textsf{QDEIM} are unsuccessful in meeting the required ROM tolerance for the test set. On the other hand, \textsf{KDEIM} results in a ROM satisfying the tolerance, taking a significantly smaller number of iterations ($40$) to converge. The results seem to indicate that the subsampling approach is not entirely able to capture the full range of features over the training set. This is mainly due to the smaller number of parameters $N_{c} = 19$, that the algorithm results in. Recall that for the standard greedy approach, $44$ unique greedy parameters were determined. However, it is also to be noted that the performance of the ROMs resulting from either scheme on the test set is not bad. The maximum error is only slightly higher than the desired tolerance of $\texttt{tol} = 1\cdot10^{-3}$.
Next, we perform oversampling to identify more parameters. For the standard \textsf{DEIM} approach, the number of interpolation points is equal to the rank $\ell$ of the truncated left singular vectors of the snapshots matrix. For oversampling, we set the number of interpolation points to be $m = 2 \ell$ and test the approaches based on maximizing the smallest singular value (\textsf{Gappy-POD Eigenvector}) and the approach based on clustering (\textsf{Gappy-POD Clustering}), both originally proposed in \cite{morPehDG18}. The results are given in \cref{tab:thermal_oversample}. We see that both oversampling approaches result in ROMs that are validated to be accurate over the test set. The \textsf{Gappy-POD Clustering} method results in the smallest test error among the two and takes $40$ iterations to converge. Notice that, compared to the previous two approaches based on \textsf{QDEIM} and \textsf{KDEIM}, the oversampling approach requires more time. This is not surprising, since a larger number of parameters is included in the coarse training set at Stage 2 of \cref{alg:rbadapt1,alg:rbadapt2}. The speedup of the \textsf{Gappy-POD Eigenvector} variant is $3.9$, while a speedup of $4.6$ is achieved by the \textsf{Gappy-POD Clustering} variant. We show the subsampled training sets of both the approaches in \cref{fig:oversample}. In particular, parameter samples anticipated by the \textsf{Gappy-POD Clustering} variant bear a close resemblance to the greedy parameter distribution in \cref{fig:thermal_fixed}. In \cref{fig:errplot_gpod}, we plot the mean error over time for each parameter in the test set. It is evident that both the proposed oversampling strategies, \textsf{Gappy-POD Eigenvector} (\cref{fig:errplot_gpode}) and \textsf{Gappy-POD Clustering} (\cref{fig:errplot_gpodc}) have been successful in keeping the error below the desired tolerance, uniformly for all the parameters in the test set. Lastly, for the thermal block example, the total number of iterations to converge for \cref{alg:rb}, \cref{alg:rbadapt1,alg:rbadapt2} is not equal and varies based on the particular subsampling strategy used (see \cref{tab:thermal_v1,tab:thermal_v2,tab:thermal_oversample}). Our initial assumptions in \cref{subsec:compl_analysis} that $N_{I} \approx N_{II,1} + N_{II,2}$, $N_{I} \approx N_{III,1} + N_{III,2}$ do not hold while we see that $N_{I} \gtrapprox N_{II,1} + N_{II,2}$, $N_{I} \gtrapprox N_{III,1} + N_{III,2}$ is always the case.
\begin{table}[t!]
\caption{Thermal Block Results for \cref{alg:rbadapt1} for \textsf{QDEIM, KDEIM} and QR.}
\label{tab:thermal_v1}
\centering
\small
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\multirow{3}{*}{Method} & \multirow{3}{*}{Fixed} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{Adapted} \\ \cline{3-5}
& & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{$\epsilon_{\text{SVD}}, \epsilon_{\text{QR}} = 1\cdot10^{-10}$}\\ \cline{3-5}
& & \small{\textsf{QDEIM}} & \small{\textsf{KDEIM}} & \small{QR}\\ \hline
$N_{c}$ & 216 & 19 & 19 & 20 \\ \hline
$\epsilon_{t}^{\text{max}}$ & $9.78 \cdot 10^{-4}$ & $1.10\cdot10^{-3}$ & $2.10\cdot10^{-3}$ & $6.45\cdot10^{-4}$\\ \hline
$r_{\text{POD}}$ & 74 & 64 & 64 & 66 \\ \hline
Iterations (\texttt{iter}) & 53 & 42 & 43 & 44 \\ \hline
Offline time (s) & 694.73 & 121.36 & 123.27 & 126.35 \\ \hline
Speedup & - & 5.7 & 5.6 & 5.5 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[t!]
\caption{Thermal Block Results for \cref{alg:rbadapt2} for \textsf{QDEIM, KDEIM} and QR.}
\label{tab:thermal_v2}
\centering
\small
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\multirow{3}{*}{Method} & \multirow{3}{*}{Fixed} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{Adapted} \\ \cline{3-5}
& & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{$\epsilon_{\text{SVD}}, \epsilon_{\text{QR}} = 1\cdot10^{-10}$}\\ \cline{3-5}
& & \small{\textsf{QDEIM}} & \small{\textsf{KDEIM}} & \small{QR}\\ \hline
$N_{\text{train}}$ & 216 & 19 & 19 & 20 \\ \hline
$\epsilon_{t}^{\text{max}}$ & $9.78 \cdot 10^{-4}$ & $1.10\cdot10^{-3}$ & $9.36\cdot10^{-4}$ & $1.60\cdot10^{-3}$\\ \hline
$r_{\text{POD}}$ & 74 & 65 & 62 & 57 \\ \hline
Iterations (\texttt{iter}) & 53 & 45 & 40 & 35 \\ \hline
Offline time (s) & 694.73 & 121.58 & 110.13 & 73.38 \\ \hline
Speedup & - & 5.7 & 6.3 & 9.5 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[t!]
\caption{Thermal Block Results for \cref{alg:rbadapt1} with oversampling.}
\label{tab:thermal_oversample}
\centering
\small
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
\hline
\multirow{3}{*}{Method} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Oversampling} \\ \cline{2-3}
& \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$m = 2 \ell$}\\ \cline{2-3}
& \small{\textsf{Gappy-POD Eigenvector}} & \small{\textsf{Gappy-POD Clustering}}\\ \hline
$N_{c}$ & 38 & 38 \\ \hline
$\epsilon_{t}^{\text{max}}$ & $9.91\cdot10^{-4}$ & $7.96\cdot10^{-4}$ \\ \hline
$r_{\text{POD}}$ & 70 & 62 \\ \hline
Iterations (\texttt{iter}) & 47 & 40 \\ \hline
Offline time (s) & 177.51 & 151.39 \\ \hline
Speedup & 3.9 & 4.6 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\setlength\fheight{4cm}
\setlength\fwidth{4cm}
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\subfloat[Subsampled parameters using \textsf{Gappy-POD Eigenvector}.]{\label{fig:oversample_gpode}\input{figures/Ex2_Thermal_Block_GPODE_Samples.tex}}\hfill
\subfloat[Subsampled parameters using \textsf{Gappy-POD Clustering}.]{\label{fig:oversample_gpodc}\input{figures/Ex2_Thermal_Block_GPODC_Samples.tex}}
\caption{Subsampling strategy using \textsf{Gappy-POD} with oversampling for the Thermal Block.}
\label{fig:oversample}
\end{figure}
\setlength\fheight{4cm}
\setlength\fwidth{4cm}
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\subfloat[\textsf{Gappy-POD Eigenvector}.]{\label{fig:errplot_gpode}\input{figures/Ex2_Thermal_ErrPlot_v2_1_GPODE.tex}}\hfill
\subfloat[\textsf{Gappy-POD Clustering}.]{\label{fig:errplot_gpodc}\input{figures/Ex2_Thermal_ErrPlot_v2_1_GPODC.tex}}
\caption{Error plot for \cref{alg:rbadapt1} with coarse tolerance $\texttt{tol}^{c} = 1$ and subsampling based on \textsf{Gappy-POD Eigenvector} and \textsf{Gappy-POD Clustering} applied to the thermal block example. The mean error over time between the true and reduced outputs - $(1/K+1) \sum_{i = 0}^{K } \| \bx{y}\left(\bx{x}(t^{k},\bm{\mu})\right) - \widetilde{\bx{y}}\left(\bx{z}(t^{k},\bm{\mu})\right) \|$ - is plotted for all parameters in the test set.}
\label{fig:errplot_gpod}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec:conclusion}
We presented an efficient method to subsample the training set in the offline stage of the RBM. The proposed two-stage strategy is goal-oriented. It uses the pivoted QR decomposition, the \textsf{DEIM} algorithm or its variants to approximate the parameter-to-output map for time-dependent problems, taking advantage of the information from the pivots or the interpolation points to generate the subsampled training set. Different strategies to identify the interpolation points based on variants of the \textsf{DEIM} algorithm were discussed. The strategy of retaining as many parameters as the number of \textsf{DEIM} interpolation points is simple and leads to considerable speedup. However, there may be occasions where it is not robust, as demonstrated in the thermal block example. For such scenarios, we propose a principled oversampling strategy based on the \textsf{Gappy-POD} approach, to add additional parameters to the subsampled training set. This approach, while slightly more expensive, is robust and leads to reliable ROMs. The different subsampling strategies were tested on two numerical examples and were shown to yield, on average, a speedup of up to $5$ for the offline stage of the RBM, without compromising the quality of the generated ROMs.
There exist several promising possibilities for further applications and improvements. One possible idea is in relation to the \textsf{KDEIM}-based subsampling strategy. It is worthwhile to consider the development of localized RBMs for each cluster identified by the algorithm. Such an approach could help overcome existing challenges related to training set adaptation methods that partition the parameter domain based on binary trees \cite{morEftKP11,morHaaDO11}. Another promising idea is related to data assimilation within the model-based RBM framework. Assuming output data is available by means of sensors or other measurements, it should be possible to consider a QR decomposition of this parametric data matrix to identify a good initial training set. Such an approach is capable of incorporating data in a natural fashion, to aid the development of problem-tailored ROMs.
\section*{Code Availability}
The companion code and data used to compute the results are available at
\begin{center}
\url{https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4593144}
\end{center}
under the MIT License.
\bibliographystyle{spmpsci}
|
\subsection*{Introduction}
Quantum matter out of equilibrium is currently investigated in a wide range of settings ranging from cold atom setups and light-matter systems
to various condensed matter systems. Depending on the context, the focus ranges
from thermalization of quantum matter to the description of relaxation processes to the microscopic characterization of non-thermal
steady states. In condensed matter systems, with couplings to well-defined heat- and particle reservoirs, current-carrying steady states are of particular interest \cite{Bonca,Hewson}.\\
In this letter, we are concerned with the nonlinear conductance of a model system of strong electron-electron interaction.
Traditionally, the calculation of transport properties
on the basis of the fluctuation-dissipation theorem is fairly well developed.
Yet, no generally valid method exists to go beyond the linear-response regime, as {\it e.g.} a Boltzmann equation based approach relies on
well-defined quasi-particles and relaxation-time-like approximations.
Of particular current interest is therefore the effect of strong electron-electron correlation on electrical and thermal conductivities beyond the linear response regime.
Kondo-correlated quantum dots
have served as ideal model systems to address this interplay between out-of-equilibrium dynamics and strong correlations both experimentally and theoretically.
In equilibrium, the Kondo effect leads to an enhancement
of the linear conductance $G=dI/dV|_{V=0}$ to close to twice the quantum of conductance at sufficiently low temperatures ($I$ is the current through the quantum dot and $V$ the applied bias voltage) independent of any details of {\it e.g.} the density of states of the leads.
The fate of this universality away from equilibrium has been subject of intense research~\cite{Schiller.95,Kaminski.00,Oguri.01,Konik.02,Hewson.05}.
Recently, the universal aspects of steady-state charge transport in the Kondo regime beyond linear response through semiconductor heterostructures and various single molecule devices have been addressed experimentally~\cite{Grobis.08,Scott.09,Kretinin.11}. It was found that the prefactors $\alpha$ and $\gamma$ of the non-linear conductance, defined via ($k_B=1$)
\begin{equation}
(G_0\!\!-\!\!G(T,V))/(c_TG_0)\!\!=\!\!\Big(\dfrac{T}{T_K}\Big)^2\!\!+\alpha \Big(\dfrac{eV}{T_K}\Big)^2\!\!-\gamma c_T \Big(\dfrac{eV\,T}{T^2_K}\Big)^2
\end{equation}
differ significantly across different classes of devices.
Here, $T$ is temperature, $G_0=G(T\rightarrow 0,V=0)$ and $T_K$ is a dynamically generated low energy scale, {\it i.e.} the Kondo temperature.
Our primary motivation is to address the systematic difference between the results reported in~\cite{Grobis.08} ($\alpha_{G}=0.1$, $\gamma_G=0.5$) and~\cite{Scott.09} ($\alpha_S=0.05$, $\gamma_S=0.1$) within the single-level Anderson impurity model (SIAM) as the effective low-energy model for these devices.
In the strong coupling regime, this model is equivalent to the Kondo model plus a potential scattering term generated away from particle-hole (p-h) symmetry. Particle-hole symmetry can
easily be broken either locally on the device itself (see below Eq.~(\ref{eq:Hamiltonian}))
or in the leads connected to the device (see below Eq.~(\ref{eq:DOS})~\cite{note2}).
Consequently,
realistic devices are generically not p-h symmetric and it is important to understand the effect of p-h asymmetry on transport properties. An immediate consequence of p-h asymmetry is that the number of electrons localized on the device is no longer fixed to be 1/2 (per spin component).\\
Theoretically, not much is known about $\alpha$ and $\gamma$.
A full solution of the
SIAM out of equilibrium is not available and the calculation of these transport coefficients is challenging.
Results for $\alpha$ obtained from exactly solvable cases are not directly applicable~\cite{Schiller.95,Majumdar.98}. Standard approaches, {\it e.g.} the numerical renormalization group (NRG) yield only linear response transport coefficients~\cite{Costi.94c}.
Selfconsistent methods can in principle be extended to the non-linear response regime. They are conserving by construction~\cite{Baym.61} but either fail to capture the correct ground state as {\it e.g.}~the non-crossing approximation or the extension onto the Keldysh contour is too involved~\cite{Kirchner.02}.
As the potential scatterer is a marginally irrelevant perturbation it is expected to modify the transport coefficients but its effect should be pertubatively accessible.
At p-h symmetry $\alpha\approx0.15$ has been obtained independently of
the amount of asymmetry in the lead-dot coupling between the two leads~\cite{Oguri.01,Oguri.05,Rincon.09,Sela.09,note1}.
The SIAM Hamiltonian is
$\hat{H} = \hat{H}_c + \hat{H}_d + \hat{H}_{d-c}$,
where
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:Hamiltonian}
\hat{H}_c \!\!\!&&= \sum_{\lambda = L, R}
\sum_{k,\sigma}\epsilon_{k\lambda}
\hat{c}_{k\lambda\sigma}^{\dagger}\hat{c}_{k\lambda\sigma} \\
\hat{H}_d \!\!\!&&= \sum_{\sigma} E_d \hat{d}_{\sigma}^{\dagger}\hat{d}_{\sigma}
+U\left(\hat{d}_{\uparrow}^{\dagger}\hat{d}_{\uparrow} - \frac{1}{2}\right)\left(\hat{d}_{\downarrow}^{\dagger}\hat{d}_{\downarrow} - \frac{1}{2}\right) - \frac{U}{4}
\nonumber\\
\hat{H}_{d-c} \!\!\!&&= \sum_{\lambda = L,
R}\sum_{k,\sigma}\left(V_{k\lambda}\hat{d}_{\sigma}^{\dagger}\hat{c}_{k\lambda\sigma}
+V_{k\lambda}^{*}\hat{c}_{k\lambda\sigma}^{\dagger}\hat{d}_{\sigma}\right).\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Here, $\hat{H}_c$ is the Hamiltonian for electrons in the metallic leads $\lambda=L$ and $\lambda=R$.
$\hat{H}_{d}$ describes the localized states in the dot, including the Coulomb interaction, and $\hat{H}_{d-c}$ is the coupling term between the
dot and the leads. We have defined $E_d = \epsilon_d + U/2$. For the p-h symmetric case $\epsilon_{d} = -U/2$
and hence $E_{d} = 0$.
Beyond setting up a systematic expansion for $\alpha$ and $\gamma$ in terms of $E_{d}$ and up to O($V^2$),
we also address the issue of current conservation beyond O($V^2$).
Away from p-h symmetry, a proper treatment of the (renormalized) interaction vertex is necessary to reproduce
{\it e.g.} the correct local occupation already in equilibrium. Since, by continuity, particle flow is connected
to the rate of change of the local occupation, any sensible approximation has to respect
the corresponding symmetries of the interaction vertex in order to be current-conserving~\cite{Baym.61}.
As
discussed by Hershfield et al.~\cite{Hershfield.92}, for perturbation theory in $U$, steady state current
conservation holds only in the p-h symmetric SIAM.
We therefore develop an approach to transport in the p-h asymmetric SIAM based on
dual fermions~\cite{Rubtsov.08}
that is based
on perturbation theory in $U$ for the p-h symmetric SIAM~\cite{Hewson.93,Oguri.01,Zlatic.83,Yamada.79}.
As demonstrated explicitly, our results are rigorous up to O($V^2$)
and are current conserving (beyond O($V^2$)).
As the p-h symmetric SIAM is interacting, the expansion around it is delicate.
We use the dual fermion method~\cite{Hafermann.09,Jung.11} which yields a formal expansion built around the
4-point vertex of the
reference system with $E_{d} = 0$.
This systematically extends the work of Yamada and Yosida and Zlati\'{c} and Horvati\'{c} to the
asymmetric SIAM~\cite{Yosida.70,Yamada.75,Yamada.79,Zlatic.83,Horvatic.87} and results in
a controlled expansion for the transport coefficients up to, including, $O(U^2 E_d^2)$.
A generalization to higher orders is possible~\cite{note3}.
The generating functional on the Keldysh contour is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
Z = \int\mathcal{D}[\hat{\psi}^{\dagger},\hat{\psi}]\mathcal{D}[\hat{\Phi}^{\dagger},\hat{\Phi}]e^{iS[\hat{\psi}^{\dagger},\hat{\psi},\hat{\Phi}^{\dagger},\hat{\Phi}]},
\label{Eq:partitionfunction}
\end{eqnarray}
where the action on the Keldysh contour is expressed in terms
of a functional integral over time-dependent Grassmann fields, $\hat{\psi}_{k\lambda\sigma}^{\dagger}(t) = \left(c_{k\lambda\sigma}^{-}(t), c_{k\lambda\sigma}^{+}(t) \right)^\dagger$ and $\hat{\Phi}^{\dagger}(t) = \left(d_{\sigma}^{-}(t), d_{\sigma}^{+}(t) \right)^\dagger$. Here, the indices $\pm$ refer to the
time-ordered (-) and anti-time-ordered (+) path along the closed Keldysh contour.
Each lead ($L/R$) is taken to be in equilibrium and characterized by its temperature ($T_L=T_R=T$) and its chemical potential ($\mu_L/\mu_R$).\\
The lead electrons are non-interacting and the resulting Gaussian integrals can be carried out, resulting in
\begin{eqnarray}
Z = \int\mathcal{D}[\hat{\Phi}^{\dagger}_{\sigma\omega},\hat{\Phi}_{\sigma\omega}]e^{iS[\hat{\Phi}^{\dagger}_{\sigma\omega},\hat{\Phi}_{\sigma\omega}]}~,
\label{eq05}
\end{eqnarray}
where the effective action $S$ is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
S[\hat{\Phi}^{\dagger}_{\sigma\omega},\hat{\Phi}_{\sigma\omega}] &=& S_{U}[\hat{\Phi}^{\dagger}_{\sigma\omega},\hat{\Phi}_{\sigma\omega}]\nonumber \\
&-& \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\frac{d\omega}{2\pi}\sum_{\sigma}\hat{\Phi}^{\dagger}_{\sigma\omega}E_{d}\hat{\sigma}_{3}\hat{\Phi}_{\sigma\omega}~,
\label{eq:effA}
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq07}
&& S_{U}[\hat{\Phi}^{\dagger}_{\sigma\omega},\hat{\Phi}_{\sigma\omega}] = S_{U}^{int}[\hat{\Phi}^{\dagger}_{\sigma\omega},\hat{\Phi}_{\sigma\omega}] \\
&& + \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\frac{d\omega}{2\pi}
\sum_{\sigma}\hat{\Phi}^{\dagger}_{\sigma\omega}(\omega + (\Gamma_{L} + \Gamma_{R}))\hat{\sigma}_{3}\hat{\Phi}_{\sigma\omega}~ \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
is the effective action for a p-h symmetric ($E_{d} =0$) and interacting ($U \ne 0$) system.
Here,
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:DOS}
\Gamma_{\lambda} = -\sum_{k,\sigma}\frac{|V_{k\lambda}|^{2}}{\omega - \epsilon_{k\lambda} + i\eta^{+}}\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\rm{for}\,\,\, \lambda = L, R.
\end{eqnarray}
For simplicity, we assume that the density of states of left and right lead, $\rho_\lambda(\omega)=\sum_{k}\delta(\omega-\epsilon_{k\lambda})$, are identical and p-h
symmetric $\rho_{\lambda}(\omega)=\rho_{\lambda}(-\omega)$~\cite{note2}.
In the wide band limit, we set $i\Delta=\Gamma_L+\Gamma_R$.
To generate an expansion in terms of $E_d$, we decouple the 2nd term on the RHS of Eq.(\ref{eq:effA}) into
$\phi^\dagger_{\sigma\omega} {{\mathbf g}}^{-1}_{\sigma\omega}\hat{\Phi}_{\sigma\omega}$ via a
fermionic Hubbard-Stratonovich transformation, where
$\mathbf{g}_{\sigma,\omega}$ is the
Green's function for the interacting ($U\ne 0$) and symmetric ($E_{d}=0$) SIAM~\cite{Rubtsov.08}.
One can show~\cite{note3,Rubtsov.08}
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathbf{G}_{\sigma,\omega} = -E_{d}^{-1}\hat{\sigma}_{3} +
\left(\mathbf{g}_{\sigma,\omega}E_{d}\hat{\sigma}_{3}\right)^{-1}
\mathbf{G}_{\sigma,\omega}^{f}\left(E_{d}\hat{\sigma}_{3}\mathbf{g}_{\sigma,\omega}\right)^{-1},
\label{eq1}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\mathbf{G}_{\sigma,\omega}$ is the Green's function
matrix for the interacting ($U\ne 0$) asymmetric ($E_{d}\ne 0$)
SIAM, $\hat{\sigma}_{3}$ is the third Pauli matrix, and
$\mathbf{G}_{\sigma,\omega}^{f}$ is the dual
fermion matrix Green's function, obtained from the solution of the matrix Dyson
equation
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathbf{G}_{\sigma,\omega}^{f} = \mathbf{G}_{\sigma,\omega}^{f(0)}
+ \mathbf{G}_{\sigma,\omega}^{f(0)}\mathbf{\Sigma}_{\sigma,\omega}^{f}
\mathbf{G}_{\sigma,\omega}^{f},
\end{eqnarray}
where the bare dual fermion Green's function is defined by
$\mathbf{G}_{\sigma,\omega}^{f(0)} =
-\mathbf{g}_{\sigma,\omega}\left(\mathbf{g}_{\sigma,\omega} -
E_{d}^{-1}\hat{\sigma}_{3}\right)^{-1}
\mathbf{g}_{\sigma,\omega}$.
The dual fermion selfenergy $\mathbf{\Sigma}_{\sigma,\omega}^{f}$ is given in terms
of $\mathbf{g}_{\sigma,\omega}$ and the 4-point vertex of the interacting ($U\ne 0$) and symmetric
($E_{d}=0$) SIAM~\cite{note3}. So far, no approximation has been made and this expansion is expected
to work for small as well as large $E_d$~\cite{Hafermann.09}.
We proceed by solving the reference system ($E_d=0$) within the renormalized perturbation theory around the strong
coupling fixed point~\cite{Yamada.75,Hewson.93,Oguri.01}.
For a systematic expansion in $E_{d}$ up to O($E_d^2$), we keep
only the first two terms in the Dyson series for $\mathbf{G}_{\sigma,\omega}^{f(0)}$.
As a result,
the explicit expression for the retarded self-energy at finite bias voltage $\mu_L-\mu_R=eV$ obtained from
our superperturbation scheme up to, including, $O(T^{2}V^{2})$, is~\cite{note3,note4}
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eqA1}
&&\Sigma_{E_{d}}^{r}=(1-\tilde{\chi}_{++})\omega + E_{d} -
\tilde{\chi}_{++}^{-1}E_{d}\left(\frac{U}{\pi\Delta}\right)\left\{
1 - \frac{\tilde{\chi}_{++}^{2}}{3}\right.\nonumber\\
&&\times\left.\left[\left(\frac{\pi T}{\Delta} \right)^{2} + \zeta\left(\frac{eV}{\Delta}\right)^{2} \right]
+7\frac{\zeta}{9}\tilde{\chi}_{++}^{4}\left(\frac{\pi T eV}{\Delta^{2}} \right)^{2}\right\}\nonumber \\
&&-i\frac{\Delta}{2}\left(\frac{U}{\pi\Delta} \right)^{2}\\
&&\times \left[
\left(\frac{\omega}{\Delta} \right)^{2} + \left(\frac{\pi T}{\Delta}\right)^{2} + \zeta\left(\frac{e V}{\Delta} \right)^{2}-\frac{\zeta}{3}\left(\frac{\pi T e V}{\Delta^2}\right)^2\tilde{\chi}_{++}^{2}\right],\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
with $\tilde{\chi}_{++} = 1 + (3 - \pi^{2}/4)(U/\pi\Delta)^{2} + O(U^{4})$~\cite{Hewson.93,Yamada.79}
and $\zeta=3\kappa/(1+\kappa)^2$ where $\kappa=\Gamma_L/\Gamma_R$ measures the asymmetry in the lead-to-dot couplings.
Notice that there are no terms of $O(E_{d}^{2}U)$ nor $O(E_{d}^{2}U^{2})$ in Eq.(\ref{eqA1}). The next
leading correction to the retarded selfenergy is $O(E_{d}^{3}U,E_{d}U^{3})$~\cite{note3}.
For $U=0$, Eq.~(\ref{eqA1}) reduces to the corresponding result of the resonant level model.
We now turn to a discussion of the current.
The steady-state current through the dot~\cite{Hershfield.92,Meir.92},
\begin{equation}
I \!=\! \left(\frac{ e}{\hbar}\right)\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\!\!\!d\omega
\frac{4\Gamma_{R}\Gamma_{L}}{\Gamma_{R}+\Gamma_{L}}[f_{L}(\omega) - f_{R}(\omega)] A(\omega,T,V),
\label{eq:current}
\end{equation}
follows from the continuity equation and relies on current conservation $I_L+I_R=0$ in the steady state to
recast $I$ entirely in terms of the spectral density.
As a result, Eq.~(\ref{eq:current}) poses a strong constraint on admissible local distribution functions
$F(\omega,T,V)$, where $F$ is defined through $G^{-+}=F(\omega,T,V)(G^a-G^r)$~\cite{note3}.
Here, $I_{L/R}$ is the current from the left/right lead to the dot,
$A(\omega,T,V)$ is the local spectral density (in the presence of the dot-lead coupling) and $f_L$/$f_R$ is
Fermi function in the left/right lead, respectively. A second local distribution function $\tilde{F}(\omega,T,V)$
can be introduced via $\Sigma^{-+}=\tilde{F}(\omega,T,V)(\Sigma^a-\Sigma^r)$.
For the SIAM considered here one can show that $F(\omega,T,V)=\tilde{F}(\omega,T,V)$ in the steady state limit.
This in turn implies $G^{-+}\Sigma^{+-}=G^{+-}\Sigma^{-+}$ which ensures current
conservation~\cite{Hershfield.92,note3}.
Note, that in general one cannot conclude $F=\tilde{F}$ away from equilibrium.
Current conservation of our approach beyond $O(V^2)$
follows from the general relations
$\Sigma^{++}_{E_d}+\Sigma^{--}_{E_d}-\Sigma^{+-}_{E_d}-\Sigma^{-+}_{E_d}=0$,
$\Sigma^{++}_{E_d}=-(\Sigma^{--}_{E_d})^*$, $\Sigma^r_{E_d}=\Sigma^{--}_{E_d}-\Sigma^{-+}_{E_d}$ and
Eq.~(\ref{eqA1}) which imply
\begin{eqnarray}
\!\!\!\!&&\!\!\!\!F(\omega,T,V)(\Sigma_{E_{d}}^{a}- \Sigma_{E_{d}}^{r})=
i\Delta\left(\frac{U}{\pi\Delta}\right)^{2}\nonumber \\
\!\!\!\!&&\!\!\!\!\times\left[\left(\frac{\omega}{\Delta}
\right)^{2} + \left(\frac{\pi T}{\Delta} \right)^{2} + \zeta\left(\frac{eV}{\Delta}\right)^{2} -\frac{\zeta}{3}\left(\frac{\pi T e V}{\Delta^2}\right)^2 \tilde{\chi}^2_{++}\right]\nonumber \\
\!\!\!\!&&\!\!\!\!\times f_{eff}(\omega,T,V)
=\Sigma_{E_{d}}^{-+},
\label{eq47}
\end{eqnarray}
where we introduced $f_{eff}(\omega,T,V)=(\kappa f_L+f_R)/(1+\kappa)$. Eq.~(\ref{eq47}) shows that
within our scheme $F(\omega,T,V)=\tilde{F}(\omega,T,V)$.
The local distribution function $F$ turns out to be~\cite{note3}
\begin{equation}
F(\omega,T,V)=\frac{\Gamma_Lf_L+\Gamma_R f_R -f_{eff}(\omega,T,V) \mbox{Im}\Sigma^r}{1-\mbox{Im}\Sigma^r}.
\end{equation}
The non-linear conductance follows from Eq.~(\ref{eq:current}) and the approximation for
$A(\omega,T,V) = -\pi^{-1}{\rm{Im}}\, G^{r}$,
where $G^{r}=(\omega+i\Delta-\Sigma_{E_d}^{r})^{-1}$ is the retarded Green function.
We are primarily interested in the transport coefficients in
the vicinity of the strong coupling fixed point, where our expansion is in terms of renormalized parameters~\cite{Hewson.93}.
The renormalized parameters are defined as $\tilde{\epsilon}_{d}=
E_{d}/\Delta$, $\tilde{\Delta} = \tilde{\chi}_{++}^{-1}\Delta$,
$\tilde{u}=\tilde{\chi}_{++}^{-1}(U/\pi\Delta)$.
In terms of these, one finds
\begin{multline}
\dfrac{G(T,0)-G(T,V)}{G_0}=c_V \left( \dfrac{eV}{\tilde{\Delta}}\right )^2 -c_{TV} \left( \dfrac{eV}{\tilde{\Delta}}\right )^2 \left( \dfrac{k_B T}{\tilde{\Delta}}\right )^2 \\
-c_{\mbox{\tiny $VE_d$}}\left( \dfrac{eV}{\tilde{\Delta}}\right ) + c_{\mbox{\tiny $TVE_d$}} \left( \dfrac{eV}{\tilde{\Delta}}\right )
\left( \dfrac{k_B T}{\tilde{\Delta}}\right )^2,
\label{eq:cond}
\end{multline}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:cT}
G(T,V=0)&=&G_0\left[1-c_T\left( \dfrac{k_B T}{\tilde{\Delta}}\right )^2\right],\\
c_T&=&\frac{\pi^{2}}{3}\frac{1+2\tilde{u}^{2}+\tilde{\epsilon}_{d}^{2}
[(8-5\tilde{u})\tilde{u}-3]}{\left(1 + (1-\tilde{u})^{2}\tilde{\epsilon}_{d}^{2} \right)^{2}}
\nonumber.
\label{eq:cT2}
\end{eqnarray}
The zero-temperature linear conductance
$G_0=(2e^2/h)\frac{4\zeta}{3}(1+(1-\tilde{u})^{2}\tilde{\epsilon}^2_d)^{-1}$ reproduces the exact result from
Friedel's sum rule up to $O(\tilde{u}^{2}\tilde{\epsilon}^2_d)$ as
$\sin^{2}(\pi n_{d})
\sim 1 - (1-\tilde{u})^{2}\tilde{\epsilon}_{d}^{2}$, for $n_{d}$ the local occupation per spin component.
For the transport coefficients in Eq.~(\ref{eq:cond}), we find
\begin{eqnarray}
c_{V} &=& 1 + \frac{\tilde{u}^{2}}{2} -\zeta\left(1 - \tilde{u}^{2} \right)
-\tilde{\epsilon}_{d}^{2}\left(1 - \tilde{u} \right)\nonumber \\
&&\times H_{V}(\tilde{u},\zeta) + O(\tilde{\epsilon}_{d}^{4})\\
\label{eq:ctv}
c_{TV} &=& \pi ^2\left[2 (1 - \zeta)
+ \frac{\tilde{u}^2}{2} (9 - 5\zeta) \right]
-\tilde{\epsilon}_{d}^{2}\left(1 - \tilde{u} \right)\nonumber \\
&&\times H_{TV}(\tilde{u},\zeta) + O(\tilde{\epsilon}_{d}^{4}) \\
\label{eq:cved}
c_{VE_{d}} &=& 2\left(\frac{1-\kappa}{1+\kappa}\right)(1-\tilde{u})\tilde{\epsilon}_{d} + O(\tilde{\epsilon}_{d}^{3})\\
\label{eq:cTved}
c_{TV E_{d}} &=& -2 \pi^{2}\left(\frac{1-\kappa}{1 +\kappa}\right)\left(2 + 3\tilde{u}^{2} \right)\nonumber \\
&&\times \left(1 -\tilde{u}\right)\tilde{\epsilon}_{d} + O(\tilde{\epsilon}_{d}^{3})
\end{eqnarray}
where we have defined the functions
$H_{V}(\tilde{u},\zeta) = 5 - 5\tilde{u} + \tilde{u}^{2} - \zeta\left(5 - 3\tilde{u} - 2\tilde{u}^{2} \right)$ and
$H_{TV}(\tilde{u},\zeta) = \pi^{2}\left[28 - 16\tilde{u} + \frac{81}{2}\tilde{u}^{2}
-\zeta\left(28 - \frac{22}{3}\tilde{u} + \frac{76}{3}\tilde{u}^{2} \right) \right]$.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:1}, we show our results for $\alpha$ and $\gamma$ for various cuts through parameter space ($\tilde{u},\tilde{\epsilon}_d,\kappa$).
Note, that in the strong coupling limit ($\tilde{u}\rightarrow 1$) the dependence on $\tilde{\epsilon}_d$
vanishes reflecting the fact that this limit is p-h symmetric (see Fig.~\ref{fig:1}(a) and (b)).
$\gamma$ retains its dependence on $\kappa$ in this limit while $\alpha$ becomes independent of $\kappa$ for $\tilde{u}\rightarrow 1$. Fig.~\ref{fig:1}(c) and (d) show the ratio $\gamma/\alpha$.
According to Eqs.~(\ref{eq:cved}) and (\ref{eq:cTved}) $c_{\mbox{\tiny $VE_d$}}$ and $c_{\mbox{\tiny $TVE_d$}}$ are proportional to the product of lead-dot asymmetry $\kappa$ and p-h asymmetry $\tilde{\epsilon}_d$ and hence may be small in most experimental realizations.
For the p-h symmetric case our expressions reduce to the results of Oguri and others~\cite{Oguri.01,Oguri.05,Rincon.09}.
We are now in a position to address the experimental results for $\alpha=c_V/c_T$ and
$\gamma=c_{TV}/c_T^2$~\cite{Grobis.08,Scott.09}.
A major experimental challenge is to reliably extract the dynamically generated low-energy scale
$\tilde{\Delta}\sim T_K$ ($\tilde{\Delta}=4k_BT_K/\pi$ at $\tilde{u}=1$).
The phenomenological formula
$G(T,0)=G_0/(1+(2^{1/s}-1)(T/T_K)^2)^s$
is commonly employed to extract $T_K$~\cite{GoldhaberGordon.98}.
Evidently, the parameter $s$ fixes $c_T$ ($s=0.21$ as in~\cite{Grobis.08} leads to
$c_T\approx 5.5$ and $s=0.22$~\cite{Scott.09} results in $c_T\approx 4.9$).
Eq.~(\ref{eq:cT2}) shows that $c_T$ is not only a function of $\tilde{u}$ but also depends on
the p-h asymmetry through $\tilde{\epsilon}_d$, see Fig.~\ref{fig:2}.
This complicates the experimental extraction of $T_K$.
In theory, $T_K$ is not unique away from p-h symmetry but will
depend on the physical quantity used for its definition.
The reported values~\cite{Grobis.08,Scott.09} suggest that charge fluctuations are present in both experiments and the coefficients $c_{\mbox{\tiny $VE_d$}}$ and that $c_{\mbox{\tiny $TVE_d$}}$ are indeed vanishingly small.
Yet, they may have been detected in~\cite{Scott.09}.
The experimental values reported in \cite{Grobis.08} are compatible with {\it e.g.} $\tilde{u}=0.45,\tilde{\epsilon}_d=0.1,\kappa=1$ yielding $\alpha=0.1$ and $\gamma=0.51$.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{figure1.eps}
\caption{(Color online) Coefficients $\alpha$ (upper set) and $\gamma$ (lower set) versus the
Different degrees of lead-to-dot asymmetry coupling: $\kappa = 20$ (left)
and $\kappa = 2$ (right) are compared, for different values of
particle-hole asymmetry $\tilde{\epsilon}_d$.}
\label{fig:1}
\end{figure}
While we can reproduce $\gamma_S$ of \cite{Scott.09}, it is not possible to
reproduce both consistently within the SIAM. The value $\alpha_S \sim 0.05$ is too small to be explained within the SIAM, as the minimum
value for $\alpha$ within the SIAM is $\alpha_{\mbox{\tiny min}} = 3/(4\pi^{2})\approx0.076$ (corresponding to $\tilde{\epsilon}_d=0$, $\tilde{u}=0$, $\kappa=1$). The underlying low-energy model of the experiment \cite{Scott.09} can therefore not simply be the SIAM. One possible generalization is that
more than one level participates in the low-energy properties. Then, already $G_0$ is no longer given solely
in terms of the occupation $n_d$ and the lead-to-dot couplings will enter explicitly~\cite{Kroha.03}.
A more likely alternative is that local phonon modes renormalize the transport coefficients $\alpha$ and $\gamma$ differently.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.38\textwidth]{figure2.eps}
\caption{(Color online) Prefactor of $k_B^2T^2/\tilde{\Delta}^2$ of the linear conductance (a) vs. renormalized coupling strength (b) vs.p-h asymmetry.}
\label{fig:2}
\end{figure}
In summary, we have developed a novel analytic scheme based on dual fermions to obtain non-linear transport
coefficients for the Anderson model. This approach gives a controlled expansion around the weak and strong
coupling fixed points even away from particle-hole symmetry
and allows for a consistent calculation of charge and energy currents.
A generalization to nonlinear magneto- and thermal
transport properties is possible.
Our scheme thus constitutes a convenient analytic way of characterizing nano-structured devices in terms
of renormalized parameters $\tilde{u}$, $\tilde{\epsilon}_d$ and $\kappa$ and the low-energy scale
$\tilde{\Delta}$ of an underlying model.
With the current interest in strongly correlated systems away from equilibrium our approach should prove useful
as it provides controlled results against which more general schemes~\cite{Pletyukhov.12} might be tested.
We thank D.~Natelson, D. Schuricht, G.~Scott, and in particular T.~Costi
for many useful discussions.
E.M. and S.K. acknowledge support by the Comisi\'{o}n Nacional de Investigaci\'{o}n Cient\'{i}fica y Tecnol\'{o}gica (CONICYT), grant No. 11100064 and the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) under grant No. 52636698.
{\em Note added} After completion of this work we became aware of Ref.~\cite{Aligia.11}, which addresses the effect of p-h asymmetry on $\alpha$ within a perturbation theory around the p-h asymmetric case.
A problem with this approach is that it fails to recover p-h symmetry at $\tilde{u}=1$
and gives a linear in T term in the spectral density
away from half filling $n=1$ in contradiction to certain Ward identities~\cite{Oguri.01}.
|
\section{Motivations}
Gravitational wave burst searches~\cite{s5-all-sky-burst} are designed to search for short duration transients. Burst search algorithms typically look for excess signal energy in the time-frequency plane after filtering the GW strain data with a particular template bank. Current burst algorithms, such as {\it Omega}~\cite{chatterji05:_ligo} and {\it Coherent Waveburst}~\cite{cwb} use sine-Gaussians and a collection of Meyer wavelet bases respectively as templates. Matched filtering searches for the coalescence of compact binary systems with total mass $2-25 M_{\odot}$~\cite{cbclowmass}, $25-100 M_{\odot}$~\cite{cbchighmass} and $> 100 M_{\odot}$~\cite{ringdown} have also been performed. These matched filtering algorithms use signal models such as the Post Newtonian approximation~\cite{owen99:_match}, the EOBNR analytical template family~\cite{eobnr} and quasinormal ringdown modes, respectively.
Inspiralling binary black holes are characterized by chirping GW signals, where the frequency changes rapidly in the later inspiral and the merger phases. The duration of the signal in the most sensitive band of a ground based detector is dependent on the mass of the binary. For a system of total mass larger than 100 $M_{\odot}$, a ground based GW detector is sensitive to the merger phase, and the in-band whitened waveform is a short-duration transient lasting 10-30 ms. For a symmetric binary system with a total mass between 10 and 100 $M_{\odot}$, the detector is sensitive instead to the inspiral phase and the in-band signal has a longer duration between 30 ms - 3 s. A chirplet based burst search has been proposed in Ref.~\cite{chirplet-paper}, which combines the chirp characteristic of an inspiral with the existing Omega burst search. In this paper we explore further the use of the chirplet burst search and benchmark the detection performance for BBH coalescences, compared to the standard Omega burst search at a constant false alarm rate.
\section{Chirplet Definition}
The sine-Gaussian template bank used in the standard Omega burst search, are defined in the time domain as:
\begin{equation}
\psi(\tau)\equiv A \exp \left( -\frac{(2\pi f)^2}{Q^2} (\tau-t)^2\right)
\exp \left( 2\pi i \left[ f (\tau-t) \right]\right),
\end{equation}
Chirplets are a generalization of sine-Gaussians, defined in time domain as:
\begin{equation}
\psi(\tau)\equiv A \exp \left( -\frac{(2\pi f)^2}{Q^2} (\tau-t)^2\right)
\exp \left( 2\pi i \left[ f (\tau-t) + d/2\: (\tau-t)^2 \right]\right),
\end{equation}
where $A=(8\pi f^2/Q^2)^{1/4}$ is a normalization factor ensuring that $\int
|\psi|^2 d\tau=1$; $t$ and $f$ are the central time and central frequency, respectively and $Q$
is the dimensionless quality factor. See Fig. \ref{sg_chirplet} for an example of sine-Gaussian and a chirplet.
The difference between a chirplet and a sine-Gaussian waveform is the \textit{chirp rate}, an additional term in the phase, denoted as $d$, that linearly controls the slope of the chirplet frequency evolution as $f(\tau)=f+d (\tau-t)$. When $d=0$, a chirplet becomes the standard sine-Gaussians. Chirplets are thus described with a four-dimensional parameter space of $\{t, f, Q, d\}$.
\begin{figure}
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\subfloat[Part 1][A sample sine-Guassian.]{\includegraphics[width=.45\textwidth,height=0.25\textheight]{figure/SG_chirplet_0}}&
\subfloat[Part 2][A sample Chirplet.]{\includegraphics[width=.45\textwidth,height=0.25\textheight]{figure/SG_chirplet_27}}
\end{tabular}
\caption{\label{sg_chirplet}\textbf{Sine-Gaussian and Chirplet waveform:} (\textit{left}) Example of a Sine-Gaussian waveform. (\textit{right}) Example of a Chirplet waveform.}
\end{figure}
The \textit{chirplet transform} $T$ is obtained by correlating the data with chirplets. In the frequency domain, it reads:
\begin{equation}
\label{ct}
T[x;\{t, f, Q, d\}]= \left| \int X(\xi) \Psi^*(\xi;\{t, f, Q, d\}) d\xi \right|^2,
\end{equation}
where $X(\xi)$ and $\Psi(\xi;\{t, f, Q, d\})$ denote the Fourier transforms of
the (whitened) data stream $x(\tau)$ and chirplet $\psi(\tau)$ with the parameters $\{t, f, Q, d\}$ respectively.
\section{Performances of Chirpletized Omega}
\subsection{Searching for binary coalescence with chirplets}
The gravitational wave spectrum from the coalescence of a binary system is at lower frequency for system with larger total mass. In particular, the frequency associated with the inner-most stable circular orbit (ISCO), which corresponds to the transition between inspiral and merger phase of the coalescence, is below 80 Hz for systems with total mass $M \gtrsim 100 M_{\odot}$. With this feature, the chirp phase of the waveform with a spectral content at frequencies below ISCO is outside the detector sensitive band and thus does not contribute significantly to the total detected SNR of the signal. Sine-Gaussian waveforms are a reasonable approximation for the few waveform cycles associated with the merger and ringdown portions of the coalescence waveform.
For a symmetric system with lower mass ($M < 30 M_{\odot}$), the coalescence time of BBH in a ground based detector's sensitive band is $>$ 400 ms. There is loss of measured signal-to-noise ratio induced by the mismatch in the waveforms; between the chirp nature of the GW evolution and the constant central frequency sine-Gaussian template bank. The linear frequency variation of chirplets provide better match to the chirping signal of BBH in this mass range.
\subsection{Increased signal-to-noise ratio}
\begin{figure}
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\subfloat[Part 1][Eventgram in sine-Gaussian bank.]{\includegraphics[width=.45\textwidth,height=0.2\textheight]{figure/amaldi_omega_eventgram.eps}}&
\subfloat[Part 2][Eventgram in chirplet bank.]{\includegraphics[width=.45\textwidth,height=0.2\textheight]{figure/amaldi_chirplet_eventgram.eps}}
\end{tabular}
\caption{\label{eventgram}\textbf{Eventgrams for sine-Gaussian and Chirplet banks:} The eventgrams are plotted for inspiralling black-hole binary (with $m_1=13 M_{\odot}$ and $m_2=20 M_{\odot}$) signal in simulated Gaussian LIGO noise. See the difference between the constant frequency tiles for the sine-Gaussians and the linear frequency variation for chirplets. An increase of SNR by $\sim$ 20\% in the peak pixel (the most significant time-frequency pixel) is to be noted.}
\end{figure}
It has been shown~\cite{chirplet-paper} that Chirpletized Omega measures a higher matched filtering signal-to-noise-ratio (SNR) for BBH signal $< 100 M_{\odot}$. The SNR improvement is ($\sim 20 \%$) for the mass range $M \lesssim 60 M_{\odot}$ and the improvement may go up-to $\sim 40\%$ for $M \lesssim 20 M_{\odot}$. When compared to actual matched filtering SNR of signals, chirplet recovers the full SNR for $M \lesssim 20 M_{\odot}$.
As an illustration, we show an eventgram (Fig.~\ref{eventgram}). An eventgram shows the significant time-frequency pixels for different $Q$ values. In this particular eventgram a BBH signal is added to Gaussian noise with the spectral characteristics of initial LIGO design. The signal is a non-spinning BBH system with mass components $m_1=13 M_{\odot}$ and $m_2=20 M_{\odot}$. In this example, chirplets with a positive slope are chosen to sine-Gaussian with constant frequency and the correlation of the most significative chirplet is, $\sim 20 \%$ larger than the most significative sine-Gaussian.
\subsection{Increased detectability}
The detectability of BBH signals is limited by a background of noise fluctuations that trigger the search algorithms. Noise fluctuations can be reduced by eliminating non-GW triggers from the search with the application of a suitable coincident or coherent strategy for a network of GW detectors. The background in a chirplet search is in general different from the typical background in the standard Omega burst search. An additional 5\% increase was reported~\cite{chirplet-paper} in the measured single detector SNR for background triggers in a chirplet burst search compared to standard Omega. Previous analysis~\cite{chirplet-paper} was conducted with different false alarm rates. In order to ensure an unbiased comparison, this paper addresses this issue and compares the detectability in the two search algorithms at the same false alarm rate (FAR). In the current study we added BBH signals to 2 months of simulated colored Gaussian noise mimicking the instrumental noise of the two Hanford LIGO detectors (H1 and H2), and the Livingston LIGO detector (L1). We split the range of BBH masses in two sets, total mass 4-35 $M_{\odot}$ and total mass 35-80 $M_{\odot}$. The distribution of mass was uniform in the component masses of the two black holes. We estimated the network's background by time-sliding the triggers from L1 detector with the coincident triggers from H1 and H2. Similarly foreground triggers were collected by coincidence of triggers from H1, H2 and L1. A time window of 10 ms was used to find the coincident triggers. The times at which the signals were added to noise are known. We used those times to identify significant events within 10 ms in the foreground triggers.
We ranked the triggers from both the background and the simulated signals using the the geometric mean of the single detector signal-to-noise ratios as ranking statistics.
\begin{equation}
\rho_{GM} = \left(\rho_{H1} \times \rho_{H2} \times \rho_{L1}\right)^{\frac{1}{3}} ,
\end{equation}
where $\rho_{detector}$ is the single detector SNR.
After all the triggers are ranked, the significance of each trigger was evaluated by computing its probability to belong to background (FAR). The performance comparison between chirplet and standard Omega searches was done with a common threshold on the FAR.
\begin{figure}
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\subfloat[Part 1][Efficiency curves for set 4-35 $M_\odot$.]{\includegraphics[width=.47\textwidth]{figure/H1effdist_sigmoid_v6a}\label{fig:omegaSETA}}&
\subfloat[Part 2][Efficiency curves for set 35-80 $M_\odot$.]{\includegraphics[width=.47\textwidth]{figure/H1effdist_sigmoid_v6b}\label{fig:chirpletSETA}}
\end{tabular}
\caption{\label{sigmoid}\textbf{Efficiency curve:} Efficiency sigmoids are plotted with a FAR of $10^{-8}$ Hz. Higher detection efficiency in a chirplet search is observed. The improvement in chirplet is more pronounced for the set with mass 4-35 $M_\odot$.}
\end{figure}
\newpage
\paragraph{Efficiency curve ---}
We compared the performance of the sine-Gaussian and the Chirplet algorithms by estimating the detection efficiency as a function of the effective distance of the BBH from the detector. We fit a sigmoid to the observed number of signals as a function of the distance, at a fixed false alarm rate of $10^{-8}$ Hz. The characteristic distance parameters, known as the 50\% and 90\% efficiency distances, which are the points on the sigmoid where 50\% and 90\% of the signals are recovered respectively, are both improved for chirplet compared to Omega as seen in Fig.~\ref{sigmoid}. The numbers obtained from the sigmoid fit are shown below in Table 1. The overall improvement of $>$ 50\% in the distance parameters, is higher for the lower mass set (4-35 $M_{\odot}$) compared to, up-to 40\% for the mass set with total mass ranging 35-80 $M_{\odot}$.
\begin{table}[h]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ | c | c | c | c | c | }
\hline
& Sine-Gaussians & Sine-Gaussians & Chirplets & Chirplets\\
Set & 50\% (Mpc) & 90\% (Mpc) & 50\% (Mpc) & 90\% (Mpc)\\
\hline
4-35 $M_{\odot}$ & 56 $\pm$ 4 & 19 $\pm$ 1 & 84 $\pm$ 2 & 35 $\pm$ 2 \\
\hline
35-80 $M_{\odot}$ & 139 $\pm$ 4 & 66 $\pm$ 2 & 166 $\pm$ 4 & 75 $\pm$ 3 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{50\% and 90\% efficiency distance at a FAR of $10^{-8}$ Hz.}
\end{table}
\normalsize
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\hspace{-1em}
\subfloat[Part 1][Sine-Gaussians on 4-35 $M_\odot$.]{\includegraphics[width=.34\textwidth,height=0.34\textwidth]{figure/m1m2-omega_GM_v6a-H1H2L1_distance}\label{fig:omegaSETA}}
\subfloat[Part 2][Chirplets on 4-35 $M_\odot$.]{\includegraphics[width=.34\textwidth,height=0.34\textwidth]{figure/m1m2-chirplet_GM_v6a-H1H2L1_distance}\label{fig:chirpletSETA}}
\subfloat[Part 3][Chirplet/sine-Gaussian:4-35 $M_\odot$.]{\includegraphics[width=.34\textwidth,height=0.34\textwidth]{figure/m1m2_chirplet_GM_v6a_omega_GM_v6a_distance_ratio}\label{fig:ratioSETA}}\\
\hspace{-1em}
\subfloat[Part 4][Sine-Gaussians on 35-80 $M_\odot$.]{\includegraphics[width=.34\textwidth,height=0.34\textwidth]{figure/m1m2-omega_GM_v6b-H1H2L1_distance}\label{fig:omegaSETB}}
\subfloat[Part 5][Chirplets on 35-80 $M_\odot$.]{\includegraphics[width=.34\textwidth,height=0.34\textwidth]{figure/m1m2-chirplet_GM_v6b-H1H2L1_distance}\label{fig:chirpletSETB}}
\subfloat[Part 6][Chirplet/sine-Gaussian:35-80 $M_\odot$.]{\includegraphics[width=.34\textwidth,height=0.34\textwidth]{figure/m1m2_chirplet_GM_v6b_omega_GM_v6b_distance_ratio}\label{fig:ratioSETB}}
\end{center}
\caption{\label{sensitivity}\textbf{Sensitivity distance:} Plots of the fiducial distance that can be observed at a FAR of $10^{-8}$ Hz for both chirplet and sine-Gaussian in the mass parameter space are shown in Fig. ~\ref{fig:omegaSETA},~\ref{fig:chirpletSETA},~\ref{fig:omegaSETB} and ~\ref{fig:chirpletSETB}. The ratio plots of the detectable distance are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:ratioSETA} and ~\ref{fig:ratioSETB}. \textit{More than} 30\% of improvement in the sensitivity distance for the set 4-35 $M_\odot$ in all the mass bins and \textit{up-to} 30\% improvement in the sensitivity distance for most of the mass bins in set 35-80 $M_\odot$ should be noted.}
\end{figure}
\paragraph{Sensitivity distance ---}
While efficiency sigmoids are good measures for the detection performance, as shown in Fig.~\ref{sigmoid}, they don't provide details of how detectability changes across mass bins. For this reason, we compared the fiducial distance the detector network is sensitive at a false alarm rate of $10^{-8}$ Hz, or the {\it sensitivity distance}, as the function of the BBH mass parameters. Fig.~\ref{fig:omegaSETA} and Fig.~\ref{fig:chirpletSETA} show sensitivity distance for chirplet and standard Omega search in the mass parameter space for the set with total mass 4-35 $M_\odot$. Fig.~\ref{fig:ratioSETA} shows the ratio of the sensitivity distance measured by chirplet to the sensitivity distance measured by standard Omega search. For this set, chirplet search improves detectability \textit{more than} 30\% over standard Omega search in all mass bins as seen in the ratio plot of Fig.~\ref{fig:ratioSETA}. Similarly, Fig.~\ref{fig:omegaSETB} and Fig.~\ref{fig:chirpletSETB} show detectability for set with total mass 35-80 $M_\odot$. In this set the detectability in chirplet search also improves \textit{up-to} 30\% over standard Omega search for most of the mass bins and is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:ratioSETB}.
\paragraph{}
The above comparisons of efficiency sigmoids and sensitivity distances at a false alarm rate of $10^{-8}$ Hz point very well to higher detectability of BBH signal in a chirplet burst search over standard Omega burst search, specially in the lower mass region (total mass $<$ 35 $M_{\odot}$). This is in accordance with the previous result of increased SNR~\cite{chirplet-paper}.
\section{Future plans}
In this study, we have demonstrated the advantage of a chirplet burst search over the standard sine-Gaussian burst search using coincidence method as the multi-detector network strategy. There is room for additional modifications in the chirplet-based analysis, with the implementation of a coherent detection statistics and novel clustering strategies, which are currently under study. There have been studies~\cite{svd1,svd2} based on matrix factorization techniques to construct orthonormal bases that span the space of high-mass merger waveforms. Using chirplets as templates, is a similar but distinct approach, with different advantages. In particular, a chirplet based search is not tied to the availability of an explicit representation of the family of waveforms to construct the basis, which gives it greater simplicity and robustness in the face of possible errors in the numerical relativity simulations, although, in exchange, it suffers some possible SNR loss.
In addition to an improved detectability, the chirplet-based analysis offers additional information on the frequency evolution of the observed signal, which will be useful in the \textit{a posteriori} interpretation of an event.
The work presented in this paper does not address the question of the spin of the binary black hole system. Spins affect the detectability profoundly~\cite{spin-phenom}. We are planning to extend our current studies to express the detectability measured in a chirplet burst search to spin parameter space.
\section*{References}
\bibliographystyle{unsrt}
|
\section{Introduction}
Teraherz time-domain spectroscopy (THz-TDS) is an efficient tool for characterizing materials with broadband coherent terahertz radiation \cite{Wit07c}. A femtosecond optical laser is utilised in THz-TDS. Interaction of optical pulses with an emitter results in a burst of subpicosecond pulses spanning a range from a few hundred gigahertz to a few terahertz. The emitted pulses induce a local change in the electric field at the detector. A pump-probe detection scheme resolves the amplitude and phase of a terahertz pulse with a high SNR. In a transmission measurement, the generated terahertz pulses are changed in the amplitude and phase after interacting with a sample. These changes can be used to extract the complex optical constants, or related quantities, of the sample.
For free-space transmission-mode THz-TDS, each material has an optimal thickness that yields the lowest measurement uncertainty in the optical constants \cite{Wit08c}. The noise floor clearly defines the maximum thickness of a sample that still results in the valid optical parameters \cite{Jep05}. For a thin sample, the measurement accuracy significantly reduces, because the signal variation due to fluctuations and noise in the system becomes relatively strong compared with the change in the amplitude and phase introduced by the sample. The limitation of thin-film \textit{characterization} exists where the film is so thin that the extracted parameters are no longer reliable. Likewise, \textit{detecting} the presence of a thin film reaches a limit when the sample is no longer distinguishable from the background material. Despite that, there is no explicit criterion for determining a lower boundary for the thickness of a sample under free-space THz-TDS measurement.
This article presents a mathematical analysis on the limitation of free-space THz-TDS for thin-film \textit{detection}. Initially, the thin-film condition is expressed in terms of optical constants and their standard deviations, which are caused by a variation in the signal amplitude. These standard deviations are then further expanded to yield the criterion of the detection limitation. It defines the minimal film thickness and refractive index as a function of the system SNR. The derivable condition is intuitive and useful as a rule of thumb in estimating the capability of a THz-TDS system. It also suggests when other advanced measurement techniques are necessary to detect particular samples.
\section{Limitation for thin-film detection}
In the context of the uncertainty analysis, the random error, which encompasses fluctuations and noise, is used to evaluate the confidence interval in a measurement. This confidence interval \textit{localizes} or bounds the expected value, i.e., the value that is free from the random error. Therefore, in the sample detection scheme, if the confidence intervals of the sample and reference measurements are well separated, it can be inferred that the sample is unambiguously detected. Otherwise, if the two intervals get overlapped, it is possible that the two measurements share an identical expected value. Hence, in this case, the presence of the sample cannot be judged. Fig.~\ref{fig:MK2_confidence_interval} schematically illustrates both of the situations. It is worth nothing that the systematic error is irrelevant in the detection scheme, since it biases the sample and reference measurements equally.
\begin{figure}[b]
\centering
\includegraphics{MK2_confidence_interval}
\caption{Confidence intervals in the detection scheme. (a) The confidence intervals of the sample and reference measurements are separated. The presence of the sample is confirmed. (b) The two confidence intervals partially overlap. The presence of the sample is unclear.}
\label{fig:MK2_confidence_interval}
\end{figure}
Mathematically, the confidence interval for any variable $x$ is defined as \cite{GUM95}
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:MK_confidence_interval}
\bar{x} - \frac{s_x}{\sqrt{N}} \leq \mu_x \leq \bar{x} + \frac{s_x}{\sqrt{N}} \;,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\bar{x}=\sum_{l=1}^N x_l/N$ is the arithmetic mean from $N$ measurements, $s_x$ is the empirical
standard deviation, and $\mu_x$ is the expected value. From Eq.~\ref{eq:MK_confidence_interval} and the discussion in the previous paragraph, it can be established that the sample with optical constants $n_s(\omega)+j\kappa_s(\omega)$ can be distinguished from the reference material with $n_0+j\kappa_0$ by terahertz waves if any of these two criteria is satisfied:
\begin{subequations}\label{eq:MK_criteria}
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta n(\omega) &>&\sqrt{
\frac{s_{n,E_{\rm sam}}^2}{N_{E_{\rm sam}}}
+\frac{s_{n,E_{\rm ref}}^2}{N_{E_{\rm ref}}}
+\frac{s_{n,l}^2}{N_l}} \;, \quad \text{or}\\
\Delta\kappa(\omega) &>& \sqrt{
\frac{s_{\kappa,E_{\rm sam}}^2}{N_{E_{\rm sam}}}
+\frac{s_{\kappa,E_{\rm ref}}^2}{N_{E_{\rm ref}}}
+\frac{s_{\kappa,l}^2}{N_l}}
\;,
\end{eqnarray}
\end{subequations}
where $\Delta n(\omega) = \bar{n}_s(\omega)-n_0$ and $\Delta\kappa(\omega)=\bar{\kappa}_s(\omega) -\kappa_0$; $s_{\{n,\kappa\},E_{\rm sam}}^2$, $s_{\{n,\kappa\},E_{\rm ref}}^2$, and $s_{\{n,\kappa\},l}^2$ are the empirical variances of the sample optical constants caused by the sample and reference amplitude variations, and thickness variation, respectively; $N_{E_{\rm sam}}$ and $N_{E_{\rm ref}}$ are the numbers of measurements for the sample and reference signals, respectively; and $N_l$ is the number of sample thickness measurements. Eq.~\ref{eq:MK_criteria} means that the difference between the sample refractive index or extinction coefficient and that of the reference material must be larger than its combined standard deviation, which is mainly contributed by two sources of random error, i.e., signal noise and thickness measurement \cite{Wit08}.
Only the amplitude-related variances, $s_{\{n,\kappa\},E_{\rm sam}}^2$ and $s_{\{n,\kappa\},E_{\rm ref}}^2$ can be considered, provided that the error in thickness measurement is relatively easy to deal with or becomes irrelevant if the detection is based on the time-domain or frequency-domain data. Furthermore, $s_{\{n,\kappa\},E_{\rm sam}}^2$ and $s_{\{n,\kappa\},E_{\rm ref}}^2$ can be combined if the numbers of sample and reference measurements are equal. Hence, from the given assumptions, Eq.~\ref{eq:MK_criteria} can be simplified to
\begin{subequations}\label{eq:MK_criteriax}
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:MK_criteriax1}
\Delta n(\omega) &>& \frac{s_{n}(\omega)}{\sqrt{N}} \;, \\\label{eq:MK_criteriax2}
\Delta\kappa(\omega) &>& \frac{s_\kappa(\omega)}{\sqrt{N}} \;,
\end{eqnarray}
\end{subequations}
where $s^2_{\{n,\kappa\}}(\omega)= s_{\{n,\kappa\},E_{\rm sam}}^2+ s_{\{n,\kappa\},E_{\rm ref}}^2$ and $N=N_{\rm sam}=N_{\rm ref}$. Typically, it can be shown that
\begin{subequations}\label{eq:MK_nlk}
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta n(\omega) &>& \Delta\kappa(\omega) \;,\quad\text{and}\\
s_n(\omega) &\le& s_\kappa(\omega)\;.
\end{eqnarray}
\end{subequations}
The conditions in Eq.~\ref{eq:MK_nlk} implies that the criterion in Eq~\ref{eq:MK_criteriax1} is less strict than Eq~\ref{eq:MK_criteriax2}. As discussed earlier, to detect the presence of the sample, satisfying only one criterion, here Eq.~\ref{eq:MK_criteriax1}, is enough.
From the relation between the standard deviation of the refractive index and that of the reference phase in Eq.~\ref{eq:ax_stddev1}, the criterion for sample detection given in Eq.~\ref{eq:MK_criteriax1} can be expressed as
\begin{subequations}\label{eq:MK_criteria2}
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{\omega l}{c}\Delta n(\omega) &>& \sqrt{\frac{2}{N}} s_{\arg(E_{\rm ref})}(\omega)\;.
\end{eqnarray}
\end{subequations}
Here, $l$ is the sample thickness, and $s_{\arg(E_{\rm ref})}(\omega)$ is the standard deviation in the phase of the reference spectrum. This equation is the ultimate criterion for any free-standing sample to be detectable by normal transmission-mode THz-TDS. It means that a phase change introduced to the terahertz pulse by a sample must be larger than the scaled standard deviation of the reference phase. This standard deviation $s_{\arg(E_{\rm ref})}(\omega)$ can be obtained from a set of repeated time-domain measurements by using Eq.~\ref{eq:variance_of_phase3} or the Monte Carlo method. Increasing the number of measurements $N$ does not reduce the minimum sample thickness, but on the contrary accentuating $s_{\arg(E_{\rm ref})}(\omega)$ due to the long-term laser instability \cite{Wit08}.
\section{Conclusion}
In this article, a limitation in thin-film detection using ordinary transmission-mode THz-TDS is derived on the basis of the uncertainty analysis. Provided that the standard deviation of the terahertz signal is known in priori, the proposed criterion can be used to estimate the minimal thickness and refractive index of a free-standing film that can be detected with a free-space THz-TDS measurement. In future work, a limitation in thin-film characterization and a limitation in the case of substrate-based films will be analyzed. The proposed criterion will be validated through experiments with different types of films.
|
\section{Introduction}
Weak gravitational lensing is a unique tool for probing the mass distribution of the universe and for constraining dark matter halo properties of galaxies and clusters. In contrast to alternative mass estimate methods (employing e.g. X-ray temperatures, radial velocities, or mass-to-light ratios), weak lensing does not rely on any assumptions about virial equilibrium and is sensitive to all mass along the line of sight, making no distinction between luminous and dark matter.
Over the past decade, an enormous international effort has been invested in improving the reliability of weak lensing analysis \citep{step1, step2, great08, great10}, seeking to remove biases and systematic effects that limit the accuracy of the method. By far most of the work has been focused on measuring the shear signal, the coherent stretching and distortion of distant galaxy shapes by a foreground lensing mass, but recently the magnification signal has begun to attract attention as well \citep{Scranton05, Hildebrandt09b, Hildebrandt11, LHJM10, Umetsu11, Huff11}.
Weak lensing magnification is, to first order, a measure of the convergence of a lensing mass. It can be detected through the stretching of solid angle on the sky, which leads to the amplification of source flux, since lensing conserves surface brightness (i.e. photons are neither created nor destroyed in purely lensing processes). In general, two different approaches can be taken to measure magnification. The method we employ here involves observing the effects on source number densities; an interesting alternative method is being explored by \citet{Schmidt12}, which makes use of source size and flux information, and employs the same COSMOS X-ray groups used in this study.
Magnification affects the source number densities in two ways, and the one that dominates is determined by the intrinsic magnitude number counts of the sources in question. Simply put, the brightest sources, which usually have steep number counts, will exhibit an {\it increase} in number density when lensed, as the amplification allows more objects to be detected, while the number density of the faintest sources, having relatively shallow number counts, will {\it decrease} \citep{Narayan89}.
Compared to shear measurements, magnification exhibits a slightly lower signal-to-noise ratio (S/N), the reason it has been largely ignored until recently. However, what magnification lacks in signal strength, it makes up for in terms of its ability to be applied to lenses at higher redshift and to poorly resolved sources \citep{Waerbeke10}. Since shear studies require measurements of galaxy shapes, in order for a source to be used it must necessarily be well resolved. This is in stark contrast to magnification studies using source number densities, which have no such requirement for the sources to be resolved at all! In principle, only source magnitudes, redshifts, and positions relative to a lens must be known. This simple fact makes it possible to extend weak-lensing magnification analyses to a much higher redshift than possible for shear, and allows a much higher source density to be included in the analysis. See \citet{Waerbeke10}, \citet{RozoSchmidt10}, and \citet{Umetsu11} for more detailed discussions of the benefits of combining magnification with shear in gravitational lensing studies.
In Section \ref{theory}, we review the equations describing the effects of weak-lensing magnification on source number densities. Section \ref{data} gives the properties of the X-ray groups and Lyman break galaxies (LBGs) that are used in this study. Then Section \ref{results} describes the steps of our analysis, and results of the composite-halo model fitting. We summarize the results in Section \ref{summary}, and compare with weak-lensing shear measurements that have previously been made on populations of galaxy groups. We use the WMAP7 $\Lambda$CDM cosmological parameters $H_0 =$ 71 km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$ and $\Omega_{\Lambda} = 0.734$ \citep{WMAP7}, and set $\Omega_M = 1 - \Omega_{\Lambda}$.
\section{Theory}
\label{theory}
The amplification matrix $\cal{A}$ maps the image deformation from the source to observer frame, and describes the first order effects of gravitational lensing:
\begin{equation}
\cal{A} = \left( \begin{array}{cc}
{1-\kappa-\gamma_1} & {-\gamma_2} \\
{-\gamma_2} & {1-\kappa+\gamma_1} \\
\end{array} \right).
\end{equation}
It is a function of the convergence $\kappa$, and the shear $\gamma$, which define the isotropic and anisotropic focusing of light rays, respectively. The magnification factor $\mu$ is the inverse determinant of this matrix, so that
\begin{equation}
\mu = \frac{1}{\mathrm{det} \cal{A}} =
\frac{1}{(1-\kappa)^2 - \left|\gamma\right|^2}
\end{equation}
\citep{BartelmannSchneider01}.
The cumulative number counts of distant {\it unlensed} sources $N_0$ are related to the observed {\it lensed} number counts $N$, up to some flux $f$, by the equation
\begin{equation}
N (>f) = \frac{1}{\mu} N_0 \left( > \frac{f}{\mu} \right).
\end{equation}
Here the two distinct effects of weak-lensing magnification, on source number counts, are made explicit. The prefactor of $1 / \mu$ is the dilution of source density, as the observed solid angle on the sky is stretched by a foreground massive lens. The modification to the flux $f / \mu$ inside the argument of $N_0$ represents the effect of source amplification by a lens, such that one is able to detect intrinsically fainter objects due to gravitational lensing.
Switching from working in fluxes to magnitudes $m$, the differential number count relationship was demonstrated by \citet{Narayan89} to be
\begin{equation}
n(m)dm = \mu ^{\alpha -1} n_0 (m)dm,
\end{equation}
where $\alpha$ is defined according to
\begin{equation}
\alpha \equiv \alpha(m) = 2.5 \frac{d}{dm} \log n_0(m).
\end{equation}
Thus, distant source galaxies, lensed by an intervening concentration of mass, may have their observed number counts increased {\it or} decreased depending on the sign of the quantity $(\alpha -1)$. Sources for which $(\alpha -1) > 0$ will appear to be correlated on the sky with a lens position, while sources with $(\alpha -1) < 0$ will be anti-correlated, as a dearth of objects will be observed in the vicinity of a lens. The number density of galaxies for which the intrinsic number count slope gives $(\alpha -1) \approx 0$ will essentially be unaffected by lensing magnification, as the dilution and amplification effects will cancel, and no correlation signal will be observed for these objects \citep{Scranton05}.
\section{Data}
\label{data}
\subsection{Lenses}
The lenses in this study consist of X-ray-selected galaxy groups in the COSMOS field. See \citet{Leauthaud10} for the detailed properties of these groups. From the full sample of 206 groups investigated in the aforementioned study, we use the shear-calibrated mass estimates to construct the most massive subsample of groups for this magnification study. Here masses are characterized by the parameter $M_{200}$, the total mass interior to a sphere of radius $R_{200}$, within which the average density is 200 times the critical.
\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{m200_zphot_histograms_44x.eps}
\caption{Masses and photometric redshifts of the groups in this study. We select the most massive groups in our sample, $M_{200} / M_\odot \ge 3.56 \times 10^{13}$. Using only the cleanest groups (characterized by having $\ge$ 4 members, well-defined centroids, and no flags on possible mergers or projection effects), and applying appropriate masking, we are left with a sample of $44$ groups for this lensing magnification analysis.}
\label{hists}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
Any groups that have less than four member galaxies, that appear to be undergoing mergers, that have uncertain centroids, or that raise concerns about projection effects, are excluded from the analysis. These restrictions follow from the group catalog requirement \texttt{FLAG\_INCLUDE=1}, discussed in \citet{George11}. The remaining $44$ most massive groups have shear determined masses in the range $ 3.56 \times 10^{13} \le M_{200} / M_\odot \le 1.70 \times 10^{14} $, and we employ stacking to increase the S/N of the magnification measurement. The redshift range of the groups is $ 0.32 \le z \le 0.98 $. Figure \ref{hists} displays these lens properties.
Choosing an optimal lens centroid about which to construct angular bins is an area of ongoing research, and common choices include the brightest central galaxy or the X-ray emission peak. If the location of the dark matter density peak were known a priori, then it would obviously be the ideal choice, but instead we must rely upon some combination of observables to approximate this position. In this paper, we define lensing mass centers by the location of the group galaxy with the highest stellar mass (MMGG$_\mathrm{scale}$) lying within a distance $ (R_s + \sigma_x) $ of the X-ray center, where $ R_s $ is the group scale radius and $ \sigma_x $ is the uncertainty in the X-ray center position \citep{George11}. In order to be very confident about the locations of group centers, we exclude groups for which this galaxy is not the most massive member of the group. This choice of centroid has been shown to accurately trace the centers of halos in this sample by optimizing the shear signal on small scales \citep{George12}.
\subsection{Sources}
Background sources are LBGs, a type of high-redshift star-forming galaxy that has been used successfully in previous magnification studies \citep[see][]{Hildebrandt09b, Hildebrandt11}. These LBGs were selected using the typical three-color dropout technique. For the $U$-, $G$-, and $R$-dropouts the selections described in \citet{Hildebrandt09a} were used, however the COSMOS Subaru $g^+$ and $r^+$ data were used instead of the CFHT-LS $g^*$ and $r^*$ data (see \citet{Capak07} for the filter definitions). For the $B$-dropouts the selection from \citet{Ouchi04} was used.
The appeal of using LBGs for magnification is rooted in the fact that their luminosity functions (LFs) have been extensively studied and their redshift distributions are fairly narrow and accurate. After all quality cuts and image masking, we are left with 45,132 LBGs in total. The four distinct sets are comprised of 12,980 $U$-, 22,520 $G$-, 4870 $B$-, and 4762 $R$-dropouts, located at redshifts of $\sim$3.1, 3.8, 4.0, and 4.8, respectively.
We first test our data selection by cross-correlating the foreground groups with LBGs separated into discrete magnitude bins. Here we use the basic \citet{LandySzalay93} estimator,
\begin{equation}
w(\theta)=\frac{\text{D}_1 \text{D}_2 - \text{D}_1 \text{R} - \text{D}_2 \text{R} + \text{RR}}{\text{RR}},
\end{equation}
to simply compute cross-correlations between groups and background sources. D$_1$ and D$_2$ represent the data sets of lenses and sources, and R are the {\it random objects} from a mock catalog we create, containing points uniformly distributed throughout the COSMOS survey area. Each product of terms is the number of pairs of those objects found to lie within some angular bin, normalized by the total number of pairs found at all angular separations. This cross-correlation estimator has been shown to be both robust and unbiased \citep{Kerscher00}.
In any lensing study, care must be taken to ensure that regions of an image containing artifacts such as saturated pixels, satellite tracks, or other spurious effects are masked out of the investigation. We consistently apply the same masks to the group, source, and random catalogs, prior to the correlation analysis. Using a large number (584,586) of objects in this random catalog serves to reduce shot noise.
We expect that the faintest (brightest) magnitude bins should yield a negative (positive) cross-correlation with the group centers, and this is exactly what we find. Figure \ref{MagBinned} displays this anticipated result, where we simply use a number count weighted average to combine the signal of the distinct LBG samples. As discussed in \citet{Hildebrandt09b}, this negative correlation is one of the strongest verifications that no redshift overlap exists between lens and source populations, for no viable reason other than lensing magnification can be given for such a signal to exist. Redshift overlap between samples must be avoided in magnification studies, as positive cross-correlations due to physical clustering would overwhelm any lensing-induced signal.
\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.9]{magbinnedLBGs_multiNFWfit.eps}
\caption{Angular cross-correlation of the X-ray groups with Lyman break galaxies, the latter separated into three magnitude-selected samples. The bright sample contains $U$, $G$, $B$, and $R$-dropouts in the magnitude ranges $23<r<25$, $23.5<i<25$, $23.5<i<25$, and $24<z<25.5$, respectively. Similarly, the medium ranges are $25<r<25.5$, $25<i<26$, $25<i<26$, $25.5<z<26$. The faint ranges are $r>25.5$, $i>26$, $i>26$, $z>26$. These magnitude ranges are selected to contain LBGs for which $(\alpha-1)>0$, $\approx 0$, and $<0$. The measured correlations for each LBG sample are simply averaged here (weighting by the number counts) in order to more clearly display this diagnostic check. The dashed curves are calculated from the composite-NFW fit, using weighting by the appropriate $\langle \alpha -1 \rangle$ factor, which is given in each panel. The negative correlation observed for the faintest sample is a good indication that no redshift overlap exists between foreground lenses and background sources.}
\label{MagBinned}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
\section{Analysis and Results}
\label{results}
\subsection{Measuring $\alpha(m)$}
Along with the mass of the lens itself, the slope of the source number counts as a function of magnitude, parameterized by the quantity $\alpha \equiv \alpha(m)$, controls the amplitude and sign of the expected magnification signal. To interpret the correlations that we measure, and to implement an optimally weighted procedure, we must determine the value of this quantity for every source galaxy that we intend to use in the measurement. Fortunately, LBGs have been extensively studied and many measurements of their LFs have been published.
For the $U$-, $G$-, and $R$-dropouts, we use the recent measurements by \citet{vanderBurg10}. For the $B$-dropouts we use the results of \citet{Sawicki06}. These two sets of measurements both involved fitting a Schechter function \citep{Schechter76} to their galaxy number counts, and their best-fit parameters that we use here are displayed in Table 1. The Schechter Function is given by
\begin{equation}
\Phi(M)=0.4\ln(10)\Phi^\ast10^{0.4(\alpha_{\text{LF}}+1)(M^\ast-M)} \exp [-10^{0.4(M^\ast-M)}],
\end{equation}
where $\Phi^\ast$, $M^\ast$, and $\alpha_{\text{LF}}$ are the normalization, characteristic magnitude, and faint-end slope of the LF. Note that the $\alpha(m)$ which we want to calculate is not the same as the constant parameter $\alpha_{\text{LF}}$, but approaches it in the limit of very faint magnitudes.
Solving this equation for $\alpha(m)$, we obtain
\begin{equation}
\alpha(m) = 2.5 \frac{d}{dm} \log n_0(m)= 2.5 \frac{d}{dM} \log \Phi(M)\]
\[ = 10^{0.4(M^\ast-M)}-\alpha_{\text{LF}}-1.
\end{equation}
We convert the observed apparent magnitudes $m$ of the LBGs to absolute magnitudes $M$ via the relationship $M = m - $DM$ + 2.5 \log (1+z)$, where DM and $z$ are the distance modulus and redshift of the galaxy in question. Since we select apparent magnitudes in the $r$, $i$, and $z$ bands for the $U$-, $G$- and $B$-, and $R$-dropouts, we probe very similar restframe wavelengths and the $K$-correction between the samples is negligible. Thus we ignore it here. Using the LF parameters in Table \ref{LFtable}, combined with the conversion to absolute magnitudes, we then obtain a measure of $\alpha(m)$ for every LBG in the sample.
It is important to assess how uncertainties in the quantity $\alpha(m)$ can affect the interpretation of the magnification measurement. Since we will rely on the quantity $(\alpha-1)$ as a weight factor in this analysis, using a wrong $\alpha$ could potentially lead to a bias in the mass measurement. For very faint objects the observed magnitudes become less certain due to shot noise. We propagate these magnitude errors through Equation 8 to obtain an uncertainty on $\alpha(m)$, which is used to find a magnitude-based cut on the sources. We find that cutting $\sim$10\% of the very faintest sources, largely $R$-dropouts, gives us a good balance between removing the most uncertain $\alpha$ values, but still retaining a significant number of sources for the analysis.
Here we consider two possible sources of systematic error, which are combined in quadrature to yield the total systematic error, reported in Section 4.3. The first source is uncertainty on the LF parameters (see Table 1), which includes the effects of cosmic variance. We repeat the composite-halo fit, detailed in Section 4.3, for the range of permitted values of $M^\ast$ and $\alpha_{\text{LF}}$, finding a maximum variation in the mass measurement of up to $\sim$40\%. Second, we consider the possibility for a small photometric offset to exist between the various surveys used in this work. Assuming a maximum offset of $\pm$0.05 magnitudes between surveys, we vary all observed source magnitudes uniformly by offsets in the range $-0.5 \leq \delta m \leq 0.5$, and find the maximum effect on the mass measurement to be $\sim$15\%.
\subsection{Optimally Weighted Cross-correlation}
We implement a modified version of the \citet{LandySzalay93} estimator for the angular cross-correlation function, in which pair counts are weighted by their expectations from the differential source number counts as a function of magnitude. This weighted correlation function has been shown to optimally boost the magnification signal \citep{Menard03}:
\begin{equation}
w(\theta)_{\text{optimal}}=\frac{\text{S}^{\alpha-1} \text{L} - \text{S}^{\alpha-1} \text{R} - \langle \alpha-1 \rangle \text{LR}}{\text{RR}} + \langle \alpha-1 \rangle .
\end{equation}
Optimal-weighting was first implemented by \citet{Scranton05} and, apart from notation, this equation is identical to the estimator used in \citet{Hildebrandt09b}. As with the original basic estimator, each term represents the number of pairs of objects found in a given angular $\theta$ bin, normalized by the total number of pairs at all angular separations.
S stands for the {\it sources}, or background lensed galaxies, L are the {\it lenses}, or X-ray groups, and once again R are the {\it random objects}. The superscript $(\alpha-1)$ on the S indicates that pair counts involving sources are to be weighted by this factor. After removing masked objects from the catalogs, and satisfying the above selection criteria, we are left with 39,710 LBG sources, $44$ X-ray group lenses, and 584,586 random objects for the analysis.
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\caption{Luminosity Function (Schechter) Parameters from External LBG Measurements. $^a$ LF parameters from \protect \citet{vanderBurg10}. $^b$ LF parameters from \protect \citet{Sawicki06}.}
\label{LFtable}
\begin{tabular}{lcccl}
\hline \hline
LBG Sample & $M^*$ & $\alpha_{\text{LF}}$ & Number \\ \hline
$U$ ($z \sim$ 3.1)$^a$ & $-20.84^{+0.15}_{-0.13}$ & $-1.60^{+0.14}_{-0.11}$ & 12,980 \\
$G$ ($z \sim$ 3.8)$^a$ & $-20.84^{+0.09}_{-0.09}$ & $-1.56^{+0.08}_{-0.08}$ & 22,520 \\
$B$ ($z \sim$ 4.0)$^b$ & $-21.00^{+0.40}_{-0.46}$ & $-1.26^{+0.40}_{-0.36}$ & 4,870 \\
$R$ ($z \sim$ 4.8)$^a$ & $-20.94^{+0.10}_{-0.11}$ & $-1.65^{+0.09}_{-0.08}$ & 4,762 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
The brightest source galaxies, which are observationally found to lie in the steepest part of the LF, are expected to be positively correlated with the group centers, have the largest value of $(\alpha-1)$, and so receive a relatively large weight in this correlation study. In contrast, the faintest background galaxies are expected to be anti-correlated, on average, with the group positions, because the effects of magnification dilution should be greater than the amplification of flux can compensate for, and these galaxies thus receive a negative weight. Sources for which $(\alpha-1) \approx 0$ ought to have the effects of dilution and amplification cancel out overall, and receive very little to no weight in this analysis \citep{Scranton05}.
The optimally weighted correlation function is given in Figure 3, and shows the measured radial profiles for this stack of massive galaxy groups. Error bars are $1 \sigma$ uncertainties, obtained by jackknife resampling of the source population. To do this, we create 50 jackknife samples of data, each with a different $1/50$ of sources removed from it. Then we measure the optimal correlation function for each, and from these estimate the covariance matrix through
\begin{equation}
C(\theta_1, \theta_2)= \left( \frac{N}{N-1} \right)^2 \times \sum_{j=1}^N [w_j(\theta_1)-\bar{w}(\theta_1)] \times [w_j(\theta_2)-\bar{w}(\theta_2)],
\end{equation}
where the index $j$ runs over the $N=50$ jackknife measurements.
\subsection{Halo Mass Profiles}
Measuring the magnification-induced effects on source number counts behind massive lenses allows one to estimate properties of the lens, such as the mass profile. In this paper, we use a composite-halo approach which allows us to fit for the full range of both group masses and redshifts. The horizontal axes in Figures \ref{MagBinned} and \ref{multihalo} are therefore actual transverse distances obtained by taking account of the angular diameter size at each unique group redshift. We incorporate both the singular isothermal sphere (SIS) and the Navarro-Frenk-White (NFW; \citep{nfw97}) density profiles into the composite-halo modeling.
The magnification contrast is $\delta\mu(\theta) \equiv \mu(\theta) -1$, and for an SIS halo it is simply given by
\begin{equation}
\delta \mu_{\text{SIS}}(\theta)=\frac{\theta_{\text{E}}}{\theta-\theta_{\text{E}}},
\end{equation}
where $\theta_{\text{E}}=4\pi(\frac{\sigma_v}{c})^2\frac{D_{ls}}{D_s}$ is the Einstein radius of the lens, and $D_{ls}$ and $D_s$ are angular diameter distances between lens and source, and observer and source, respectively. The velocity dispersion of the lens, $\sigma_v$, can be expressed in terms of the mass and critical energy density of the universe at lens redshift $z$:
\begin{equation}
\sigma_v=\left[ \frac{\pi}{6}200\rho_{\text{crit}}(z)M_{200}^2 G^3 \right]^\frac{1}{6} .
\end{equation}
For the NFW halo, the magnification contrast takes a slightly more complicated form. From Equation 2, we have
\begin{equation}
\delta\mu_{\text{NFW}}(\theta)=\left[ (1-\kappa_{\text{NFW}})^2 - \left|\gamma_{\text{NFW}}\right|^2 \right]^{-1} -1.
\end{equation}
We use the analytical NFW expressions for $\kappa$ and $\gamma$ derived in \citet{WrightBrainerd00} to evaluate $\delta\mu_{\text{NFW}}$ for every lens-source pair in the study. The two NFW fit parameters are the scale radius $r_{\text{s}}$ and the concentration $c$, which together determine the mass
\begin{equation}
M_{200}=\frac{4\pi}{3}(200)\rho_{\text{crit}}(z)c^3r_{\text{s}}^3 .
\end{equation}
As we do not find this magnification measurement precise enough to provide meaningful two-parameter constraints, we use the mass-concentration relation given in \citet{Munoz11} to reduce this to a single-parameter fit.
We perform a composite-halo fit for both lens models, similar to the multi-SIS used in \citet{Hildebrandt11}. This allows us to fit for a range of masses and redshifts, thereby avoiding any biases that would be introduced by simply fitting to a stacked average lens profile. The optimally weighted correlation function is related to the magnification contrast through
\begin{equation}
w(a)_{\text{optimal}}= \frac{1}{N_{l}}\sum_{i=1}^{N_{l}} \langle (\alpha -1)^2 \rangle_i \delta \mu(z_i, aM_{\text{shear},i}),
\end{equation}
where $i$ runs over all lenses. Here the fit parameter $a$ characterizes the scaling relation between the $M_{200}$ previously measured from the shear, and the best fit $M_{200}$ from magnification, so that $a \equiv M_{\text{magnification}}/M_{\text{shear}}$.
We use the generalized minimum-$\chi^2$ method to fit the composite-halo profiles to the magnification measurements (see Figure \ref{multihalo}), using the full unbiased inverse covariance matrix, according to the prescription in \citet{Hartlap07}. The $\chi^2/$dof is 1.5 for the composite-SIS and 0.8 for the composite-NFW ($\chi_{\text{SIS}}^2=7.5$, $\chi_{\text{NFW}}^2=4.2$, dof=5 in both cases). For the composite-SIS, we obtain a best-fit value of $a=1.2 \pm 0.4 \pm 0.4^{\text{sys}}$, and with the composite-NFW we get $a=1.8 \pm 0.5 \pm 0.4^{\text{sys}}$. These results indicate consistency with the previous shear mass measurements, albeit with large uncertainties.
\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.75]{wopt_CompositeHaloFits_44x_LFam1_aveErr0.7magcut.eps}
\caption{Composite-halo fits to the optimally weighted correlation function, using the LBG background source sample. The significance of the magnification detection is 4.9$\sigma$. The dashed line is the composite-SIS and the solid line is the composite-NFW. We find the best-fit relative scaling relations for each to be $a= M_{\text{mag}}/M_{\text{shear}}= 1.2 \pm 0.4 \pm 0.4^{\text{sys}}$ (SIS) and $a= 1.8 \pm 0.5 \pm 0.4^{\text{sys}}$ (NFW). The dotted line shows the prediction from the shear measured values of $M_{200}$ (A. Leauthaud 2011, private communication).}
\label{multihalo}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
\section{Summary and Conclusions}
\label{summary}
We report a 4.9$\sigma$ detection of weak-lensing magnification from a population of X-ray-selected galaxy groups. This is the first magnification measurement using source number densities successfully performed on the group scale. \citet{Schmidt12} have recently explored the magnification of these groups using source sizes and fluxes. For comparison, the shear detection significance is 11$\sigma$ on the same selection of $44$ groups (A. Leauthaud 2011, private communication).\footnote[1]{The significance quoted for the shear does not take into account the full covariance matrix, as we have done for the magnification measurement. Therefore this shear significance might be a bit optimistic.}
To improve S/N in this measurement, we stack the lenses, consisting of $44$ massive X-ray-detected galaxy groups in the COSMOS 1.64 deg$^2$ field. We measure an optimally weighted cross-correlation between the X-ray groups and high-redshift LBGs, with $1 \sigma$ error bars determined from jackknife resampling of the sources. Performing composite-halo fits to this optimally weighted signal yields a measurement of the relative scaling between shear- and magnification-derived masses. Our magnification measurement yields a mass $M_{\text{mag}}=aM_{\text{shear}}$ where the best-fit parameter $a= 1.2 \pm 0.4 \pm 0.4^{\text{sys}}$ (SIS), and $a= 1.8 \pm 0.5 \pm 0.4^{\text{sys}}$ (NFW), demonstrating a rough consistency with the shear measurement.
As discussed in Section 4.1, a central issue is the importance of having correct $(\alpha-1)$ measures for every source galaxy, to ensure that the {\it optimal weighting} truly is optimal. We perform a thorough error analysis that includes measurement uncertainties from the full covariance matrix, and investigate possible sources of systematic errors from both photometry and externally calibrated LF parameters.
We claim that LBGs are a preferred source sample when it comes to performing lensing magnification analyses using source number counts. A few reasons for the superiority of the LBG sample include more reliable redshift determinations, as well as greater lensing efficiencies and generally much higher values of the quantity $(\alpha-1)$. The single most significant reason to choose LBGs for this type of analysis, however, is for the ease of obtaining a reliable measure of $\alpha(m)$. Previous deep measurements of LBG LFs allow us to perform calculations yielding the optimal weight factor $(\alpha-1)$, as well as its associated uncertainty.
Although the S/N of shear is superior to magnification in general, the latter probes the surface mass density of the lens directly, while the shear measures the differential mass density. Thus the combination of these two independent measurements is desirable, and breaks the lens mass-sheet degeneracy. In fact, \citet{RozoSchmidt10} demonstrated that joining magnification into shear analyses, independent of survey details, can improve statistical precision by up to 40\%-50\%. Magnification using source number densities is also far less sensitive to the effects of atmospheric seeing than either shear or magnification using source sizes. Both of these methods require quality source images which, for very high redshift sources, can currently only be obtained from space-based data.
Improving the overall weak-lensing-derived constraints on cosmological and astrophysical parameters is not the only benefit to incorporating magnification into our analyses, however. Measurements of magnification are sensitive to completely different systematics than shear, and therefore uniquely positioned to help improve calibration of these residual effects on shear measurements. For example, magnification (using number counts) is not at all sensitive to the possible intrinsic alignment of source galaxies, since it does not use any shape information. Magnification can also be used as a simultaneous probe of intergalactic dust extinction, a small but measurable effect through its wavelength dependence \citep{Menard10}, and as a direct way to measure galaxy bias \citep{Waerbeke10}.
As one proceeds to investigate dark matter structures at increasingly high redshift, it becomes more and more important to include the magnification component of the signal. This is a direct consequence of the fact that higher redshift lenses necessitate more distant sources, which are in turn much harder to measure shapes for. Proceeding exclusively with shear necessarily means that a high fraction of detected sources are being eliminated from the lensing analysis, and information is therefore being lost, simply because we lack the capabilities to robustly determine their shapes. With photometric redshifts available, the possibility to do magnification studies on our shear catalogs really comes along free of charge. Upcoming projects will survey the entire extragalactic sky, and the inclusion of magnification will be a necessary component of any robust weak lensing study.
\vspace{10.pt}
The authors thank Fabian Schmidt and Martha Milkeraitis for useful discussions related to this work. J.F. was supported by JPL grant number 1394704, and is now supported by NSERC and CIfAR. H.H. is supported by the Marie Curie IOF 252760 and by a CITA National Fellowship. This work was performed in part at JPL, run by Caltech under a contract for NASA. This work was supported by World Premier International Research Center Initiative (WPI Initiative), MEXT, Japan. This work is based in part on data collected at Subaru Telescope, which is operated by the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan, and on observations made with the NASA/ESA {\it Hubble Space Telescope}. This research has made use of the NASA/IPAC Infrared Science Archive, which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. This work is also based on observations obtained with MegaPrime/MegaCam, a joint project of CFHT and CEA/DAPNIA, at the Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope (CFHT) which is operated by the National Research Council (NRC) of Canada, the Institute National des Sciences de l'Univers of the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique of France, and the University of Hawaii.
|
\section{Introduction}
Non-locality and contextuality are fundamental features of physical theories, which contradict the intuitions underlying classical physics. They are, in particular, prominent features of quantum mechanics, and the goal of the classic no-go theorems by Bell \cite{bell1964einstein}, Kochen-Specker \cite{kochen1975problem}, et al.~is to show that they are \textit{necessary features} of any theory whose experimental predictions agree with those of quantum mechanics.
Bell's insights into non-locality have been seminal to the current developments in quantum information, where entanglement is viewed as a key informatic resource; and there has also been considerable recent work on experimental tests for contextuality \cite{bartosik2009experimental,kirchmair2009state}.
In a previous paper with Adam Brandenburger \cite{abramsky2011unified}, we used the mathematics of \textbf{sheaf theory} to analyze the structure of non-locality and contextuality. Sheaf theory is pervasive in modern mathematics, allowing the passage from local to global \cite{mac1992sheaves}. Starting from a simple experimental scenario, and the kind of probabilistic models familiar from discussions of Bell's theorem, Popescu-Rohrlich boxes \cite{popescu1994quantum}, etc., we gave a very direct, compelling formalization of these notions in sheaf-theoretic terms.
Moreover, on the basis of this formulation, we showed that the phenomena of non-locality and contextuality can be characterized precisely in terms of \textbf{obstructions to the existence of global sections}.
Our aim in the present work is to build on these results, and to use the powerful tools of \textbf{sheaf cohomology} to study the structure of non-locality and contextuality. The present paper describes work in progress, and only represents an initial step in this direction. Nevertheless, enough has been achieved to indicate that this approach has some promise, and merits further investigation.
We briefly summarize our results:
\begin{itemize}
\item We use the formalization of no-signalling probabilistic models as compatible families of sections on a presheaf of distributions developed in \cite{abramsky2011unified}; compatibility corresponds precisely to the no-signalling condition. The family is defined on a cover corresponding to the sets of compatible measurements.
\item The locality/non-contextuality of the model corresponds to the existence of a global section for this family, as shown in \cite{abramsky2011unified}.
\item We use the \v{C}ech~ cohomology on an abelian presheaf derived from the support of the model in order to define a \textbf{cohomological obstruction} for the family as a certain cohomology class.
This class vanishes if the family has a global section.
Thus the non-vanishing of the obstruction provides a sufficient (but not necessary) condition for the model to be contextual.
\item We show that for a number of salient examples, including PR boxes \cite{popescu1994quantum}, GHZ states \cite{greenberger1989going,greenberger1990bell}, the Peres-Mermin magic square \cite{peres1990incompatible,mermin1990simple}, and the 18-vector configuration giving a proof of the Kochen-Specker theorem in four dimensions from \cite{cabello1996bell}, the obstruction does not vanish, thus yielding cohomological witnesses for contextuality.
\end{itemize}
The further contents of the paper are as follows. We review the sheaf formulation from \cite{abramsky2011unified} in Section~2, and \v{C}ech~ cohomology in Section~3. We define the cohomological obstruction in Section~4, and consider various examples in Sections~5 and ~6. Finally, limitations of the current results and further directions are discussed in Section~7.
\section{Sheaf Formulation of Measurement Scenarios}
We recall the basic ideas of \cite{abramsky2011unified}.
We work over a finite discrete space $X$, which we think of as a set of \textbf{measurement labels}.
We fix a cover $\EuScript{U} = \{ C_1 , \ldots , C_n \}$, with $\bigcup \EuScript{U} = X$, which represents the set of \textbf{compatible families of measurements}, \textit{i.e.}~ those which can be made jointly. Fixing a finite set $O$ of \textbf{outcomes}, we have the presheaf of sets $\mathcal{E}$ on $X$, where
$\mathcal{E}(U) := O^U$, and restriction is simply function restriction:
given $U \subseteq U'$,
\[ \rmap{U'}{U} : \mathcal{E}(U') \rightarrow \mathcal{E}(U) :: s \mapsto s | U . \]
Since $X$ is discrete, $\mathcal{E}$ is (trivially) a sheaf. We think of it as the sheaf of \textbf{events}.
An empirical model $e$ in the sense of \cite{abramsky2011unified} is a compatible family $\{ e_C \}_{C \in \EuScript{U}}$, where $e_C$ is a probability distribution on $\mathcal{E}(C)$. Here compatibility uses the definition of restriction on distributions, which we omit since we shall not need it. The support of $e$ determines a sub-presheaf $S_e$ of $\mathcal{E}$:
\[ S_e(U) := \{ s \in \mathcal{E}(U) \mid s \in \mathsf{supp}(e_U) \} . \]
Here $e_U = e_C | U$ for any $C \in \EuScript{U}$ such that $U \subseteq C$. The compatibility of the family $\{ e_C \}$ ensures that this is independent of the choice of $C$.
We have the following notions from \cite{abramsky2011unified}.
\begin{itemize}
\item The model $e$ is \textbf{possibilistically extendable} iff for every $s \in S_e(C)$, $s$ is a member of a compatible family $\{ s_i \in S_e(C_i) \}_{i = 1}^{n}$.
It is \textbf{possibilistically non-extendable} if for some $s$, there is no such family.
\item The model $e$ is \textbf{strongly contextual} if for every $s$ there is no such family.
\end{itemize}
The results from \cite{abramsky2011unified} show that if a model is local or non-contextual in the usual sense, then it is possibilistically extendable. Thus possibilistic non-extendability is a sufficient condition for \textbf{non-locality} or \textbf{contextuality}. Strong contextuality is a much stronger condition. Thus these properties witness strong forms of the non-classical behaviour exhibited by quantum mechanics.
\section{\v{C}ech~ Cohomology of a Presheaf}
We are given the following:
\begin{itemize}
\item A topological space $X$.
\item An open cover $\EuScript{U}$ of $X$.
\item A presheaf $\mathcal{F}$ of abelian groups on $X$.
For each open set $U$ of $X$, $\mathcal{F}(U)$ is an abelian group, and when $U \subseteq V$, there is a group homomorphism $\rmap{V}{U} : \mathcal{F}(V) \rightarrow \mathcal{F}(U)$. These assignments are functorial:
$\rmap{U}{U} = \mathsf{id}_{U}$, and if $U \subseteq U' \subseteq U''$, then
\[ \rmap{U'}{U} \circ \rmap{U''}{U'} = \rmap{U''}{U} . \]
\end{itemize}
The \textbf{nerve} $\mathsf{N}(\EuScript{U})$ of the cover $\EuScript{U}$ is defined to be the abstract simplicial complex comprising those finite subsets of $\EuScript{U}$ with non-empty intersection. Concretely, we take a $q$-simplex to be a list $\sigma = (U_0, \ldots , U_q)$ of elements of $\EuScript{U}$, with $| \sigma | := \cap_{i=0}^q U_i \neq \varnothing$. Thus a $0$-simplex $(U)$ is a single element of the cover $\EuScript{U}$.
We write $\mathsf{N}(\EuScript{U})^q$ for the set of $q$-simplices.
Given a $q+1$-simplex $\sigma = (U_0, \ldots , U_{q+1})$, there are $q$-simplices
\[ \partial_j (\sigma) := (U_0, \ldots, \widehat{U_j}, \ldots , U_{q+1}), \qquad 0 \leq j \leq q \]
obtained by omitting one of the elements of the $q+1$-simplex. Note that:
\[ | \sigma | \; \subseteq \; | \partial_j(\sigma) | . \]
We shall now define the \textbf{\v{C}ech~ cochain complex}.
For each $q \geq 0$, we define the abelian group $\Ccoch{q}$:
\[ \Ccoch{q} \; := \; \prod_{\sigma \in \mathsf{N}(\EuScript{U})^q} \mathcal{F}( | \sigma |) . \]
We also define the \textbf{coboundary maps}
\[ \delta^{q} : \Ccoch{q} \longrightarrow \Ccoch{q+1} . \]
For $\omega = (\omega(\tau))_{\tau \in \mathsf{N}(\EuScript{U})^q} \in \Ccoch{q}$, and $\sigma \in \mathsf{N}(\EuScript{U})^{q+1}$, we define:
\[ \delta^{q}(\omega)(\sigma) \; := \; \sum_{j = 0}^{q} (-1)^j \rmap{|\partial_j(\sigma)|}{|\sigma|}\omega(\partial_j \sigma) . \]
For each $q$, $\delta^q$ is a group homomorphism.
We shall also consider the \textbf{augmented complex} $\mathbf{0} \rightarrow \Ccoch{0} \rightarrow \cdots$.
\begin{proposition}
\label{boundprop}
For each $q$, $\delta^{q+1} \circ \delta^q = 0$.
\end{proposition}
We define $\Cocyc{q}$, the \textbf{$q$-cocycles}, to be the kernel of $\delta^{q}$. We define $\Cobound{q}$, the \textbf{$q$-coboundaries}, to be the image of $\delta^{q-1}$. These are subgroups of $\Ccoch{q}$, and by Proposition~\ref{boundprop}, $\Cobound{q} \subseteq \Cocyc{q}$.
We define the \textbf{$q$-th \v{C}ech~ cohomology group} $\Cohom{q}$ to be the quotient group
\[ \Cohom{q} \; := \; \Cocyc{q} / \Cobound{q} . \]
Note that $\Cobound{0} = \mathbf{0}$, so $\Cohom{0} \cong \Cocyc{0}$.
Given a cocycle $z \in \Cocyc{q}$, the \textbf{cohomology class} $[z]$ is the image of $z$ under the canonical map
\[ \Cocyc{q} \longrightarrow \Cohom{q} . \]
A \textbf{compatible family} with respect to a cover $\EuScript{U}$ is a family $\{ r_i \in \mathcal{F}(U_i) \}$ for $U_i \in \EuScript{U}$, such that, for all $i$, $j$:
\[ r_i | U_i \cap U_j = r_j | U_i \cap U_j . \]
\begin{proposition}
\label{compfamprop}
There is a bijection between compatible families and elements of the zeroth cohomology group $\Cohom{0}$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Cochains $c = (r_i)_{U_i \in \EuScript{U}}$ in $\Ccoch{0}$ correspond to families $\{ r_i \in \mathcal{F}(U_i) \}$.
For each $1$-simplex $\sigma = (C_i,C_j)$,
\[ \delta^{0}(c)(\sigma) \; = \; r_i | C_i \cap C_j \; - \; r_j | C_i \cap C_j . \]
Hence $\delta^{0}(c) = 0$ if and only if the corresponding family is compatible.
\end{proof}
We shall also use the \textit{relative cohomology} of $\mathcal{F}$ with respect to an open subset $U \subseteq X$.
We define two auxiliary presheaves related to $\mathcal{F}$. Firstly, $\mathcal{F} | U$ is defined by
\[ \mathcal{F} | U (V) := \mathcal{F}(U \cap V) . \]
There is an evident presheaf morphism
\[ p : \mathcal{F} \longrightarrow \mathcal{F} | U :: p_V : r \mapsto r | U \cap V . \]
Then $\FF_{\bar{U}}$ is defined by $\FF_{\bar{U}}(V) := \ker(p_V)$. Thus we have an exact sequence of presheaves
\[ \mathbf{0} \rTo \FF_{\bar{U}} \rTo \mathcal{F} \rTo^{p} \mathcal{F} | U . \]
The relative cohomology of $\mathcal{F}$ with respect to $U$ is defined to be the cohomology of the presheaf $\FF_{\bar{U}}$.
We have the following refined version of Proposition~\ref{compfamprop}.
\begin{proposition}
\label{relcompfamprop}
For any $U_i \in \EuScript{U}$,
the elements of the relative cohomology group $\CoFUi{0}$ correspond bijectively to compatible families $\{ r_j \}$ such that $r_i = 0$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
By Proposition~\ref{compfamprop}, compatible families correspond to cocycles
$r = (r_j)$ in $\Ccoch{0}$. By compatibility, $r_i | C_i \cap C_j = r_j | C_i \cap C_j$ for all $j$.
Hence $r$ is in $C^{0}(\EuScript{U}, \FF_{\bar{U}_{i}})$ if and only if $r_i = p_{U_{i}}(r_i) = 0$.
\end{proof}
\section{Cohomological Obstructions}
Given a commutative ring $R$, we define a functor $F_{R} : \mathbf{Set} \longrightarrow \mathbf{Set}$.
For any set $X$, the \textbf{support} $\mathsf{supp}(\phi)$ of a function $\phi : X \rightarrow R$ is the set of $x \in X$ such that $\phi(x) \neq 0$. We define $F_{R}(X)$ to be the set of functions $\phi : X \rightarrow R$ of finite support. There is an embedding $x \mapsto 1 \cdot x$ of $X$ in $F_{R}(X)$, which we shall use implicitly throughout.
Given $f : X \rightarrow Y$, we define:
\[ F_{R} f : F_{R} X \longrightarrow F_{R} Y :: \phi \mapsto [y \mapsto \sum_{f(x) = y} \phi(x)] . \]
This assignment is easily seen to be functorial.
In fact, $F_{R}(X)$ is the \textbf{free $R$-module generated by $X$}, and in particular, it is an abelian group; while $F_{R}(f)$ is a group homomorphism for any function $f$. In particular, taking $R = \mathbb{Z}$, $F_{\ZZ}(X)$ is the \textbf{free abelian group generated by $X$}.
Thus, given any presheaf of sets $P$ on $X$, we obtain a presheaf of abelian groups $F_{\ZZ} P$ by composition: $F_{\ZZ} P(U) := F_{\ZZ}(P(U))$.
Given an empirical model $e$ defined on the cover $\EuScript{U}$, we shall work with the \v{C}ech~ cohomology groups $\Cohom{q}$ for the abelian presheaf $\mathcal{F} := F_{\ZZ} S_e$. Note that, for any set of measurements $U$, $\mathcal{F}(U)$ is the set of \textbf{formal $\mathbb{Z}$-linear combinations of sections} in the support of $e_U$.
To each $s \in S_e(C)$, we shall associate an element $\gamma(s)$ of a cohomology group, which can be regarded as an obstruction to $s$ having an extension within the support of $e$ to a global section. In particular, the existence of such an extension implies that the obstruction vanishes. In good cases, these two conditions are equivalent, yielding \textbf{cohomological characterizations} of contextuality and strong contextuality.
For notational convenience, we shall fix an element $s = s_1 \in S_e(C_1)$. Because of the compatibility of the family $\{ e_C \}$, which is equivalent to no-signalling \cite{abramsky2011unified}, there is a family $\{ s_i \in S_e(C_i) \}$ with $s_1 | C_1 \cap C_i = s_i | C_1 \cap C_i$, $i = 2, \ldots , n$.
We define the cochain $c := (s_1, \ldots , s_n) \in \Ccoch{0}$. The coboundary of this cochain is $z := \delta^0(c)$.
\begin{proposition}
The coboundary $z$ of $c$ vanishes under restriction to $C_1$, and hence is a cocycle in the relative cohomology with respect to $C_1$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
We write $C_{i,j} := C_i \cap C_j$. For all $i, j$, we define $z_{i,j} := z(C_{i,j}) = s_i | C_{i,j} - s_j | C_{i,j}$. Because of the no-signalling assumption on the family $\{ s_i \}$, for all $i, j$,
\[ s_i | C_1 \cap C_{i,j} = (s_1 | C_1 \cap C_i) | C_j = s_1 | C_1 \cap C_{i,j} . \]
Similarly, $s_j | C_1 \cap C_{i,j} = s_1 | C_1 \cap C_{i,j}$. Hence $z_{i,j} | C_1 \cap C_{i,j} = 0$, and
$z_{i,j} \in \FF_{\bar{C}_{1}}(C_i \cap C_j)$.
Thus $z = (z_{i,j})_{i,j} \in C^{1}(\EuScript{U}, \FF_{\bar{C}_{1}})$.
Note that $\delta^{1} : C^{1}(\EuScript{U}, \FF_{\bar{C}_{1}}) \rightarrow C^{2}(\EuScript{U}, \FF_{\bar{C}_{1}})$ is the restriction of the coboundary map on $\Ccoch{1}$. Hence $z = \delta^0(c)$ is a cocycle.
\end{proof}
We define $\gamma(s_1)$ as the cohomology class $[z] \in \CoFC{1}$.
\paragraph{Remark}
There is a more conceptual way of defining this obstruction, using the connecting homomorphism from the long exact sequence of cohomology; see \cite{ghrist2011applications}.
We have given a more concrete formulation, which may be easier to grasp, and is also convenient for computation.
\vspace{.1in}
Note that, although $z = \delta^0(c)$, it is not necessarily a coboundary in $C^{1}(\EuScript{U}, \FF_{\bar{C}_{1}})$, since $c$ is not a cochain in $C^{0}(\EuScript{U}, \FF_{\bar{C}_{1}})$, as $p_{C_i}(s_i) = s_i | C_1 \cap C_i \neq 0$. Thus in general, we need not have $[z] = 0$.
\begin{proposition}
\label{obstprop}
The following are equivalent:
\begin{enumerate}
\item The cohomology obstruction vanishes: $\gamma(s_1) = 0$.
\item There is a family $\{ r_i \in \mathcal{F}(C_i) \}$ with $s_1 = r_1$, and for all $i, j$:
\[ r_i | C_i \cap C_j = r_j | C_i \cap C_j . \]
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
The obstruction vanishes if and only if there is a cochain $c' = (c'_1, \ldots , c'_n) \in C^{0}(\EuScript{U}, \FF_{\bar{C}_{1}})$ with $\delta^{0}(c') = \delta^0(c)$, or equivalently $\delta^{0}(c - c') = 0$, \textit{i.e.}~ such that $c - c'$ is a cocycle.
By Proposition~\ref{compfamprop}, this is equivalent to $\{ r_i := s_i - c'_i \}$ forming a compatible family.
Moreover, $c' \in C^{0}(\EuScript{U}, \FF_{\bar{C}_{1}})$ implies $c'_1 = p_{C_1}(c'_1) = 0$, so $r_1 = s_1$.
For the converse, suppose we have a family $\{ r_i \in \mathcal{F}(C_i) \}$ as in (2).
We define $c' := (c'_1, \ldots , c'_n)$, where $c'_i := s_i - r_i$.
Since $r_1 = s_1$, $p_{C_i}(c'_i) = s_1 | C_{1,i} - r_1 | C_{1,i} = 0$ for all $i$, and $c' \in C^{0}(\EuScript{U},\FF_{\bar{C}_{1}})$.
We must show that $\delta^{0}(c') = z$, \textit{i.e.}~ that $z_{i,j} = c'_i| C_{i,j} - c'_j | C_{i,j}$. This holds since $r_i | C_{i,j} = r_j | C_{i,j}$.
\end{proof}
As an immediate application to contextuality, we have the following.
\begin{proposition}
If the model $e$ is possibilistically extendable, then the obstruction vanishes for every section in the support of the model. If $e$ is not strongly contextual, then the obstruction vanishes for some section in the support.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
If $e$ is possibilistically extendable, then for every $s \in S_e(C_i)$, there is a compatible family $\{ s_j \in S_e(C_j) \}$ with $s = s_i$. Applying the embedding of $S_e(C_j)$ into $\mathcal{F}(C_j)$, by Proposition~\ref{obstprop} we conclude that $\gamma(s) = 0$.
The same argument can be applied to a single section witnessing the failure of strong contextuality.
\end{proof}
Thus we have a \textit{sufficient condition} for contextuality in the non-vanishing of the obstruction.
The non-necessity of the condition arises from the possibility of `false positives': families $\{ r_i \in \mathcal{F}(C_i) \}$ which do not determine a \textit{bona fide} global section in $\mathcal{E}(X)$.
\section{Examples}
\subsection*{Example: Hardy}
We begin with an example to show that false positives do indeed arise.
We consider the Hardy model \cite{hardy1993nonlocality}; the support is given as follows.
\begin{center}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}
\begin{tabular}{l|cccc}
& $(0, 0)$ & $(0, 1)$ & $(1, 0)$ & $(1, 1)$ \\ \hline
$(a, b)$ & $1$ & $1$ & $1$ & $1$ \\
$(a, b')$ & $0$ & $1$ & $1$ & $1$ \\
$(a', b)$ & $0$ & $1$ & $1$ & $1$ \\
$(a', b')$ & $1$ & $1$ & $1$ & $0$ \\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\vspace{.2in}
\noindent We enumerate the sections as follows:
\begin{center}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}
\begin{tabular}{l||c|c|c|c|}
& $(0, 0)$ & $(0, 1)$ & $(1, 0)$ & $(1, 1)$ \\ \hline \hline
$(a, b)$ & $s_1$ & $s_2$ & $s_3$ & $s_4$ \\ \hline
$(a, b')$ & $s_5$ & $s_6$ & $s_7$ & $s_8$ \\ \hline
$(a', b)$ & $s_9$ & $s_{10}$ & $s_{11}$ & $s_{12}$ \\ \hline
$(a', b')$ & $s_{13}$ & $s_{14}$ & $s_{15}$ & $s_{16}$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
The section $s_1$ provides a witness for the non-locality of the Hardy model. It is not a member of any compatible family of sections in the support. However, we have the following family of $\mathbb{Z}$-linear combinations of sections:
\[ r_1 = s_1, \quad r_2 = s_6 + s_7 - s_8, \quad r_3 = s_{11}, \quad r_4 = s_{15} . \]
One can check that
{\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}\[
\begin{array}{lclcl}
r_2 | a & = & 1 \cdot (a \mapsto 0) + 1 \cdot (a \mapsto 1) - 1 \cdot (a \mapsto 1) & = & r_1 | a , \\
r_2 | b' & = & 1 \cdot (b' \mapsto 1) + 1 \cdot (b' \mapsto 0) - 1 \cdot (b' \mapsto 1) & = & r_4 | b' .
\end{array}
\]}
Thus this family meets the conditions of Proposition~\ref{obstprop}, and the obstruction $\gamma(s_1)$ vanishes.
\subsection*{Example: PR-Box}
There is better news when we look at the PR-box:
\begin{center}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}
\begin{tabular}{l|ccccc}
& $(0, 0)$ & $(0, 1)$ & $(1, 0)$ & $(1, 1)$ & \\ \hline
$(a, b)$ & $1$ & $0$ & $0$ & $1$ & \\
$(a, b')$ & $1$ & $0$ & $0$ & $1$ & \\
$(a', b)$ & $1$ & $0$ & $0$ & $1$ & \\
$(a', b')$ & $0$ & $1$ & $1$ & $0$ &
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
This is a strongly contextual model \cite{abramsky2011unified}, so no section in the support is a member of a compatible family.
The coefficients for a candidate family $\{ r_i \}$ can be displayed as follows:
\begin{center}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}
\begin{tabular}{l|ccccc}
& $00$ & $01$ & $10$ & $11$ & \\ \hline
$AB$ & $a$ & $0$ & $0$ & $b$ & \\
$AB'$ & $c$ & $0$ & $0$ & $d$ & \\
$A'B$ & $e$ & $0$ & $0$ & $f$ & \\
$A'B'$ & $0$ & $g$ & $h$ & $0$ &
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
The constraints arising from the requirements that $r_i | C_{i,j} = r_j | C_{i,j}$ are:
\[ a=c, \quad b=d, \quad a = e, \quad b = f, \quad c = h, \quad d = g, \quad e = g, \quad f = h . \]
These imply that all the variables are equal.
Checking that a section in the support is a member of such a family amounts to assigning $1$ to the variable labelling that section, and $0$ to the other variable in its row.
Clearly such an assignment is incompatible with the above constraints, since it implies $1 = 0$.
Hence there can be no such family, and the obstruction does not vanish for any section in the support, witnessing the strong contextuality of the PR box.
\subsection*{Example: GHZ}
The previous example suggests looking at GHZ, which is also strongly contextual, and of course is realizable in quantum mechanics.
The support for (the relevant part of) GHZ is as follows:
\begin{center}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}
\begin{tabular}{c|cccccccc}
& $000$ & $001$ & $010$ & $011$ & $100$ & $101$ & $110$ & $111$ \\ \hline
$ABC$ & $1$ & $0$ & $0$ & $1$ & $0$ & $1$ & $1$ & $0$ \\
$AB'C'$ & $0$ & $1$ & $1$ & $0$ & $1$ & $0$ & $0$ & $1$ \\
$A'BC'$ & $0$ & $1$ & $1$ & $0$ & $1$ & $0$ & $0$ & $1$ \\
$A'B'C$ & $0$ & $1$ & $1$ & $0$ & $1$ & $0$ & $0$ & $1$
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
We display the coefficients for a candidate family as follows:
\begin{center}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}
\begin{tabular}{c|cccccccc}
& $000$ & $001$ & $010$ & $011$ & $100$ & $101$ & $110$ & $111$ \\ \hline
$ABC$ & $a$ & $0$ & $0$ & $b$ & $0$ & $c$ & $d$ & $0$ \\
$AB'C'$ & $0$ & $e$ & $f$ & $0$ & $g$ & $0$ & $0$ & $h$ \\
$A'BC'$ & $0$ & $i$ & $j$ & $0$ & $k$ & $0$ & $0$ & $l$ \\
$A'B'C$ & $0$ & $m$ & $n$ & $0$ & $o$ & $0$ & $0$ & $p$
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
The constraints arising from the requirements that $r_i | C_{i,j} = r_j | C_{i,j}$ are:
{\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}
\begin{equation*}
\label{const2eq}
\begin{array}{lclclcl}
a + b & = & e + f & \quad & c + d & = & g + h \\
a + c & = & i + k & \quad & b + d & = & j + l \\
a + d & = & n + o & \quad & b + c & = & m + p \\
f + g & = & j + k & \quad & e + h & = & i + l \\
e + g & = & m + o & \quad & f + h & = & n + p \\
i + j & = & m + n & \quad & k + l & = & o + p \\
\end{array}
\end{equation*}}
Checking that a section in the support is a member of such a family amounts to assigning $1$ to the variable labelling that section, and $0$ to the other variables in its row.
It suffices to show that these constraints cannot be satisfied over the integers mod 2; this implies that they cannot be satisfied over $\mathbb{Z}$, since otherwise such a solution would descend via the homomorphism $\mathbb{Z} \rightarrow \mathbb{Z} / 2 \mathbb{Z}$.
Of course, this will also show that the cohomology obstruction does not vanish even if we use $\mathbb{Z} / 2 \mathbb{Z}$ as the coefficient group.
All cases for GHZ have been machine-checked in mod 2 arithmetic, and it has been confirmed that the cohomology obstruction witnesses the impossibility of extending any section in the support to all measurements; thus \textit{cohomology witnesses the strong contextuality of GHZ}.
\section{Kochen-Specker}\label{sec:ks}
We shall now examine covers that can be used for Kochen-Specker arguments. We shall show that the obstructions do not vanish in these cases, providing cohomological proofs of Kochen-Specker theorems.
We introduce a general notion of Kochen-Specker-type models. We consider two outcomes, $0$ and $1$.
For any $C \in \mathcal{U}$, we define $s_{C,m} \in \mathcal{E}(C)$ to be the
section that assigns $1$ to $m$ and $0$ to all other measurements in $C$.
In a Kochen-Specker problem, we wish to assign the outcome $1$ to a single measurement in each context.
Thus, the \textbf{Kochen-Specker support} for the cover $\EuScript{U}$ is the presheaf given by $S_e(C) = \{s_{C,m} \mid m \in C\}$.
\subsection*{Example: The Triangle}
We shall begin with the simplest Kochen-Specker scenario: the triangle. This has previously been discussed in \cite{abramsky2011unified}, and in a somewhat different context in \cite{Liang20111}. It cannot be realized in quantum mechanics, but it is useful to set the scene.
The triangle is the following cover on three measurements, $A$, $B$, $C$:
\[ \{ A, B \}, \quad \{ B, C \}, \quad \{ A, C \} . \]
We will be interested in the \textit{Kochen-Specker support}, which contains those sections with exactly one $1$ among the outcomes.
Thus we have the following table:
\begin{center}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}
\begin{tabular}{l|ccccc}
& $00$ & $01$ & $10$ & $11$ & \\ \hline
$AB$ & $0$ & $1$ & $1$ & $0$ & \\
$BC$ & $0$ & $1$ & $1$ & $0$ & \\
$CA$ & $0$ & $1$ & $1$ & $0$ & \\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
The content of the Kochen-Specker theorem is that there is no compatible family defining a global section within this support. The cohomological statement is that, for any choice of section $s$ in the support, the obstruction $\gamma(s)$ does not vanish.
We label the coefficients for a candidate family as follows:
\begin{center}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}
\begin{tabular}{l|ccccc}
& $00$ & $01$ & $10$ & $11$ & \\ \hline
$AB$ & $0$ & $a$ & $b$ & $0$ & \\
$BC$ & $0$ & $c$ & $d$ & $0$ & \\
$CA$ & $0$ & $e$ & $f$ & $0$ & \\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
The constraints on the coefficients for a compatible family are as follows:
\[ a = f, \quad b = e, \quad a = d, \quad b = c, \quad d = e, \quad c = f . \]
These equations imply that all the variables are equal.
Checking that a section in the support has a non-vanishing obstruction amounts to setting the variable labelling that section to $1$, and the other variables in its row to $0$.
Clearly there is no solution for any such assignment, which would imply that $1 = 0$.
\subsection*{Example: The 18-Vector Kochen-Specker Configuration}
We look at the 18-vector construction in $\mathbb{R}^4$ from \cite{cabello1996bell}.
This uses the following measurement cover, where the columns are the sets in the cover.
\begin{center}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline
$A$ & $A$ & $H$ & $H$ & $B$ & $I$ & $P$ & $P$ & $Q$ \\ \hline
$B$ & $E$ & $I$ & $K$ & $E$ & $K$ & $Q$ & $R$ & $R$ \\ \hline
$C$ & $F$ & $C$ & $G$ & $M$ & $N$ & $D$ & $F$ & $M$ \\ \hline
$D$ & $G$ & $J$ & $L$ & $N$ & $O$ & $J$ & $L$ & $O$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
We label the coefficients for a candidate family as follows:
\begin{center}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}
\begin{tabular}{l|cccc}
& $1000$ & $0100$ & $0010$ & $0001$ \\ \hline
$ABCD$ & $a$ & $b$ & $c$ & $d$ \\
$AEFG$ & $a$ & $e$ & $f$ & $g$ \\
$HICJ$ & $h$ & $i$ & $c$ & $j$ \\
$HKGL$ & $h$ & $k$ & $g$ & $l$ \\
$BEMN$ & $b$ & $e$ & $m$ & $n$ \\
$IKNO$ & $i$ & $k$ & $n$ & $o$ \\
$PQDJ$ & $p$ & $q$ & $d$ & $j$ \\
$PRFL$ & $p$ & $r$ & $f$ & $l$ \\
$QRMO$ & $q$ & $r$ & $m$ & $o$
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
Note that some of the constraints on the coefficients take the form of simple equations between variables, allowing us to reduce from 36 to 18 variables; we have used this reduction in the table.
The remaining constraints are expressed by the following equations.
{\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.5}\[
\begin{array}{lclclcl}
b + c + d & = & e + f + g & \qquad & a + b + d & = & h + i + j \\
a + c + d & = & e + m + n & \qquad & a + b + c & = & p + q + j \\
a + f + g & = & b + m + n & \qquad & a + e + f & = & h + k + l \\
a + e + g & = & p + r + l & \qquad & i + c + j & = & k + g + l \\
h + c + j & = & k + n + o & \qquad & h + i + c & = & p + q + d \\
h + g + l & = & i + n + o & \qquad & h + k + g & = & p + r + f \\
b + e + n & = & q + r + o & \qquad & b + e + m & = & i + k + o \\
i + k + n & = & q + r + m & \qquad & q + d + j & = & r + f + l \\
p + d + j & = & r + m + o & \qquad & p + f + l & = & q + m + o
\end{array}
\]}
Checking that a section in the support has a non-vanishing obstruction amounts to setting the variable labelling that section to $1$, and the other variables in its row to $0$.
If the equations have no solution for all such assignments, this shows that the cohomology witnesses the contextuality of the model.
This has been machine-checked for mod 2 arithmetic, confirming that we have a \textit{cohomological witness for the Kochen-Specker theorem}.
\subsection*{A Class of Kochen-Specker-type Models}
A necessary condition can be given for Kochen-Specker-type models to have a global section is given in \cite{abramsky2011unified}.
\begin{proposition}[\cite{abramsky2011unified}]
The existence of a global section implies that
\[\gcd\{d_m \mid m \in X\} \;\; \mid \;\; |\EuScript{U}| ,\]
where $d_m := |\{C \in \EuScript{U} \mid m \in C\}|$.
\end{proposition}
We shall refer to this as the \textsf{GCD}~ condition. All models that do not satisfy the \textsf{GCD}~ condition are therefore strongly contextual. Using a similar argument, we can show that the cohomology witnesses strong contextuality of any model in this class, as long as we assume a natural connectedness property. In fact, it witnesses strong contextuality of some connected models outside of this class, so it captures the property more finely than the \textsf{GCD}~ condition.
A model is said to be \textbf{connected} if, for any contexts $C, C' \in \EuScript{U}$, one can find a
a finite sequence of contexts $C_0 = C, C_1, C_2, \ldots, C_n, C_{n+1} = C'$ such that
$\forall \, i \in \{0, \ldots, n\}.\;\; C_i \cap C_{i+1} \neq \emptyset$.
\begin{proposition}
If $\gamma(s)$ vanishes for some section $s$ in the support of a connected Kochen-Specker-type model, then the \textsf{GCD}~ condition holds for that model.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Assume that $\gamma(s_0)=0$ for some section $s_0 \in S_e(C_0)$ in the support.
This means that there is a compatible family $\{r_C \in \mathcal{F}(C)\}_{C \in \EuScript{U}}$
of $\mathbb{Z}$-linear combinations of sections of $S_e$, with $r_{C_0} = s_0$.
Recall that the support of each context is $S_e(C) = \{s_{C,m} \mid m \in C\}$. Let $c_{C,m}$ denote the coefficient corresponding to section $s_{C,m}$ in the linear combination $r_C$.
If $m \in C \cap C'$ for contexts
$C = \{m, m_1, \ldots, m_r\}, C' = \{m, m_1', \ldots, m_s'\} \in \EuScript{U}$,
we get the following cohomology equations:
\[
c_{C,m} = c_{C',m} \qquad\qquad
c_{C,m_1} + \cdots + c_{C,m_r} = c_{C',m_1'} + \cdots + c_{C',m_s'}
\]
By using the equations of the first kind, we can identify all the coefficients
of the form $c_{m,C}$ for the same measurement $m$, in much the same way as we did for the 18-vector Kochen-Specker example. So, we can unambiguously denote these
coefficients by $c_m$ alone.
Summing the two equations above then gives
\[\sum_{x \in C} c_x = c_m + c_{m_1} + \cdots + c_{m_r} = c_m + c_{m_1'} + \cdots + c_{m_s'} = \sum_{x' \in C'} c_{x'}\]
This means that the sums of the coefficients of $r_C$ and $r_{C'}$ are the same.
By connectedness,
and since the sum is equal to $1$ for the context $C_0$ (where we take our starting section $s_0$),
the coefficients must sum to one in every context.
Hence, we have
\[|\EuScript{U}| = \sum_{C\in\EuScript{U}} 1 = \sum_{C\in\EuScript{U}} \; \sum_{m\in C} c_{m} = \sum_{m\in X}d_mc_m =
g \sum_{m\in X} \frac{d_m}{g}c_m\]
where $d_m := |\{C \in \EuScript{U} \mid m \in C\}|$ as before and $g := \gcd\{d_m \mid m \in X\}$.
Since $g$ divides ${d_m}$ for all $m$, we conclude that $g$ divides $|\EuScript{U}|$.
\end{proof}
\section{Example: The Peres-Mermin Square}
We now turn to an important example, the Peres-Mermin square \cite{peres1990incompatible,mermin1990simple}, which can be realized in quantum mechanics using two-qubit observables.
The structure of the square is as follows:
\begin{center}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.5}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
\hline
$A$ & $B$ & $C$ \\ \hline
$D$ & $E$ & $F$ \\ \hline
$G$ & $H$ & $I$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
The compatible families of measurements are the rows and columns of this table.
The problem in question differs from the usual Kochen-Specker type problems
in that we don't ask for exactly one $1$ at each maximal context. Instead, we ask
that each `row context' has an odd number of $1$s whereas each `column context'
has an even number $1$s.
Hence, the support table is the following.
Note that the first three lines correspond to the row contexts and the remaining
three to the column contexts.
\begin{center}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.5}
\begin{tabular}{l|cccccccc}
& $000$ & $001$ & $010$ & $011$ & $100$ & $101$ & $110$ & $111$ \\ \hline
$ABC$ & $0$ & $1$ & $1$ & $0$ & $1$ & $0$ & $0$ & $1$ \\
$DEF$ & $0$ & $1$ & $1$ & $0$ & $1$ & $0$ & $0$ & $1$ \\
$GHI$ & $0$ & $1$ & $1$ & $0$ & $1$ & $0$ & $0$ & $1$ \\
$ADG$ & $1$ & $0$ & $0$ & $1$ & $0$ & $1$ & $1$ & $0$ \\
$BEH$ & $1$ & $0$ & $0$ & $1$ & $0$ & $1$ & $1$ & $0$ \\
$CFI$ & $1$ & $0$ & $0$ & $1$ & $0$ & $1$ & $1$ & $0$ \\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
We display the coefficients for a candidate family as follows.
\def\overline{a}{\overline{a}}
\def\overline{b}{\overline{b}}
\def\overline{c}{\overline{c}}
\def\overline{t}{\overline{t}}
\begin{center}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.5}
\begin{tabular}{l|cccccccc}
& $000$ & $001$ & $010$ & $011$ & $100$ & $101$ & $110$ & $111$ \\ \hline
$ABC$ & $0$ & $c_1$ & $b_1$ & $0$ & $a_1$ & $0$ & $0$ & $t_1$ \\
$DEF$ & $0$ & $c_2$ & $b_2$ & $0$ & $a_2$ & $0$ & $0$ & $t_2$ \\
$GHI$ & $0$ & $c_3$ & $b_3$ & $0$ & $a_3$ & $0$ & $0$ & $t_3$ \\
$ADG$ &$\overline{t}_4$& $0$ & $0$ &$\overline{a}_4$& $0$ &$\overline{b}_4$&$\overline{c}_4$& $0$ \\
$BEH$ &$\overline{t}_5$& $0$ & $0$ &$\overline{a}_5$& $0$ &$\overline{b}_5$&$\overline{c}_5$& $0$ \\
$CFI$ &$\overline{t}_6$& $0$ & $0$ &$\overline{a}_6$& $0$ &$\overline{b}_6$&$\overline{c}_6$& $0$ \\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
The equations expressing the constraints are the following:
{\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.5}
\begin{equation*}
\label{new_pmeqs}
\begin{array}{lclclcl}
a_1 + t_1 &=& \overline{b}_4 + \overline{c}_4 & \quad & \overline{a}_4 + \overline{t}_4 &=& b_1 + c_1
\\
b_1 + t_1 &=& \overline{b}_5 + \overline{c}_5 & \quad & \overline{a}_5 + \overline{t}_5 &=& a_1 + c_1
\\
c_1 + t_1 &=& \overline{b}_6 + \overline{c}_6 & \quad & \overline{a}_6 + \overline{t}_6 &=& a_1 + b_1
\\
~\\
a_2 + t_2 &=& \overline{a}_4 + \overline{c}_4 & \quad & \overline{b}_4 + \overline{t}_4 &=& b_2 + c_2
\\
b_2 + t_2 &=& \overline{a}_5 + \overline{c}_5 & \quad & \overline{b}_5 + \overline{t}_5 &=& a_2 + c_2
\\
c_2 + t_2 &=& \overline{a}_6 + \overline{c}_6 & \quad & \overline{b}_6 + \overline{t}_6 &=& a_2 + b_2
\\
~\\
a_3 + t_3 &=& \overline{a}_4 + \overline{b}_4 & \quad & \overline{c}_4 + \overline{t}_4 &=& b_3 + c_3
\\
b_3 + t_3 &=& \overline{a}_5 + \overline{b}_5 & \quad & \overline{c}_5 + \overline{t}_5 &=& a_3 + c_3
\\
c_3 + t_3 &=& \overline{a}_6 + \overline{b}_6 & \quad & \overline{c}_6 + \overline{t}_6 &=& a_3 + b_3
\\
\end{array}
\end{equation*}}
We start by choosing a section $s$. We set its coefficient to $1$, and the coefficients of all other sections in the same context to $0$. Then a solution to the equations above would give a compatible family in $\mathcal{F}$ containing $s$, meaning that the cohomological obstruction vanishes.
It has been machine-checked using mod-2 arithmetic that
there is no solution to the system for any choice of starting section $s$.
\section{Limitations and Further Directions}
There are two immediate limitations to the results we have described:
\begin{itemize}
\item The cohomological condition for contextuality is sufficient, but not necessary.
It is interesting to note that the example where a false positive does arise here, namely the Hardy model, is non-local and hence contextual, but not \textit{strongly contextual}.
It has been possible to construct a strongly contextual model for which a false positive does arise. This is the Kochen-Specker model for the cover
\[ \{A,B,C\}, \{B,D,E\}, \{C,D,E\}, \{A,D,F\}, \{A,E,G\} \]
However, unlike our earlier examples, this model does not satisfy any reasonable criterion for symmetry, nor does it satisfy any strong form of connectedness.
In fact, the existence of measurements belonging to a single maximal context, namely $F$ and $G$,
seems to be crucial in this example. It is always possible to choose coefficients
for $s_{\{A,D,F\},F}$ and $s_{\{A,E,G\},G}$ (using the notation of section \ref{sec:ks}) that will make the coefficients of the respective contexts sum to one, without imposing constrains on the other contexts.
\begin{conjecture}
Under suitable assumptions of symmetry and connectedness, the cohomology obstruction is a complete invariant for strong contextuality.
\end{conjecture}
In \cite{vorobev}, Vorob'ev
characterised the covers (or to be more precise the simplicial complexes these generate)
for which any model is extendable; i.e. non-contextual.
These are exactly the complexes which can be reduced to an empty complex by removing certain extremal
maximal contexts. From the proof of this result, one can see that the non-extendability of a model would be already noticed
in its reduced version, which allows us to focus on witnessing non-contextuality for irreducible covers.
A necessary condition for a context to be extremal
is that it possesses measurements not belonging to any other maximal context. Even though the above example has no
extremal contexts, and thus is irreducible, it does have this weaker property.
\item Thus far, we have simply been computing the obstructions by brute force enumeration, so the results we have obtained can only be considered a proof of concept. What one would like is to use the machinery of homological algebra and exact sequences to obtain more conceptual and general results.
\end{itemize}
Overcoming these limitations is the main objective for future work. This may require refining the abelian presheaf $\mathcal{F}$ to yield a finer invariant.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
Support from EPSRC Senior Research Fellowship EP/E052819/1, the U.S. Office of Naval Research Grant Number N000141010357,
the Marie Curie Initial Training Network - MALOA - From MAthematical LOgic to Applications, PITN-GA-2009-238381, and the National University of Ireland Travelling Studentship Program is gratefully acknowledged.
\bibliographystyle{eptcs}
|
\section{Introduction}
One of the key challenges in quantum chaos is to understand how quantum eigenstates distribute in the semiclassical limit. In the present note we will discuss this problem for eigenfunctions of the Dirichlet Laplacian for rational polygons in the plane, with particular attention to the work of Bogomolny and Schmit on ``superscars'' \cite{Bogomolny Schmit}. The conclusion of the study presented here is that any such scarring may, for almost all eigenstates, {\em only} appear in momentum, but not in configuration space.
Let $D\subset{\mathbb R}^2$ be a bounded connected domain with piecewise smooth boundary. The Dirichlet Laplacian $\Delta_D$ is defined as the standard Laplacian acting on functions in ${\mathrm C}^2(D)$ that vanish at the boundary of $D$. The eigenvalues of the positive definite operator $-\Delta_D$ (which plays the role of the quantum Hamiltonian) will be denoted by $0<E_1<E_2\leq E_3\leq\cdots\to\infty$, and the corresponding eigenfunctions by $\psi_1$, $\psi_2$, $\psi_3$, etc. A striking result on the asymptotic distribution of eigenfunctions is the Schnirelman-Zelditch-Colin de Verdi\`ere quantum ergodicity theorem, which in the present setting is due to Zelditch and Zworski \cite{ZZ}: {\em If the billiard flow is ergodic in $S^* D$ (the unit cotangent bundle of $D$), then almost all eigenfunctions become uniformly distributed in $S^* D$.}
Hassell \cite{Hassell} has shown that for certain domains $D$ with ergodic flows there are subsequences of eigenfunctions which fail to become uniformly distributed. Thus the restriction to subsequences in the above quantum ergodicity theorem is in general necessary. We are not aware of examples of domains $D$ for which the full sequence of eigenfunctions becomes uniformly distributed.
In the present note we point out that uniform distribution of the eigenfunctions in configuration space (rather than the full phase space) holds for domains given by rational polygons. A rational polygon is a simple plane polygon (which means that its interior is connected and simply connected), so that all the vertex angles are rational multiples of $\pi$. Billiards in rational polygons give rise to dynamics that is neither integrable nor ergodic on $S^* D$ (except of course for the few integrable cases---rectangles, equilateral triangle, and right triangles with an acute vertex angle of either $\pi/3$ or $\pi/4$). The absence of ergodicity is due to the fact that, for any initial direction, the motion in $S^* D$ is to a higher genus flat surface. By exploiting the ergodic properties of directional flows on such surfaces, we can however show that quantum ergodicity still holds in configuration space:
\begin{theorem}\label{main}
Assume $D$ is a rational polygon. Let $\{\psi_n\}$ an orthonormal basis of eigenfunctions of the Dirichlet Laplacian on $D$. Then there is a density-one sequence $n_j \in{\mathbb N}$ such that for any subset $A\subset D$ with boundary of measure zero,
\begin{equation}\label{maineq}
\lim_{j\to\infty} \int_A |\psi_{n_j}(x)|^2 \,dx \\
= \frac{\operatorname{area}(A)}{\operatorname{area}(D)}.
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
Density-one means here that
\begin{equation}
\lim_{N\to\infty} \frac{\#\{ j : n_j\leq N \}}{N} =1 .
\end{equation}
The proof of Theorem \ref{main} follows Zelditch and Zworski's approach in \cite{ZZ}
until the last step, which is the only place where ergodicity of the billiard flow on $S^*D$ is used. Up to that point all arguments hold for any pseudo-differential operator of order zero. We then specialize to multiplication operators and appeal to the theorem of Kerckhoff, Masur and Smillie \cite{KMS} who showed that for rational polygons, almost all directional flows (see \S\ref{sec:polygons}) are uniquely ergodic. Details of the proof of Theorem \ref{main} are provided in \S\ref{secProof}.
The study of polygonal billiards in the context of quantum chaos goes back to Richens and Berry in \cite{Berry Richens}, who understood that the ``pseudo-integrable'' nature of the classical dynamics has an important effect on the quantum spectrum. The energy level statistics appear to be intermediate between those believed valid for generic chaotic and integrable systems, in that the level spacing distribution shows level repulsion at small distances and Poisson tails at large distances \cite{Berry Richens, Shimizu Shudo 93, Bogomolny Gerland Schmit 1999}. The quantum wave functions were investigated empirically, both numerically \cite{BU, Shimizu Shudo 95} and experimentally
using microwave cavities \cite{KS, DFMRSS}, finding ``strong
scarring" related to families of periodic orbits. Bogomolny and Schmit \cite{Bogomolny Schmit}
constructed long-lived states (quasimodes) associated to families of
periodic orbits, which they called ``superscars", and suggested that
a positive proportion of true eigenfunctions have large overlaps with such states at
high energies. Our Theorem~\ref{main} shows that this phenomenon cannot occur in configuration space for subsequences of density larger than zero.
A recent rigorous result that holds for {\em all} eigenfunctions is a bound by Hassell, Hillairet and Marzuola \cite{HHM} which establishes that eigenfunctions cannot localize their mass away from the polygon's vertices.
\subsection*{Remarks}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Theorem \ref{main} seems new even for the classical
integrable case of the square billiard.
In that case a proof based on harmonic analysis and simple
arithmetic considerations is also available. See \cite{Jakobson} for
information on the possible quantum limits of exceptional
subsequence of eigenfunctions.
\item We can relax the requirement in our theorem that the polygon $D$ is simple, i.e.,
that its interior is simply connected. (We still require that $D$ is connected.) Then the correct definition of a rational polygon is that the group
generated by the linear parts of the reflections in the sides of the
polygon is finite. This implies that all vertex angles are rational
multiples of $\pi$, and is equivalent to the definition in the simply-connected
case, but not necessarily in the multiply connected case.
\item Theorem \ref{main} also holds for the Neumann Laplacian of $D$, and more generally for the Laplacian of an arbitrary translation surface.
\item A result of the same nature was recently obtained in \cite{RU}, by
completely different methods, for a point scatterer on the torus. For this system, the classical dynamics is integrable, but the quantum problem is not.
\end{enumerate}
\section{Background on billiards in rational polygons}
\label{sec:polygons}
For billiards in a rational polygon $D$, the
phase space is the unit cotangent bundle $S^*D$, which is
a direct product
\begin{equation}
S^*D = D\times S^1 = \{(x,\omega={\mathrm{e}}^{2\pi{\mathrm{i}}\phi}): x\in D, \phi \in
{\mathbb R}/{\mathbb Z} \} .
\end{equation}
The normalized Liouville measure is defined as
\begin{equation}
d\mu(x,\omega) = \frac 1{\operatorname{area}(D)}\,dx\,d\phi .
\end{equation}
The billiard flow $\Phi^t$ is defined on $S^*D$ via specular reflection for all trajectories not hitting the vertices of the polygon $D$; the reflection law for trajectories that hit a vertex can be defined arbitrarily. (The latter trajectories form a set of measure zero and are ignored in the following discussion.) The measure $d\mu$ is invariant under the billiard flow.
Let $\Gamma$ be the group generated by the linear parts of the
reflections in the sides of the polygon $D$, which is a {\em
finite} group since our polygon is simple and all vertex angles are
rational multiples of $\pi$. For each direction $\theta$, the
set
\begin{equation}
D_\theta:=D\times \bigcup_{\gamma\in \Gamma}\{\gamma \theta\}
\end{equation}
is preserved by the flow; call this restriction $\Phi_\theta^t$ the
{\em directional flow}. Kerckhoff, Masur and Smillie showed
\cite{KMS} that for almost all $\theta$, the directional flow
$\Phi_\theta^t$ is uniquely ergodic.
Observables are (smooth) functions $a(x,\omega)$ on $S^*D$.
``Isotropic observables'' are observables which depend only on the
position variable $x$, that is are independent of the momentum
(direction):
\begin{equation}
a(x,\omega) = a_0(x) .
\end{equation}
The time average of an observable $a\in {\mathrm C}^\infty(S^*D)$ is
\begin{equation}
a^T(x,\omega) := \frac{1}{2T}\int_{-T}^T a\circ\Phi^t(x,\omega)dt.
\end{equation}
\begin{lemma}\label{dominated convergence}
Let $a(x,\omega)=a_0(x)$ be an isotropic observable. Then the time
averages satisfy
\begin{equation}\label{eq:dominated convergence}
\lim_{T\to \infty} \int_{S^*D} |a_T|^2 d\mu
= \left| \frac 1{\operatorname{area}(D)}\int_{D} a_0(x') dx' \right|^2 .
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
As a consequence of the Kerckhoff-Masur-Smillie theorem, there is a set of full Lebesgue measure $\Omega\subset S^1$, such that for all $(x,\omega)\in D\times\Omega$, the time
averages $a^T$ converge to the average of $a$ on $D_\omega$:
\begin{equation}
\lim_{T\to \infty} a^T(x,\omega) =\int_{D_\omega} a d\mu_\omega=
\frac 1{\#\Gamma}\sum_{\gamma\in \Gamma} \frac 1{\operatorname{area}(D)}\int_{D}
a(x',\gamma \omega)dx' .
\end{equation}
By the dominated convergence theorem we find that
\begin{equation}\label{using Kronecker}
\lim_{T\to \infty} \int_{S^*D} |a_T|^2 d\mu
= \int_{S^1} \left| \frac 1{\#\Gamma}\sum_{\gamma\in \Gamma} \frac
1{\operatorname{area}(D)} \int_{D} a(x',\gamma \omega) dx' \right|^2 d\omega .
\end{equation}
We conclude by noting that for isotropic observables, \eqref{using
Kronecker} reduces to \eqref{eq:dominated convergence}.
\end{proof}
\section{Proof of Theorem~\ref{main}\label{secProof}}
We assume throughout this section that $D$ is a rational polygon, and $\{\psi_n\}$ is a fixed orthonormal basis of eigenfunctions of the Dirichlet Laplacian on $D$.
By a standard density argument, Theorem \ref{main} is a direct consequence of the following variant for smooth isotropic observables $a(x,\omega) = a_0(x)$ with compact support in $D^\circ$ (the interior of $D$):
\begin{theorem}\label{main2}
There is a density-one sequence $n_j \in{\mathbb N}$ such that for any $a_0\in{\mathrm C}_c^\infty(D^\circ)$,
\begin{equation}\label{maineq2}
\lim_{j\to\infty} \int_D a_0(x) |\psi_{n_j}(x)|^2 \,dx \\
= \frac{1}{\operatorname{area}(D)}\int_{D} a_0(x)\, dx.
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
Let $A$ be a pseudo-differential operator of order zero with
principal symbol $a$. The quantum variance for $A$ relative to the
basis $\{\psi_n\}$ is defined as
\begin{equation}
V(A,E):=\frac 1{\#\{ E_n\leq E\}} \sum_{ E_n\leq E} \big|
\langle A\psi_n,\psi_n\rangle - \overline a \big|^2,
\end{equation}
with $\overline a := \int_{S^*D} a(x,\omega)\,d\mu(x,\omega) $ being the phase-space average of the observable
$a$.
We recall the local Weyl law in this context \cite[Lemma 4]{ZZ}:
\begin{equation}\label{local Weyl law}
\lim_{E\to \infty} \frac 1{\#\{E_n\leq E\}} \sum_{E_n\leq E} \langle
A\psi_n,\psi_n \rangle =\overline a .
\end{equation}
As explained in \cite{ZZ}, to prove Theorem~\ref{main2}, it suffices
to show
\begin{theorem}\label{main thm}
Let $A$ be the multiplication operator $Af(x)=a_0(x) f(x)$ with $a_0\in
{\mathrm C}^\infty_c(D^\circ)$. Then
\begin{equation}
\lim_{E\to \infty} V(A,E)=0 .
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We follow the proof of quantum ergodicity for billiards given in \cite{ZZ}.
(This elegant argument was first developed in \cite{Zelditch C^*}.) The key bound we require is
\begin{equation}\label{thebound}
\limsup_{E\to\infty} V(A,E) \leq \int_{S^*D} |a^T-\overline a|^2 d\mu
\end{equation}
for any $T>0$.
Eq.~\eqref{thebound} holds for any billiard with piecewise smooth boundary,
and any pseudo-differential operator $A$ whose Schwartz kernel is compactly supported in $D^\circ\times D^\circ$.
The proof of \eqref{thebound} follows directly from the estimates in \cite{ZZ}; we will summarize the main steps below.
Crucially, \eqref{thebound} does not require any assumptions on the ergodicity of the billiard flow.
We now specialize to $A$ whose principal symbol is an isotropic observable $a(x,\omega)=a_0(x)$,
and input the (unique) ergodicity of almost all the directional flows in the form of Lemma~\ref{dominated convergence}.
Thus, for any $\epsilon>0$, there exists $T=T_\epsilon>0$ so that $\int_{S^*D} |a^T-\overline a|^2 d\mu <\epsilon$
and therefore $\limsup_{E\to\infty} V(A,E)<\epsilon$. This proves Theorem~\ref{main thm}.
\end{proof}
{\em Outline of the proof of eq.~\eqref{thebound}}: Fix $T>0$. Let
$U_{\delta}\subset S^* D$ be the set of initial conditions that,
within the time interval $[-2T,2T]$, do not hit a
$\delta$-neighbourhood of the vertices of the polygon $D$. We
decompose $A=A_{\delta}+R_{\delta}$, where $A_{\delta}$ is chosen so
that (i) its symbol has essential support in $U_{\delta}$, and (ii)
the measure of the essential support of the symbol of $R_{\delta}$
tends to zero as $\delta\to 0$. The principal symbol of $A_{\delta}$
is denoted by $a_{\delta}$. Since $\psi_n$ is an eigenfunction of
$\Delta_D$ we have
\begin{equation}\label{holder}
\begin{split}
|\langle (A_{\delta}-\overline a_{\delta}) \psi_n,\psi_n\rangle|^2
& = |\langle \langle A_{\delta}-\overline a_{\delta}\rangle_T \psi_n,\psi_n\rangle|^2 \\
& \leq
\langle \langle A_{\delta}-\overline a_{\delta}\rangle_T\langle A_{\delta}-\overline a_{\delta}\rangle_T^*\psi_n,\psi_n\rangle ,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $\langle A_\delta \rangle_T := \frac{1}{2T} \int_{-T}^T
\exp({\mathrm{i}} t \sqrt{-\Delta_D}) A_\delta \exp(-{\mathrm{i}} t \sqrt{-\Delta_D})
dt$. Egorov's theorem \cite[Lemma 5]{ZZ} implies that the principal
symbol of $\langle A_\delta \rangle_T$ is $a_{\delta}^T$. This, in
conjunction with the local Weyl law \eqref{local Weyl law}
applied to
$\langle A_{\delta}-\overline a_{\delta}\rangle_T\langle
A_{\delta}-\overline a_{\delta}\rangle_T^*$, proves
eq.~\eqref{thebound} for the truncated $A_{\delta}$. The result is
extended to the original $A$ by showing that both sides of the
inequality are obtained as the $\delta\to 0$ limit of the truncated
version. The central ingredient in the required estimates is again
the local Weyl law; see \cite{ZZ} for details.
|
\section{Introduction}
It is known that a charged particle interacts with the field, the source
of which is this particle. In flat space-time the effect
is determined by the derivative of acceleration of the charge \cite{Dirac:1938}.
The origin of self-interaction in curved space-times is associated
with the nonlocal structure of the field.
In static curved space-times and space-times with nontrivial topology the self-force
can be nonzero even for the charge at rest (here and below the words ''at rest''
mean that the velocity of charge is collinear to the timelike Killing vector
which always exists in a static space-time). The formal expression for
the electromagnetic self-force in an arbitrary curved space-time has been derived
by DeWitt and Brehme \cite{DeWBre60} and a correction was later provided
by Hobbs \cite{Hobbs:1968}. Mino, Sasaki, and Tanaka \cite{MST:1997} and independently
Quinn and Wald \cite{Quinn:1997} obtained a similar expression for the gravitational
self-force on a point mass. The self-force on a charge interacting
with a massless minimally coupled scalar field was considered by Quinn
\cite{Quinn:2000}. A discussion of the self-force in detail may be found in reviews
\cite{Poi04,Detw05,Khu05}.
Calculating the self-force one must evaluate the field that the point charge induces
at the position of the charge. This field diverges and must be renormalized.
There are different methods of such type of renormalization. Some of them are
reviewed in \cite{Hikida:2005,Barack:2009}. Note also the zeta function method
\cite{Lousto:2000} and the ''massive field approach'' for the calculation of the self-force
\cite{1Roth:2004,2Roth:2004}. In the ultrastatic space-times the renormalization
of the field of static charge can be realized by the subtraction of the first
terms from DeWitt-Schwinger asymptotic expansion of a three-dimensional
Euclidean Green's function \cite{Khus07,Kra08,BezKhu09,Popov:2010}.
In this paper a similar approach expands to the case of static space-times.
In the framework of the suggested procedure one subtracts some
terms of expansion of the corresponding Green's function of a massive scalar
field with arbitrary coupling to the scalar curvature from
the divergent expression obtained. The quantities of
terms to be subtracted are defined by a simple rule -- they no longer
vanish as the field's mass goes to infinity.
Such an approach is similar to renormalization introduced in the context
of the quantum field theory in curved space-time \cite{DW,Chr:1978}.
The Bunch and Parker method \cite{BP:1979} is used for
expansion of the corresponding Green's function of a scalar field.
The organization of this paper is as follows. In Sec.
\ref{Sec:Renormalization}, we expand the potential of a scalar point
charge as two points (in 3D space) function in powers of distance
between these points and determine the procedure of renormalization.
In Sec. \ref{Sec:BlackHole} we calculate the renormalized self-potential
of the scalar point charge in Schwarzschild space-time, as an example of
the presented method.
We discuss the results in Sec.
\ref{Sec:Conclusion}. Our conventions are those of Misner, Thorne,
and Wheeler \cite{MTW:73}. Throughout this paper, we use units $c =
G = 1$.
\section{Renormalization}\label{Sec:Renormalization}
Let us consider an equation for the scalar massive field with source
\begin{equation} \label{meq}
{\phi_m}^{;\mu}_{;\mu} - \left(m^2+\xi R \right) \phi_m = -J = -4\pi q \int
\delta^{(4)}(x-x_0(\tau)) \frac{d\tau}{ \sqrt{-g^{(4)}}},
\end{equation}
where $\xi$ is a coupling of the scalar field with mass $m$ to the scalar
curvature $R$, $g^{(4)}$ is the determinant of the metric
$g_{\mu \nu}$, $q$ is the scalar charge and $\tau$ is its proper time.
The world line of the charge is given by ${x_0^\mu} (\tau)$.
The metric of static space-time can be presented as follows:
\begin{equation} \label{metric}
ds^2= -g_{tt}(x^i)d t^2+g_{j k}(x^i)d x^j d x^k,
\end{equation}
where $i, j, k = 1, 2, 3$. This means that one can write the field
equation in the following way:
\begin{eqnarray} \label{beq0}
\frac{1}{\sqrt{g_{tt}}\sqrt{g^{(3)}}} \frac{\partial}{\partial x^j}
\left( \sqrt{g_{tt}}\sqrt{g^{(3)}} g^{j k} \frac{\partial
\phi_m(x^i; x_0^i)}{\partial x^k} \right)
-\left(m^2+\xi R(x)\frac{}{} \right) \phi_m(x^i; x_0^i) \nonumber \\
=-\frac{4 \pi q \delta^{(3)}(x^i, x_0^i)}{\sqrt{g^{(3)}}},
\end{eqnarray}
where $m$ is the mass of the scalar field,
$g^{(3)}=\det g_{i j}$ and we take into account that $d\tau/dt=\sqrt{g_{tt}}$
for the particle at rest.
In the case
\begin{equation}
m \gg 1 / L,
\end{equation}
where $L$ is the characteristic curvature scale of the background geometry,
it is possible to construct the iterative procedure of the solution of
Eq. (\ref{beq0}) with small parameter $1/(m L)$ \cite{DW,Chr:1978,BP:1979}.
This expansion can be used in the regularization procedure of Rosenthal \cite{1Roth:2004}
\begin{equation}\label{Rosenthal}
f_\mu^{self}(x_0)=q\lim_{m \rightarrow \infty}\left\{
\lim_{\delta \rightarrow 0} \frac{\displaystyle
\partial \left( \frac{}{} \phi(x;x_0)-\phi_m(x;x_0)\right)}{\partial x^\mu}+
\frac{q m^2 n_\mu(x_0)}{2}+\frac{q m a_\mu(x_0)}{2}\right\},
\end{equation}
because this procedure demands the calculation of the expansion of $\phi_m(x;x_0)$ in terms
of $x^\mu-x^\mu_0$ and $1/m$ accurate to order
$O\left( \frac{}{} (x-x_0)^2 \right)+O\left( 1/m \right)$ only.
In the expression (\ref{Rosenthal}) $\phi(x;x_0)$ is the massless
field induced by scalar charge $q$, and $x$ is a point near the charge's
world line $x_0(\tau)$, defined as follows.
At $x_0$ we construct a unit spatial vector $n^\mu$,
which is perpendicular to the object's world line but is otherwise
arbitrary (i.e. at $x_0$ we have $n^\mu n_\mu=1$ , $n^\mu
u_\mu=0$). In the direction of this vector we construct a
geodesic, which extends out an invariant length $\delta$ to the
point $x(x_0,n^\mu,\delta)$; throughout this paper $u^\mu$
and $a^\mu$ denote the object's four-velocity and four-acceleration,
at $x_0$, respectively.
To construct the expansion of $\phi_m(x;x_0)$,
let us consider the equation for the three-dimensional
Green's function $G_{\mbox{\tiny E}}(x^{i}, x_0^i)$
\begin{eqnarray} \label{beq}
\frac{1}{\sqrt{g^{(3)}}} \frac{\partial}{\partial x^j}
\left( \sqrt{g^{(3)}} g^{j k} \frac{\partial
G_{\mbox{\tiny E}}(x^{i},x_0^i)}{\partial x^k} \right)
+\frac{g^{j k}}{2 g_{tt}}\frac{\partial g_{tt} }{\partial x^j}
\frac{\partial G_{\mbox{\tiny E}}
(x^{i},x_0^i)}{\partial x^k} \nonumber \\
-\left(m^2+\xi R(x) \frac{}{} \right) G_{\mbox{\tiny E}}(x^{i},x_0^i)
=-\frac{\delta^{(3)}(x^{i}, x_0^i)}{\sqrt{g^{(3)}}}
\end{eqnarray}
and introduce the Riemann normal coordinates $y^i$ in 3D space with
origin at the point $x_0^i$ \cite{Pet}. In these coordinates
one has
\begin{equation}
g_{i j}(y^i)=\delta_{i j}
-\frac13 { \widetilde R_{i k j l}}|_{y=0}\, y^k y^l+ O\left(\frac{y^3}{L^3}\right),
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
g^{i j}(y^i)=\delta^{i j}
+\frac13 {\widetilde R^{i \ j}_{\ k \ l}}|_{y=0}
\, y^k y^l+ O\left(\frac{y^3}{L^3}\right),
\end{equation}
\begin{equation} \label{exg}
g^{(3)}(y^i)=1-\frac13 {\widetilde R_{i j}}|_{y=0} y^i y^j
+ O\left(\frac{y^3}{L^3}\right),
\end{equation}
where the coefficients here and below are evaluated at $y^i=0$
(i.e. at the point $x_0^i$), and $\delta_{i j}$ denotes the metric
of a flat three-dimensional Euclidean space-time. $\widetilde
R_{i k j l}$ and $\widetilde R_{i j}$ denote the components of Riemann
and Ricci tensors of the three-dimensional space-time with metric
$g_{i j}$
\begin{equation} \label{R}
R_{i j}=\widetilde R_{i j}-\frac{{g_{tt}}_{,i; j}}{2g_{tt}}
+\frac{{g_{tt}}_{,i} \, {g_{tt}}_{,j}}{4{g_{tt}}^2},
R=\widetilde R-\frac{{{g_{tt}}_{,i}}^{;i}}{{g_{tt}}}
+\frac{{g_{tt}}_{,i} \, {g_{tt}}^{,i}}{2{g_{tt}}^2},
\end{equation}
where ${g_{t t}}_{,{i}}$ denotes the covariant derivative of a
scalar function $g_{t t} (y^j)$ with respect to $y^i$ in 3D space with metric $g_{i j}(y^k)$
(${g_{t t}}_{,{i} ;{j}}$ is the covariant derivative of a vector ${g_{t t}}_{,{i}}$ at point
$y^k=0$ in 3D space, which coincides with the partial derivative as $\Gamma^k_{i j}=0$ at $y^k=0$
in the Riemann normal coordinates).
All indices are raised and lowered with $\delta _{i j}$.
Defining $\overline{G} (y^i)$ by
\begin{equation} \label{Gw}
\overline G(y^i)=\sqrt{g^{(3)}} G_{\mbox{\tiny E}}(y^i)
\end{equation}
and retaining in (\ref{beq}) only the terms with coefficients involving
two derivatives of the metric or fewer one finds that
$\overline G(y^i)$ satisfies the equation
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\delta^{i j}\frac{\partial^2 \overline G}{\partial y^i \partial y^j}
-m^2 \overline G +\delta^{i j} \frac{{g_{tt}}_{,i}}{2 {g_{tt}}}
\frac{\partial \overline G}{\partial y^j}
+\delta^{i j}\left(\frac{{g_{tt}}_{,i k}}{2 {g_{tt}}}
-\frac{{g_{tt}}_{,i} \, {g_{tt}}_{,k}}{2 {g_{tt}}^2}
\right)y^k \frac{\partial \overline G}{\partial y^j}
\nonumber \\ &&
+{{ { {\widetilde R \,} ^i}_{k}}^{j}}_{l} \, \frac{y^k y^l}{3}
\frac{\partial^2 \overline G}{\partial y^i \partial y^j}
+\left(\frac{\widetilde R}{3}-\xi R \right)
\overline G = -\delta^{(3)}(y).
\end{eqnarray}
Let us present
\begin{equation} \label{Gy}
\overline G(y^i)=\overline G_0(y^i) + \overline
G_1(y^i) + \overline G_2(y^i)+\dots,
\end{equation}
where $\overline G_a(y^i)$ has a geometrical coefficient
involving $a$ derivatives of the metric at point $y^i=0$. Then
these functions satisfy the equations
\begin{equation}
\delta^{i j}\frac{\partial^2 \overline G_0}
{\partial y^i \partial y^j}-m^2 \overline
G_0=-\delta^{(3)}(y),
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\delta^{i j}\frac{\partial^2 \overline G_1}
{\partial y^i \partial y^j}-m^2 \overline G_1
+\delta^{i j}\frac{{g_{tt}}_{,i}}{2{g_{tt}}}\frac{\partial \overline G_0}
{\partial y^j}=0,
\end{equation}
\begin{eqnarray} \label{G2}
&&\delta^{i j}\frac{\partial^2 \overline G_2}
{\partial y^i \partial y^j}-m^2 \overline G_2
+\delta^{i j} \frac{{g_{tt}}_{,i}}{2 {g_{tt}}}
\frac{\partial \overline G_1}{\partial y^j}
+\delta^{i j}\left(\frac{{g_{tt}}_{,i k}}{2 {g_{tt}}}
-\frac{{g_{tt}}_{,i} \, {g_{tt}}_{,k}}{2 {g_{tt}}^2}
\right)y^k \frac{\partial \overline G_0}{\partial y^j}
\nonumber \\ &&
+{{ { {{\widetilde R \,} ^i}}_{k}}^{j}}_{l} \, \frac{y^k y^l}{3}
\frac{\partial^2\overline G_0}{\partial y^i \partial y^j}
+\left(\frac{\widetilde R}{3}-\xi R \right)\overline G_0=0.
\end{eqnarray}
The function $\overline G_0(y^i)$ satisfies the condition
\begin{equation}
{{ { {{\widetilde R \,} ^i}}_{k}}^{j}}_{l} \, y^k y^l \frac{\partial^2
\overline G_0}{\partial y^i \partial y^j} -
{\widetilde R \,} ^i_{j} y^j \frac{\partial \overline G_0}
{\partial y^i}=0,
\end{equation}
since $\overline G_0(y^i)$ can be the function only of $\delta_{i j} y^i y^j$.
Therefore Eq. (\ref{G2}) may be rewritten
\begin{eqnarray} \label{G2n}
\delta^{i j}\frac{\partial^2 \overline G_2(y^i)}
{\partial y^i \partial y^j}-m^2 \overline G_2(y^i)
+\delta^{i j} \frac{{g_{tt}}_{,i}}{2 {g_{tt}}}
\frac{\partial \overline G_1}{\partial y^j}
+\left[\frac13 {\widetilde R}^i_{k}+
\delta^{i j}\left(\frac{{g_{tt}}_{,j k}}{2 {g_{tt}}}
-\frac{{g_{tt}}_{,j }{g_{tt}}_{,k}}{2 {g_{tt}}^2}
\right) \right] \, y^k
\frac{\partial \overline G_0}{\partial y^i }
+\left(\frac{\widetilde R}{3} -\xi R\right)\overline G_0=0.
\end{eqnarray}
Let us introduce the local momentum space associated with the
point $y^i=0$ by making the 3-dimensional Fourier transformation
\begin{equation} \label{ms}
\overline G_a(y^i)= \int \!\!\!\!\int \limits_{-\infty}
^{+\infty}\!\!\!\!\int \frac{dk_1 dk_2 dk_3}{(2 \pi)^3}
\exp({i k_i y^i}) \overline G_a(k^i).
\end{equation}
It is not difficult to see that
\begin{equation} \label{G0k}
\overline G_0(k^i)=\frac{1}{k^2+m^2},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation} \label{G1k}
\overline G_1(k^i)=i\frac{\delta^{i j}{g_{tt}}_{,i}k_j}{2{g_{tt}}(k^2+m^2)^2},
\end{equation}
where $k^2=\delta^{i j}k_i k_j$. In momentum space Eq.(\ref{G2n}) gives
\begin{equation}
-(k^2+m^2)\overline G_2(k^i)
+i\frac{\delta^{i j}{g_{tt}}_{,i}k_j}{2{g_{tt}}}\overline G_1(k^i)
+\left[ik_i\left(\frac{{\widetilde R}^i_{k}}{3} +
\delta^{i j}\frac{{g_{tt}}_{,j k}}{2 {g_{tt}}}
-\delta^{i j}\frac{{g_{tt}}_{,j} \, {g_{tt}}_{, k}}{2 {g_{tt}}^2}
\right) \, y^k +\left( \frac{\widetilde R}{3}-\xi R \right) \right]
\overline G_0(k^i)=0.
\end{equation}
Hence
\begin{equation} \label{G2k}
\overline G_2(k^i)=
\frac{\displaystyle -\frac{ \delta^{i j}{g_{tt}}_{,i j}}{2 {g_{tt}}}
+\frac{\delta^{i j}{g_{tt}}_{,i} \, {g_{tt}}_{,j}}{2 {g_{tt}}^2}-\xi R}{(k^2+m^2)^2}
+\frac{\displaystyle k_i k_j \delta^{i k} \delta^{j l}
\left( \frac23 {\widetilde R}_{j \, l}
+ \frac{ {g_{tt}}_{,j \, l}}{{g_{tt}}}
-\frac{5{g_{tt}}_{,j} \, {g_{tt}}_{,l}}{4 {g_{tt}}^2}\right)}{(k^2+m^2)^3}.
\end{equation}
Substituting (\ref{ms}), (\ref{G0k}), (\ref{G1k}), (\ref{G2k}) in (\ref{Gy})
and integrating leads to
\begin{eqnarray}
\overline G_0(y^i) + \overline G_1(y^i) + \overline G_2(y^i)&=&
\frac{\exp (-m y)}{8 \pi } \left[\frac2y-\frac{{g_{tt}}_{,i}}{2{g_{tt}}} \frac{y^i}{y}
+\frac{1}{m}\left( -\frac{\delta^{i j}{g_{tt}}_{,i j}}{4 {g_{tt}}}
+\frac{3\delta^{i j}{g_{tt}}_{,i} \, {g_{tt}}_{,j}}{16 {g_{tt}}^2}-\xi R
+\frac{\widetilde R}{6} \right)
\right. \nonumber \\ && \left.
+\left( -\frac{{g_{tt}}_{,i j}}{4 {g_{tt}}}+\frac{5{g_{tt}}_{,i} \, {g_{tt}}_{,j}}{16 {g_{tt}}^2}
-\frac{{\widetilde R}_{i j}}{6} \right) \frac{y^i y^j}{ y}\right],
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{equation}
y=\sqrt{\delta_{i j}y^i y^j}.
\end{equation}
Using the definition of $\overline G(y^i)$ (\ref{Gw}), expansion (\ref{exg}),
and expressions (\ref{R}) one finds
\begin{eqnarray} \label{Gwy}
G_{\mbox{\tiny E}}(y^i)&=&\left[1+\frac16 R_{i j}y^i y^j
+O\left(\frac{y^3}{L^3}\right)\right]\overline G(y^i)
\nonumber \\ &=&
\frac{\exp (-m y)}{8 \pi } \left[\frac2y-\frac{{g_{tt}}_{,i}}{2{g_{tt}}} \frac{y^i}{y}
+\frac{1}{m}\left( -\frac{\delta^{i j}{g_{tt}}_{,ij}}{4 {g_{tt}}}
+\frac{3\delta^{i j}{g_{tt}}_{,i} \, {g_{tt}}_{,j}}{16 {g_{tt}}^2}-\xi R
+\frac{{\widetilde R}}{6} \right)
\right. \nonumber \\ && \left.
+\left( -\frac{{g_{tt}}_{,ij}}{4 {g_{tt}}}+\frac{5{g_{tt}}_{,i} \, {g_{tt}}_{,j}}{16 {g_{tt}}^2}
+\frac{{\widetilde R}_{i j}}{6} \right) \frac{y^i y^j}{ y}
+O\left(\frac{1}{m^2 L^3}\right)+O\left(\frac{y}{m L^3}\right)
+O\left(\frac{y^2}{L^3}\right)\right]
\nonumber \\ &=&
\frac{1}{8 \pi } \left\{\frac2y-\frac{{g_{tt}}_{,i}}{2{g_{tt}}}\frac{y^i}{y}-2m
+\frac{1}{m}\left[ -\frac{\delta^{i j}{g_{tt}}_{,i j}}{12 {g_{tt}}}
+\frac{5\delta^{i j}{g_{tt}}_{,i} \, {g_{tt}}_{,j}}{48 {g_{tt}}^2}-\left(\xi -\frac16 \right) R \right]
\right. \nonumber \\ && \left.
+m\frac{{g_{tt}}_{,i} \, y^i}{2{g_{tt}} }+m^2 y
+\left[ \frac{\delta^{i j}{g_{tt}}_{,i j}}{12 {g_{tt}}}
-\frac{5\delta^{i j}{g_{tt}}_{,i} \, {g_{tt}}_{,j}}{48 {g_{tt}}^2}+\left(\xi -\frac16 \right) R \right]y
\right. \nonumber \\ && \left.
+\left( -\frac{{g_{tt}}_{,i j}}{6 {g_{tt}}}+\frac{13{g_{tt}}_{,i} \, {g_{tt}}_{,j}}{48 {g_{tt}}^2}
+\frac{R_{i j}}{6} \right) \frac{y^i y^j}{ y}
\right. \nonumber \\ && \left.
+O\left(\frac{1}{m^2 L^3}\right)+O\left(\frac{y}{m L^3}\right)
+O\left(\frac{y^2}{L^3}\right) +O\left(\frac{m y^3}{L^3}\right)
+O\left(m^3 y^2\right)\right\}.
\end{eqnarray}
In the arbitrary coordinates of 3D space
\begin{equation}
y^i \rightarrow u^{i}(x_0) \Delta s \equiv -\sigma^{i},
\end{equation}
where $u^{i}(x_0)$ is the unit tangent vector to the shortest geodesic connecting
points $x_0$ and $x$ which is calculated at points $x_0$ and directed from $x_0$
to $x$, $\Delta s$ is the distance between these points along the considered
geodesic. Therefore
\begin{eqnarray} \label{Gwsigma}
G_{\mbox{\tiny E}}(x^i; x_0^i)
&=&
\frac{1}{8 \pi } \left\{\frac{2}{\sqrt{2 \sigma}}
+\frac{{{g}_{t t}}_{,{i}}\sigma^{{i}}}
{2{{g}_{t t}} \sqrt{2 \sigma}}-2m
+\frac{1}{m}\left[ -\frac{{{{g}_{t t}}_{,{i}}}^{;{i}}}
{12 {{g}_{t t}}}
+\frac{5{{g}_{t t}}_{,{i}}{{g}_{t t}}^{,{i}}}
{48 {{g}_{t t}}^2}
-\left(\xi -\frac16 \right) R(x_0) \right]
\right. \nonumber \\ && \left.
-m \frac{{{g}_{t t}}_{,{i}}\sigma^{{i}}}{2{{g}_{t t}} }
+m^2 \sqrt{2 \sigma}
+\left[ \frac{{{{g}_{t t}}_{,{i}}}^{;{i}}}
{12 {{g}_{t t}}}
-\frac{5{{g}_{t t}}_{,{i}} \, {{g}_{t t}}^{,{i}}}
{48 {{g}_{t t}}^2}
+\left(\xi -\frac16 \right) R(x_0) \right]\sqrt{2 \sigma}
\right. \nonumber \\ && \left.
+\left( -\frac{{{g}_{t t}}_{,{i} ;{j}}}{6 {{g}_{t t}}}
+\frac{13{{g}_{t t}}_{,{i}} \,
{{g}_{t t}}_{,{j}}}{48 {{g}_{t t}}^2}
+\frac{{R}_{{i} {j}}(x_0)}{6} \right)
\frac{\sigma^{{i}} \sigma^{{j}}}{ \sqrt{2 \sigma}}
\right. \nonumber \\ && \left.
+O\left(\frac{1}{m^2 L^3}\right)+O\left(\frac{\sqrt{\sigma}}{m L^3}\right)
+O\left(\frac{\sigma}{L^3}\right) +O\left(\frac{m \sigma^{3/2}}{L^3}\right)
+O\left(m^2 \sigma \right) \right\},
\end{eqnarray}
where ${g_{t t}}_{,{i}}$ denotes the covariant derivative of a
scalar function $g_{t t} (x_0)$ with respect to $x_0^i$ in 3D space with metric $g_{i j}(x_0)$
(${g_{t t}}_{,{i} ;{j}}$ is the covariant derivative of a vector ${g_{t t}}_{,{i}}$ at point
$x_0$ in 3D space),
\begin{equation}
\sigma= \frac{g_{i j }(x_0)}{2} {\sigma^i} {\sigma^j}
\end{equation}
is one-half the square of the distance
between the points $x_0^i$ and $x^i$ along the shortest geodesic connecting them, and
(see, e.g., \cite{Synge:1960,Popov:2007})
\begin{eqnarray}
{\sigma^i}&=&-\left(x^i-x_0^i\right)
-\frac12 \Gamma^{i}_{{j}{k}}\left(x^j-{x_0^j}\right)\left(x^k-{x_0^k}\right)
\nonumber \\ &&
-\frac16 \left( \Gamma^{i}_{{j}{m}} \Gamma^{m}_{{k}{l}}
+\frac{\partial \Gamma^{i}_{{j}{k}}}{\partial {x_0^l}}\right)
\left(x^j-{x_0^j}\right)\left(x^k-{x_0^k}\right)\left(x^l-{x_0^l}\right)
+O\left(\left(x-{x_0}\right)^4\right),
\end{eqnarray}
where the Christoffel symbols $\Gamma^{i}_{{j}{k}}$ are calculated at the point $x_0$.
Now we can use the expansion of
\begin{equation}
\phi_m(x^i; x_0^i)=4 \pi q G_{\mbox{\tiny E}}(x^i; x_0^i)
\end{equation}
in the regularization procedure (\ref{Rosenthal}). But if we take the limits before
the partial differentiation in (\ref{Rosenthal}), then the last two terms do not appear
in the expression for $f_\mu^{self}(x_0)$. And in the considered case of a charge at rest
in a static space-time we can renormalize the self-potential as
\begin{equation} \label{ren}
\phi_{ren}(x)=\lim_{x_0 \rightarrow x}\left( \phi(x; x_0)
-\phi_{\mbox{\tiny DS}}(x; x_0) \right),
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation} \label{phiDS}
\phi_{\mbox{\tiny DS}}(x^i; x_0^i)=
q \left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \sigma}}
+\frac{\partial g_{t t}(x_0)}{ \partial x^i_0}
\frac{\sigma^{{i}}}{4g_{t t}(x_0)\sqrt{2 \sigma}}-m
\right),
\end{equation}
and $\phi(x; x_0)$ is the solution of (\ref{meq}) in the case of arbitrary
mass $m$ (even $m=0$).
Finally the self-force acting on a static scalar charge is
\begin{equation} \label{sf}
f_\mu^{self}(x)=-\frac{q}{2}\frac{\partial \phi_{ren}(x)}{\partial x^\mu}.
\end{equation}
\section{The Schwarzschild space-time}\label{Sec:BlackHole}
Let us verify the above scheme for the well-known case of a black hole space-time
\cite{Lin77, Wise:2000}
\begin{equation}
ds^2 = - f(r) dt^2 + \frac{dr^2}{f(r)} + r^2 (d\theta^2 + \sin^2\theta d\varphi^2),
\quad f(r)=\left(1 - \frac{2M}r\right).
\end{equation}
In the case $x^i-x_0^i=\delta^i_r (r-r_0)$
\begin{eqnarray}
\sigma^{r}&=&-(r-r_0)+\frac{1}{4 f(r_0) }\frac{d f(r_0)}{dr_0} (r-r_0)^2
\nonumber \\ &&
-\frac16 \left( \frac{3}{4 f(r_0)^2} \left( \frac{d f(r_0)}{dr_0} \right)^2
-\frac{\qquad d^2 f(r_0)}{2 f(r_0) dr_0^2}\right)(r-r_0)^3
+O\left( \frac{(r-r_0)^4}{L^3} \right),
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
\sigma&=&\frac{(r-r_0)^2}{2 f(r_0)}\left[1-\frac{\qquad d f(r_0)}{2 f(r_0) dr_0} (r-r_0)
\right. \nonumber \\ && \left.
+\left( \frac{5}{16 f(r_0)^2} \left( \frac{d f(r_0)}{dr_0} \right)^2
-\frac{\qquad d^2 f(r_0)}{6 f(r_0) dr_0^2} \right)(r-r_0)^2\right]
+O\left( \frac{(r-r_0)^5}{L^3} \right),
\end{eqnarray}
and the expansion of $\phi(r; r_0)$ for the massive field ($mL \gg 1$) is
\begin{eqnarray} \label{phiS}
\phi_m(r; r_0)&=&4\pi q G_{\mbox{\tiny E}}(r; r_0)
=\frac{\displaystyle q \sqrt{1- \frac{\displaystyle 2M}{\displaystyle r_0}} }{|r-r_0|} -q m
+\frac{q}{2} \left( -\frac{M}{\displaystyle 3 {r_0}^3 \sqrt{1-\frac{2M}{r_0}}}
\right. \nonumber \\ && \left.
+\frac{m M}{\displaystyle {r_0}^2 \left(1-\frac{2M}{r_0}\right)}
+\frac{m^2}{\displaystyle \sqrt{1-\frac{2M}{r_0}}}
\right)(r-r_0)+O\left( \frac{q}{mL^2} \right)+O\left( \frac{q(r-r_0)}{mL^3} \right)
\nonumber \\ &&
+O\left(\frac{q(r-r_0)^2}{L^3} \right)+O\left(q m^2(r-r_0)^2 \right)
+O\left(\frac{q m(r-r_0)^3}{L^3} \right).
\end{eqnarray}
Therefore the renormalized counterterm for the massless field is
\begin{equation} \label{phish}
\phi_{\mbox{\tiny DS}}(r; r_0) = \frac{q \sqrt{f(r_0)}}{|r-r_0|}.
\end{equation}
This expression coincides with the unrenormalized potential $\phi(x; x')$ of
a scalar point charge at rest in Schwarzschild space-time
in the case $\xi=0$, $m=0$ and $t=t', \theta=\theta', \varphi=\varphi'$ \cite{Lin77}.
Consequently the renormalized expression for the self-potential is
\begin{equation}
\phi_{ren}(r)=0, \quad \mbox{and} \quad f_i^{self}(r)=0.
\end{equation}
Note the derivative of (\ref{phiS}) ${\partial\phi(r; r_0) }/{\partial r}$ differs from
the corresponding expression in \cite{2Roth:2004} by the term
$-qM/(6 {r_0}^3\sqrt{1-2M/r_0})$.
\section{Conclusion} \label{Sec:Conclusion}
The considered approach gives the possibility to renormalize (\ref{ren})
the self-potential of scalar point charge $q$ at rest in static space-time (\ref{metric})
and to calculate the self-force (\ref{sf}) acting on this charge.
Note that in the case in which the Compton wavelength $1/m$ of the massive scalar field is much smaller
than the characteristic scale $L$ of curvature of the background gravitational field
at the considered point $x$ we can obtain the approximated expression
for the renormalized self-potential
\begin{eqnarray} \label{fin}
\phi_{ren}(x)&=&\lim_{x_0 \rightarrow x}\left( \phi_m(x; x_0)
-\phi_{\mbox{\tiny DS}}(x; x_0) \right)
\nonumber \\ &&
=\frac{q}{2 m}\left[ -\frac{{{g_{t t}}_{,{i}}}^{;{i}}}{12 {g_{t t}}}
+\frac{5{g_{t t}}_{,{i}}{g_{t t }}^{,{i}}}{48 {g_{t t}}^2}
-\left(\xi -\frac16 \right) R \right]
+O\left( \frac{q}{m^2 L^3} \right).
\end{eqnarray}
Of course the order of this expression in $1/(mL)$ is less than the correspondent
order of $\phi_{ren}$ for the massless field (or field with mass
$m \mathop{\lefteqn{\raise.9pt\hbox{$<$}}\raise-3.7pt\hbox{$\sim$}} 1/L$).
However the expression (\ref{fin}) can be used for the verification of asymptotic behavior
of $\phi_{ren}$ in the limit $m \rightarrow \infty$.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
This work was supported in part by Grants No. 11-02-01162 and
No. 11-02-90477 from the Russian Foundation for Basic Research.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{IntroSection}
Scattering processes at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) are dominated
by the strong interactions. Of particular interest in the search for
new physics are those which occur at high momentum transfer. These
processes frequently mimic new physics signatures, and so a solid
theoretical understanding is important to maximize the sensitivity of
experimental searches. Perturbative calculations in QCD, including
quantum corrections, provide first-principle predictions in this
direction, strongly linking fundamental theory to experiment.
Recent years have seen remarkable progress in perturbative QCD, with new
predictions at next-to-leading order (NLO) in the QCD coupling for many
processes of interest at the LHC~\cite{LH2010}.
The present state-of-the-art studies of parton-level NLO QCD
processes include three~\cite{NLOJET,PRLW3BH,EMZW3Tev,W3jDistributions,TeVZ} or
four~\cite{BDDP,MStop,OtherUnitarityNLO,OPPNLO,W4jets,Z4jets,helactt2j}
coloured final states. Such computations are challenging and rely on
efficient algorithms for organising the various dynamic degrees of freedom,
such as kinematics, spin and colour quantum numbers. In this article we focus
on one particular aspect of these algorithms, namely the handling of the colour
degrees of freedom for loop computations. Our results are of immediate use in
modern approaches to NLO computations in QCD.
At tree level various approaches for dealing with colour have been developed
with differing advantages. The colour-ordered approach groups together terms
with identical $SU(N_c)$ colour factors (where $N_c$ is the number of colours).
It was first developed for tree-level amplitudes in~\cite{BGColor,MColor} and
later extended for use in loop computations in
refs.~\cite{BKColor,Neq4Oneloop,TwoQuarkThreeGluon,Zqqgg}. This approach
allows the symmetry properties
and simplified kinematic dependence of ordered amplitudes to be exploited.
Alternatively, one can treat colour simultaneously with the kinematic
variables~\cite{BGcolordressed}. This colour-dressed method, most effectively
implemented as a Berends-Giele recursion~\cite{BGrelations}, has been shown to
be very efficient for tree-level computation and is naturally applied to
generic Standard Model processes~\cite{alpha,helactree,othertree,COMIX}.
At loop level the interaction of colour degrees of
freedom is more complex, and requires refined techniques.
For a large number of coloured final states the ordered approach has proved
particularly useful (see
e.g.~\cite{PRLW3BH,EMZW3Tev,W3jDistributions,W4jets,Z4jets}). For this colour
organization an expansion in powers of $1/N_c$ is naturally set up which allows
for significant efficiency gains in the numerical phase space
integration~\cite{W3jDistributions}; for a fixed integration error, fewer
evaluations are needed for the smaller, but typically more time consuming,
subleading-colour contributions~\cite{DSColor}.
The colour-ordered approach is also naturally suited to modern methods
for loop computations using
unitarity~\cite{Neq4Oneloop,UnitarityMethod,DdimUnitarity} and on-shell
recursion~\cite{Bootstrap,CoeffRecursion,BlackHatI}. In particular,
generalised unitarity~\cite{Zqqgg,BCFUnitarity,Darren} and its
numerical extension~\cite{OPP,EGK,BlackHatI,GKM,GZRocket} was first developed
in the context of the colour-ordered approach. Ordered loop amplitudes have
simplified analytic properties and can be built through unitarity cuts from
ordered tree amplitudes. The division of the full amplitude into ordered pieces
also leads to improved numerical control. By now a number of different methods
for dealing with colour are in use for computing hard virtual scattering matrix
elements~\cite{BlackHatI,OtherLargeN,GKW,SAMURAI,LoopAuto,helacnlo,BBU}. This
includes colour sampling recursive approaches~\cite{GKW,OPPNLO}, in analogy to
those developed at tree level. More traditional methods to organise loop
computations using colour information in the context of a Feynman-diagram
calculation have been applied in~\cite{FeynColor}.
Here we will follow the method based on colour-ordered amplitudes. In
this approach the colour information is factorised from
gauge-invariant purely kinematic pieces, the latter being embodied in
primitive amplitudes~\cite{TwoQuarkThreeGluon}. Intermediate steps of
the computation are then free of any colour information. This
information is processed separately and reincorporated at the end of
the calculation. As yet this approach is the only one which has led
to phenomenological applications with five final state
objects~\cite{W4jets,Z4jets}. However, one technical issue with the
ordered approach is that the decomposition of matrix elements, and in
particular the virtual piece, in terms of primitive amplitudes, can be
non-trivial, especially as the number of fermion lines increases. The
central difficulty is that the flow of quarks through a colour-ordered
diagram is not uniquely determined by the external colour charges;
each quark may navigate the loop in two distinct ways. In addition,
the $1/N_c$ terms in the gluon propagator do not cancel when exchanged
between quark lines, as they do in the purely gluonic case. In this
paper we show how the derivation of the colour decomposition can be
automated using Feynman diagrams. This only needs to be done once for
a given process, and is therefore not an issue for the numerical
efficiency of an NLO program.
At leading order in the number of colours, the decomposition in terms
of primitives is in general straightforward to write down. The
corresponding results at subleading colour are non-trivial to derive,
in particular, when multiple quark lines are present; up to now they
have been dealt with on a case-by-case
basis~\cite{4qcolordec,Zqqgg,ZqqQQ,W3jcolordec}. Using our automated
approach we will derive explicit expressions at fixed multiplicity for QCD
amplitudes with many quark lines in terms of ordered objects. In particular, we
present new results for the decomposition of four- and six-quark amplitudes
with up to seven coloured states. (See ancillary text files for our explicit
expressions~\cite{partialsdata}.) Thus we provide the missing pieces for the
complete colour decomposition of QCD amplitudes with six and seven coloured
states. These new results are of much wider relevance, however. With the
colour decomposition of the pure QCD amplitudes at hand one can obtain rather
simply their generalisations to include additional colourless objects such as
leptons, vector bosons and Higgs bosons.
As a state-of-the-art application of our results we present
distributions of the virtual contribution to $W\,\!+\,4$-jet production including
subleading-colour terms. A study at the LHC of this process has been published
in ref.~\cite{W4jets}. In that study the finite part of the virtual piece was
given at leading order in a large-$N_c$ colour expansion. Here we confirm that
the contribution of subleading-colour terms is small (a few percent), and shifts
the virtual contribution uniformly over phase space.
Finally, we discuss an additional result, that is certain relations
among the set of multi-quark primitive amplitudes. These relations
appear as a by-product of our method and originate in the antisymmetry
of the colour stripped fermion-fermion-gluon vertex. While manifest at
low multiplicity, these ``fermion-flip'' relations become more and
more intricate as coloured states are added. From a practical point
of view, such relations enable us to express one-loop amplitudes in
different ways. This can be exploited to obtain a minimal set of
contributing ordered amplitudes, allowing a reduction of the computing
resources needed for NLO calculations.
The organisation of this article is as follows. We begin
in~\sect{ColourDecomposition} by describing in detail our conventions
for dealing with the colour degrees of freedom. In~\sect{Setup} we
describe our algorithm and some details of our calculation. We also
discuss how relations between primitive amplitudes are obtained as a
by-product. In~\sect{Results} we present selected results and a
numerical study of the virtual contribution to $W\,\!+\,4${}-jet
production. Finally, we draw our conclusions and present an outlook for
future research.
\section{Colour Decomposition}
\label{ColourDecomposition}
In this section we review how full QCD one-loop amplitudes can be
decomposed into contributions associated with $SU(N_c)$ colour
structures. While some of the notation extends the current
literature, most notation and concepts follow the detailed discussions
in~\cite{BKColor,TwoQuarkThreeGluon,Zqqgg} and the
reviews~\cite{TreeReview,OneLoopReview}. (See also ref.~\cite{EKMZreview}
for a recent review with topics related to this subject.)
\subsection{Basic conventions}
\label{sec:basic_colour}
We will be concerned with QCD scattering amplitudes of multiple quarks
and gluons. Quarks are denoted by $q$ and $\bar q$ and are assumed to
transform in the fundamental $N_c$ and anti-fundamental $\bar N_c$
representations of the gauge group $SU(N_c)$. When multiple quark
flavours appear\footnote{We will consider only amplitudes with
strictly different quark flavours. The cases with identical quarks are
easily obtained as linear combinations of these.}, they will be
distinguished by a flavour index $q_l$ and $\bar q{l}$ with $l=1,2,\ldots
n_f$. In the absence of this index, the quarks $q$ and $\bar q{}$ are
understood to have a flavour number of one. We will keep the rank
$N_c$ as a free parameter and specialize to $N_c=3$ only for the
numerical results. The colour indices of quarks and anti-quarks are
denoted by $\{i,j,\ldots\}$ and $\{\bar\imath,\bar\jmath, \ldots\}$ respectively.
Gluons will be denoted by $g$ with adjoint colour indices labelled by
$a, b, c,$ etc.
It will be convenient to consider also fermions in the adjoint
representation of the gauge group. These will be denoted by capital
letters $Q$ and $\Qb{}$ and, in analogy to the fundamental fermions
above, by $Q_l$ and $\Qb{l}$ with an explicit flavour label. The
distinction of fermions and anti-fermions is then induced from the
flavour charge. As above the fermions $Q$ and $\Qb{}$ are understood
as flavour one states, serving as a shorthand notation for $\Q{1}$
and $\Qb{1}$.
\subsection{Colour algebra}
The aim of the colour decomposition is to disentangle colour and
kinematic degrees of freedom. This leads to a reorganization of
scattering amplitudes in terms of ordered subamplitudes, which are
typically easier to compute than the full amplitude itself. In
addition, colour decomposition gives control over the interplay of
colour and kinematic degrees of freedom. This can be used, for
example, for the expansion of scattering amplitudes in terms of powers
of the rank, $N_c$, of the gauge group $SU(N_c)$. Such an expansion
can be exploited for efficiency
gains~\cite{DSColor,W3jDistributions} in numerical NLO
computations.
In a Feynman-diagram representation of a scattering amplitude, gluon
interactions are proportional to the structure constants $f^{abc}$ of the
gauge group,
\begin{equation}
[T^a, T^b]= i \sqrt{2} \,f^{abc}\,T^c,
\end{equation}
where $T^a$ are the Lie algebra generators in the fundamental
representation, normalised such that $\mathop{\rm Tr}\nolimits(T^a T^b)=\delta^{ab}$. The
quark-gluon interactions carry the fundamental representation
generators $(T^a)_i^{\,\bar\jmath}$.
We seek a uniform way of treating adjoint and fundamental colour
indices, allowing the identification of common group theory
factors. To this end we re-write all colour factors in terms of
fundamental representation generators $(T^a)_i^{\,\bar j}$ using
\begin{equation} \label{eq:fabc} f^{abc} = -\frac{i}{\sqrt{2}} \mathop{\rm Tr}\nolimits([T^a, T^b]\, T^c)\,. \end{equation}
Contracted adjoint indices can be reduced using the Fierz identity,
\begin{equation} \label{eq:fierz}
\sum_a\,(T^a)_{k}^{\,\,\bar\imath} (T^a)_{l}^{\,\bar\jmath} =
\delta_{k}^{\,\,\bar\jmath}\,\delta_{l}^{\,\,\bar\imath} - \frac{1}{N_c}
\delta_{k}^{\,\,\bar\imath}\, \delta_{l}^{\,\,\bar\jmath}\,.
\end{equation}
All group theory factors can then be written in a canonical way in
terms of combinations of basic group theory data: powers of $N_c$,
traces $\mathop{\rm Tr}\nolimits(T^{a_1} T^{a_2} \ldots T^{a_k})$, generator strings
$(T^{a_1} T^{a_2} \ldots T^{a_k})_i^{\,\bar\jmath}$ and Kronecker deltas
$\delta_i^{\bar\jmath}$. No repeated adjoint indices appear, as they are all
reduced using the Fierz identity~(\ref{eq:fierz}).
Within generic formulae, when labels take boundary values, it is useful to
adopt a slightly unconventional notation to keep expressions simple. A typical
case that appears is a colour structure, $(T^{a_1} T^{a_2} \ldots
T^{a_k})_i^{\,\bar\jmath}$ with $k\rightarrow 0$. The natural interpretation for this
is to replace this colour structure by a Kronecker delta,
\begin{equation}\label{def:boundary_colour_string}
(T^{a_1} T^{a_2} \ldots T^{a_k})_i^{\,\bar\jmath}\rightarrow \delta_i^{\bar\jmath}
\quad\mbox{for}\quad k=0\,.
\label{repl1}
\end{equation}
Similarly, two boundary cases appear for traces of $SU(N_c)$ generators,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{def:boundary_colour_trace}
\mathop{\rm Tr}\nolimits(T^{a_1} T^{a_2} \ldots
T^{a_k})&\rightarrow&\mathop{\rm Tr}\nolimits(T^{a_1})=0\quad\mbox{for}\quad k=1\,,
\label{repl2}\\
\mathop{\rm Tr}\nolimits(T^{a_1} T^{a_2} \ldots T^{a_k})&\rightarrow&1\quad\mbox{for}\quad k=0\,.
\label{repl3}
\end{eqnarray}
One might find the replacement $\mathop{\rm Tr}\nolimits(T^{a_1} T^{a_2} \ldots
T^{a_k})\rightarrow\mathop{\rm Tr}\nolimits(1)=N_c$ more natural for $k=0$, however, we prefer to
absorb factors of $N_c$ into the definition of other objects, i.e. the partial
amplitudes as defined below in~\sect{sect:partialampl}.
The above replacement rules (\ref{repl1}), (\ref{repl2}) and (\ref{repl3}) will
be understood implicitly throughout the present article.
\subsection{Partial amplitudes}
\label{sect:partialampl}
Grouping terms of scattering amplitudes according to their colour structure
gives their decomposition into partial amplitudes. The latter are in
one-to-one correspondence with the distinct colour structures that appear in a
scattering amplitude.
In this section we spell out the form of two-quark, four-quark and six-quark
amplitudes, as they will be used in the later parts of the article. We consider
these amplitudes for distinct quark flavours. The cases with identical quark
flavours can be obtained by appropriate (anti-) symmetrization of quark
labels and we will not state them explicitly.
The partial amplitudes associated with the generic colour structures,
\begin{equation}
\mathop{\rm Tr}\nolimits(T^{a_1}\cdots T^{a_{j-1}})\,
(T^{a_{j+1}}\cdots T^{a_{j+k-1}})_{i_{j}}^{\,\,\bar\imath_{j+k}}\,
(T^{a_{j+k+2}}\cdots T^{a_{j+k+l}})_{i_{j+k+1}}^{\,\,\bar\imath_{j+k+l+1}}\cdots
\,,
\end{equation}
will be denoted by,
\begin{equation}
{A}_{n;j,k,l,...}(\ms{1,\ldots,j-1};
\ms{j_q,j+1,\ldots,(j+k)_{\bar q{f_1}}};
\ms{(j+k+1)_{q_2},j+k+2,\ldots,(j+k+l+1)_{\bar q{f_2}}};\ldots) \,,
\label{eq:partialampl}
\end{equation}
mimicking the index structure of the colour traces and generator
strings. As usual, legs without particle subscripts are taken to be
gluons. The variables $f_i$ take values within the set
$\{1,\cdots,n_f\}$ according to the flavour arrangement of the
quarks. At tree level fewer colour structures appear; the single
colour trace is absent if at least one quark pair is present. The
indices $j$ and $k,l,\ldots $ specify the size of colour traces and
generator strings, respectively.
Partial amplitudes have symmetry properties implied by the colour structures.
This includes a cyclic symmetry under rotation of gluons in a colour trace,
\begin{equation}
A_{n;j,...}(1,2,\ldots,j-1;\ldots) = {A_{n;j,...}}(2,\ldots,j-1,1;\ldots)\,,
\end{equation}
where we rotated the gluon indices associated with the colour
trace. The full symmetry group generated by this operation is
$\mathbb{Z}_{j-1}$. Similarly, the order in which the colour
structures, $(T^{a_m}\cdots T^{a_n})_j\,^{\bar\imath}$, appear leaves the value of
the partial amplitudes invariant,
\begin{eqnarray}
&&{A}_{n;j,k,l,...}(\ldots; \ms{j_q,\ldots,(j+k)_{\bar q{f_1}}};
\ms{(j+k+1)_{q_2},\ldots,(j+k+l+1)_{\bar q{f_2}}};\ldots) =\\ &&\quad
{A}_{n;j,l,k,...}(\ldots; \ms{(j+k+1)_{q_2},\ldots,(j+k+l+1)_{\bar q{f_2}}};
\ms{j_q,\ldots,(j+k)_{\bar q{f_1}}}; \ldots) \,,\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
and similarly for the exchange of other combinations of quark pairs.
Explicit decomposition of scattering amplitudes into partial amplitudes will be
given in the following.
\subsubsection{Two-quark partial amplitudes}
At tree level the two-quark QCD
amplitude~\cite{CLSColor,BGColor,MPXColor,BGngluons,MColor,MQKosower} is
\begin{equation} \label{quarksubleading}
\mathcal{A}_n^{{\rm tree}}(1_q,2_{\overline{q}},3,\dots,n) =
\sum_{\sigma \in S_{n-2}}
(T^{a_{\sigma(3)}} \dots T^{a_{\sigma(n)}})_{i_1}^{\,\,\bar\imath_2}
A_n^{{\rm tree}}(1_q,\ms{\sigma(3),\dots,\sigma(n)},2_{\overline{q}}),
\end{equation}
where $S_{n-2}$ denotes the permutation group of $n-2$ gluon labels with the amplitudes
$A_n^{{\rm tree}}$ the tree level partial amplitudes. The elements of the
permutation group $\sigma$ are used in a two-fold way. On the one hand as a
permuted list of gluon labels and, on the other hand, as functions,
$\sigma(k)$, specifying the map of a given gluon, here gluon $k$, under the
permutation $\sigma$. The colour structures here consist of a string of
fundamental generators, terminated with the indices of the quark and
anti-quark. We suppress the coupling constants here and throughout this
paper.
At one-loop level the colour decomposition into partial amplitudes was given for all
gluon multiplicities in ref.~\cite{TwoQuarkThreeGluon}. In addition to the
tree-level colour structures, colour traces appear,
\begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:2q_colour_dec}
\mathcal{A}_n^{{\rm}}(1_q,2_{\overline{q}},3,\dots,n) &=&\\
&&\hspace{-2.cm}\sum_{j=1}^{n-1}
\sum_{\ms{\sigma \in S_{n-2}/S_{(n-2;j)}}}\hspace{-.5cm}
\mathop{\rm Tr}\nolimits(T^{\as{3}}\dots T^{\as{j+1}})\, (T^{\as{j+2}}\dots
T^{\as{n}})_{i_1}^{\,\,\bar\imath_2}\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{1.0cm}\times
A_{n;j}(\ms{\sigma(3),\ldots,\sigma(j+1)};1_q,\ms{\sigma(j+2),\ldots,\sigma(n)},2_{\overline{q}}).
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
The sum in \eqn{eq:2q_colour_dec} runs over all distinct colour
structures. This is achieved by a double sum. The outer sum runs over
the group theory structures and, within each of these, the inner sum
runs over independent gluon orderings. Given the cyclic symmetry of
the colour traces $\mathop{\rm Tr}\nolimits(T^{\as{3}}\dots T^{\as{j+1}})$, the full permutation
group $S_{n-2}$ of the $n-2$ gluons is reduced by the cyclic subgroups
$S_{(n-2;j)}\equiv\mathbb{Z}_{j-1}$ that leave the traces in
(\ref{eq:2q_colour_dec}) invariant. We adopt here the notation in
eqs.~(\ref{def:boundary_colour_string})
and~(\ref{def:boundary_colour_trace}) for the boundary cases $j=n-1$
and $j=1$, respectively.
\subsubsection{Four-quark partial amplitudes}
We can follow analogous steps for amplitudes with two pairs of
(distinct-flavour) quarks. Starting from a Feynman-diagram
representation of a $(q_1\, \bar q{1}\, q_2\, \bar q{2}\, g \dots g)$
amplitude, repeated application of eqs.~(\ref{eq:fabc}) and
(\ref{eq:fierz}) leads to the colour decomposition in terms of partial
amplitudes.
It is convenient to give the explicit form of the tree amplitudes for
four quarks and $n$ gluons~\cite{CLSColor,MColor,MQKosower,GGearlycolordec},
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{A}_n^{{\rm tree}}(1_{\q{1}}, 2_{\bar q{1}},3_{\q{2}},4_{\bar q{2}};5,\dots,n) &=&\\
&&\hspace{-5cm}
\sum_{k=1}^{n-3}
\sum_{\ms{\pi\in P_2}}
\sum_{\ms{\sigma \in S_{n-4}}}
(T^{a_{\sigma(5)}} \cdots T^{a_{\sigma(k+3)}})_{i_{\pi(1)}}^{\,\,\bar\imath_2}
(T^{a_{\sigma(k+4)}} \cdots T^{a_{\sigma(n)}})_{i_{\pi(3)}}^{\,\,\bar\imath_4}\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-4cm}\times A^{\rm tree}_{n;k}(
\pi(1_\q{1}),\ms{\sigma(5),\ldots,\sigma(k+3)},2_\bar q{1};
\pi(3_\q{2}),\ms{\sigma(k+4),\ldots,\sigma(n)},4_\bar q{2}).\nonumber
\end{eqnarray} For the boundary cases $k=1$ and $k=n-3$ the colour structures
$(T^{a_{\sigma(5)}} \cdots
T^{a_{\sigma(k+3)}})_{i_{\pi(1)}}^{\,\,\bar\imath_2}$ and
$(T^{a_{\sigma(k+4)}} \cdots
T^{a_{\sigma(n)}})_{i_{\pi(3)}}^{\,\,\bar\imath_4}$ have to be replaced by
$\delta_{i_{\pi(1)}}^{\,\,\bar\imath_2}$ and
$\delta_{i_{\pi(3)}}^{\,\,\bar\imath_4}$ respectively (see
\sect{sec:basic_colour}). $P_2$ stands for the permutation group of
the quarks $\{1_\q{1},3_\q{2}\}$. In an overloaded notation, the
elements $\pi\in P_2$ are also interpreted as maps on the quarks and
quark labels, e.g. the notation $\pi(1_\q{1})$ and $\pi(1)$ is used to
denote mappings of quark and quark label, respectively. The signs
keeping track of the sign in the $(-1/N_c)$-term (see
eq.~(\ref{eq:fierz})) in the colour-octet projector of the gluon
propagator are pulled into the definition of the partial amplitudes in
terms of colour-ordered tree amplitudes. Details can be found in the
supplied data files as described in~\sect{sect:datafiles}.
At one-loop level a similar colour decomposition into partial amplitudes gives~\cite{4qcolordec,ZqqQQ,W3jcolordec},
\begin{eqnarray} \label{def:4q_colour_dec}
\nonumber&&\mathcal{A}_n^{{\rm}}(1_\q{1},2_\bar q{1},3_\q{2},4_\bar q{2};5,\dots,n) =\\
&&\mathop{\sum_{\ms{j=1,n-3}}}_{\ms{k=1,n-(j+2)}}
\sum_{\ms{\pi\in P_2}}\,
\sum_{\ms{\sigma \in S_{n-4}/S_{(n-4;j)}}}
\mathop{\rm Tr}\nolimits(T^{a_{\sigma(5)}} \cdots T^{a_{\sigma(j+3)}})\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{1cm}\times
(T^{\as{j+4}} \cdots T^{\as{j+2+k}})_{i_{\pi(1)}}^{\,\,\bar\imath_2}
(T^{\as{j+3+k}} \cdots T^{\as{n}})_{i_{\pi(3)}}^{\,\,\bar\imath_4}\\
&&\hspace{1cm}\times
A_{n;j,k}(\sigma_{(5,j+3)};
\pi(1_{q_1}),\sigma_{(j+4,j+2+k)},2_{\bar q{1}};
\pi(3_{q_2}),\sigma_{(j+3+k,n)},4_{\bar q{2}})
\,,\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where we again use the conventions for the boundary cases given in
\sect{sec:basic_colour}. We also introduced the abbreviation
$\sigma_{(i,j)}=\ms{\{\sigma(i),\sigma(i+1),\ldots,\sigma(j-1),\sigma(j)\}}$.
\subsubsection{Six-quark partial amplitudes}
We now consider amplitudes with three distinct quark flavours.
Starting from a Feynman-diagram representation of a $(q_1\, \bar q{1}\,
q_2\, \bar q{2}\,q_3\,\bar q{3}\,g \dots g)$ amplitude, repeated application
of \eqns{eq:fabc} and (\ref{eq:fierz}) once again leads to the colour
decomposition in terms of partial amplitudes. For simplicity of
exposition we give the six-quark and seven-quark one-gluon partial
amplitudes.
The explicit form of the tree amplitudes for six quarks is
given by~\cite{CLSColor,MColor,MQKosower},
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:6qtree}
&&\mathcal{A}_6^{{\rm tree}}(
1_{\q{1}},2_{\bar q{1}},
3_{\q{2}},4_{\bar q{2}},
5_{\q{3}},6_{\bar q{3}}
) =
\sum_{\ms{\pi\in P_3}}
\delta_{i_{\pi(1)}}^{\,\,\bar\imath_2}
\delta_{i_{\pi(3)}}^{\,\,\bar\imath_4}
\delta_{i_{\pi(5)}}^{\,\,\bar\imath_6}\\
&&
\hspace{3cm}
\times\, A^{\rm tree}_{6;1,1}(
\pi(1_\q{1}),2_\bar q{1};
\pi(3_\q{2}),4_\bar q{2};
\pi(5_\q{3}),6_\bar q{3})\,,
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray} with $P_3$ the permutation group of the quarks
$\{1_\q{1},3_\q{2},5_\q{3}\}$.
For one-loop amplitudes a similar colour decomposition into partial amplitudes gives,
\begin{eqnarray} \label{def:6q_colour_dec}
&&\mathcal{A}_6(
1_{\q{1}},2_{\bar q{1}},
3_{\q{2}},4_{\bar q{2}},
5_{\q{3}},6_{\bar q{3}}
) =
\sum_{\ms{\pi\in P_3}}\,
\delta_{i_{\pi(1)}}^{\,\,\bar\imath_2}
\delta_{i_{\pi(3)}}^{\,\,\bar\imath_4}
\delta_{i_{\pi(5)}}^{\,\,\bar\imath_6}\\
&&\hspace{3cm}\times\, A_{6;1,1,1}(
\pi(1_\q{1}),2_\bar q{1};
\pi(3_\q{2}),4_\bar q{2};
\pi(5_\q{3}),6_\bar q{3})\,.
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
The generalization of the above colour decompositions (\ref{def:6q_colour_dec})
to seven-point partial amplitudes is given by,
\begin{eqnarray} \label{def:1g6q_colour_dec}
&&\mathcal{A}_7( 1_{\q{1}},2_{\bar q{1}}, 3_{\q{2}},4_{\bar q{2}},
5_{\q{3}},6_{\bar q{3}};7) =
\sum_{\ms{\sigma\in \mathbb{Z}_3}}\, \sum_{\ms{\pi\in P_3}}\,
(T^{a_7})_{i_{\pi(1)}}^{\,\,\bar\imath_{\sigma(2)}}\,
\delta_{i_{\pi(3)}}^{\,\,\bar\imath_{\sigma(4)}}
\delta_{i_{\pi(5)}}^{\,\,\bar\imath_{\sigma(6)}}
\\ && \hspace{3cm}
\times\,A_{7;1,2,1}( \pi(1_\q{1}),7,\sigma(2_\bar q{1}); \pi(3_\q{2}),\sigma(4_\bar q{2});
\pi(5_\q{3}),\sigma(6_\bar q{3}))\,. \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
The cyclic group $\mathbb{Z}_3$ is understood to rotate the three quarks
$\{1_{\q{1}},3_{\q{3}},5_{\q{5}}\}$ in order to guarantee that the gluon is emitted from all quark sources. Refined definitions of
various elements in \eqn{def:1g6q_colour_dec} follow conventions in~\eqn{eq:6qtree}.
Tree amplitudes take an analogous form, as
was the case for the 6-point formulas (\ref{def:6q_colour_dec}) and
(\ref{eq:6qtree}), so we do not state the tree-level formula here explicitly.
\subsection{Primitive amplitudes} \label{sect:PrimitiveAmpls}
Partial amplitudes can be further expressed as linear combinations of
`primitive amplitudes'~\cite{TwoQuarkThreeGluon}. In fact, primitive
amplitudes are defined as a set of gauge-invariant, colour-ordered
building blocks which suffice to express a given set of partial
amplitudes. We discuss in this subsection how to characterize and
generate primitive amplitudes. Our algorithm for expressing partial
amplitudes in terms of primitive amplitudes will be given in
\sect{Setup}.
\begin{figure} \includegraphics[scale=0.5]{primitvesL-R.eps}\\\vskip 0.3 cm
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{primitvesnfL-nfR.eps}\\\vskip 0.3 cm
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{primitvesLL-LR.eps}
\caption{ Parent diagrams with a distinct routing of quark lines: (a)
a parent with a `left-turner' fermion labelled by `$L$', (b) a
`right-turner' fermion, labelled by `$R$', (c) `$n_f$-left-turner'
($n_fL$) fermions, (d) `$n_f$-right-turner' ($n_fR$) fermions. Two
routing labels are associated to the distinct quark flavours $Q$ and
$\Q{2}$: (e) `left-left-turner' ($LL$) fermions, (f)
`left-right-turner' ($LR$) fermions. Note that in (f) the first
fermion does not in fact enter the loop. In general as many
$L/R$-labels appear as there are distinct external quark flavours.
Quarks are associated with capital letter $Q$'s, as in primitive
amplitudes they arise from adjoint representation colour assignments
in our algorithm.}
\label{fig:LTnfprimitive} \end{figure}
Primitive amplitudes can be specified by sets of adjoint representation
colour-ordered Feynman diagrams~\cite{TwoQuarkThreeGluon,OneLoopReview}. These
diagrams differ from the standard Feynman diagrams in that colour labels are
dropped. At gluon vertices, for example, the structure constants $f^{abc}$ are
omitted. Gluon vertices dressed with colour labels are symmetric under the
exchange of legs. Due to the anti-symmetry of the structure constants
$f^{abc}$, the remaining kinematic part is necessarily anti-symmetric under
exchange of legs. In colour-ordered Feynman diagrams one must preserve the
ordering of the external legs to keep track of the signs associated with the
vertices. Given a set of colour-ordered Feynman diagrams one uses
colour-ordered Feynman rules (see e.g.~\cite{TreeReview}) to obtain amplitudes
and eventually primitive amplitudes.
We require the set of all primitive amplitudes needed to compute a given
scattering amplitude. In particular, we will need their representation in terms
of sets of Feynman diagrams. This may be generated systematically in two
steps, which we will describe in full below:
\begin{enumerate}
\item{generate `coarse' primitive amplitudes,}
\item{split the coarse primitives according to the routing of fermions
around the loop. }
\end{enumerate}
The coarse primitives can be thought of as sums of planar, ordered diagrams,
obtained using colour-ordered Feynman rules. Each coarse primitive amplitude
corresponds to a particular ordering of the external legs.
In practise, we obtain the coarse primitive amplitudes starting from a
colour-dressed representation of the amplitude by taking all partons,
including quarks, in the adjoint representation of the gauge
group. Performing all the colour algebra reductions, one finds a set
of terms, some with single and some with double traces of fundamental
generators, just as is the case for purely gluonic amplitudes. The
coarse primitive amplitudes
\begin{equation}
A^{\rm coarse}(1,\ldots,\Q{1},\ldots,\Qb{1}\cdots)\,,
\end{equation}
are then identified as the coefficients of the single trace structures
\begin{equation} N_c\,\mathop{\rm Tr}\nolimits(T^{a_1} \cdots T^{a_{\Q{1}}}\cdots
T^{a_{\Qb{1}}}\cdots )\,.
\end{equation}
Secondly, a finer splitup of the coarse primitive amplitudes into
actual primitive amplitudes is obtained by analysing the fermions'
routing around the loop. This can be considered a generalisation of
the familiar case of diagrams with a fermion circulating in the loop
not mixing under gauge transformations with diagrams with a gluon in
the loop. Similarly, fermion routing information in Feynman diagrams
allows to split coarse primitive amplitudes into finer gauge-invariant
subsets. The routing information of a fermion line specifies whether
the fermion turns left or right upon entering the loop. In the case
where the fermion does not enter the loop, the left/right label is
assigned according to which side of the loop the fermion passes. We
follow the fermion line starting from the anti-quark. In this way,
each fermion line is labelled as a left- or right-turner, denoted by
capital labels $L$ and $R$, respectively. Some examples can be found
in~\fig{fig:LTnfprimitive}.
Algorithmically, the routing information of a colour-ordered Feynman
diagram can be determined by cutting a single loop propagator. If no
gluon propagator is available, the Feynman diagram has to correspond
to an $n_f$ term. We then cut the internal fermion line. If a gluon
loop-propagator is available we instead cut that one. After cutting
the propagator the Feynman diagram corresponds to a diagram of a
colour-ordered tree amplitude. The fermion routing information is then
in one-to-one correspondence to the ordering of external fermions
relative to their anti-fermions and may be read off directly. The
coarse primitive amplitudes can then be sorted diagram by diagram into
the finer classes of primitive amplitudes with definite fermion flow.
The explanation of the gauge invariance of the primitive amplitudes as
defined above has been given in ref.~\cite{TwoQuarkThreeGluon}. The
basic reasoning relies on a non-standard colour charge assignment to
quarks and gluons. Primitive amplitudes of standard QCD can typically
be interpreted as partial amplitudes of a theory with non-standard
gauge groups and colour charges. Gauge invariance of a class of
Feynman amplitudes is then ensured from the associated gauge
invariance of partial amplitudes. The non-standard colour assignments
include various bifundamental and adjoint representations in product
gauge groups $SU(N_1)\times SU(N_2)\times SU(N_3)\ldots $ for quarks
and gluons respectively. The basic logic is only a minor
generalisation of that presented in the original
literature~\cite{TwoQuarkThreeGluon}, to which we refer for further
details.
\subsubsection{Notation} \label{sect:notation}
Pictorially, primitive amplitudes can be characterized by a small set of
`parent' Feynman diagrams. These are the representative colour-ordered Feynman
diagrams of a primitive amplitude with the maximal number of loop propagators.
An additional requirement is that the complete set of Feynman diagrams
associated with a primitive amplitude can be obtained from the parent diagrams
through pinching of propagators and `pulling out' of tree amplitudes.
Example parent diagrams of six distinct primitive amplitudes are shown in
\fig{fig:LTnfprimitive}. The diagrams are representative of classes of
colour-ordered Feynman diagrams. Parent diagrams (a), (b), (c) and (d) have
identical external states, as do diagrams (e) and (f). They differ by the
routing of the fermion lines around the loop and are gauge invariant
individually\footnote{More precisely, the primitive amplitudes they correspond
to are gauge-invariant.}. The routing information of the fermions is given in
terms of left- and right-turner labels; $L$ and $R$. Closed fermion loops are
specified by an additional label $n_f$. Such routing labels must be specified
for each fermion line.
So instead of specifying a primitive amplitude by the set of colour-ordered
Feynman diagrams contributing to it, we can be more concise, and specify only
1) an ordered set of external states and 2) routing data of fermion lines.
We will use this information to specify primitive amplitudes. In our
conventions, for the amplitudes shown in~\fig{fig:LTnfprimitive} we will use
the following notation,
\begin{eqnarray}
\nonumber(a):&&A^L(Q, \ldots g, g, \Qb{},g,g,g,g, \ldots )\,,\\
\nonumber(b):&&A^R(Q, \ldots g,g, \Qb{},g,g,g,g, \ldots )\,,\\
\nonumber(c):&&A^{n_fL}(Q, \ldots g, g, \Qb{},g,g,g,g,\ldots )\,,\\
\nonumber(d):&&A^{n_fR}(Q, \ldots g, g, \Qb{},g,g,g,g, \ldots )\,,\\
\nonumber(e):&&A^{LL}(Q, \Qb{2},g,\Q{2},\ldots g, g, \Qb{},g, \ldots )\,,\\
\nonumber(f):&&A^{LR}(Q, \Qb{2},g,\Q{2},\ldots g, g, \Qb{},g, \ldots )\,.
\end{eqnarray}
Fermion lines will be given ascending flavour numbers starting from $1$ (we
identify $Q \equiv Q_1$). The routing information will be
specified by a list of labels $L$, $R$. $L$ stands for a fermion that turns
left upon approaching the loop, while $R$ stands for a right turning fermion. The
first label in the list corresponds to the first flavour-line, the second label
to the second line etc. Closed fermion loops are indicated by an additional
label $n_f$. External states are given in clockwise order and we exploit the
rotational symmetry (described in the next section) to rotate quarks with
flavour one into the first position.
\subsubsection{Symmetry properties}
Pure-QCD primitive amplitudes enjoy a variety of symmetries. These are useful
for reducing the number of independent primitive amplitudes that need to be
computed. We use the symmetries below to write primitives in a standard form
starting with a left-turner label, with the quark of flavour one in the first
position of the particle labels,
\begin{equation}
A^{L\ldots}(Q,\ldots )\quad\mbox{or}\quad A^{n_fL\ldots}(Q,\ldots )\,.
\end{equation}
The relevant symmetry transformations are described below. In addition, an
extended set of relations between primitive amplitudes will be discussed below
in \ref{relations}.
First of all, cyclic rotation of the labels does not change the primitive
amplitudes,
\begin{equation} A^{\ldots}(1,2,\ldots,n)=A^{\ldots}(2,\ldots,n,1). \label{eqn:cyclsymm}
\end{equation}
Another symmetry arises from flipping over the colour-ordered diagrams of a
given primitive. This reverses the ordering of the external states and
exchanges all left-and right-turners up to a sign. In the case of a two
quark line amplitude we have,
\begin{eqnarray} \label{eqn:flipsymm}
&&A^{LR}(1_q,2,\ldots,k_{\bar q{}},\ldots,l_{\q{2}},\ldots,m_{\bar q{2}},\ldots,n)=\\
&&\quad(-1)^n\,
A^{RL}(1_q,n,\ldots,m_{\bar q{2}},\ldots,l_{\q{2}},\ldots,k_{\bar q{}},\ldots,2)\,.\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
A further generic relation between primitive amplitudes originates in the
reversal of a fermion's arrow. This leads to a flip of the routing label,
\begin{equation} A^{\ldots L_i\ldots}(\ldots ,k_\q{i},\ldots,l_{\bar q{i}},\ldots,n)= A^{\ldots
R_i\ldots}(\ldots ,k_{\bar q{i}},\ldots,l_{\q{i}},\ldots,n).
\label{eqn:flipfermarrow} \end{equation}
This property is naturally generalised to the case with multiple quark lines.
Each quark line may be reversed and the associated turner label flipped,
$L \leftrightarrow R$. We will not use this transformation here,
preferring to keep the distinction between quarks and anti-quarks.
\subsection{Colour decomposition of partial amplitudes.}
\label{sect:PartialNotation}
\begin{figure}[b]
\includegraphics[scale=1.7,angle=-90]{diagrams/4q_1.dat.epsi}
\caption{Four quark partial amplitude decomposed into primitive
amplitudes, in the notation of the attached file.} \label{fig:FourQuarkPartial} \end{figure}
In this section we present our notation for partial amplitudes given as linear
combinations of primitives. As the expressions are lengthy we prefer to write
them in a simplified form, which is also more convenient for use with a
computer program. We display only a small sample in the main body of this
paper, and attach the remainder as text files~\cite{partialsdata}. Additional
information concerning the supplied data-files can be found below
in~\sect{sect:datafiles}.
To explain our notation we refer to \fig{fig:FourQuarkPartial} where we show
our result for the four quark amplitude. The line starting with `* Partial'
indicates the beginning of the expression and is followed by a specification of
which particular partial amplitude is being considered. The notation for this
mimics the argument of the partial amplitudes (\ref{eq:partialampl}). It takes
the form of a comma separated list with each element of the list denoting an
$SU(N_c)$ colour structure. Such a colour structure is unambiguously specified
by a list of particles. Quarks in the fundamental representation are denoted by
$q$, and may have an additional numerical label to distinguish different
flavours ($q$, $q2$, $q3$ \dots). Anti-quarks are written $qb$, $qb2$, $qb3$
etc. Momentum labels appear in parentheses, e.g. $q(1)$ denotes a quark that
carries the momentum $k_1$. For the case of \fig{fig:FourQuarkPartial}, the
colour structure is $\delta_{i_1}^{\bar\imath_2} \delta_{i_3}^{\bar\imath_4}$.
There follows specification of the born contribution to this partial amplitude
in terms of colour-ordered tree-level amplitudes. The line starting with the
label,
\begin{eqnarray}
\nonumber{\rm born} &&\{\ldots |\ldots \\
\nonumber &&\ldots |\ldots \\
\nonumber &&etc. \\
\nonumber &&\} \,
\end{eqnarray}
shows a list of particles in the adjoint representation and, separated by a
vertical line, `$|$', the coefficient of the given tree within the partial
amplitude. Labels with capital letters $Q$, $Q2$ etc. are used for these kind
of quarks. For partial amplitudes that are a linear combination of
colour-ordered tree amplitudes, multiple line entries are used, each displaying
a list of particle labels and the weight of the associated tree amplitude
within the partial amplitude.
In more conventional form the four quark born amplitude is given by,
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{A}_4^{{\rm tree}}(1_q,2_{\bar q{}},3_{\q{2}},4_{\bar q{2}}) = A^{\rm
tree}(1_Q,2_{\Qb{}},3_{\Q{2}},4_{\Qb{2}}) \times\left(\delta_{i_1}^{\bar\imath_4}
\delta_{i_3}^{\bar\imath_2} -\frac{1}{N_c}\, \delta_{i_1}^{\bar\imath_2}
\delta_{i_3}^{\bar\imath_4}\right)\,. \label{eqn:TreeAmpl}
\end{equation}
The displayed partial amplitude corresponds to the second term
in~\eqn{eqn:TreeAmpl} and the ordered born amplitude is $A^{\rm
tree}(1_Q,2_{\Qb{}},3_{\Q{2}},4_{\Qb{2}})$ weighted by a factor of
$-\frac{1}{N_c}$.
The remaining entries specify the one-loop partial amplitude in terms of
primitives. This entry starts with the header `$loop$',
\begin{eqnarray} {\rm loop}
\nonumber&&\{\\
\nonumber&&\ldots| \ldots |\ldots \\
\nonumber&&\ldots| \ldots |\ldots \\
\nonumber&&{\rm etc.}\\
\nonumber\}\quad && \,
\end{eqnarray}
with the individual lines each specifying the turner labels,
an ordered list of external states and the weight of the primitive amplitude.
In total this represents a sum of primitive amplitudes, each with a $N_c$-
and/or $n_f$-dependent coefficient. For the present example, displayed in
\fig{fig:FourQuarkPartial}, the partial amplitude is given by,
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{A}_4(1_q,2_{\bar q{}},3_{\q{2}},4_{\bar q{2}}) &=& \ldots +\,
A_{4;1,1}(1_q,2_{\bar q{}};3_{\q{2}},4_{\bar q{2}})\, \delta_{i_1}^{\bar\imath_2}
\delta_{i_3}^{\bar\imath_4}+\ldots\,,\\
A_{4;1,1}(1_q,2_{\bar q{}};3_{\q{2}},4_{\bar q{2}})&=&
\frac{1}{N_c^2}\,A^{LL}(1_Q,4_{\Qb{2}},3_{\Q{2}},2_{\Qb{}})+
\left(1+\frac{1}{N_c^2}\right)\,A^{LR}(1_Q,3_{\Q{2}},4_{\Qb{2}},2_{\Qb{}})\nonumber\\
&&\null +\frac{1}{N_c^2}\,A^{LR}(1_Q,4_{\Qb{2}},3_{\Q{2}},2_{\Qb{}})-
\frac{1}{N_c^2}\,A^{LL}(1_Q,2_{\Qb{}},4_{\Qb{2}},3_{\Q{2}})\nonumber\\ &&\null
-\frac{n_f}{N_c}\,A^{n_fLL}(1_Q,4_{\Qb{2}},3_{\Q{2}},2_{\Qb{}})\,.
\label{eqn:LoopAmpl}
\end{eqnarray}
The five primitive amplitudes appear in the same order as in
\fig{fig:FourQuarkPartial}, where they are given on separate
lines. Each primitive amplitude is specified by a list of particles in
the adjoint representation and string of fermion left/right-turner
labels. We denote adjoint quarks with a capital $Q$. Each quark line
has a `turner label' $L$ or $R$, which described the direction it
turns upon approaching the loop, as described in
\sect{sect:PrimitiveAmpls}.
The above expression can be compared to the one given for the partial amplitude
denoted by $A_{6;2}$ in
eq.(2.15) of ref.~\cite{Zqqgg}. To simplify this comparison we set the
number of scalars $n_s=0$ and drop the top-quark contributions in the
expression for $A_{6;2}$. We can omit the colour-neutral lepton
states, as they play no role in this colour decomposition. To match
the expression for $A_{6;2}$ with our \eqn{eqn:LoopAmpl} we have to
replace $2\leftrightarrow4$ in the expression for $A_{6;2}$. We can
then identify $A^{+-}(1,3,4,2)= A^{LR}(1,3,4,2)$,
$A^{++}(1,4,3,2)=A^{LL}(1,4,3,2)$, $A^{sl}(4,3,1,2)=A^{LL}(1,2,4,3)-
A^{LR}(1,4,3,2)$ and $A^{s,++}(1,4,3,2)+
A^{f,++}(1,4,3,2)=-A^{n_fLL}(1,4,3,2)$. (Compared to~\cite{Zqqgg} we
differ here by an overall sign in the definition of the $n_f$-terms,
which introduces this apparent relative minus-sign.) This
identification can also be inferred from comparison of parent
diagrams. The relative minus sign in the expression for
$A^{sl}(4,3,1,2)$ appears from the asymmetry of the
fermion-fermion-gluon three-point vertex. Upon reversing the order of
the quarks $1_q$ and $2_{\bar q{}}$ and rotation of the labels one finds
the identity, $-A^{LL}(1,2,4,3)=A^{RL}(2,1,4,3)=A^{RL}(1,4,3,2)$, with
the relative minus sign absorbed into the re-ordering of external
legs.
With this comparison we conclude the explanation of our conventions.
\section{Colour decomposition algorithm}
\label{Setup}
In this section we will describe our setup for obtaining partial
amplitudes in terms of primitive amplitudes, for arbitrary
processes. The algorithm we use is based on analysing Feynman diagrams
using their colour information. We identify partial amplitudes
in terms of linear combinations of Feynman
diagrams. Similarly, we express primitive amplitudes in terms of
Feynman diagrams. Finally, we express partial amplitudes in terms of
primitive amplitudes by solving the linear set of equations to
eliminate the explicit dependence on the diagrams. In addition to the
colour decomposition of the partial amplitudes, we find non-trivial
relations between primitive amplitudes, which arise due to the
redundancy of the linear equations we solve.
\subsection{Setup}
We begin by generating all one-loop Feynman diagrams using
{\sc QGRAF}{}~\cite{QGRAF}. We remove diagrams with contact terms
(four-point gluon vertices), tadpoles and those with bubbles on
external lines. Let us suppose there are $N_d$ diagrams after this
procedure. The output of this program is then processed using the
computer algebra package {\sc FORM}{}~\cite{FORM}. Using this package we
dress the diagrams with colour - gluons in the adjoint and quarks in
the fundamental representation of the gauge group - and simplify the
colour algebra using eqs.~(\ref{eq:fabc}) and (\ref{eq:fierz}). There
is no need to substitute the kinematic parts of the Feynman rules, so
we leave this information implicit. This procedure gives us an
expression for the amplitude in terms of sums of diagrams multiplied
by the various colour structures that may appear,
\begin{equation} \mathcal{A}(\{ {\bf a}_g,{ \bf i}_q\}) = \sum_{i=1}^{N_P} A_i^{\rm partial}
C_i(\{ {\bf a}_g, {\bf i}_q \}). \end{equation}
On the left hand side is the fully colour-dressed amplitude, which
depends on the set of colour charges $\{\bf{a}_g,\bf{i}_q \}$ of the
external particles. The right hand side is its decomposition in terms
of $N_P$ partial amplitudes $A_i^{\rm partial}$, multiplying colour
structures $C_i$. Partial amplitudes and their colour structures are
discussed further in~\sect{sect:partialampl}. Here and in the
following we leave implicit all dependence on momenta and helicities.
After processing the diagrams in this way, we find expressions
for the $A_i^{\rm partial}$ as sums of diagrams,
\begin{equation} \label{partialamp} A_i^{\rm partial} = \sum_{j=1}^{N_d} K_i\,^j\, d_{j}\quad\mbox{for}\quad i=1,\ldots,N_P. \end{equation}
Here $K_i\,^j$ is a $N_P \times N_d$ matrix which describes how the
$j$'th diagram contributes to the $i$'th partial amplitude. The
entries of the matrix $K_i\,^j$ consist of simple functions of the
rank of the gauge group, $N_c$. The $d_i$ are the kinematic parts of
the set of Feynman diagrams, but we will not need their explicit form
here. It is sufficient to think of them as tags for the individual
Feynman diagrams.
With this in hand, we now discuss how the primitive amplitudes are
expressed in terms of diagrams. We first go back and dress the
original one-loop Feynman diagrams with colour assuming that all
external particles, including quarks, live in the adjoint
representation of the gauge group. Upon simplifying the colour
algebra, we find two types of term --- those with single traces, and
those with double traces, exactly as one finds for purely gluonic
amplitudes,
\begin{equation} \mathcal{A}^{\rm adjoint}(\{{\bf a}_g,{\bf a}_q\}) = \sum_{\sigma \in
S_n/\mathbb{Z}_n} N_c \mathop{\rm Tr}\nolimits(T^{a_{\sigma(1)}} T^{a_{\sigma(2)}} \cdots
T^{a_{\sigma(n)}})\, A^{\rm coarse}(\sigma) + \textrm{double trace terms.} \end{equation}
In this equation we have added the label `adjoint' to remind the
reader that this is the amplitude with all external particles in the
adjoint representation. The sum is over the permutation group $S_n$ of
$n$ elements modulo cyclic rotations $\mathbb{Z}_n$. Some permutations
may not appear when fermion lines of the diagrams cannot be arranged
in a planar way. We drop all double-trace terms. Note that there is
no approximation being made here --- this is simply the definition of
the primitive amplitudes. (The double trace contributions can be
fully reconstructed from the primitive amplitudes, though we will not
need to do this here.)
If we were to restrict ourselves to the case of amplitudes with only adjoint
particles, then we could now identify the coefficients $A^{\rm
coarse}(1,2,\dots,n)$ of the single trace structures as primitive amplitudes,
\begin{equation} \label{coarseprimitiveamp} A_k^{\rm coarse}(\sigma_k) = \sum_{j=1}^{N_d}
(L^{\rm coarse})_k\,^j\, d_j, \qquad k=1,\ldots ,N_{\rm prim}^{\rm coarse}\,, \end{equation}
where $(L^{\rm coarse})_k\,^j$ is a coefficient matrix with integer entries.
However, as described in~\sect{sect:PrimitiveAmpls}, following
ref.~\cite{TwoQuarkThreeGluon} for the case of a single fermion line,
when fundamental quarks are present these objects can be split further
into finer gauge invariant pieces. These pieces are distinguished by
the direction of the fermion line relative to the loop. Following the
fermion line into the diagram, one defines `left-turner' (L) fermions
as those which pass to the left of the loop, while `right-turner' (R)
fermions pass to the right. If the loop is in fact a closed fermion
loop, the diagram acquires an additional label $n_f$. These concepts
have already been discussed in \sect{sect:PrimitiveAmpls}. We extend
this grouping of diagrams to generic processes by labelling each
fermion line as a left- or right- turner. We thus take the primitive
amplitudes to be
\begin{equation} \label{eq:setofprims} A^{D_1\dots D_{N_q}}(1,\dots,n), \end{equation}
where $N_q$ is the number of fermion lines and $D_i \in \{L,R\}$
labels each as either a left or right turner. In the argument list we
have suppressed the identities of the $2N_q$ fermions and $n-2N_q$
gluons.
Let us suppose there are $N_{\rm prim}$ primitive amplitudes. Using our
setup we derive an expression for each of them as a sum of diagrams,
just as we did for the partial amplitudes in \eqn{partialamp},
\begin{equation} \label{primitiveamp} A_k^{{\bf D}_k} \equiv A^{{\bf D}_k}(\sigma_k) =
\sum_{j=1}^{N_d} L_k\,^j\, d_j, \qquad k=1,\ldots, N_{\rm prim}
\end{equation}
where the direction labels are implied. Here $L_k\,^j$ is a $N_{\rm prim} \times
N_d$ matrix describing how the j'th diagram contributes to the k'th
primitive.
We now attempt to express the partial amplitudes of
\eqn{partialamp} as linear combinations of the primitive amplitudes of
\eqn{primitiveamp}. We write
\begin{equation} \label{tosolve} A_i^{\rm partial} = \sum_{k=1}^{N_{\rm prim}} Z_i\,^k\,
A_k^{{\bf D}_k}, \end{equation}
where $i$ runs from $1$ to $N_P$, and look for solutions for the coefficients
$Z_i\,^k$ of this set of linear equations,
\begin{equation} K_i\,^j=Z_i\,^k\,\,L_k\,^j\,.\label{eqn:finalequations} \end{equation}
The solutions of this set of equations are typically not unique as
will be discussed further in \sect{sect:relations}.
We have confirmed that the solutions match those obtained from the
known all-multiplicity expressions in ref.~\cite{Neq4Oneloop} in the
case of purely gluonic processes, and ref.~\cite{TwoQuarkThreeGluon}
for processes with one quark line. For processes with more than one
quark line we reproduce the closed form analytic expressions available
in refs.~\cite{ZqqQQ,Zqqgg} and \cite{W3jcolordec}. Beyond that we are
able to present new results as presented in more detail
in~\sect{Results}.
\subsection{Relations}
\label{sect:relations}
The linear equations (\ref{eqn:finalequations}) typically give rise to
non-trivial solutions $\{(Z^{\rm rel})^k\}$,
\begin{equation} (Z^{\rm rel})^k\,\,L_k\,^j=0\,.\label{eqn:kernel} \end{equation}
This means that the Feynman diagrams associated with a linear
combination of primitive amplitudes add up to zero. Interpreted for
the primitive amplitudes this implies linear relations,
\begin{equation} \label{relations} 0=\sum_{k=1}^{N_{\rm prim}} (Z^{\rm rel}_i)^k\, A_k^{{\bf
D}_k}\,,\quad i=1,\ldots,N^{\rm relations}\,, \end{equation}
for the case that $N^{\rm rel}$ solutions $(Z^{\rm rel}_i)^k$ have been found.
In order to verify the relations no detailed knowledge of the Feynman
amplitudes is necessary. They arise at the diagrammatic level when taking
into account the anti-symmetry of colour-ordered three-point vertices.
It is tempting to relate the above relations to the ones that are
known for colour-ordered tree amplitudes, such as the $U(1)$
decoupling identity~\cite{MPXColor,BGColor,BGngluons} and non-abelian
generalizations~\cite{BGrelations} through the Kleiss-Kuijf
relations~\cite{KKrelations}. The role of these relations for
loop-level colour-decomposition has already been pointed out some time
ago~\cite{Neq4Oneloop,UnitarityMethod,DDMcolor} and recently reviewed in
ref.~\cite{EKMZreview}. We will not attempt a detailed analysis into
this direction but make some general remarks about the observed
relations~(\ref{relations}).
One remark concerns the importance of having multiple fermion lines to
obtain the above relations. When considering fermion lines the
anti-symmetry of the fermion-fermion-gluon three point vertex implies
certain fermionic amplitudes may be related. The complete list of all
relations is a by-product of our way to obtain the colour
decompositions of partial amplitudes. By inspection we observed that
the relations in \eqn{relations} originate from this anti-symmetry.
We will discuss two examples below in \sect{sect:examplerel}. As the
multiplicity of quark amplitudes is increased by addition of gluons,
the number of relations increases due to the different ways gluons can
be added to ordered amplitudes. The new relations appear as
descendants of the ones of the purely fermionic amplitudes.
A second remark is about an application of the above relations. For
numerical evaluation of scattering amplitudes (see later
in~\sect{Results}) we exploit the relations between primitive
amplitudes (\ref{relations}) to optimise caching and thus run-times.
In the explicit expressions given, we pick methodically a subset of
primitive amplitudes using the relations. In fact we sort primitive
amplitudes according to the number of propagators of their parent
diagrams. We then apply the relations to eliminate primitive
amplitudes starting from the ones with the minimal number of parent
propagators as part of the loop. This procedure minimizes the number
of primitive amplitudes that need to be computed. However, it does not
take into account which primitive amplitudes are most easily computed.
Similarly, one could make use mostly of primitive amplitudes with a
minimal number of parent loop propagators. For a unitarity-based
algorithm this choice would be beneficial, reducing the number of
unitarity-cuts to consider. We leave a more thorough analysis of the
relations between primitive amplitudes to the future. It seems likely
that an understanding of the relations between primitive amplitudes
(\ref{relations}) will be helpful towards establishing all-$n$
formulae for the colour decompositions, which are beyond the scope of
the present article.
\subsubsection{Example Relations}
\label{sect:examplerel}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{relations_nf.eps}\\
\vskip 0.4cm \includegraphics[scale=0.4]{relations.eps}
\caption{
Parent diagram representation of relations between multi-quark primitive
amplitudes: Diagrams (a) show a vanishing sum of primitive amplitudes
associated to parent diagrams with a closed fermion loop, as in
\eqn{eq:relation_nf}. Diagrams (b) show a vanishing sum of primitive
amplitudes with at least one gluon in the loop, the pictorial form
of~\eqn{eq:relation}. The relations originate from exchanging the ordering of
the fermion pair $\{4_{\Q{2}},5_{\Qb{2}}\}$,which gives a relative sign.
Parent diagrams represent classes of colour-ordered Feynman diagrams. The
contributions of all colour-ordered Feynman diagrams cancel once the asymmetry
of the fermion-fermion-gluon vertices is taken into account. }
\label{fig:relation}
\end{figure}
For the set of primitive amplitudes we are dealing with the origin of these
relations are the symmetry properties of the quark-quark-gluon vertices. A
simple example with an internal fermion line is given by,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:relation_nf}
A^{\rm n_fLL}(1_Q,5_\Qb{2},4_\Q{2},2,3_\Qb{})+
A^{\rm n_fLR}(1_Q,4_\Q{2},5_\Qb{2},2,3_\Qb{})+
A^{\rm n_fLL}(1_Q,5_\Qb{2},2,4_\Q{2},3_\Qb{})=0\,,\\
\end{equation}
with the parent diagrams shown in~\fig{fig:relation}. Similarly, relations my
be found for diagrams with no closed internal fermion line,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:relation}
A^{\rm LL}(1_Q, 3_\Qb{}, 5_\Qb{2}, 4_\Q{2}, 2)
+A^{\rm LR}(1_Q, 3_\Qb{}, 4_\Q{2}, 5_\Qb{2}, 2)
+A^{\rm LL}(1_Q, 3_\Qb{}, 5_\Qb{2}, 2,
4_\Q{2})=0\,,
\end{equation}
with the parent diagrams shown in~\fig{fig:relation} (b).
For both diagrammatic equations, (a) and (b) in~\fig{fig:relation},
the same mechanism is at work. Contributions from the first two
diagrams, respectively, with a direct
($4_\Q{2}$,$5_\Qb{2}$,gluon)-vertex cancel against the ones with a
direct ($5_\Qb{2}$,$4_\Q{2}$,gluon)-vertex, given that the exchange of
quarks $4_{Q_2}\leftrightarrow 5_{{\bar Q}_2}$ introduces a relative
minus-sign. The remaining contributions include Feynman diagrams with
the gluon moved onto the fermion line. For the first parent diagram in
in~\fig{fig:relation} that would be gluon emission from $4_\Q{2}$, and
for the second parent diagram emission from $5_\Qb{2}$. These
contributions are distinct and it is the role of the Feynman diagrams
represented by the third parent diagram, to cancel off these remaining
pieces.
\subsection{A four-point example}
\label{Example}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{diag1.eps}
\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{diag2.eps}
\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{diag3.eps}
\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{diag4.eps}
\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{diag5.eps}
\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{diag6.eps}
\caption{Feynman diagrams $d_i$ contributing to the four-quark amplitude. For simplicity
we consider only box and triangle diagrams. These are sufficient to obtain the
colour decomposition of the four-quark partial amplitudes. } \label{example_FDs}
\end{figure}
To illustrate the method described in the previous section we present
here a fully worked example. We consider the amplitude for scattering
of two pairs of different flavour quarks,
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{A}(1_q,2_\bar q{},3_\q{2},4_\bar q{2})\,.
\end{equation}
To keep things as simple as possible we will ignore contributions with
closed fermion loops, though in our final results these pieces are of
course included. We make one further simplification for transparency
of the example: we consider six Feynman diagrams ($N_d=6$),
illustrated in figure \ref{example_FDs}, and drop bubble
diagrams. These diagrams are sufficient for the present example.
After dressing them with colour (quarks and anti-quarks live in the
fundamental and anti-fundamental representations of $SU(N_c)$
respectively), and simplifying using \eqn{eq:fierz}, we find two
distinct colour structures ($N_P=2$),
\begin{equation}
C_1 = \delta_{i_1}^{\bar\imath_2} \delta_{i_3}^{\bar\imath_4},
\qquad
C_2 = \delta_{i_1}^{\bar\imath_4} \delta_{i_3}^{\bar\imath_2}.
\end{equation}
The amplitude is a linear combination of $C_1$ and $C_2$,
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{A}(1_q,2_\bar q{},3_\q{2},4_\bar q{2}) =
A_1^{\rm partial}(1_q,2_\bar q{};3_\q{2},4_\bar q{2})\, C_1
+
A_2^{\rm partial}(1_q,4_\bar q{2};3_\q{2},2_\bar q{})\,C_2
\,.
\end{equation}
The expression of the partial amplitudes,
$A_1^{\rm partial}(1_q,2_\bar q{};3_\q{2},4_\bar q{2})$
and
$A_2^{\rm partial}(1_q,4_\bar q{2};3_\q{2},2_\bar q{})$,
in terms of the Feynman diagrams in figure \ref{example_FDs} is described in
(\ref{partialamp}) through the $2 \times 6$ matrix of coefficients $K_i\,^j$,
{\setlength\arraycolsep{2.5mm}
\begin{equation}
\{K_i\,^j\} = \left( \begin{array}{cccccc}
-1 & \frac{1}{N_c^2} & -1 & \frac{1}{N_c^2} & 1+ \frac{1}{N_c^2} & \frac{1}{N_c^2}
\\[5pt]
N_c & -\frac{1}{N_c} & N_c & -\frac{1}{N_c} & -\frac{2}{N_c} & N_c - \frac{2}{N_c}
\end{array} \right),
\end{equation} }
when contracted with the vector of Feynman diagrams $d_j$. The top row of this expression
relates to $C_1$, and the bottom row to $C_2$.
To find the primitives, we must dress the amplitude with colour
assuming all particles are in the adjoint representation, and then
extract the primitives as the coefficients of the single trace
structures. We find
\begin{eqnarray} \label{exampleprims}
A^{LL}(1_Q,2_\Qb{},4_\Qb{2},3_\Q{2}) &=& -d_4, \label{eqn:prim1}\\
A^{LL}(1_\Q{},3_\Q{2},4_\Qb{2},2_\Qb{}) &=& -d_2, \\
A^{LL}(1_Q,4_\Qb{2},3_\Q{2},2_\Qb{}) &=& d_1+d_3+d_6,\\
A^{LR}(1_\Q{},2_\Qb{},3_\Q{2},4_\Qb{2}) &=& d_4, \\
A^{LR}(1_\Q{},3_\Q{2},4_\Qb{2},2_\Qb{}) &=& d_5-d_3-d_1,\\
A^{LR}(1_\Q{},4_\Qb{2},3_\Q{2},2_\Qb{}) &=& d_2. \label{eqn:primexample}
\end{eqnarray}
Already at this level we observe that the primitive amplitudes are related as,
\begin{eqnarray}
A^{LL}(1_Q,2_\Qb{},4_\Qb{2},3_\Q{2}) &=&
-A^{LR}(1_\Q{},2_\Qb{},3_\Q{2},4_\Qb{2})\,,\nonumber\\ \quad
A^{LL}(1_\Q{},3_\Q{2},4_\Qb{2},2_\Qb{}) &=&
-A^{LR}(1_\Q{},4_\Qb{2},3_\Q{2},2_\Qb{})\,. \label{eqn:relexample}
\end{eqnarray}
These relations are an example of the ones discussed in~\sect{sect:relations}.
They are not direct consequences of the symmetry properties of the primitive
amplitudes (\ref{eqn:cyclsymm}), (\ref{eqn:flipsymm}) and
(\ref{eqn:flipfermarrow}). Rather they are explained by the anti-symmetry of
the colour-ordered fermion-fermion-gluon vertex. In \eqns{eqn:relexample} the
exchange $3\leftrightarrow4$ and $LL\leftrightarrow LR$ relates the primitives
up to a sign. This can also be inferred from the diagrams $d_2$ and $d_3$ in
\fig{example_FDs}.
Following our earlier notation (\ref{primitiveamp}) the equations
(\ref{eqn:prim1})-(\ref{eqn:primexample}) are expressed through a matrix of
coefficients $L_k\,^j$ and a vector of primitives $A^{D_k}_k$,
\begin{equation} \label{Lmatrix}
\{L_k\,^j\} = \left( \begin{array}{cccccc}
0 & 0 & 0 & -1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & -1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\
-1 & 0 & -1 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0
\end{array} \right)\,,\quad
\{A^{D_k}_k\}=\left( \begin{array}{c}
A^{LL}(1_Q,2_\Qb{},4_\Qb{2},3_\Q{2})\\
A^{LL}(1_\Q{},3_\Q{2},4_\Qb{2},2_\Qb{})\\
A^{LL}(1_Q,4_\Qb{2},3_\Q{2},2_\Qb{})\\
A^{LR}(1_\Q{},2_\Qb{},3_\Q{2},4_\Qb{2})\\
A^{LR}(1_\Q{},3_\Q{2},4_\Qb{2},2_\Qb{})\\
A^{LR}(1_\Q{},4_\Qb{2},3_\Q{2},2_\Qb{})
\end{array} \right)\,.
\end{equation}
We note that $L$ is generally not square, though in this case it is
because we chose a reduced number of Feynman diagrams, which happens
to be equal to the number of primitive amplitudes.
The solution to equation (\ref{tosolve}) can be found by eliminating the $d_i$
from eqns.~(\ref{partialamp}) using linear combinations of the primitive
amplitudes (\ref{primitiveamp}). We obtain the coefficient matrix $Z_i\,^k$ by
solving the linear system of equations (\ref{eqn:finalequations}) with {\tt
Mathematica}~\cite{mathematica}.
It turns out that there are many different solutions, reflecting the relations
(\ref{eqn:relexample}) between primitive amplitudes. This is a new feature for
multiple quark line processes that is not observed in the purely gluonic, or
single quark line cases. In fact, the matrix $\{L_k\,^j\}$ is a $6\times6$
matrix with rank four. The associated null space (\ref{eqn:kernel}) is
two-dimensional and given by the two vectors $(Z^{\rm rel}_i)^k$ with $i=1,2$.
In matrix notation we have,
\begin{equation}
\label{example_rel}
(Z^{\rm rel}_i)\,^k = \left( \begin{array}{cccccc} 1 & 0& 0& 1 & 0 & 0\\
%
0& 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1
\end{array} \right).
\end{equation}
The null vectors imply the same relations given already in
\eqns{eqn:relexample}.
The solutions are represented as a $N_P \times
N_{\rm prim}=2 \times 6 $ matrix $Z$ as follows
\begin{equation} \label{solution} Z_i\,^k = \left( \begin{array}{cccccc}
-\frac{1}{N_c^2}+\alpha &-\frac{1}{N_c^2} + \beta & \frac{1}{N_c^2} & \alpha & 1+\frac{1}{N_c^2} & \beta
\\
\frac{1}{N_c}+\gamma & \frac{1}{N_c} + \delta & N_c - \frac{2}{N_c} & \gamma & -\frac{2}{N_c} & \delta
\end{array} \right), \end{equation}
where $\alpha$, $\beta$, $\gamma$ and $\delta$ are arbitrary complex
numbers parameterising the solution space. The first row of $Z$ gives
the six coefficients of the primitive amplitudes, in the basis
(\ref{exampleprims}), needed to construct the coefficient of the
colour structure $C_1$. The second row does the same thing for the
structure $C_2$.
Anticipating the explicit results in~\sect{Results} we relate the solutions
(\ref{solution}) to the attached data-files. Compared to the explicit colour
decompositions given in the attached file (partials\_4q.dat) we have the
following choices for the parameters,
$\alpha=0$, $\beta=\frac{1}{N_c^2}$, $\gamma=0$, and $\delta=-\frac{1}{N_c}$.
In this way we avoid the use of two out of six primitive amplitudes.
\section{Results}
\label{Results}
General expressions for the decomposition of partial amplitudes in terms of
sets of primitive amplitudes are available in the literature for two classes of
process, the $n$-gluon~\cite{BKColor,Neq4Oneloop} and the two-quark
$n$-gluon~\cite{TwoQuarkThreeGluon} QCD amplitudes.
A fixed-multiplicity decomposition of four-quark amplitudes was given
in~\cite{ZqqQQ,Zqqgg} and for an additional gluon in~\cite{W3jcolordec}. In
fact these expression were first given including particles neutral under the
gauge group. Here we generate sets of partial amplitudes algorithmically for a
given scattering process with emphasis on the cases of six- and seven-parton
QCD amplitudes including four quarks and six quarks. The generalisation of
these to amplitudes including a single colourless vector-boson is
straightforward, and will be discussed in \sect{sect:application_W4j}. In the
recent results \cite{W4jets,Z4jets} for $V$-boson plus four-jet NLO cross
sections, a leading-colour approximation was used in the virtual contribution.
In the following we will present a corresponding full-colour distribution.
\subsection{New colour decompositions for QCD amplitudes}
We present first our results for partial amplitudes in terms of primitive
amplitudes with six and seven coloured partons. We focus entirely on processes
with distinct quark flavours. This incurs no loss of generality, because all
other cases can be derived as simple linear combinations of these.
As an example we show in \fig{textExample6q} one of the partial
amplitudes relevant for six-quark processes. In this case there are 26
contributing primitives, each with its own $N_c$-dependent
coefficient. There are three turner labels, one for each quark
line. As described in~\sect{Setup}, when there are
multiple quark lines present the expressions are not unique, as the
primitive amplitudes satisfy a set of relations.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=1.7,angle=-90]{diagrams/partial_6q.dat.epsi}
\caption{
A six-quark partial amplitude given as a decomposition into primitive
amplitudes. The shown partial amplitude is an extract from the file ${\rm partials\_6\,q.dat}$ in the ancillary material~\cite{partialsdata}.
}
\label{textExample6q} \end{figure}
It is interesting to consider in comparison the leading-colour part of
the above partial amplitude, as shown
in~\fig{textExample6q_LC}. Formally, the leading colour part of the
partial amplitude is here defined as the leading terms in the limit
$N_c \gg 1$ and $n_f \gg 1$ with the ratio $N_c/n_f$ fixed.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=1.7,angle=-90]{diagrams/partial_6q_LC.dat.epsi}
\caption{Leading colour six-quark partial amplitude given as a decomposition
into primitive amplitudes.}
\label{textExample6q_LC} \end{figure}
The number of contributing primitive amplitudes is strongly reduced
when subleading in $N_c$ contributions are removed. This is one of the
reasons for using this approximation when constructing NLO partonic
Monte Carlo programs --- the leading-colour amplitude can be
numerically evaluated much faster.
The leading-colour contribution to the decomposition of quark amplitudes is
easily obtained for arbitrary multiplicities following a few simple rules: 1)
partial amplitudes with vanishing or subleading (in $1/N_c$) tree-level
contributions are set to zero. 2) the particle orderings of the leading-colour
primitive amplitudes follow that of the born amplitude. 3) Two particular types
of left-right-turner labels are singled out leading to the two types of parent
diagrams as shown in~\fig{fig:LCparents}. In (a) we show the primitive
amplitude with multiple left-turner quark lines including gluon propagators in
the loop. It is denoted by the label $(LLL\ldots)$. The associated parent
diagram has both gluon and fermion propagators. The number of propagators
matches the multiplicity of the amplitude, here meant to be $n$. The second
primitive amplitude, (b), has a closed fermion loop with each fermion line
coupled to it via gluons. The label specifying the fermion routing is then
$(n_fLLL\ldots)$. The associated parent diagram has only fermion propagators.
The general structure is manifest in the two-, four- and six-quark cases
discussed here.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{LC_parents.eps}
\caption{Generic leading-colour parent diagrams for the leading partial
amplitudes: (a) a $(LL\cdots L)$-turner and (b) a $(n_fLL\cdots L)$-turner. External
gluons may be added if directly emitted from the gluonic loop propagators in
(a) or from the fermion loop in (b).}
\label{fig:LCparents} \end{figure}
\subsection{Explicit results in attached text files}
\label{sect:datafiles}
The expressions for the partial amplitudes can be found in the
location~\cite{partialsdata} in the respective text files
\begin{equation} {\rm partials\_\,n_g\,g\,n_q\,q.dat} \end{equation}
provided for all independent partial amplitudes with $n_g$ gluons and $n_q$
quarks. The format of the files has been described
in~\sect{sect:PartialNotation}. We give the cases,
\begin{equation} \{(n_g,n_q)\}=\{(0,4),(1,4),(2,4),(3,4),(0,6),(1,6)\}. \end{equation}
Together with the $(n,0)$ and $(n-2,2)$ assemblies given in
refs.~\cite{Neq4Oneloop,TwoQuarkThreeGluon}, this completes the colour
decomposition of QCD amplitudes up to and including seven colour-charged
external states.
We confirmed that two independent implementations of the algorithm
described in this paper produce identical numerical results for
partial amplitudes. The explicit expressions from each implementation
match up to application of the relations described in~\sect{sect:relations}.
Furthermore, the expressions for the partial amplitudes are checked
against the existing results in the literature where available. In
particular, for all new six-parton and seven-parton expressions we
confirmed numerically that the virtual squared matrix elements give
the expected pole structure~\cite{CataniIRPoles} for single and double
poles in the dimensional regularization parameter $\epsilon$. We used
{\sc BlackHat}{}~\cite{BlackHatI} and {\sc SHERPA}{}~\cite{Sherpa} for this
numerical check. A further numerical check is provided by the recent public
release of {\sc Helac-1Loop}{}~\cite{HPP,helacnlo}, which we have used to check
all our 6-parton results.
In addition to the expressions for pure QCD amplitudes, the attached files (for
the download location see~\cite{partialsdata})
\begin{equation} {\rm partials\_\,n_g\,g\,n_q\,q\,2l.dat} \end{equation}
give their generalisation to include a colour neutral lepton pair. These
contributions are the ones relevant for the computation of $W\,\!+\,4${}-jet
production, as we discuss in the next section.
\subsection{Application to $W\,\!+\,4${} jets}
\label{sect:application_W4j}
The results we have presented are crucial for the application of the
colour-ordered approach to vector-boson production in association with
multiple jets at NLO. With the colour decomposition of the pure QCD
amplitudes one can obtain rather simply their generalisations to
include colourless states. We discuss here how to obtain the colour
decomposition of $W$+jets amplitudes, and give a comparison of
leading-colour versus full-colour differential distributions of the
virtual part of $W\,\!+\,4${}-jet production at the LHC.
\subsubsection{Inserting colour-less states.}
Amplitudes with additional colourless objects -- leptons, vector bosons, Higgs
bosons, etc. -- can be accommodated in the decomposition of partial amplitudes
into primitive amplitudes starting from the pure QCD decomposition.
For $W\,\!+\,n${}-jet production we consider the decay of the $W$-boson into
a lepton pair, $\nu_\ell$ and $\ell$. These amplitudes can be
obtained by first computing amplitudes with a virtual photon that is
emitted from a quark $q$ and decays to a charged lepton pair
$(\ell_L,\ell_R)$. In a second step, the conversion to a lepton and a
neutrino $(\nu_{\ell\,L}\,, \ell_R)$ is done by multiplicative factors
including couplings and $W$-boson propagator terms. Details about
this conversion are explained in refs.~\cite{Zqqgg,TreesFromN4}. With
this approach we consider amplitudes with a lepton pair coupled to a
quark pair via an off-shell photon. In fact, we do not need to
consider all such amplitudes; we can drop the emission of the photon
from an internal quark loop as these kind of emissions are forbidden
for $W$-production due to flavour non-conservation.
With the basic understanding that the lepton pair is coupled to the quark with
flavour one, it is straightforward to transcribe the pure QCD partial amplitude
into the one including a virtual photon decayed into a lepton pair, as
displayed in~\fig{textExample6q2l}. The full scattering matrix elements can be
built from these basic amplitudes~\cite{Zqqgg}.
\begin{figure}[th]
\includegraphics[scale=1.7,angle=-90]{diagrams/partial_6q2l.dat.epsi}
\caption{ Six-quark two-lepton partial amplitude given as a decomposition into
primitive amplitudes. The leptons couple via virtual photon exchange to the quarks
with flavour one, $Q$ and $\overline{Q}$. These partial amplitudes are building
blocks of the scattering amplitudes for $W$-boson production.}
\label{textExample6q2l} \end{figure}
\subsubsection{Full colour differential distributions.}
The transverse momentum, $p_T$, of the accompanying jets is one of the
most important observables in $W$-boson production. For $W\,\!+\,4$-jet
production at NLO the differential $p_T$ distributions of the leading
four jets have been given in~\cite{W4jets}. In that paper a
leading-colour approximation was used for the virtual
parts\footnote{The other parts - the born and real emission - were evaluated
without any colour-based approximation.}. Here we compute for the
first time the subleading-colour corrections and compare the size of
leading-colour and full-colour virtual contributions. We use the same
basic setup and cuts as in~\cite{W4jets}. The virtual contributions
are computed using on-shell methods via the {\sc BlackHat}{} package, while
{\sc SHERPA}{} is used to perform the phase-space integration. The
combination of these two programs has been used extensively for
studying hadron collider phenomenology at NLO
\cite{W3jDistributions,PRLW3BH,W4jets,Z4jets,TeVZ,BlackHatI,BHWpol,BHphoton},
and is very well tested. For simplicity we will here focus on the
$p_T$ distribution of the fourth jet.
The leading-colour approximation used here differs from the one in
ref.~\cite{W4jets} by terms subleading in $1/N_c$. Both approximations
drop only finite terms (in the $1/\epsilon$ expansion) and retain the
full colour dependence of the IR-divergent pieces. Our explicit setup
for the finite parts is given in the following. Initially, our
virtual contributions are computed in the four-dimensional helicity
(FDH) scheme~\cite{FDHolder,FDH}, which is most convenient for the use
of helicity amplitudes. Only in the end are the virtual amplitudes
converted to the more standard 't Hooft-Veltman scheme~\cite{HVscheme}
used as input for {\sc SHERPA}{}. This conversion is done through a simple
shift proportional to the born matrix element (see e.g. section six
in~\cite{Zqqgg}). Our leading-colour approximation contains the full
scheme shift contributions, including terms subleading in $1/N_c$. In
both approaches, the partial amplitudes include the leading terms in
the formal limit $N_c \gg 1$ and $n_f \gg 1$ with $N_c/n_f$
fixed. Here, all interference terms of the non-zero partial amplitudes
are kept. To point out one difference to ref.~\cite{W4jets}, there,
in a more conventional approach, only the leading-colour interference
terms were kept.
\begin{figure} \includegraphics[scale=0.9]{diagrams/Jet4_4jet.eps}
\caption{
A comparison of the full and leading-colour virtual
contributions to the $p_T$ distribution of the fourth jet in
$W^-$+4-jet production at the $7$~TeV LHC. Their difference
(full-minus-leading-colour) is also shown. We show not a physical cross
section, but rather a particular piece of it. The subleading-colour
contribution is suppressed by a factor of $1/N_c^2$, approximately uniformly.
The vertical lines in the center of each bin, indicate integration errors.}
\label{Wm4j_virt_pt} \end{figure}
The comparison of the full-colour and leading-colour virtual contributions to
the $p_T$ distribution of the fourth jet in $W^-$+4-jet production at the LHC
is shown in~\fig{Wm4j_virt_pt}. Also displayed are the subleading-colour
contributions by themselves, labelled as ``full-minus-leading-colour''. In
order to obtain the full parton level differential cross-section one must add
the real and born contributions in the usual way. The complete $p_T$
distribution, including born, real and leading-colour virtual contributions,
has been given already in~\cite{W4jets}.
We confirm that the subleading-colour contribution is suppressed uniformly over
the $p_T$ range from 20 GeV to 200 GeV. The suppression appears consistent
with the expected factor of $1/N_c^2$ with $N_c=3$. With the leading-colour
virtual part accounting for about $20\%$ of the leading-colour total cross
section, as already observed in refs.~\cite{W3jDistributions,W4jets}, the
subleading-colour virtual part amounts to less than a $3\%$ correction.
Although numerically similar, the present leading colour
approximation and the one from ref.~\cite{W4jets} are not identical.
We have checked that our conclusions hold for both definitions, namely that
sub-leading colour contributions are at the level of a few percent.
A possible exception to the uniform suppression are zeros of the leading-colour
virtual cross section. Such zeros are not excluded on general grounds, as the
virtual piece alone is not physical. A priori, there is no reason to assume that
the vanishing of the leading-colour contribution forces also the vanishing of
the subleading-colour contribution. Close to a zero of the leading-colour
contribution we naturally expect a relative enhancement of the
subleading-colour piece. In the range of the distribution presented
in~\fig{Wm4j_virt_pt} we do not observe such behaviour and observe a uniform
suppression of the subleading-colour contribution. We leave a more thorough
consideration of this issue, as well as a more detailed phenomenological
analysis, to future work.
\section{Conclusion}
\label{Conclusion}
Recent years have seen impressive progress in NLO parton level
computations relevant for LHC physics. In particular, the unitarity and
on-shell approaches have opened new possibilities for the computation
of one-loop scattering amplitudes.
An important ingredient in these advances is a clear theoretical
understanding of the amplitudes, which enables an efficient
structuring of the calculation. This progress has made possible high
multiplicity parton-level predictions at NLO for generic physics
processes and models. The colour organisation discussed here is one
important aspect towards automation in the colour-ordered approach.
We have presented explicit expressions for the colour decomposition of
pure-QCD amplitudes with up to seven partons. We also gave their
extension to include a leptonically decaying $W$-boson. Whereas
leading-colour expressions are simple to write down, terms subleading
in $1/N_c$ are not easily obtained. We have described a general
algorithm for obtaining such subleading terms, applicable to cases
with any number of fermion pairs.
Although we give explicit expressions, typically these are not
unique. There exist relations between primitive amplitudes which
originate in the anti-symmetry of the fermion-fermion-gluon
colour-ordered three-point vertex. We expect that these
``fermion-flip'' relations will be important in obtaining all-$n$
formulae for multi-quark amplitudes, as exist already for the
pure-gluon~\cite{Neq4Oneloop} and two-quark~\cite{TwoQuarkThreeGluon}
cases (see also~\cite{DDMcolor}).
Contributions to the virtual corrections at subleading order in $1/N_c$ have
been shown to be uniformly small over phase space for $W\,\!+\,1,2,3${}-jet production
in~\cite{W3jDistributions}. However, no general theorems are available to
assess the size of subleading-colour terms in all regions of phase space
\emph{a priori}. We have applied our new results to understand the effect of
subleading-colour virtual contributions to distributions of $W\,\!+\,4${}-jet
production. We showed that for the fourth-jet $p_T$ distribution the effect is
small (a few percent) and observe a similar behaviour for other distributions.
A detailed study of the physics, including subleading-colour contributions, to
pure jets and vector-boson plus jets could be carried out in the future using
the results of this article.
In summary, we have presented a general method towards a colour-ordered
approach for loop computations with many coloured final states. We expect these results will aid in physics studies of relevance to the LHC in the
near future.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
\vskip -.3 cm
We would like to thank Zvi Bern, Giovanni Diana, Lance Dixon, Fernando
Febres Cordero, Stefan H\"oche, David Kosower and Daniel Ma\^itre for
many useful discussions and comments on the manuscript. HI would like
to thank the School of Physics and Astronomy at Tel-Aviv University
for their hospitality during the completion of this work.
This research was supported by the US Department of Energy under
contracts DE--FG03--91ER40662. HI's work is supported by a grant from
the US LHC Theory Initiative through NSF contract PHY-0705682.
|
\section{Introduction}
Plane-wave scattering and guided modes are important problems in the
study of photonic crystals and periodic structures.
Guided scalar modes are Helmholtz fields exponentially trapped within periodic structures
in the absence of source fields originating from the exterior, and this special feature
has lead to many applications of photonic crystals such as waveguides and light filters.
In the case of a periodic slab finite in one direction
and periodic in the other two directions,
variational techniques such as in \cite{GilbargTrudinger1998}\cite{Jost2002}
have been applied to analyze guided modes.
In \cite{Bonnet-BeStarling1994}, Bonnet-Bendhia and Starling formulate
the scattering problem and guided mode problem for periodic slabs
and prove the existence and nonexistence of guided modes,
including guided modes with frequencies
embedded in the essential spectrum of the corresponding self-adjoint operator.
In \cite{ShipmanVolkov2007},
Shipman and Volkov
provide a proof of the nonexistence of guided modes in inverse structures for photonic crystal
slabs, i.e., structures that have higher wave speed in the slabs than in the exterior.
In this paper, we present a systematic mathematical framework for
composite structures that are periodic in one direction and
finite in the other two.
We call such structures ``periodic pillars''.
In order to derive the variational formulation, one needs to propose
the radiation condition through the Dirichlet-to-Neumann operator.
In \cite{Bonnet-BeStarling1994}, the radiation condition is enforced by mapping the Dirichlet
boundary data of the Fourier expansion
to the Neumann boundary data.
Our approach employs Bessel functions (see \cite{Watson1944}) to do this, thanks to the fact that,
in the exterior of pillars, general Helmholtz fields
can be expanded as an infinite superposition of Fourier harmonics with Bessel
functions as coefficients.
We propose the radiation condition for periodic pillars and formulate the scattering
problem through standard variational techniques shown in \cite{Evans1998}\cite{GilbargTrudinger1998}\cite{Jost2002}.
Naturally, we prove the existence of the solutions to the plane-wave scattering problem, and
characterize the frequency estimations of guided modes using the functional-analytic framework
for structures not necessarily piecewise.
The main original proof in this paper is the existence of guided modes
with frequency above the cutoff frequency, that is, above the light cone
in the first Brillouin zone.
The existence of guided modes with the frequencies below cutoff
are well established in \cite{Bonnet-BeStarling1994}, and the pair of frequency and wavenumber
satisfies continuous dispersion relations
and an extension to periodic pillars is straightforward.
The proof of existence of certain embedded guided modes is in general difficult.
In the proof in section 5.2 of \cite{Bonnet-BeStarling1994}, the existence of embedded
guided modes in periodic slabs is proved.
However, this type of embedded guided mode can be viewed as non-embedded
because the periodicity of the mathematical construction is chosen to
be larger than the smallest period of the structure and the mode.
In fact, any non-embedded guided mode in a periodic structure can be treated
as embedded if one artificially chooses a larger period:
this has the effect of reducing the size of Brillouin zone
in wavenumber space so that the reduced Bloch wavenumber of
the mode now lies above the light cone.
Thus these guided modes are subject to continuous dispersion relations, as
they are non-embedded from the point of view of their prime period.
In this paper, we prove the existence of truly nontrivial embedded guided modes
in section 4.1.
The embedded guided modes are obtained by designing a wavenumber-dependent subspace
of fields that is
invariant under the Helmholtz equation and tuning the material parameters so
that the eigenfunction inside the subspace is located in the regime where
all the propagating harmonics automatically vanish in this subspace.
The eigenfunctions in this subspace are automatically guided modes with
frequencies embedded in the continuous spectrum for the given wavenumber.
Our guided modes do not admit a smaller period, yet they persist with perturbations of
the wavenumbers.
The modes admit a continuous dispersion relation above the cutoff frequency.
Our proofs of nonexistence of guided modes are based on the ideas in
\cite{Bonnet-BeStarling1994}\cite{ShipmanVolkov2007}.
The first proof is an analogy of the proof in \cite{ShipmanVolkov2007} for piecewise constant inverse structures.
In that study, the proof of the nonexistence relies on a restriction on the
width of the slabs.
The restriction on the geometry of the structures is still needed in our proof
of nonexistence.
We do not know whether this restriction is necessary and leave it as an open problem.
The second nonexistence result is established by using radial monotonicity
of material parameters, in analogy with Theorem 3.5 of \cite{Bonnet-BeStarling1994} that involves
an appropriate Rellich identity.
\section{Media Structure and Scattering Problem}
\subsection{Pillar Structure and Radiation Condition}
Consider an infinitely long ``pillar-shaped'' structure whose material parameters are periodic in the $z$-direction
with period $2\pi$, that is,
\begin{equation}
\begin{gathered}
\epsilon(x,y,z+2\pi)=\epsilon(x,y,z), \quad\quad \mu(x,y,z+2\pi)=\mu(x,y,z), \quad\forall x,y,z. \\
\end{gathered}
\end{equation}
and bounded in the $x,y$ directions, illustrated by
Figure \ref{fig:pillar}.
\begin{figure}[htt]\label{fig:pillar}
\centering
\includegraphics*[viewport=80 230 680 720, scale=0.4]{fig_pillar.pdf}
\caption{a pillar structure periodic in $z-$direction and bounded in $x,y-$direction}
\end{figure}
Assume these coefficients to be bounded from below and above by positive numbers,
$\epsilon_-<\epsilon<\epsilon_+, \mu_-<\mu<\mu_+$.
We are interested in time-harmonic fields satisfying the scalar wave equation
that are spatially pseudo-periodic in $z$, that is $u(x,y,z)e^{-i\omega t}$,
where $u$ satisfies $u(x,y,z+2\pi)=u(x,y,z)e^{2\pi\kappa i}$
and $\kappa$ is the \emph{Bloch wavenumber}.
The field $u(x,y,z)$ is governed by the Helmholtz equation
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:Helmholtz}
\nabla\cdot\frac{1}{\mu}\nabla u(x,y,z)+\epsilon\omega^2 u(x,y,z)=0,
\end{equation}
in which $\epsilon$ and $\mu$ are bounded positive
and $2\pi$-periodic in $z$.
We use $\Omega=\{(x,y,z):-\pi\le z\le\pi\}$ to denote one period.
Suppose that $\epsilon=\epsilon_0, \mu=\,u_0$ for $r>R$ and we denote the restricted domain
$\Omega_R=\{(x,y,z):-\pi\le z\le \pi, r=\sqrt{x^2+y^2}<R\}$,
whose boundary is $\Gamma_R=\{(x,y,z)\in\Omega: -\pi<x,y<\pi, r=R\}$ plus the upper
and lower disks.\\
The spatial factor of a time-harmonic acoustic or electromagnetic wave is governed by
the Helmholtz equation \eqref{eqn:Helmholtz}.
By the $\kappa$-pseudo-periodicity, $u$ can be expanded as an infinite
superposition of Fourier harmonics in $\Omega\setminus\Omega_R$:
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:Expansion}
u(x,y,z)=\sum_{m=-\infty}^\infty\sum_{\ell=-\infty}^\infty R_{m,\ell}(r)e^{i\ell\theta}e^{i(m+\kappa)z},
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
R_{m,\ell}(r)=\begin{cases}
a_{m\ell}H^1_\ell(\eta_m r)+b_{m\ell}H^2_\ell(\eta_m r), & \mbox{if } \eta_m\neq0, \\
c_{m1}+c_{m2}\ln|r|, & \mbox{if } \eta_m=0, \ell=0, \\
c_{m\ell1}|r|^\ell+c_{m\ell2}|r|^{-\ell}, & \mbox{if } \eta_m=0, \ell\neq 0.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
In this expansion, if we assume $\eta_m>0$ when $\eta_m^2>0$ and $i\eta_m>0$ when $\eta_m^2$,
the Hankel functions $H^1_\ell(\eta_m r)$ are outgoing or exponentially decaying,
depending on whether $\eta_m$ is imaginary or real,
as $r\rightarrow\infty$, and the Hankel functions $H^2_\ell(\eta_m r)$ are incoming or exponentially
growing.
\smallskip
The Sommerfeld radiation condition
$\displaystyle\lim_{r\rightarrow\infty}r^{1/2}(\frac{\partial}{\partial r}-i\kappa)u=0$ is
equivalent to the following conditions, which is required for the study of the
scattering problem by a periodic pillar.
\begin{condition}[Radiation condition]\label{cond:radiation}
A field $u(r,\theta,z)$ satisfies the radiation condition if it admits the following Fourier-Bessel
representation for $r>R$:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
u(r,\theta,z)
&= \sum_{m\in \mathcal{Z}_p\cup\mathcal{Z}_e}\sum_{\ell\in\mathbb{Z}} a_{m\ell} H^1_\ell(\eta_m r) e^{i\ell\theta}e^{i(m+\kappa)z}\\
& +\sum_{m\in \mathcal{Z}_a}\left[\sum_{\ell>0}c_{ml_2}|r|^{-\ell}e^{i\ell\theta}
+\sum_{\ell<0}c_{m\ell_1}|r|^\ell e^{i\ell\theta}\right] e^{i(m+\kappa)z}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where the subsets $\mathcal{Z}_{p,a,e}$ of $\ZZ$ depend on $\kappa$ and are defined by
\begin{eqnarray*}
m\in \mathcal{Z}_p\Leftrightarrow \eta_m^2>0, \eta_m>0 \mbox{ (propagating harmonics)} \\
m\in \mathcal{Z}_a\Leftrightarrow \eta_m^2=0, \eta_m=0 \mbox{ (algebraic harmonics)} \\
m\in \mathcal{Z}_e\Leftrightarrow \eta_m^2<0, -i\eta_m>0 \mbox{ (evanescent harmonics) }.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{condition}
\subsection{Scattering Problems}
Although this paper deals with guided modes, it would be incomplete without a discussion
of the scattering problem. In fact, the nonexistence of guided modes is equivalent to the
unique solvability of the scattering problem.
Now consider the specific case of a plane wave.
\begin{problem}[Scattering problem, strong form]\label{prob:scattering}
Given $\epsilon_0,\epsilon_1,\mu_0,\mu_1>0$, find $u$ on $\Omega$ such that
\begin{equation}\left\{
\begin{split}
\nabla&\cdot\frac{1}{\mu}\nabla u+\epsilon\omega^2u=0 \mbox{ in } \Omega,\\
u \mbox{ is}& \mbox{ continuous on } \partial \Omega, \\
\frac{1}{\mu}&\frac{\partial u}{\partial n} \mbox{ is continuous on } \partial\Omega, \\
u^{inc}&=\sum_{m\in\mathcal{Z}_p}u_m^{inc}e^{i(\kappa_1x+\kappa_2y+(m+\kappa)z)},\\
u^{sc}&=u-u^{inc} \mbox{ and its derivatives are }\kappa \mbox{-periodic in } z,\\
u^{sc}&=u-u^{inc} \mbox{ satisfies the radiation condition }.
\end{split}
\right.
\end{equation}
\end{problem}
An incident plane wave $e^{i(\kappa_1x+\kappa_2y+\kappa_3z)}$
satisfies the Helmholtz equation exterior to the pillar, and thus
its wave vector satisfies $\kappa_1^2+\kappa_2^2=\eta_m^2$.
We take $\kappa$ to lie in the first Brillouin zone $[-1/2,1/2)$.
Noting that the function $e^{\frac{Z}{2}(t-\frac{1}{t})}$ generates
the Bessel functions, i.e., $e^{\frac{Z}{2}(t-\frac{1}{t})}=\sum_\ell t^\ell J_\ell(Z)$,
we let $t=e^{i(\theta+\theta_0)}$ to obtain
$e^{iZ\sin(\theta+\theta_0)}=\Sigma_\ell J_\ell(Z)e^{i\ell(\theta+\theta_0)}$.
Then with $\sin\theta_0=\frac{\kappa_1}{\eta_m}, \cos\theta_0=\frac{\kappa_2}{\eta_m}$,
and $Z=\eta_m r$, the incident wave can be written as a superposition
of Hankel functions:
\begin{equation}\label{idty:Incident}
\begin{split}
e^{i(\kappa_1x+\kappa_2y+\kappa_3z)}=&
e^{i(\eta_m r\cos\theta\sin\theta_0+\eta_m r\sin\theta\cos\theta_0)}e^{i\kappa_3z}\\
=&e^{i\eta_m r\sin(\theta+\theta_0)}e^{i(m+\kappa)z}\\
=&\sum_{\ell\in\ZZ} J_\ell(\eta_m r)e^{i\ell(\theta+\theta_0)}e^{i(m+\kappa)z}\\
=&\sum_{\ell\in\ZZ} \frac{1}{2}\left[H^1_\ell(\eta_m r)+H^2_\ell(\eta_m r)\right]e^{i\ell(\theta+\theta_0)}e^{i(m+\kappa)z}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
As a result, the scattering problem of plane waves can be reduced
to the linear superposition of propagating Fourier harmonics with Hankel functions.
To analyze the solvability of the scattering problem, it is convenient to reduce
to the truncated domain $\Omega_R$.
Define the pseudo-periodic field space
$H^1_\kappa(\Omega_R)=\{u\in H^1(\Omega_R):u(x, y, \pi)=u(x,y,-\pi)e^{2\pi\kappa i}\}$.
On the boundary $\Gamma_R$, the radiation condition
is characterized by a Dirichlet-to-Neumann map
$T:H^{\frac{1}{2}}_\kappa(\Gamma_R)\rightarrow H^{-\frac{1}{2}}_\kappa(\Gamma_R)$
(as in the Definition 5.19 of \cite{CakoniColton2006})
\begin{equation}
T:\sum_{m,\ell}\hat{u}_{m\ell}e^{i\ell\theta}e^{i(m+\kappa)z} \mapsto
\sum_{m,\ell}\gamma_{m\ell}\hat{u}_{m\ell}e^{i\ell\theta}e^{i(m+\kappa)z},
\end{equation}
where
\[
\gamma_{m\ell}=
\begin{cases}
\frac{-\eta_m H^{1'}_\ell(\eta_mR)}{H^1_\ell(\eta_mR)}, &\mbox{ if } m\not\in \mathcal{Z}_a, \\
|\ell|R^{-1}, &\mbox{ if } m\in\mathcal{Z}_a \mbox{ and }\ell\neq0, \\
0, &\mbox{ if } m\in\mathcal{Z}_a \mbox{ and }\ell=0.
\end{cases}
\]
To satisfy the radiation condition, the harmonics in \eqref{eqn:Expansion} with
$H^2_\ell(\eta_m r)$ for $m\in \mathcal{Z}_p\cup\mathcal{Z}_e$, harmonics
$(c_{m1}+c_{m2}\ln|r|) e^{i\ell\theta}e^{i(m+k)z}$ for $m\in\mathcal{Z}_a, \ell=0$, and harmonics
with $|r|^\ell$ for $m\in\mathcal{Z}_a, \ell>0$ all vanish.
The radiation condition is hence enforced by
\begin{equation}
\partial_n u+Tu=0 \mbox{ on } \Gamma_R.
\end{equation}
The operator $T$ has a ``nonnegative evanescent'' part $T_{e}$ and a ``propagating'' part $T_{p}$:
\begin{equation}
T=T_{e}+T_{p}.
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\widehat{(T_{e}f)}_{m\ell}=
\begin{cases}
\frac{-\eta_m H^{1'}_\ell(\eta_mR)}{H^1_\ell(\eta_mR)}\hat f_{m\ell}, \mbox{ if } m\in \mathcal{Z}_e, \\
|\ell|R^{-1}\hat f_{m\ell}, \mbox{ if } m\in\mathcal{Z}_a \mbox{ and } \ell\neq 0 ,\\
0, \mbox{ otherwise },
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\widehat{(T_{p}f)}_{m\ell}=
\begin{cases}
\frac{-\eta_m H^{1'}_\ell(\eta_mR)}{H^1_\ell(\eta_mR)}\hat f_{m\ell}, \mbox{ if } m\in \mathcal{Z}_p, \\
0, \mbox{ otherwise }.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
The variational form of the scattering problem in the truncated domain is
\begin{problem}[Scattering problem, variational form]\label{prob:weak1}
\begin{equation}
\left\{
\begin{split}
& u\in H^1_\kappa(\Omega_R) \\
& a(u,v)-\omega^2b(u,v)=f(v), \forall v\in H^1_\kappa(\Omega_R)
\end{split}
\right.
\end{equation}
where
\[
\begin{split}
a(u,v)&=\int_{\Omega_R}\frac{1}{\mu}\nabla u\cdot\nabla \bar v+\frac{1}{\mu_0}\int_{\Gamma_R}(Tu)\bar v,\\
b(u,v)&=\int_{\Omega_R}\epsilon u \bar v,\\
f(v)&=\frac{1}{\mu_0}\int_{\Gamma_R}\left[(\partial_n u^{inc}+Tu^{inc})\bar v\right].\\
\end{split}
\]
\end{problem}
The variational form in problem \ref{prob:weak1} can be written as
\[
a(u,v)-\omega^2b(u,v)=c_1(u,v)+c_2(u,v)
\]
with
$c_1(u,v)=\int_{\Omega_R}(\frac{1}{\mu}\nabla u\cdot\nabla \bar v+\epsilon u \bar v )+\frac{1}{\mu_0}\int_{\Gamma_R}(Tu)\bar v$
and $c_2(u,v)=-\epsilon(\omega^2+1)\int_{\Omega_R}u\bar v$.
Define operators $C_1$ and $C_2$ on $H^1_\kappa(\Omega_R)$ by
$(C_1u,v)_{H^1_\kappa(\Omega_R)}=c_1(u,v)$ and
$(C_2u,v)_{H^1_\kappa(\Omega_R)}=c_2(u,v)$.
Because of the coercivity of $c_1$ and the compact embedding of $L^2(\Omega)$ into $H^1_\kappa(\Omega_R)$,
we know that the operator $C_1$ is an automorphism and $C_2$ is compact.
If we denote by $f^{inc}$ the unique element of $H^1_\kappa(\Omega_R)$ such that
$(f^{inc},v)_{H^1_\kappa(\Omega_R)}=f(v)$,
the variational form of the scattering problem can be characterized by the following
operator form
\[
(C_1u,v)+(C_2u,v)=(f^{inc},v), \forall v\inH^1_\kappa(\Omega_R),
\]
i.e.
\[
C_1u+C_2u=f^{inc}.
\]
The Fredholm alternative theory implies that the nonuniqueness of the solution
of this problem is equivalent to the singularity of the corresponding homogeneous
problem $C_1u+C_2u=0$, whose weak form is given by
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:weakhomogeneous}
a(u,v)-\omega^2 b(u,v)=0, \forall v\in H^1_\kappa(\Omega_R).
\end{equation}
\begin{theorem}
The scattering problem has at least one solution, and the set of solutions is at most finite
dimensional.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
From equation \eqref{idty:Incident}, we can express the incident plane wave as a superposition of
harmonics
$\displaystyle\sum_\ell\frac{1}{2}\left[H^1_\ell(\eta_m r)+H^2_\ell(\eta_m r)\right]e^{i\ell(\theta+\theta_0)}e^{i(m+\kappa)z}$,
with $m\in\mathcal{Z}_p$.
By the Fredholm alternative, the scattering problem has a solution if and only if
\[
(f^{inc},w)=0, \mbox{ for all } w\in\mbox{Null}(C_1+C_2)^\dagger,
\]
i.e. for all $w$ such that
\[
a(v,w)-\omega^2 b(v,w)=0, \forall v\in H^1_\kappa(\Omega_R)
\]
This $w$ satisfies
\[
\overline{a(w,v)}-\omega^2 b(w,v)=0, \forall v\in H^1_\kappa(\Omega_R)
\]
and by the decomposition of $T$, we know that for all $m\in\mathcal{Z}_p$,
$\hat{w}_m=0$.
By the definition of $f^{inc}$, showing $(f^{inc},w)=0$ is equivalent to
showing that $\int_{\Gamma_R}(\partial_n+T)u^{inc}\bar w=0$.
This is satisfied by the function $w$ above.
The space of solutions is finite dimensional because $C_1$ is invertible
and $C_2$ is compact.
\end{proof}
\section{Guided Modes}
A guided mode is a solution to the Helmholtz equation in the periodic domain
in the absence of any source field.
In the weak for
, it is a solution to the homogeneous equation (\ref{eqn:weakhomogeneous}).
The sesquilinear form
\[
a^\omega(u,v)=\int_{\Omega_R}\frac{1}{\mu}\nabla u\cdot\nabla\bar v+\frac{1}{\mu_0}\int_{\Gamma_R}(T^\omega u)\bar v
\]
can be split into evanescent and propagating parts,
\[
a^\omega_e(u,v)=\int_{\Omega_R}\frac{1}{\mu}\nabla u\cdot\nabla\bar v+\frac{1}{\mu_0}\int_{\Gamma_R}(T^\omega_eu)\bar v,
\]
\[
a^\omega_p(u,v)=\frac{1}{\mu_0}\int_{\Gamma_R}(T^\omega_pu)\bar v.
\]
If the frequency and the wavenumber are assumed to be real, the form $a^\omega_e(u,v)$ is Hermitian,
and we have the following theorem.
\begin{theorem}(Real eigenvalues)
If the frequency $\omega$ is real, then $u\in H^1_\kappa(\Omega_R)$ solves the equation
(\ref{eqn:weakhomogeneous}) if and only if
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:WeakReal1}
a_e^\omega(u,v)-a_p^\omega(u,v)-\omega^2b(u,v)=0,\forall v\in H^1_\kappa(\Omega_R)
\end{equation}
and if and only if
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:WeakReal2}
\begin{cases}
a_e^\omega(u,v)-\omega^2 b(u,v)=0, \forall v\in H^1_\kappa(\Omega_R), \\
\widehat{(u|_{\Gamma_R})}_m=0, \forall m\in\mathcal{Z}_p.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
The eigenfrequencies can be obtained by applying the min-max principle to the real form
in \eqref{eqn:WeakReal2}.
When $\omega<\sqrt{\frac{\kappa^2}{\epsilon_0\mu_0}}$, the
solutions $u$ of $a_e^\omega(u,v)-\omega^2 b(u,v)=0, \forall v\in H^1_\kappa(\Omega_R)$
are guided modes
since this regime admits no propagating harmonics and hence the second conditions
in \eqref{eqn:WeakReal2} are automatically satisfied.
When $\omega\ge\sqrt{\frac{\kappa^2}{\epsilon_0\mu_0}}$, to be guided modes, these solutions $u$
must satisfy the extra conditions $\widehat{(u|_{\Gamma_R})}_m=0, \forall m\in\mathcal{Z}_p$
where $\mathcal{Z}_p$ is nonempty.
We will design some periodic structures that admit guided modes in the next section.
We have the following theorem on properties of the frequencies.
The proof is similar to that for periodic slabs, for which one may refer to
\cite{ShipmanVolkov2007}\cite{Bonnet-BeStarling1994}.
\begin{theorem}(Eigenvalues and Frequencies)\label{thm:EigenPillar}
The problem $a_e^\omega(u,v)-\lambda b(u,v)=0, \forall v\in H^1_\kappa(\Omega_R)$ has a
nondecreasing sequence of eigenvalues
$\{\lambda_j\}^\infty_{j=1} $,
obtained through the minmax principle,
\begin{equation}
\lambda_j=\sup_{\dim V=j-1,V\subsetH^1_\kappa(\Omega_R)} \inf_{u\in V^\bot\setminus0}\frac{a_e(u,u)}{b(u,u)},
\end{equation}
which tend to $+\infty$ as $j\rightarrow\infty$.
Moreover, the homogeneous problem
$a^\omega_e(u,v)-\omega^2 b(u,v)=0, \forall v\in H^1_\kappa(\Omega_R)$ has a nontrivial
solution if and only if $\omega^2=\lambda_j(\omega)$.
This frequency can be denoted by $\omega_j$.
\end{theorem}
The problem of scattering and guided modes can be posed equivalently through a positive
form in the entire strip $\Omega$.
This formulation leads to the determination of the spectrum of the scattering problem, and
in particular, the eigenvalues below the continuous spectrum.
However, the formulation on the truncated domain $\Omega_R$ is necessary for the determination
of the embedded eigenvalues, which will be our focus in the next section.
We can derive the weak form of the guided modes problem:
\begin{equation}
a_S(u,v)=\omega^2b_S(u,v), \forall v\in H^1_\kappa(\Omega)
\end{equation}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
a_S(u,v)=\int_\Omega\frac{1}{\mu}\nabla u\cdot\nabla\bar v, \\
b_S(u,v)=\int_\Omega\epsilon u\bar v.
\end{eqnarray}
The associated operator is the unbounded operator
\begin{equation}
S_\kappa u=-\frac{1}{\epsilon}\nabla\cdot\frac{1}{\mu}\nabla u.
\end{equation}
It is defined on the domain
$D(S_\kappa)=\{u\in H^1_\kappa(\Omega):
\mbox{ There exists a } C \mbox{ such that } |a_S(u,v)|\leq C\sqrt{b_S(v,v)}, \forall v\in H^1_\kappa(\Omega)\}$.
This operator is positive self-adjoint and its eigenvectors and eigenvalues
are solutions of the guided modes problem. We denote the spectrum of $S_\kappa$ as $\sigma$, and
its essential spectrum as $\sigma_{ess}$.
The following theorem is an adaptation of Theorem 4.1 of \cite{Bonnet-BeStarling1994} to periodic pillars.
\begin{theorem}
i) $\sigma\subset [\frac{\kappa^2}{\mu_+\epsilon_+},+\infty)$, where $\mu_+=\sup_{\Omega}\mu, \epsilon_+=\sup_{\Omega}\epsilon$; \\
ii) $\sigma^{ess}=[\frac{\kappa^2}{\mu_0\epsilon_0},+\infty)$; \\
iii) there are finitely many eigenvalues $\tilde\lambda_j(\kappa)$ below $\frac{\kappa^2}{\mu_0\epsilon_0}$, and
$\{\tilde\lambda_j(\kappa)\}$ is an increasing sequence that converges to $\frac{\kappa^2}{\mu_0\epsilon_0}$.
\end{theorem}
\section{Existence and Nonexistence of Guided Modes}
\subsection{Existence}
The focus of this section is to find guided modes with frequency $\omega$ such
that $\omega^2$ is embedded in the continuous spectrum of $S_\kappa$.
As discussed in the previous section, certain extra conditions should be
satisfied and hence bring the difficulty.
In \cite{Bonnet-BeStarling1994}, guided modes are proved to exist in a symmetric structure and
a periodic slab with a finer periodicity.
The idea is to consider a closed subspace $F$ on which the operator $S_\kappa$ has
a cutoff frequency that is greater the cutoff frequency on $H^1_\kappa(\Omega_R)$, and prove
the existence of guided modes corresponding to eigenfrequencies lying between
these two cutoff frequencies.
These eigenfunctions are automatically guided modes lying
in $F$ because their frequencies are below the cutoff frequency,
but the frequencies are embedded in the essential spectrum of $S_\kappa$ for $H^1_\kappa(\Omega_R)$.
In their proof, the embedded guide modes retain the original pseudo-periodicity, but they
are simply non-embedded guided modes with a smaller pseudo-period.
By artificially choosing a larger period, any guided modes with frequencies below
the cutoff frequency can be seen as embedded guided modes in the same
structure with the larger period.
In this paper, we present a proof of the existence of non-artificial
guided modes with frequencies embedded in the essential spectrum the operator $S_\kappa$.
We only need the parameters $\epsilon,\mu$ to have smaller period, but the guided modes
do not have smaller pseudo-period.
Our newly designed pillar is a periodic structure with period $\frac{2\pi}{L}$
for $L\ge2$ in $\mathbb{Z}$ that supports guided modes with pseudo-period
strictly greater than $\frac{2\pi}{L}$.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:Existence}
For any $\kappa$ in the first Brillouin zone of the structure of period $2\pi$, there exists $\epsilon,\mu$ with period
$\frac{2\pi}{L}$ for $L\ge2$ that admits a guided mode with frequencies $\omega$ lying above
the cutoff frequency.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Write $u\inH^1_\kappa(\Omega_R)$ as a Fourier expansion $u(r,\theta,z)=\displaystyle\sum_{m}u_m(r,\theta)e^{i(m+\kappa)z}$.
Given $M,N\in\mathbb{N}$ with $2M+N+2=L$, define a nontrivial subspace of $H^1_k(\Omega)$:
\begin{equation}
V=\left\{u\in H^1_k(\Omega): u_m(r,\theta)\equiv0 \mbox{, if } |m-j(2M+N+2)|\le M \mbox{ for some } j\in\ZZ\right\}
\end{equation}
Therefore, for $-M+j(2M+N+2)\le m\le M+j(2M+N+2)$, the coefficients $u_m(r,\theta)$ are $0$, and for
$M+1+j(2M+N+2)\le m\le M+N+1+j(2M+N+2)$, the coefficients $u_m(r,\theta)$ are possibly nonzero.
We claim that $\epsilon V\subseteq V$, $\mu^{-1} V\subseteq V$.
In fact, let $(\epsilon)_m(r,\theta)$ be the Fourier coefficients of $\epsilon$.
The periodicity of the structure implies that $(\epsilon)_m(r,\theta)\equiv0, \forall r,\theta$, except
when $m=j(2M+N+2)$ for some integer $j$.
For any $u\in V$, if $|m-j(2M+N+2)|\le M$ for some $j\in\ZZ$, we calculate the $m^{th}$
Fourier coefficient of $\epsilon u$:
\[
\begin{split}
(\epsilon u)_m & =\sum_\ell(\epsilon)_\ell u_{m-\ell} \\
& =\sum_j (\epsilon)_{j(2M+N+2)} u_{m-j(2M+N+2)} \\
& =0 \mbox{ , because } u_{m-j(2M+N+2)}=0 \mbox{ for the field } u\in V.
\end{split}
\]
Therefore, $\epsilon u\in V$.
Similarly, $\mu^{-1}V\subseteq V$.
Therefore, the subspace $V$ is also invariant under the operator $\nabla\cdot\frac{1}{\mu}\nabla$.
Thanks to the invariance properties, we can consider the Helmholtz equation in the subspace $V$.
The solution $u\in V$ to the weak formulation $a_r^\omega(u,v)-\omega^2b(u,v)=0, \forall v\in V$
is also a solution to $a_r^\omega(u,v)-\omega^2b(u,v)=0,\forall v\inH^1_\kappa(\Omega_R)$.
In fact, for any field $u\in V$ and $v\in V^{\perp}$, $\nabla\cdot\frac{1}{\mu}\nabla u+\omega^2\epsilon u\in V$
implies that $\nabla\cdot\frac{1}{\mu}\nabla u\bar v+\omega^2\epsilon u\bar v=0$ for all $v\in V^{\perp}$.
Integrating it we obtain
\[
\begin{split}
\int_{\Omega}\nabla\cdot\frac{1}{\mu}\nabla u\bar v+\int_\Omega^2\epsilon u\bar v &=
\frac{1}{\mu_0}\int_{\Gamma_R}\partial_nu\bar v-\int_\Omega\frac{1}{\mu}\nabla u\cdot\nabla\bar v+\int_\Omega^2\epsilon u\bar v\\
&=-a^\omega_r(u,v)+b(u,v)\\
&=0.
\end{split}
\]
We can obtain a pair $(\omega,u)$ by applying
the min-max principle to the Rayleigh quotient $\frac{a_r(u,u)}{b(u,u)}$ on the subspace
$V$ to obtain $\lambda_j(\omega)$ and solving the equation $\lambda_j(\omega)=\omega^2$.
Since $\omega$ is continuous and decreasing from $+\infty$ to $0$ in $\epsilon_1,\mu_1$ seperately, one
can choose the material parameters such that
$\epsilon_0\mu_0\omega^2-(M+1+\kappa)^2<0<\epsilon_0\mu_0\omega^2-(M+\kappa)^2$, i.e.
for any pair $(\kappa,\omega)$
there are $2M+1$ values $-M,-M+1,\ldots, M-1, M$ of $m$ corresponding to propagating harmonics.
The field $u$ obtained in the space $V$ is automatically a guided mode, as the propagating harmonics automatically vanish
in the subspace $V$.
\end{proof}
As an example, if we let $M=N=0$, then $2M+N+2=2$, $2M+1=1$, $N+1=1$,
The pillar has period $\pi$ and $\epsilon_{2j+1}=0$ for all $j$, and we can allow
one propagating harmonic.
We apply the min-max principle on the space $V=\{u\inH^1_\kappa(\Omega_R):u_{2j}=0, \forall j\}$
and by choosing proper $\epsilon_1$ we can obtain an eigenfunction of smallest period $2\pi$ that
is automatically a guided mode.
If we take $M=1$, $N=0$, then $2M+N+2=4$, $2M+1=3$ and $N+1=1$.
Let $\epsilon,\mu$ have period $\pi/2$ and
so $\epsilon_j=0$ for $j\not\in4\ZZ$, or say $\forall j$,
and we can allow to have up to $2M+1=3$ propagating harmonics.
One can minimize the Rayleigh quotient on the space $V=\{u\inH^1_\kappa(\Omega_R):u_{4j-1}=u_{4j}=u_{4j+1}=0, \forall j\}$.
If we take $M=N=1$, then $2M+N+2=5$, $2M+1=3$, and $N+1=2$.
The parameters $\epsilon$ and $\mu$ have period $2\pi/5$ and can be
allowed to have up to $2M+1=3$ propagating harmonics.
We apply the min-max principle on the space $V=\{u\inH^1_\kappa(\Omega_R):u_{5j+1}=u_{5j+2}=u_{5j+3}=u_{5j+4}=0, \forall j\}$.
The pseudo-period of the embedded guided mode is $2\pi$.
In our design, the wave number $\kappa$ can be nonzero and
there exists a continuous embedded dispersion relation $\omega(\kappa)$. The guided
mode is robust with respect to $\kappa$.
It is also noticed that the modes are subject to the periodicity $\frac{2\pi}{2M+N+2}$.
If the material is perturbed in a say that destroys he small period
lose this periodicity while retaining the period
$2\pi$, the guided mode vanishes.
This design can also be understood as an existence proof of a guided mode with a larger
pseudo-periodicity.
If we assume the smallest period of the pillar is
$2\pi$, embedded guided modes with period $(2M+N+2)2\pi$ can exist.
\subsection{Nonexistence}
Nonexistence results for periodic slabs can be found in \cite{ShipmanVolkov2007}\cite{Bonnet-BeStarling1994}.
In \cite{ShipmanVolkov2007}, the nonexistence of guided modes in inverse structures is discussed.
Consider the piecewise constant material as in Theorem \ref{thm:EigenPillar}.
An inverse structure is a periodic structure with the material parameters $\epsilon_1,\mu_1$
less than the corresponding parameters $\epsilon_0,\mu_0$ in the exterior of the material.
The proof in \cite{ShipmanVolkov2007} requires that the slab satisfy a certain restriction condition.
The proof of the nonexistence includes introducing the subspace $X$ in which the propagating and linear
harmonics vanish then estimating the minimum of the Rayleigh quotient.
With the restriction of the slab width, it is shown that the Rayleigh quotient
is strictly bounded below by in inverse structures, and hence the weak problem has no solution in $X$.
We use an analogous restriction on the radius of the pillar in our proof, and whether
this restriction is necessary remains an open problem.
In \cite{Bonnet-BeStarling1994}, the assumption is on the parameters only.
It is assumed that there exists one plane parallel to the slab such
that the material parameters $\epsilon,\mu$ are nondecreasing in the direction
perpendicular to the slab.
In Theorem \ref{thm:Nonexistence2}, we present an analogous
condition that the material parameters be nondecreasing in the radial direction.
The proof involves an appropriate Rayleigh identity.
\begin{theorem}
(Nonexistence of guided modes)
Assume that in $\Omega$, $\epsilon_-<\epsilon\le\epsilon_0$ and $\mu_-<\mu\le\mu_0$.
Let the frequency $\omega$ and the wave number $\kappa$ be given
in the first Brillouin zone $[-\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})$.
Suppose that the radius $R$ of the pillar satisfies
\begin{equation} \label{cond:R_small}
R<\frac{1}{\sqrt{\epsilon_0\mu_0\omega^2-\kappa^2}}
\end{equation}
Then the periodic pillar does not admit any guided modes at the given frequency and wavenumber.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We restrict to the subspace $X\subsetH^1_\kappa(\Omega_R)$ with
\[
X=\{u\inH^1_\kappa(\Omega_R): \int_{\Gamma_R} u(x,y,z)e^{-i\ell\theta}e^{-i(m+\kappa)z}=0,
\mbox{ if either } m\in\mathcal{Z}_p \mbox{, or } m\in\mathcal{Z}_a \mbox{ and } \ell=0\}
\]
The form $a^\omega(\cdot,\cdot)$ is conjugate symmetric in $X$, and the weak problem
\eqref{eqn:WeakReal1} is equivalent to
$a^\omega(u,v)-\omega^2b(u,v)=0 \mbox{ on } X$, as well as
$a^\omega(u,v)-\omega^2b(u,v)=0$ for all $v\in X^{\perp}$.
This gives rise to a finite number of extra conditions
$(\widehat{\partial_n u|_{\Gamma_R}})_{m\ell}=0, \forall m\in\mathcal{Z}_p\mbox{ or } m\in\mathcal{Z}_a,\ell=0$.
Consider the eigenvalue problem $a^\omega(u,v)-\alpha\omega^2 b(u,v)=0$ on $X$.
On $X$, $a^\omega(u,v)=a_e^\omega(u,v)$.
The problem of guided modes is solved by minimizing the quotient $\frac{a(u,u)}{b(u,u)}$
on $X$.
Of course, the field $u$ should satisfy the following radiation condition:
\begin{equation}\label{cond:ExtraX}
\widehat{(\partial_n u|_{\Gamma_R})}_{m\ell}+\gamma_{m\ell}\widehat{(u|_{\Gamma_R})}_{m\ell}=0,
\quad \forall m\in\mathcal{Z}_e \mbox{ or } m\in\mathcal{Z}_a \mbox{ and } \ell\neq0.
\end{equation}
We first let $\epsilon_1=\epsilon_0$, $\mu_1=\mu_0$.
The eigenfunctions satisfy a strong form
of the Helmholtz equation
\begin{equation}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
(\nabla+i\boldsymbol\kappa)^2\psi+\alpha\epsilon_0\mu_0\omega^2\psi=0 \mbox{ in } \Omega_R \\
\psi\in X , \quad T\psi+\partial_n\psi|_\Gamma=0 \\
\psi \mbox{ satisfies pediodic boundary conditions in } X.
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
In $\Omega_R$, the separable solutions are in the form of
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
&A_{m\ell}J_\ell(|\zeta_m| r)e^{i\ell\theta}e^{i(m+\kappa)z} \mbox{, if } \zeta_m^2>0, \\
&A_{m\ell}I_\ell(|\zeta_m| r)e^{i\ell\theta}e^{i(m+\kappa)z} \mbox{, if } \zeta_m^2<0,\\
&\left[C_{m1}+C_{m2}\ln|r|\right] e^{i\ell\theta}e^{i(m+\kappa)z}
\mbox{, if } \zeta_m^2=0, \mbox{ and } \ell=0, \\
&\left[C_{m\ell1}|r|^\ell+C_{m\ell2}|r|^{-\ell}\right]e^{i\ell\theta}e^{i(m+\kappa)z}
\mbox{, if } \zeta_m^2=0 \mbox{ and } \ell\not=0,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $\zeta_m^2=\alpha\epsilon_0\mu_0\omega^2-(m+\kappa)^2$.
We treat the cases for $m$ separately.
Case I: $ m\in\mathcal{Z}_p$, i.e. $\eta_m^2>0$. In this case,
the propagating harmonics should vanish, and $\widehat{(u|_{\Gamma_R})}_{m\ell}=0$.
If $\zeta_m^2>0$, and we assume $\zeta_m>0$, then
\[
J_\ell(|\zeta_m| R)=0,
\]
so $j_\ell=\zeta_m R=\sqrt{\alpha\epsilon_0\mu_0-(m+k)^2}R$,
where $j_\ell$ is a zero of $J_\ell(x)$.
The eigenvalues are given by
\[
\alpha=\frac{\frac{j_\ell^2}{R^2}+(m+k)^2}{\epsilon_0\mu_0\omega^2}
\]
The Bessel function $J_l(z)$ has a sequence of zeros, and the corresponding
$\alpha$ form a sequence of eigenvalues $\{\alpha_j\}_{j=1}^\infty$
with all possible $j_l$ and $m\in\mathbb{Z}$.
According to our assumption of the radius of the pillar, the eigenvalues
\[
\begin{split}
\alpha_{m\ell} &=\frac{1}{\epsilon_0\mu_\omega^2}\left[\frac{j_\ell^2}{R^2}+(m+\kappa)^2\right]\\
&\ge\frac{1}{\epsilon_0\mu_0\omega^2}\left[\frac{j_\ell^2}{R^2}+\kappa^2\right] \\
&\ge\frac{1}{\epsilon_0\mu_0\omega^2}\left[\frac{\ell^2}{R^2}+\kappa^2\right] \\
&\ge\frac{1}{\epsilon_0\mu_0\omega^2}\left[\frac{1}{R^2}+\kappa^2\right] \\
&> 1
\end{split}
\]
If $\zeta_m^2=0$, the pillar does not support such harmonics for $\ell=0$.
For $\ell\neq0$, the separable solution $C_{m\ell_1}r^\ell+C_{m\ell_2}r^{-\ell}$ should satisfy
$C_{m\ell_1}R^\ell+C_{m\ell_2}R^{-\ell}=0$ which is not possible.
If $\zeta_m^2<0$, we assume $\zeta_m=i|\zeta_m|$ and
\[
I_\ell(|\zeta_m|R)=0.
\]
It is not possible since the modified Bessel functions $I_\ell$ have no
zeros except at 0.
Case II: $m\in\mathcal{Z}_e$, i.e. $\eta_m^2<0$, and $\eta_m=i|\eta_m|$.
In this case, the conditions in \eqref{cond:ExtraX} for $m$ should be satisfied.
If $\zeta_m^2>0$, and we assume $\zeta_m>0$, then
\[
\frac{d}{dr}J_\ell(\zeta_mr)|_{r=R}=-\gamma_{ml}J_\ell(\zeta_m R)
\]
where $\gamma_{m\ell}=-\frac{\eta_m H_\ell^{1'}(\eta_mR)}{H_\ell^1(\eta_mR)}$.
The value of $R$ can be solved, and by comparing $\zeta_m^2$ and $\eta_m^2$, one knows that $\alpha>1$.
If $\zeta_m^2=0$, we also have $\alpha>1$.
If $\zeta_m^2<0$, we assume $\zeta_m=i|\zeta_m|$.
Then
\[
|\zeta_m| I_\ell'(|\zeta_m| R)+\gamma_{ml}I_\ell(|\zeta_m|R)=0.
\]
However we know that $I'_\ell(|\zeta_m| R)>0$, $\gamma_{m\ell}>0$ and $I_\ell(|\zeta_m| R)>0$,
and consequently the left hand side cannot be 0.
Case III: $\eta_m^2=0$ and $\ell\neq0$. The condition
$\widehat{(\partial_n u|_{\Gamma_R})}_{m\ell}+\gamma_{m\ell}\widehat{(u|_{\Gamma_R})}_{m\ell}=0$
should be satisfied.
If $\zeta_m^2>0$, then $\alpha>1$.
If $\zeta_m^2=0$, there is no solution.
If $\zeta_m^2<0$, $|\zeta_m| I_\ell'(|\zeta_m| R)+\gamma_{ml}I_\ell(\zeta_mR)=0$.
It is not possible.
Case IV: $\eta_m^2=0$ and $\ell=0$. The guided modes satisfy
$\widehat{(u|_{\Gamma_R})}_{m\ell}=0$.
If $\zeta_m^2>0$, then $\alpha>1$.
If $\zeta_m^2=0$, there is no solution.
If $\zeta_m^2<0$, $I_\ell(|\zeta|_m R)=0$.
It is not possible because the Bessel function $I_0$ has no zero.
In general, when $\epsilon_1=\epsilon_0$, any eigenvalue
$\alpha>1$.
In the case when
$\mu_-<\mu\le\mu_0$ and $\epsilon_-<\epsilon\le\epsilon_0$,
the quotient $\frac{a_r(u,u)}{b(u,u)}$ with coefficient
$\epsilon,\mu$ is greater than or equal to the quotient with
quotient $\epsilon_0,\mu_0$.
Under our assumption of the size of the pillar, the number $\alpha>1$.
As a result, there exists no guided mode because the number $\alpha>1$ does not correspond
to a guided mode.
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:Nonexistence2}
Assume there is a pair $x_0,y_0$ such that for all $-\pi\le z\le\pi$ and any
vector $\boldsymbol{r}_0=(r_{0x},r_{0y},0)$, the material parameters
$\epsilon, \mu$ are nondecreasing along the direction of $\boldsymbol{r_0}$,
that is, the weak directional derivatives $\nabla\epsilon\cdot\boldsymbol{r_0}$, and
$\nabla\mu\cdot\boldsymbol{r_0}$ are nonnegative.
Then there exists no guided mode.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Using polar coordinates, we observe that
\[
\begin{split}
\nabla\cdot(r\frac{\partial u}{\partial r}\mu^{-1}\nabla\bar u)=&
\nabla(r u_r)\cdot\mu^{-1}\nabla\bar u+r u_r(\nabla\cdot\mu^{-1}\nabla \bar u)\\
=&r u_r(\nabla\cdot\mu^{-1}\nabla\bar u)+u_r(\nabla r\cdot\mu^{-1}\nabla\bar u)+r\nabla u_r\cdot\mu^{-1}\nabla\bar u.
\end{split}
\]
We integrate this to obtain
\[
\begin{split}
\int_{\Gamma_R}ru_r\mu_0^{-1}\frac{\partial\bar u}{\partial n}
&=\int_{\Omega_R}ru_r(\nabla\cdot\mu^{-1}\nabla\bar u)+\int_{\Omega_R}u_r(\nabla r\cdot\mu^{-1}\nabla\bar u)
+\int_{\Omega_R}r\nabla u_r\cdot\mu^{-1}\nabla\bar u\\
&=-\omega^2\int_{\Omega_R}r\epsilon u_r\bar u+\int_{\Omega_R} u_r(\nabla r\cdot\mu^{-1}\nabla\bar u)
+\int_{\Omega_R}r\nabla u_r\cdot\mu^{-1}\nabla\bar u.
\end{split}
\]
Adding its complex conjugate, we have
\[
2\int_{\Gamma_R}\mu_0^{-1}R|\frac{\partial u}{\partial r}|^2=
-\omega^2\int_{\Omega_R}\epsilon r\frac{\partial}{\partial r}|u|^2
+\int_{\Omega_R}u_r(\nabla r \cdot\mu^{-1}\nabla\bar u)
+\int_{\Omega_R}\bar u_r(\nabla r \cdot\mu^{-1}\nabla u)
+\int_{\Omega_R}\mu_{-1}r\frac{\partial}{\partial r}|\nabla u|^2.
\]
We integrate by parts in $r$ for terms including $r\frac{\partial}{\partial r}$,
\[
\begin{split}
\int_{\Omega_R}\epsilon r \frac{\partial |u|^2}{\partial r}
=&\int_0^{2\pi}\int_{-\pi}^\pi\int_0^R \epsilon r\frac{\partial |u|^2}{\partial r}rdrdzd\theta\\
=&\int_0^{2\pi}\int_{-\pi}^\pi\int_0^R \epsilon r^2\frac{\partial|u|^2}{\partial r} drdzd\theta\\
=&\int_0^{2\pi}\int_{-\pi}^\pi\epsilon r^2|u|^2|_0^Rdzd\theta\
-\int_{\Omega_R}2\epsilon r|u|^2drdzd\theta
-\int_{\Omega_R} r^2\frac{\partial\epsilon}{\partial r}|u|^2drdzd\theta\\
=&\int_0^{2\pi}\int_{-\pi}^\pi\epsilon R^2|u|^2|_0^Rdzd\theta\
-\int_{\Omega_R}2\epsilon |u|^
-\int_{\Omega_R} r\frac{\partial\epsilon}{\partial r}|u|^2,
\end{split}
\]
and
\[
\int_{\Omega_R}\mu^{-1} r \frac{\partial |u|^2}{\partial r}
=\int_0^{2\pi}\int_{-\pi}^\pi\mu^{-1} R^2|u|^2|_0^Rdzd\theta\
-\int_{\Omega_R}2\mu^{-1} |u|^
-\int_{\Omega_R} r\frac{\partial\mu^{-1}}{\partial r}|u|^2.
\]
The previous identity becomes
\[
\begin{split}
2\int_{\Gamma_R}\mu_0^{-1}R|\frac{\partial u}{\partial r}|^2
=&-\omega^2\left[\int_0^{2\pi}\int_{-\pi}^\pi R^2\epsilon_0|u(R)|^2dzd\theta
-\int_{\Omega_R}2\epsilon|\nabla u|^2-\int_{\Omega_R}r\frac{\partial\epsilon}{\partial r}|u|^2 \right]\\
&+\int_{\Omega_R}u_r(\nabla r\cdot \mu^{-1}\nabla\bar u)+\int_{\Omega_R}\bar u_r(\nabla r\cdot\mu^{-1}\nabla u)\\
&+\left[\int_0^{2\pi}\int_{-\pi}^\pi R^2\mu_0^{-1}|u(R)|^2dzd\theta
-\int_{\Omega_R}2\mu^{-1}|\nabla u|^2-\int_{\Omega_R}r\frac{\partial\mu^{-1}}{\partial r}|u|^2 \right]
\end{split}
\]
Since the field satisfies the Helmholtz equation, we can replace $-\int_{\Omega_R}\mu^{-1}|\nabla u|^2$
by $-\omega^2\int_{\Omega_R}\epsilon|u|^2+\mu_0^{-1}\int_{\Gamma_R}\bar u Tru$ to obtain
\[
\begin{split}
2\int_{\Gamma_R}\mu_0^{-1}R|\frac{\partial u}{\partial r}|^2
=&\left[-\omega^2\int_0^{2\pi}\int_{-\pi}^\pi R^2\epsilon_0|u(R)|^2dzd\theta
+\omega^2\int_{\Omega_R}2\epsilon|\nabla u|^2
+\omega^2\int_{\Omega_R}r\frac{\partial\epsilon}{\partial r}|u|^2 \right]\\
&+\int_{\Omega_R}u_r(\nabla r\cdot \mu^{-1}\nabla\bar u)+\int_{\Omega_R}\bar u_r(\nabla r\cdot\mu^{-1}\nabla u)\\
&+\left[\int_0^{2\pi}\int_{-\pi}^\pi R^2\mu_0^{-1}|u(R)|^2dzd\theta
-2\omega^2\int_{\Omega_R}\epsilon|u|^2+2\mu_0^{-1}\int_{\Gamma_R}\bar u Tru
-\int_{\Omega_R}r\frac{\partial\mu^{-1}}{\partial r}|u|^2 \right],
\end{split}
\]
and so
\[
\begin{split}
2\int_{\Gamma_R}\mu_0^{-1}R|\frac{\partial u}{\partial r}|^2
+&\omega^2\int_0^{2\pi}\int_{-\pi}^\pi R^2\epsilon_0|u(R)|^2dzd\theta
-\int_0^{2\pi}\int_{-\pi}^\pi R^2\mu_0^{-1}|u(R)|^2dzd\theta\\
=&\omega^2\int_{\Omega_R}r\frac{\partial\epsilon}{\partial r}|u|^2+\int_{\Omega_R}u_r(\nabla r\cdot \mu^{-1}\nabla\bar u)
+\int_{\Omega_R}\bar u_r(\nabla r\cdot\mu^{-1}\nabla u)\\
&-\int_{\Omega_R}r\frac{\partial\mu^{-1}}{\partial r}|u|^2+2\mu_0^{-1}\int_{\Gamma_R}\bar u Tru.
\end{split}
\]
In this identity,
\[
u_r(\nabla r\cdot\mu^{-1}\nabla\bar u)=\mu^{-1}u_r(\boldsymbol r\cdot\nabla\bar u)
=(u_r\boldsymbol r)\cdot\nabla\bar u \mu^{-1}
=\left|\frac{\partial u}{\partial r}\boldsymbol r\right|^2\mu^{-1},
\]
where
$\nabla u=\frac{\partial u}{\partial z}\boldsymbol z
+\frac{\partial u}{\partial r}\boldsymbol r
+\frac{1}{r}\frac{\partial u}{\partial\theta}\boldsymbol\theta$,
$\boldsymbol{r}=(\cos\theta,\sin\theta,0), \boldsymbol\theta=(-\sin\theta,\cos\theta,0),\boldsymbol z=(0,0,1)$,
and
$|\nabla u|^2=|u_r|^2+\frac{1}{r^2}|u_\theta|^2+|u_{z}|^2$.
Simplify it to obtain
\begin{equation} \label{idty:Unicity}
\begin{split}
\omega^2\int_{\Omega_R}r\frac{\partial\epsilon}{\partial r}|u|^2
&+2\int_{\Omega_R}\mu^{-1}|\frac{\partial u}{\partial r}\boldsymbol r|^2
-\int_{\Omega_R}r\frac{\partial \mu^{-1}}{\partial r}|\nabla u|^2
+2\mu_0^{-1}\int_{\Gamma_R}\bar u Tru\\
=&2\int_{\Gamma_R}\mu_0^{-1}R|\frac{\partial u}{\partial r}|^2
+\omega^2\int_0^{2\pi}\int_{-\pi}^\pi R^2\epsilon_0|u(R)|^2dzd\theta
-\int_0^{2\pi}\int_{-\pi}^\pi R^2\mu_0^{-1}|\nabla u(R)|^2dzd\theta
\end{split}
\end{equation}
The left-hand side of the identity \eqref{idty:Unicity} is nonnegative by our condition
on the material parameters, and it vanishes if and only if $\|u\|_{H^1_\kappa(\Omega_R)}=0$.
If we assume $u$ is a guided mode, and $u$ has the expansion
\[
u(r,\theta,z)=\sum_{m\in \mathcal{Z}_e}\sum_\ell a_{m\ell} H_\ell^1(\eta_m r) e^{i\ell\theta}e^{i(m+k)z}
+\sum_{m\in \mathcal{Z}_a}\sum_{\ell\neq0} cr^{-|\ell|}e^{i\ell\theta}e^{i(m+k)z},
\]
then the terms with $m\in\mathcal{Z}_a$ of the right hand side of \eqref{idty:Unicity} is a sum of multiples of
\[
\omega^2\epsilon_0R^{-2|\ell|+2}
-\mu_0^{-1}(m+\kappa)^2R^{-2|\ell|+2}=0.
\]
Since $H_\ell^{1}(\eta_mR)$ and $H_\ell^{1'}(\eta_mR)$ are exponentially decaying
as $R\rightarrow\infty$,
in this limit, the limit of the right hand side is $0$.
On the other hand, the left hand side does not converge to $0$ if $u\ne0$.
So $u=0$.
\end{proof}
\bibliographystyle{plain}
|
\section{Introduction}
The No Free Lunch (NFL) theorems, stated and proven in various
settings and domains \cite{Sch94,wol01,wol97}, show that no
algorithm performs better than any other when their performance
is averaged uniformly over all possible problems of a
particular type.\footnote{Such results have been less formally
discussed long before by Watanabe in 1969 \cite{Sat69}.} These
are often cited to argue that algorithms must be designed for a
particular domain or style of problem, and that there is no
such thing as a general purpose algorithm.
On the other hand, Solomonoff induction \cite{sol64a,sol64b}
and the more general AIXI model \cite{Hut04} appear to
universally solve the sequence prediction and reinforcement
learning problems respectively. The key to the apparent
contradiction is that Solomonoff induction and AIXI do not
assume that each problem is equally likely. Instead they apply
a bias towards more structured problems. This bias is universal
in the sense that no class of structured problems is favored
over another. This approach is philosophically well justified
by Occam's razor.
The two classic domains for NFL theorems are optimisation and
classification. In this paper we will examine classification
and only remark that the case for optimisation is more complex.
This difference is due to the active nature of optimisation
where actions affect future observations.
Previously, some authors have argued that the NFL theorems do
not disprove the existence of universal algorithms for two
reasons.
\begin{enumerate}
\item That taking a uniform average is not philosophically
the right thing to do, as argued informally in
\cite{Gir}.
\item Carroll and Seppi in \cite{Car07} note that the NFL
theorem measures performance as misclassification rate,
where as in practise, the utility of a
misclassification in one direction may be more costly
than another.
\end{enumerate}
We restrict our consideration to the task of minimising the
misclassification rate while arguing more formally for a
non-uniform prior inspired by Occam's razor and formalised by
Kolmogorov complexity. We also show that there exist algorithms
(unfortunately only computable in the limit) with very good
properties on all structured classification problems.
The paper is structured as follows. First, the required
notation is introduced (Section 2). We then state the original
NFL theorem, give a brief introduction to Kolmogorov
complexity, and show that if a non-uniform prior inspired by
Occam's razor is used, then there exists a free lunch (Section
3). Finally, we give a new algorithm inspired by Solomonoff
induction with very attractive properties in the classification
problem (Section 4).
\section{Preliminaries}
Here we introduce the required notation and define the problem
setup for the No Free Lunch theorems.
\paradot{Strings}
A finite string $x$ over alphabet $\X$ is a finite sequence
$x_1x_2x_3\cdots x_{n-1}x_n$ with $x_i \in \X$. An infinite
string $x$ over alphabet $\X$ is an infinite sequence
$x_1x_2x_3\cdots$.
Alphabets are usually countable or finite, while in this paper
they will almost always be binary.
For finite strings we have a length function defined by
$\ell(x) := n$ for $x = x_1x_2\cdots x_n$. The empty string of
length $0$ is denoted by $\epsilon$.
The set $\X^n$ is the set of all strings of length $n$. The set
$\X^*$ is the set of all finite strings. The set $\X^\infty$ is
the set of all infinite strings.
Let $x$ be a string (finite or infinite) then substrings are
denoted $x_{s:t} := x_s x_{s+1}\cdots x_{t-1} x_{t}$ where $s
\leq t$. A useful shorthand is $x_{<t} := x_{1:t-1}$.
Let $x,y \in \X^*$ and $z \in \X^\infty$ with $\ell(x) = n$ and
$\ell(y) = m$ then \eq{
xy &:= x_1x_2,\cdots x_{n-1}x_{n}y_1y_2\cdots y_{m-1}y_m \\
xz &:= x_1x_2,\cdots x_{n-1}x_{n}z_1z_2z_3\cdots
}
As expected, $xy$ is finite and has length $\ell(xy) = n + m$
while $xz$ is infinite.
For binary strings, we write $\#1(x)$ and $\#0(x)$ to mean the
number of 0's and number of 1's in $x$ respectively.
\paradot{Classification}
Informally, a classification problem is the task of matching
features to class labels. For example, recognizing handwriting
where the features are images and the class labels are letters.
In supervised learning, it is (usually) unreasonable to expect
this to be possible without any examples of correct
classifications. This can be solved by providing a list of
feature/class label pairs representing the true classification
of each feature. It is hoped that these examples can be used to
generalize and correctly classify other features.
The following definitions formalize classification problems,
algorithms capable of solving them, as well as the loss
incurred by an algorithm when applied to a problem, or set of
problems. The setting is that of transductive learning as in
\cite{DEM04}.
\begin{definition}[Classification Problem]
Let $\X$ and $\Y$ be finite sets representing the feature space
and class labels respectively. A {\it classification problem}
over $\X,\Y$ is defined by a function $f:\X\to\Y$ where $f(x)$
is the true class label of feature $x$.
\end{definition}
In the handwriting example, $\X$ might be the set of all images
of a particular size and $\Y$ would be the set of
letters/numbers as well as a special symbol for images that
correspond to no letter/number.
\begin{definition}[Classification Algorithm]
Let $f$ be a classification problem and $\train \subseteq \X$
be the training features on which $f$ will be known. We write
$f_\train$ to represent the function $f_\train:\train \to \Y$
with $f_\train(x) := f(x)$ for all $x\in\train$. A {\it
classification algorithm} is a function, $A$, where
$A(f_\train, x)$ is its guess for the class label of feature
$x\in\test := \X - \train$ when given training data $f_\train$.
Note we implicitly assume that $\X$ and $\Y$ are known to the
algorithm.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}[Loss function]
The loss of algorithm $A$, when applied to classification
problem $f$, with training data $\train$ is measured by
counting the proportion of misclassifications in the testing
data, $\test$.
\eq{
L_A(f, \train):= {1\over|\test|} \sum_{x \in \test} \ind{A(f_\train, x) \neq f(x)}
}
where $\ind{}$ is the indicator function defined by,
$\ind{expr} = 1$ if $expr$ is true and $0$ otherwise.
\end{definition}
We are interested in the expected loss of an algorithm on the
set of all problems where expectation is taken with respect to
some distribution $P$.
\begin{definition}[Expected loss]
Let $\M$ be the set of all functions from $\X$ to $\Y$ and $P$
be a probability distribution on $\M$. If $\train$ is the
training data then the expected loss of algorithm $A$ is
\eq{
L_A(P, \train) := \sum_{f \in \M} P(f) L_A(f, \train)
}
\end{definition}
\section{No Free Lunch Theorem}
We now use the above notation to give a version of the No Free
Lunch Theorem of which Wolpert's is a generalization.
\begin{theorem}[No Free Lunch]\label{thm-nfl1}
Let $P$ be the uniform distribution on $\M$. Then the following
holds for any algorithm $A$ and training data
$\train\subseteq\X$.
\eqn{ \label{eqn-loss}
L_A(P, \train) = |\Y - 1| / |\Y|
}
\end{theorem}
The key to the proof is the following observation. Let $x \in
\test$, then for all $y \in \Y$, $P(f(x) = y | f|_\train) =
P(f(x) = y) = 1/|\Y|$. This means no information can be
inferred from the training data, which suggests no algorithm
can be better than random.
\paradot{Occam's razor/Kolmogorov complexity}
The theorem above is often used to argue that no general
purpose algorithm exists and that focus should be placed on
learning in specific domains.
The problem with the result is the underlying assumption that
$P$ is uniform, which implies that training data provides no
evidence about the true class labels of the test data. For
example, if we have classified the sky as blue for the last
1,000 years then a uniform assumption on the possible sky
colours over time would indicate that it is just as likely to
be green tomorrow as blue, a result that goes against all our
intuition.
How then, do we choose a more reasonable prior? Fortunately,
this question has already been answered heuristically by
experimental scientists who must endlessly choose between one
of a number of competing hypotheses. Given any experiment, it
is easy to construct a hypothesis that fits the data by using a
lookup table. However such hypotheses tend to have poor
predictive power compared to a simple alternative that also
matches the data. This is known as the principle of parsimony,
or Occam's razor, and suggests that simple hypotheses should be
given a greater weight than more complex ones.
Until recently, Occam's razor was only an informal heuristic.
This changed when Solomonoff, Kolmogorov and Chaitin
independently developed the field of algorithmic information
theory that allows for a formal definition of Occam's razor. We
give a brief overview here, while a more detailed introduction
can be found in \cite{LV08}. An in depth study of the
philosophy behind Occam's razor and its formalisation by
Kolmogorov complexity can be found in \cite{KLV97,HR11}. While
we believe Kolmogorov complexity is the most foundational
formalisation of Occam's razor, there have been other
approaches such as MML \cite{BW68} and MDL \cite{Gru07}. These
other techniques have the advantage of being computable (given
a computable prior) and so lend themselves to good practical
applications.
The idea of Kolmogorov complexity is to assign to each binary
string an integer valued {\it complexity} that represents the
length of its shortest description. Those strings with short
descriptions are considered simple, while strings with long
descriptions are complex. For example, the string consisting of
1,000,000 1's can easily be described as ``one million ones''.
On the other hand, to describe a string generated by tossing a
coin 1,000,000 times would likely require a description about
1,000,000 bits long. The key to formalising this intuition is
to choose a universal Turing machine as the language of
descriptions.
\begin{definition}[Kolmogorov Complexity]
Let $U$ be a universal Turing machine and $x \in \B^*$ be a
finite binary string. Then define the plain Kolmogorov
complexity $C(x)$ to be the length of the shortest program
(description) $p$ such that $U(p) = x$.
\eq{
C(x) := \min_{p\in\B^*} \left\{\ell(p) : U(p) = x\right\}
}
\end{definition}
It is easy to show that $C$ depends on choice of universal
Turing machine $U$ only up to a constant independent of $x$ and
so it is standard to choose an arbitrary {\it reference}
universal Turing machine.
For technical reasons it is difficult to use $C$ as a prior, so
Solomonoff introduced monotone machines to construct the
Solomonoff prior, $\Ms$. A monotone Turing machine has one
read-only input tape which may only be read from left to right
and one write-only output tape that may only be written to from
left to right. It has any number of working tapes. Let $T$ be
such a machine and write $T(p) = x$ to mean that after reading
$p$, $x$ is on the output tape. The machines are called
monotone because if $p$ is a prefix of $q$ then $T(p)$ is a
prefix of $T(q)$.
It is possible to show there exists a universal monotone Turing
machine $U$ and this is used to define monotone complexity $Km$
and Solomonoff's prior, $\Ms$.
\begin{definition}[Monotone Complexity]
Let $U$ be the reference universal monotone Turing machine then
define $Km$, $\Ms$ and $\KM$ as follows,
\eq{
Km(x) &:= \min\left\{\ell(p) : U(p) = x*\right\} \\
\Ms(x) &:= \sum_{U(p) = x*} 2^{-\ell(p)} \\
\KM(x)&:= -\log \Ms(x)
}
where $U(p) = x*$ means that when given input $p$, $U$ outputs
$x$ possibly followed by more bits.
\end{definition}
Some facts/notes follow.
\begin{enumerate}
\item For any $n$, $\sum_{x \in \B^n} \Ms(x) \leq 1$.
\item $Km$, $\Ms$ and $\KM$ are incomputable.
\item $0 < \KM(x) \approx Km(x) \approx C(x) < \ell(x) + O(1)$\footnote{
The approximation $C(x) \approx Km(x)$ is only accurate to $\log \ell(x)$, while $\KM \approx Km$ is almost always very close \cite{gacs83,Gacs08}. This is a little surprising since the sum in the definition of $\Ms$ contains $2^{-Km}$. It shows that there are only comparitively few
short programs for any $x$.
}
\end{enumerate}
To illustrate why $\Ms$ gives greater weight to simple $x$,
suppose $x$ is simple then there exists a relatively short
monotone Turing machine $p$, computing it. Therefore $Km(x)$ is
small and so $2^{-Km(x)} \approx \Ms(x)$ is relatively large.
Since $\Ms$ is a semi-measure rather than a proper measure, it
is not appropriate to use it in place of $P$ when computing
expected loss. However it can be normalized to a proper
measure, $\Mn$ defined inductively by
\eq{
\Mn(\epsilon) &:= 1 & \Mn(x b) &:= \Mn(x) {\Ms(x b) \over \Ms(x 0) + \Ms(x 1)}
}
Note that this normalisation is not unique, but is
philosophically and technically the most attractive and was
used and defended by Solomonoff. For a discussion of
normalisation, see \cite[p.303]{LV08}. The normalised version
satisfies $\sum_{x \in \B^n} \Mn(x) = 1$.
We will also need to define $\Ms/\KM$ with side information,
$\Ms(y \s x) := \Ms(y)$ where $x*$ is provided on a spare tape
of the universal Turing machine. Now define $\KM(y \s x) :=
-\log \Ms(y \s x)$.
This allows us to define the complexity of a function in terms
of its output relative to its input.
\begin{definition}[Complexity of a function]
Let $\X=\left\{x_1,\cdots,x_n\right\} \subseteq \B^k$ and
$f:\X\to\B$ then define the complexity of $f$, $\KM(f \s \X)$
by
\eq{
\KM(f \s \X) := \KM(f(x_1)f(x_2)\cdots f(x_n) \s x_1,x_2,\cdots ,x_n)
}
\end{definition}
An example is useful to illustrate why this is a good measure
of the complexity of $f$.
\begin{example}
Let $\X \subseteq \B^n$ for some $n$, and $\Y = \B$ and
$f:\X\to\Y$ be defined by $f(x) = \ind{x_n = 1}$. Now for a
complex $\X$, the string $f(x_1)f(x_2)\cdots $ might be
difficult to describe, but there is a very short program that
can output $f(x_1)f(x_2)\cdots$ when given $x_1x_2\cdots$ as
input. This gives the expected result that $\KM(f;\X)$ is very
small.
\end{example}
\paradot{Free lunch using Solomonoff prior}
We are now ready to use $\Mn$ as a prior on a problem family.
The following proposition shows that when problems are chosen
according to the Solomonoff prior that there is a (possibly
small) free lunch.
Before the proposition, we remark on problems with maximal
complexity, $\KM(f;\X) = O(|\X|)$. In this case $f$ exhibits no
structure allowing it to be compressed, which turns out to be
equivalent to being random in every intuitive sense
\cite{Lof66}. We do not believe such problems are any more
interesting than trying to predict random coin flips. Further,
the NFL theorems can be used to show that no algorithm can
learn the class of random problems by noting that almost all
problems are random. Thus a bias towards random problems is not
much of a bias (from uniform) at all, and so at most leads to a
decreasingly small free lunch as the number of problems
increases.
\begin{proposition}[Free lunch under Solomonoff prior]\label{prop_main}
Let $\Y = \B$ and fix a $k \in \N$. Now let $\X = \B^n$ and
$\train \subset \X$ such that $|\train| = 2^{n} - k$. For
sufficiently large $n$ there exists an algorithm $A$ such that
\eq{
L_A(\Mn, \train) < 1/2
}
\end{proposition}
\iftecrep
Before the proof of Proposition \ref{prop_main}, we require an easy lemma.
\begin{lemma}
Let $N \subset \M$ then there exists an algorithm $A_N$ such that
\eq{
\sum_{f \in N} P(f) L_{A_N}(f, \train) \leq {1 \over 2} \sum_{f \in N} P(f)
}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $A_i$ with $i \in \left\{0, 1\right\}$ be the algorithm
always choosing $i$. Note that
\eq{
\sum_{f \in N} P(f) L_{A_0}(f, \train) = \sum_{f \in N} P(f) (1 - L_{A_1}(f, \train))
}
The result follows easily.
\qed\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[ Proposition \ref{prop_main}]
Now let $\M_1$ be the set of all $f \in \M$ with $f(y) = 1
\forall y \in \train$ and $\M_0 = \M - \M_1$. Now construct an
$A$ by
\eq{
A(f_\train, x) = \begin{cases}
1 & \text{if } f \in \M_1 \\
A_{\M_0}(f_\train, x) & \text {otherwise}
\end{cases}
}
Let $f_1 \in \M_1$ be the constant valued function such that
$f_1(x) = 1 \forall x$ then
\eqn{
\label{fl-1} L_A(\Mn, \train) &= \sum_{f \in \M} \Mn(f) L_A(f, \train) \\
\label{fl-2} &= \sum_{f \in \M_0} \Mn(f) L_A(f, \train) + \sum_{f \in \M_1} \Mn(f) L_A(f, \train) \\
\label{fl-3}&\leq {1 \over 2} \sum_{f \in \M_0} \Mn(f) + \sum_{f \in \M_1} \Mn(f) L_A(f, \train) \\
\label{fl-4}&\leq {1 \over 2} \sum_{f \in \M_0} \Mn(f) + \sum_{f \in \M_1 - f_1} \Mn(f) \\
\label{fl-5}&< {1 \over 2} (1 - \delta) + \sum_{f \in \M_1 - f_1} \Mn(f)
< {1 \over 2}
}
where (\ref{fl-1}) is definitional, (\ref{fl-2}) follows by
splitting the sum into $\M_0$ and $\M_1$, (\ref{fl-3}) by the
previous lemma, (\ref{fl-4}) since loss is bounded by $1$ and
the loss incurred on $f_1$ is $0$. The first inequality of
(\ref{fl-5}) follows since it can be shown that there exists a
$\delta > 0$ such that $\Mn(f_1) > \delta$ with $\delta$
independent of $n$. The second because $\max_{f \in \M_1 -
\left\{f_1\right\}} \Mn(f) \stackrel{n \to \infty}
\longrightarrow 0$ and $|\M_1|$ is independent of $n$.
\qed\end{proof}
\else
The proof is omitted due to space limitations, but the idea is
very simple. Consider the algorithm such that $A(f|_\train, x)
= 1$ if $f(x) = 1$ for all $x \in \train$ and $A(f|_\train, x)$
is random otherwise. Then show that if the amount of training
data is extremely large relative to the testing data then the
Solomonoff prior assigns greater weight to the function $f_1(x)
:= 1$ for all $x$ than the set of functions satisfying $f(x) =
1$ for all $x \in \train$ but $f(x) \neq 1$ for some $x \in
\test$.
\fi
The proposition is unfortunately extremely weak. It is more
interesting to know exactly what conditions are required to do
much better than random. In the next section we present an
algorithm with good performance on all well structured problems
when given ``good'' training data. Without good training data,
even assuming a Solomonoff prior, we believe it is unlikely
that the best algorithm will perform well.
Note that while it appears intuitively likely that any
non-uniform distribution such as $\Mn$ might offer a free
lunch, this is in fact not true. It is shown in \cite{Sch01}
that there exist non-uniform distributions where the loss over
a problem family is independent of algorithm. These
distributions satisfy certain symmetry conditions not satisfied
by $\Mn$, which allows Proposition \ref{prop_main} to hold.
\section{Complexity-based classification}
Solomonoff induction is well known to solve the online
prediction problem where the true value of each classification
is known after each guess. In our setup, the true
classification is only known for the training data, after which
the algorithm no longer receives feedback. While Solomonoff
induction can be used to bound the number of total errors while
predicting deterministic sequences, it gives no indication of
when these errors may occur. For this reason we present a
complexity-inspired algorithm with better properties for the
offline classification problem.
Before the algorithm we present a little more notation. As
usual, let $\X = \left\{x_1,x_2,\cdots, x_n\right\} \subseteq
\B^k$, $\Y = \B$ and let $\train \subseteq \X$ be the training
data. Now define an indicator function $\chi$ by $\chi_i :=
\ind{x_i \in \train}$.
\begin{definition}
Let $f \in \Y^\X$ be a classification problem. The algorithm
$A^*$ is defined in two steps.
\eq{
\tilde f &:= \operatornamewithlimits{arg\,min}_{\tilde f \in \Y^\X} \left\{\KM(\tilde f ; \X) : \chi_i = 1 \implies \tilde f(x_i) = f(x_i) \right\} \\
A^*(f_\train, x_i) &:= \tilde f(x_i)
}
\end{definition}
Essentially $A^*$ chooses for its model the simplest $\tilde f$
consistent with the training data and uses this for classifying
unseen data. Note that the definition above only uses the value
$y_i = f(x_i)$ where $\chi_i = 1$, and so it does not depend on
unseen labels.
If $\KM(f \s \X)$ is ``small'' then the function we wish to
learn is simple so we should expect to be able to perform good
classification, even given a relatively small amount of
training data. This turns out to be true, but only with a good
choice of training data. It is well known that training data
should be ``broad enough'', and this is backed up by the
example below and by Theorem \ref{thm-class-alg}, which give an
excellent justification for random training data based on good
theoretical (Theorem \ref{thm-class-alg}) and philosophical
(AIT) underpinnings. The following example demonstrates the
effect of bad training data on the performance of $A^*$.
\setlength\abovecaptionskip{0cm}
\setlength\belowcaptionskip{0cm}
\setlength\floatsep{0cm}
\setlength\textfloatsep{0cm}
\setlength\intextsep{0.3cm}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics{graph.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{A simple problem}
\label{fig-simple}
\end{figure}
\begin{example}
Let $\X = \left\{0000,0001,0010, 0011, \cdots, 1101, 1110,
1111\right\}$ and $f(x)$ be defined to be the first bit of $x$
as in Figure \ref{fig-simple}. Now suppose $\chi = 1^{8} 0^{8}$
(So the algorithm is only allowed to see the true class labels
of $x_1$ through $x_{8}$). In this case, the simplest $\tilde
f$ consistent with the first 16 data points, all of which are
zeros, is likely to be $\tilde f(x) = 0$ for all $x \in \X$ and
so $A^*$ will fail on every piece of testing data!
On the other hand, if $\chi = 001010011101101$, which was
generated by tossing a coin 16 times, then $\tilde f$ will very
likely be equal to $f$ and so $A^*$ will make no errors. Even
if $\chi$ is zero about the critical point in the middle
($\chi_{8} = \chi_{9} = 0$) then $\tilde f$ should still match
$f$ mostly around the left and right and will only be unsure
near the middle.
Note, the above is not precisely true since for small strings
the dependence of $\KM$ on the universal monotone Turing
machine can be fairly large. However if we increase the size of
the example so that $|\X| > 1000$ then these quirks disappear
for natural reference universal Turing machines.
\end{example}
\begin{definition}[Entropy]
Let $\theta\in[0,1]$
\eq{
H(\theta):=
\begin{cases}
-[ \theta \log \theta + (1-\theta)\log (1-\theta)] & \text{if } \theta \neq 0 \text{ and } \theta\neq 1 \\
0 & \text{otherwise}
\end{cases}
}
\end{definition}
\begin{theorem}\label{thm-class-alg}
Let $\theta \in (0, 1)$ be the proportion of data to be given for training then:
\begin{enumerate}
\item There exists a $\chi \in \B^\infty$ (training set) such that for all $n \in \N$, $\theta n - c_1 < \#1(\chi_{1:n}) < \theta n + c_1$ and
$n H(\theta) - c_2 < \KM(\chi_{1:n})$ for some $c_1,c_2 \in \R^+$.
\item For $n = |\X|$, the loss of algorithm $A^*$ when using training data determined by $\chi$ is bounded by
\eq{
L_{A^*}(f, \train) < {2\KM(f;\X) + \KM(\X) + c_2 + c_3 \over {n(1-\theta-c_1/n)\log (1-\theta+c_1/n)^{-1}}}
}
where $c_3$ is some constant independent of all inputs.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
This theorem shows that $A^*$ will do well on all problems
satisfying $\KM(f;\X) = o(n)$ when given good (but not
necessarily a lot) of training data. Before the proof, some
remarks.
\begin{enumerate}
\item The bound is a little messy, but for small $\theta$,
large $n$ and simple $\X$ we get $L_{A^*}(f, \train)
\stackrel{\approx}< {2\KM(f;\X) / (n\theta)}$.
\item The loss bound is extremely bad for large $\theta$.
We consider this unimportant since we only really care
if $\theta$ is small. Also, note that if $\theta$ is
large then the number of points we have to classify is
small and so we still make only a few mistakes.
\item The constants $c_1, c_2$ and $c_3$ are relatively
small (around 100-500). They represent the length of
the shortest programs computing simple transformations
or encodings. This {\it is} dependent on the universal
Turing machine used to define the Solomonoff
distribution, but for a {\it natural} universal Turing
machine we expect it to be fairly small
\cite[sec.2.2.2]{Hut04}.
\item The ``special'' $\chi$ is not actually that special
at all. In fact, it can be generated easily with
probability 1 by tossing a coin with bias $\theta$
infinitely often. More formally, it is a $\mu$
Martin-L\"of random string where $\mu(1 | x) = \theta$
for all $x$. Such strings form a $\mu$-measure 1 set in
$\B^\infty$.
\end{enumerate}
\begin{proof}[ Theorem \ref{thm-class-alg}]
The first is a basic result in algorithmic information theory
\cite[p.318]{LV08}. Essentially choosing $\chi$ to be
Martin-L\"of random with respect to a Bernoulli process
parameterized by $\theta$. From now on, let $\bar \theta =
\#1(\chi) / n$. For simplicity we write $x := x_1x_2\cdots
x_n$, $y := f(x_1)f(x_2)\cdots f(x_n)$, and $\tilde y := \tilde
f(x_1) \tilde f(x_2)\cdots \tilde f(x_n)$.
Define indicator $\psi$ by $\psi_i := \ind{\chi_i = 0 \wedge
y_i = \tilde y_i}$. Now note that there exists $c_3 \in \R$
such that
\eqn{
\label{eqn_coding}\KM(\chi_{1:n}) < \KM(\psi_{1:n};y, \tilde y) + \KM(y;x) + \KM(\tilde y;x) + \KM(x) + c_3
}
This follows since we can easily use $y$, $\tilde y$ and
$\psi_{1:n}$ to recover $\chi_{1:n}$ by $\chi_i = 1$ if and
only if $y_i = \tilde y_i$ and $\psi_i \neq 1$. The constant
$c_3$ is the length of the reconstruction program.
Now $\KM(\tilde y ; x) \leq \KM(y ; x)$ follows directly from
the definition of $\tilde f$. We now compute an upper bound on
$\KM(\psi)$.
Let $\alpha := L_{A^*}(f, \train)$ be the proportion of the
testing data on which $A^*$ makes an error. The following is
easy to verify:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\#1(\psi) = (1 - \alpha)(1 - \bar\theta) n$
\item $\#0(\psi) = (1 - (1-\alpha)(1-\bar\theta)) n$
\item $y_i \neq \tilde y_i \implies \psi_i = 0$
\item $\#1(y \oplus \tilde y) = \alpha(1-\bar\theta) n$ where $\oplus$ is the exclusive or function.
\end{enumerate}
We can use point 3 above to trivially encode $\psi_i$ when
$\tilde y_i \neq y_i$. Aside from these, there are exactly
$\bar\theta n$ 0's and $(1 - \alpha)(1 - \bar\theta)n$ 1's.
Coding this subsequence using frequency estimation gives a code
for $\psi_{1:n}$ given $y$ and $\tilde y$, which we substitute
into (\ref{eqn_coding}).
\eqn{
\nonumber nH(\bar\theta) - c_2 &\leq \KM(\chi_{1:n}) \leq
\KM(\psi_{1:n} ; y, \tilde y) + \KM(y;x) + \KM(\tilde y;x) \\
&\qquad + \KM(x) + c_3 \\
\nonumber &\leq 2 \KM(y;x) + \KM(x) + n J(\bar\theta, \alpha) + c_3
}
where $J(\bar \theta, \alpha) := \left[\bar\theta +
(1-\bar\theta)(1-\alpha)\right] H\left({\bar\theta /\left[
\bar\theta + (1-\bar\theta)(1-\alpha)\right]}\right)$. An easy
technical result (Lemma \ref{lem1} in the appendix) shows that
for $\bar\theta \in (0, 1)$
\eq{
0 \leq \alpha(1 - \bar\theta)\log {1 \over 1-\bar\theta} \leq
H(\bar\theta) - J(\bar\theta, \alpha)
}
Therefore $n \alpha(1-\bar\theta)\log {1 \over 1-\bar\theta}
\leq 2 \KM(y;x) + \KM(x) + c_2 + c_3$. The result follows by
rearranging and using part 1 of the theorem.
\qed\end{proof}
Since the features are known, it is unexpected for the bound to
depend on their complexity, $\KM(\X)$. Therefore it is not
surprising that this dependence can be removed at a small cost,
and with a little extra effort.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm-class-alg2}
Under the same conditions as Theorem \ref{thm-class-alg}, the
loss of $A^*$ is bounded by
\eq{
L_{A^*}(f, \train) < {2\KM(f;\X) + 2 \left[\log |\X| + \log \log |\X| \right] + c \over {n(1-\theta-c_1/n)\log (1-\theta+c_1/n)^{-1}}}
}
where $c$ is some constant independent of inputs.
\end{theorem}
This version will be preferred to Theorem \ref{thm-class-alg}
in cases where $\KM(\X) > 2 \left[\log |\X| + \log\log
|\X|\right]$. The
proof of Theorem \ref{thm-class-alg2} is almost identical to that of Theorem \ref{thm-class-alg}.\\
{\it Proof sketch:}
The idea is to replace equation (\ref{eqn_coding}) by
\eqn{
\label{eqn_coding2} \KM(\chi_{1:n}, x) < \KM(\psi_{1:n};y, \tilde y) + \KM(y;x) + \KM(\tilde y;x) + \KM(x) + c_3
}
Then use the following identities $K(\chi_{1:n} ; x, K(x)) +
K(x) < K(\chi_{1:n}, x) - K(\ell(x)) < \KM(\chi_{1:n}, x)$
where the inequalities are true up to constants independent of
$x$ and $\chi$. Next a counting argument in combination with
Stirling's approximation can be used to show that for most
$\chi$ satisfying the conditions in Theorem \ref{thm-class-alg}
have $\KM(\chi_{1:n}) < K(\chi_{1:n}) < K(\chi_{1:n} ; x, K(x))
+ \log\ell(x) + r$ for some constant $r > 0$ independent of $x$
and $\chi$.
Finally use $\KM(x) < K(x)$ for all $x$ and $K(\ell(x)) < \log
\ell(x) + 2 \log \log \ell(x) + r$ for some constant $r > 0$
independent of $x$ to rearrange (\ref{eqn_coding2}) into
\eq{
\KM(\chi_{1:n}) &< \KM(\psi_{1:n} ; y, \tilde y) + \KM(y ; x) + \KM(\tilde y;x) + 2 \log \ell(x) \\
&\qquad + 2 \log \log \ell(x) + c
}
for some constant $c > 0$ independent of $\chi, \psi, x$ and
$y$. Finally use the techniques in the proof of Theorem
\ref{thm-class-alg} to complete the proof. \qed
\section{Discussion}
\paradot{Summary}
Proposition \ref{prop_main} shows that if problems are
distributed according to their complexity, as Occam's razor
suggests they should, then a (possibly small) free lunch
exists. While the assumption of simplicity still represents a
bias towards certain problems, it is a universal one in the
sense that no style of structured problem is more favoured than
another.
In Section 4 we gave a complexity-based classification
algorithm and proved the following properties:
\begin{enumerate}
\item It performs well on problems that exhibit some compressible structure, $\KM(f;\X) = o(n)$.
\item Increasing the amount of training data decreases the error.
\item It performs better when given a good (broad/randomized) selection of training data.
\end{enumerate}
Theorem \ref{thm-class-alg} is reminiscent of the transductive
learning bounds of Vapnik and others \cite{DEM04,Vap82,Vap00},
but holds for {\it all} Martin-L\"of random training data,
rather than with high probability. This is different to the
predictive result in Solomonoff induction where results hold
with probability 1 rather than for all Martin-L\"of random
sequences \cite{HM07}. If we assume the training set is sampled
randomly, then our bounds are comparable to those in
\cite{DEM04}.
Unfortunately, the algorithm of Section 4 is incomputable.
However Kolmogorov complexity can be approximated via standard
compression algorithms, which may allow for a computable
approximation of the classifier of Section 4. Such
approximations have had some success in other areas of AI,
including general reinforcement learning \cite{HKUV11} and
unsupervised clustering \cite{CV05}.
Occam's razor is often thought of as the principle of choosing
the simplest hypothesis matching your data. Our definition of
simplest is the hypothesis that minimises $\KM(f;X)$ (maximises
$M(f;X)$). This is perhaps not entirely natural from the
informal statement of Occam's razor, since $M(x)$ contains
contributions from all programs computing $x$, not just the
shortest.
We justify this by combining Occam's razor with Epicurus
principle of multiple explanations that argues for all
consistent hypotheses to be considered. In some ways this is
the most natural interpretation as no scientist would entirely
rule out a hypothesis just because it is slightly more complex
than the simplest. A more general discussion of this issue can
be found in \cite[sec.4]{Dow11}. Additionally, we can argue
mathematically that since $\KM \approx Km$, the simplest
hypothesis is very close to the mixture.\footnote{The bounds of
Section 4 would depend on the choice of complexity at most
logarithmically in $|\X|$ with $\KM$ providing the uniformly
better bound.} Therefore the debate is more philosophical than
practical in this setting.
An alternative approach to formalising Occam's razor has been
considered in MML \cite{BW68}. However, in the deterministic
setting the probability of the data given the hypothesis
satisfies $P(D|H) = 1$. This means the two part code reduces to
the code-length of the prior, $\log (1/P(H))$. This means the
hypothesis with minimum message length depends only on the
choice of prior, not the complexity of coding the data. The
question then is how to choose the prior, on which MML gives no
general guidance.
Some discussion of Occam's razor from a Kolmogorov complexity
viewpoint can be found in \cite{Hut10,KLV97,HR11}, while the
relation between MML and Kolmogorov complexity is explored in
\cite{DW99}.
\paradot{Assumptions}
We assumed finite $\X$, $\Y$, and deterministic $f$, which is
the standard transductive learning setting. Generalisations to
countable spaces may still be possible using complexity
approaches, but non-computable real numbers prove more
difficult. One can either argue by the strong Church-Turing
thesis that non-computable reals do not exist, or approximate
them arbitrarily well. Stochastic $f$ are interesting and we
believe a complexity-based approach will still be effective,
although the theorems and proofs may turn out to be somewhat
different.
\paradot{Acknowledgements}
We thank Wen Shao and reviewers for valuable feedback on
earlier drafts and the Australian Research Council for support
under grant DP0988049.
\iftecrep
|
\section{Quasi-locality of quantum dynamics for discrete
environments}
In this section we prove the quasi-locality of quantum dynamics
for a system interacting with an environment comprised of discrete
degrees of freedom (DOF). In this case, the total system+environment
is defined on a lattice.
The starting point is the Hamiltonian, Eq.~(3) in the main text,
written in terms of
$\hat h_d$, grouping the interactions between DOF at graph distance
$d$ from the system region, i.e., in the $d$th layer, and $\hat
h_{d,d+1}$, comprising the interactions between DOF in two successive
layers. With these definitions,
$\hat H_S\equiv\hat h_0$ and $\hat H_{SB}\equiv\hat h_{0,1}$.
If the system is made up of more than a single node, the graph
distance is calculated as the minimum between a
bath and a system DOF.
The dynamics of a generic system operator, $\hat A_S\in \mathcal
B(\mathcal H_S)$, is described by
\[
\hat A_S(t) = e^{i\hat H t}\hat{A}_Se^{-i\hat H t}\,.
\]
Using the Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff formula, this can be expressed in
terms of nested commutators, cf. Eq.~(4) of the main paper,
where the commutator $\hat C_n$,
\[
\hat C_n=[\hat H,\hat C_n-1]\,,
\]
appears at the $n$th
order, and $\hat C_0=\hat A_S$. The truncation of the sum in Eq.~(4)
of the main paper can be identified, to the
$n$th order in a perturbative treatment, by restricting
the Hamiltonian to $n$ graph layers using the graph-distance based
ordering of the DOF, cf. Eq.~(5) of the main paper.
The error made by evolving $\hat A_S$ with $\hat H_n$ instead of
the full generator $\hat H$ can be evaluated as the remainder of the
truncated series,
\begin{equation}
\left\|\hat A_S(t)-\hat A_S^{n}(t)\right\| =\left \|\sum_{d=n+1}^\infty\
\frac{(-it)^d}{d!}\hat C_d\right\|\equiv \mathcal{R}(n)\,,
\label{eq:err}
\end{equation}
where $\hat A^n_S(t)=\exp(i\hat H_nt)\hat A_S\exp(-i\hat H_nt)$.
The triangular inequality yields
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{R}(n) \leq
\sum_{n+1}^{\infty}\frac{t^d}{d!}\left\|\hat C_d\right\|.
\label{eq:Rn}
\end{equation}
In order to estimate $\left\|\hat C_d\right\|$, we need to consider
the following commutators between operators in $\hat H$,
\begin{widetext}
\begin{eqnarray}
\left[\hat h_d\;,\;\hat h_{d'}+\hat h_{d',d'+1}\right]
&=& \left[\hat h_d\;,\;\hat h_{d,d+1}\right]\delta_{d,d'}
+\left[\hat h_d\;,\;\hat h_{d-1,d}\right]\delta_{d-1,d'}\, \label{eq:loc}\\
\left[ \hat {h}_{d,d+1}\;,\;\hat h_{d'}+\hat h_{d',d'+1}\right]
&=&\left[\hat h_{d,d+1}\;,\;\hat h_{d}\right]\delta_{d,d'}
+\left[\hat h_{d,d+1} \;,\;
\hat h_{d+1}+\hat h_{d+1,d+2}\right]\delta_{d+1,d'}
+\left[\hat h_{d,d+1},\hat h_{d-1,d}\right]\delta_{d-1,d'}\,.
\label{eq:nonloc}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{widetext}
'Local' operators $\hat h_d$,
i.e., terms involving interactions between DOF
within the same layer, have non-vanishing commutators
only with operators connecting the $d$th layer with the neighbouring
layers, $d\pm 1$, cf. Eq.~\eqref{eq:loc}.
Since the $(d+1)$st layer is already accounted for in $\hat
h_{d,d+1}$, commutators of 'local' terms $\hat h_d$,
Eq.~\eqref{eq:loc},
do not introduce further layers. In other words, these
commutators do not increase the size of
the bath Hilbert space that is 'seen' by the system.
Terms involving interactions between the $d$th and the $(d+1)$st
layer, i.e., $\hat h_{d,d+1}$, have non-vanishing commutators at most
with terms in the same, the previous or the $(d+2)$nd layer.
Therefore, commutators involving the non-local terms, $\hat
h_{d,d+1}$, add operators from one additional layer, i.e., they
enlarge the system 'view' by one graph layer at each
perturbative order.
Examining the generic structure of the $\hat C_d$'s, we find for
$\hat C_1$,
\begin{displaymath}
\hat C_1=\left[\hat H\;,\;\hat A_S\right]
\equiv\left[\hat h_0+\hat h_{0,1}\;,\;\hat A_S\right].
\end{displaymath}
We can rewrite
\begin{displaymath}
\hat h_0+\hat h_{0,1}=\sum_{\substack{i,j:\\
d(S,i)=0;\\ d(S,j)\leq 1}}
\sum_{\mu,\nu}J^{\mu\nu}_{ij}\hat O^{\mu}_i\hat O^\nu_j\,,
\end{displaymath}
using Eq.~(2) of the main text and the definition of
$\hat\Phi_{ij}$'s. This
highlights the fact that $\hat h_0+\hat h_{0,1}$ groups all
interactions within the system and between system and bath. It
implies
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat C_1&=&\sum_{\substack{i,j:\\
d(S,i)=0;\\ d(S,j)\leq 1}}
\sum_{\mu,\nu}J^{\mu\nu}_{ij}
\left[\hat O^{\mu}_i\hat O^\nu_j\;,\;\hat A_S\right]\nonumber\\
&=&\sum_{j} \sum_{\mu,\nu}J^{\mu\nu}_{Sj}
\left[\hat O^{\mu}_S\hat O^\nu_j\;,\;\hat A_S\right]
\label{eq:C1}\end{eqnarray}
In the second line, we have used that only commutators between
operators which act at least on one common DOF do not vanish,
assuming, for the sake of clarity, that $\hat A_S$ acts on a single
system DOF. Should $\hat A_S$ act on multiple system DOF,
a sum over these DOF needs to be included additionally.
Introducing
\[
\mathcal{O}= \max_{ij\in N;\mu,\nu}\|\hat O^\mu_i\hat O^\nu_j\|\,,
\]
the norm of $\hat C_1$ can be estimated,
\begin{displaymath}
\|\hat C_1\|\leq 2\|A_S\|\mathcal{O}\sum_{j}J_{Sj}\,,
\end{displaymath}
where $J_{ij}=\left[\sum_{\mu\nu}(J^{\mu\nu}_{ij})^2\right]^{1/2}$ denotes
the coupling matrix on the graph.
In the following, we drop the indices $\mu,\nu$, accounting for the
corresponding sums in the coupling matrix $J$, and
denote the system operator that enters the system-bath interaction by
$\hat O^I_S$.
Due to Eqs.~\eqref{eq:loc}, \eqref{eq:nonloc}, $\hat C_2$ is written
as
\[
\hat C_2=[\hat h_0+\hat h_{0,1}+\hat h_1+\hat h_{1,2},\hat C_1]\,.
\]
Using Eq.~\eqref{eq:C1} and following the same argument we find
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat C_2
&=&\sum_{\substack{p,q:\\d(S,p)\leq 1\\ d(S,q)\leq 2}}
\!\sum_{j:d(S,j)\leq 1}
J_{pq}J_{Sj}\left[\hat O_p\hat O_q\;,\;
\left[\hat O^I_S\hat O_j\;,\;\hat A_S\right]\right]\nonumber\\
&=&\sum_{\substack{j,p:\\d(S,j)\leq 1\\d(S,p)\leq2}}
J_{pj}J_{Sj}\left[\hat O_p\hat O_j\;,\;
\left[\hat O^I_S\hat O_j\;,\;\hat A_S\right]\right].\label{term1
\end{eqnarray}
So $\hat C_2$
groups the commutators along paths of length
$2$ that either depart from the system without returning to it ($j\neq S,p\neq S$),
or that pass through it one or two times ($j=S$ and/or $p=S$).
Analogously to the norm of $C_1$, we can estimate $\left\|\hat
C_2\right\|$,
\begin{displaymath}
\left\|\hat C_2\right\| \leq
\left\|A_S\right\|\left(2\mathcal{O}\right)^2
\sum_{i,j\in \mathcal I_2}\left[J^2\right]_{ji}\,,
\end{displaymath}
where $\mathcal I_2=\{i\in N: d(S,i)\leq 2 \}$
denotes the set of nodes at distance at most $2$ from the system, and
$\sum_{i,j\in \mathcal I_2}[J^2]_{ji}$ is the weight of all paths
of length $2$ that exist between DOF in $\mathcal {I}_2$.
Iterating this procedure, the general form of the $\hat C_d$'s is
found to be
\begin{widetext}
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{An}
\hat C_d=\sum_{\substack{(i_1,j_1)\in\mathcal{I}_1\\\vdots\\(i_d,j_d\in\mathcal{I}_d)}}
\,\prod_{k\in[1,d]}J_{i_k,j_k}
\left[\hat O_{i_d}\hat O_{j_d}\;,\;
\left[\hat O_{i_{d-1}}\hat O_{j_{d-1}}\;,\;
\left[\cdots\left[\hat O_{i_1}\hat O_{j_1}\;,\;
\hat A_S\right]\cdots
\right]
\right]
\right]\,.
\end{eqnarray}
\end{widetext}
The set $\mathcal{I}_k=\{i\in N: d(s,i)\leq k\}$ contains the DOF
belonging to the first $k$ layers of the graph. Thus
$\mathcal{I}_k\subseteq\mathcal{I}_{k+1}$.
Due to the presence of the commutators and Eqs.~\eqref{eq:loc},
\eqref{eq:nonloc}, the only non-vanishing terms
in the sums over the $\mathcal{I}_k$ are those where all adjacent
pairs of indices have at least one element in common,
i.e., those of the general form
\begin{displaymath}
\sum_{\alpha_{d-1}\in\mathcal{I}_{d-1}}\sum_{\alpha_{d-2}\in\mathcal{I}_{d-2}}
\cdots\sum_{\alpha_0\in\mathcal{I}_0}J_{i,\alpha_{d-1}}\prod_{k=0,d-2}J_{\alpha_{k+1},\alpha_k}
\end{displaymath}
with $i\in\mathcal{I}_d$.
Each of these terms represents a path of length $d$
within the first $d$ layers of the graph.
We can therefore estimate
\begin{equation}
\left\|\hat C_d\right\|\leq
\left\|\hat A_S\right\|\left(2\mathcal{O}\right)^d
\sum_{i,j\in\mathcal{I}_d}\left[J^d\right]_{ij}\,,
\label{max}\end{equation}
where the sum accounts for all paths of
length $d$ between two DOF that are at most at distance $d$ from the
system. Hence, we can rewrite the remainder, Eq.~\eqref{eq:Rn},
\begin{displaymath}
\mathcal{R}(n) \leq
\left\|\hat A_S\right\|\sum_{d=n+1}^\infty
\frac{\left(2t\mathcal{O}\right)^d}{d!}
\sum_{i,j\in\mathcal{I}_d}\left[J^d\right]_{ij}\,.
\end{displaymath}
If the graph is \textit{locally finite}, i.e., if each DOF is
connected to a finite amount of other DOF, then
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:lf1}
\|J\|\leq\max_{i\in N}\sum_jJ_{ij}\leq\infty\,.
\end{equation}
Labeling the maximum
connectivity of a node on the graph by $\bar c$, we can estimate
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:lf2}
\sum_{i,j\in\mathcal{I}_d}\left[J^d\right]_{ij}\leq
\left(\bar c^2\left\|J\right\|\right)^d\,,
\end{equation}
since the relevant part of the coupling matrix $J^d$ contains at most
$\bar c^{2d}$ elements, each of them less than or equal to
$\|J\|^d$. Under the assumption of local finiteness,
we thus obtain the following Lieb-Robinson
bound~\cite{LiebCMP72,NachtergaeleNewTrends07,BravyiPRL06,OsbornePRL06}
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{R}(n)&\leq& |S| \left\|\hat A_S\right\|
\sum_{d=n+1}^\infty
\frac{\left(2t\mathcal{O}\bar c^2\left\|J\right\|e^\mu\right)^d}{d!}
e^{-\mu d}\nonumber\\
&\leq& |S| \left\|\hat A_S\right\|e^{-\mu(n-vt)}\,,\label{eq:LR_A}
\end{eqnarray}
where
\[
v=2\left\|\mathcal O\right\|\bar c^2\left\|J\right\|e^\mu/\mu\,,
\]
and $|S|$ accounts for $\hat O_S$ acting on several system nodes.
The factor $e^{\mu n}$ with $\mu>0$ has been introduced in $v$ to
emphasize the exponential decay of the error with the number of
layers taken into account.
Minimizing $\mathcal{R}(n)$ as a function of $\mu$ leads to the
choice $\mu=1$ and hence Eq.~(6) of the main text.
\section{quasi-finite resolution of quantum dynamics for continuous environments}
We start from the generic Hamiltonian,
Eq.~(7) in the main text, describing the interaction of a
system with a continuous environment.
The goal is to bound the error made by evolving a generic system
operator $\hat A_S(t)$ employing the surrogate Hamiltonian $\hat
H_{P_n}$, Eq.~(8) in the main text, instead of the full generator $\hat H$.
Using the unitary invariance of the norm, i.e., $\|\hat U \hat A \hat
U^+\|=\|\hat A\|$, and the triangle inequality,
the error is expressed as
\begin{widetext}
\begin{eqnarray}
\left\|\hat A_S(t)\!-\! \hat A_S^{H_{P_n}}(t)\right\|
&=& \left\|e^{-i\hat H_{P_n}t}e^{i\hat Ht}
\hat A_Se^{-i\hat Ht}e^{i\hat H_{P_n}}-\hat A_S\right\|\nonumber\\
&\leq& \left\|e^{-i\hat H_{P_n}t}e^{i\hat Ht}
\hat A_Se^{-i\hat Ht}e^{i\hat H_{P_n}}-e^{i(\hat H - \hat H_{P_n})t}\hat A_S
e^{-i(\hat H-\hat H_{P_n})t}\right\|
+\left\|e^{i(\hat H - \hat H_{P_n})t}\hat A_S
e^{-i(\hat H-\hat H_{P_n})t}\!-\!\hat A_S\right\|\nonumber\\
&\equiv&R_1(P_n)+R_2(P_n)\label{eq:aplusb}\,.
\end{eqnarray}
\end{widetext}
The strategy is now to bound each of the two terms, $R_1(P_n)$ and
$R_2(P_n)$.
We first consider $R_1(P_n)$ and define a function
$F(\lambda)$~\cite{DeRaedtCPR87},
\begin{equation}
F(\lambda)=1-e^{i\lambda \hat H}e^{-i\lambda \hat H_{P_n}}e^{-i\lambda(\hat H-\hat H_{P_n})},
\label{eq:F}\end{equation}
with $F(0)=0$. Derivation with respect to $\lambda$ yields
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial F(\lambda)}{\partial\lambda} =
e^{i\lambda \hat H}
\left[e^{-i\lambda \hat H_{P_n}}\;,\;\hat H\right]
e^{-i\lambda(\hat H-\hat H_{P_n})} \,.
\label{eq:der}
\end{equation}
Applying the Kubo identity \cite{Kubo57},
\begin{displaymath}
\left[\hat H \;,\;e^{-i\lambda \hat H_{P_n}}\right]
= i\int_0^{\lambda}e^{-i(\lambda-\mu)\hat H_{P_n}}
\left[\hat H\;,\;\hat H_{P_n}\right]e^{-i\mu\hat H_{P_n}}d\mu.
\end{displaymath}
we can rewrite Eq.~\eqref{eq:der}, obtaining
\begin{widetext}
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial F(\lambda)}{\partial\lambda}
=-i \int_0^\lambda\!\!d\mu
e^{i\lambda \hat H}\!\!e^{-i\mu\hat H_{P_n}}\!\left[\hat H\;,\;\hat H_{P_n}\right]
e^{-i(\lambda-\mu)\hat H_{P_n}}\!e^{-i\lambda(\hat H-\hat H_{P_n})}\,.
\label{eq:der2}
\end{equation}
Integrating, using the initial condition $F(0)=0$ and
Eq.~\eqref{eq:F}, yields
\begin{equation}
e^{-i(\hat H-\hat H_{P_n})t}-e^{-i\hat Ht}e^{\hat H_{P_n}t}
=-i\int_0^t\!d\lambda\!\!\int_0^\lambda d\mu
e^{i\lambda \hat H}e^{-i\mu\hat H_{P_n}}\![\hat H,\hat H_{P_n}]
e^{-i(\lambda-\mu)\hat H_{P_n}}e^{-i\lambda(\hat H-\hat H_{P_n})}\,.
\label{eq:sn}\end{equation}
Estimation of the norms and of the integrals in Eq.~\eqref{eq:sn} leads to~\cite{DeRaedtCPR87,PoulinPRL11}
\begin{equation}
\left\|e^{-i(\hat H-\hat H_{P_n})t} -
e^{-i\hat Ht}e^{i\hat H_{P_n}t}\right\| \leq
\frac{t^2}{2}\left\|\left[\hat H\;,\;\hat H_{P_n}\right]\right\|\,.
\label{eq:deraedt}
\end{equation}
Equation~\eqref{eq:deraedt} allows the following estimate for $R_1(P_n)$
\begin{eqnarray}
R_1(P_n)&=&\left\|e^{-i\hat H_{P_n}t}e^{i\hat Ht}\hat
A_Se^{-i\hat Ht}e^{i\hat H_{P_n}}-e^{i(\hat H - \hat H_{P_n})t}\hat A_S
e^{-i(\hat H-\hat H_{P_n})t}\right\|
\nonumber\\ &\leq&
2\left\|e^{-i\hat H_{P_n}t}e^{i\hat Ht}\hat
A_S\left(e^{-i\hat Ht}e^{i\hat H_{P_n}}-e^{-i(\hat H - \hat H_{P_n})t}\right)
\right\|\nonumber\\
&&+\left\|\left(e^{i\hat Ht}e^{-i\hat H_{P_n}}-e^{i(\hat H -
\hat H_{P_n})t}\right)\hat A_S
\left(e^{-i\hat Ht}e^{i\hat H_{P_n}}-e^{-i(\hat H -
\hat H_{P_n})t}\right)\right\|\nonumber\\
&\leq&\left\|\hat A_S\right\|
\frac{t^2}{2}\left\|\left[\hat H\;,\;\hat H_{P_n}\right]\right\|
\left(2+\frac{t^2}{2}\left\|\left[\hat H\;,\;\hat H_{P_n}\right]\right\|\right).
\label{eq:A}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{widetext}
We thus find that $R_1(P_n)$ is bounded by a second order polynomial in
$t^2\left\|[\hat H,\hat H_{P_n}]\right\|$. For finite $t$, $R_1(P_n)$
is determined by
the commutator of $\hat H$ and $\hat H_{P_n}$ which
vanishes in the limit $n\rightarrow\infty$. In particular, we find
\begin{widetext}
\begin{eqnarray}
\left[\hat H\;,\;\hat H_{P_n}\right] &=&
\left[\hat H_S\;,\;\hat O^I_S\right]
\left\{\sum_{i=0}^{n-1}\tilde J_i
\left(\hat c_i+\hat{c}^+_i\right)-
\int_{0}^{x_{max}}J(x) \left(\hat c_x+\hat c_x^+\right)dx\right\}
\nonumber \\
&&+\left(\hat O^I_S\right)^2\left[
\int_{0}^{x_{max}}J(x)(\hat c_x+\hat c_x^+)dx
\;,\; \sum_{i=0}^{n-1}\tilde J_i(\hat c_i+\hat{c}^+_i)\right]
+\hat O^I_S\left[\int_{0}^{x_{max}}J(x)\left(
\hat c_x+\hat c_x^+\right)dx \;,\;
\sum_{i=0}^{n-1}\tilde{g}_i
\hat c^+_i\hat{c}_i\right]\nonumber\\
&&+\left[\int_{0}^{x_{max}}g(x)
\hat c^+_x\hat c_x dx \;,\; \sum_{i=0}^{n-1}\tilde J_i
\left(\hat c_i+\hat{c}^+_i\right)\right]\hat O^I_S
+\left[\int_{0}^{x_{max}}g(x)
\hat c^+_x\hat c_x dx \;,\;
\sum_{i=0}^{n-1}\tilde{g}_i \hat c^+_i\hat{c}_i\right]\nonumber\\
&&+\hat O^I_S\left[
\int_{0}^{x_{max}}J(x)(\hat c_x+\hat c_x^+)dx \;,\;
2\sum_{i<j=0}^{n-1}\tilde{K}_{ij} \left(
\hat c_i\hat c^+_j+\hat c_i\hat c^+_j
+\hat c^+_i\hat c_i\hat c^+_j\hat c_j\right)\right]\nonumber\\
&&+\left[
2\int_0^{x_{max}}\int_x^{x_{max}} K\left(|x-x'|\right)
\left(\hat c_x\hat c^+_{x'}+ \hat c_x^+\hat c_{x'}
+\hat c^+_x\hat c_x\hat c^+_{x'}\hat c_{x'}\right) dxdx' \;,\;
\sum_{i=0}^{n-1}\tilde J_i \left(\hat c_i+\hat{c}^+_i\right)
\right]\hat O^I_S\nonumber\\
&&+4\left[\int_0^{x_{max}}\int_x^{x_{max}}
K\left(|x-x'|\right)\left(\hat c_x\hat c^+_{x'}
+\hat c_x^+\hat c_{x'}
+\hat c^+_x\hat c_x\hat c^+_{x'}\hat c_{x'}\right)
dxdx' \;,\; \sum_{i<j=0}^{n-1}\tilde{K}_{ij}\left(
\hat c_i\hat c^+_j+\hat c_i^+\hat c_j
+\hat c^+_i\hat c_i\hat c^+_j\hat c_j\right)\right]\nonumber\\
&&+2\left[\int_0^{x_{max}}\int_x^{x_{max}}
K\left(|x-x'|\right)
\left(\hat c_x\hat c^+_{x'}+\hat c_x^+\hat c_{x'}
+\hat c^+_x\hat c_x\hat c^+_{x'}\hat c_{x'}\right)
dxdx' \;,\; \sum_{i=0}^{n-1}\tilde{g}_i
\hat c^+_i\hat{c}_i\right]\nonumber\\
&&+\left[\int_{0}^{x_{max}}g(x)
\hat c^+_x\hat c_x dx \;,\;
2\sum_{i<j=0}^{n-1}\tilde{K}_{ij}\left(
\hat c_i\hat c^+_j+\hat c^+_i\hat c_j
+\hat c^+_i\hat c_i\hat c^+_j\hat c_j\right)\right]\,.
\label{eq:comm}
\end{eqnarray}
Any commutator acting on the bath degrees of freedom has the generic
form $[\hat A_x,\hat B_{x'}]=[\hat A_x,\hat B_{x}]\delta_{x,x'}$.
Therefore commutators between local bath operators vanish,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\left(\hat O^I_S\right)^2
\left[ \int_{0}^{x_{max}}J(x)
\left(\hat c_x+\hat c_x^+\right)dx\;,\;
\sum_{i=0}^{n-1}\tilde J_i
(\hat c_i+\hat{c}^+_i)\right] &=&0 \,,\\
\left[\int_{0}^{x_{max}}g(x)
\hat c^+_x \hat c_x dx \;,\;
\sum_{i=0}^{n-1}\tilde{g}_i \hat c^+_i\hat{c}_i\right]&=&0\,,\\
\hat O^I_S\left[\int_{0}^{x_{max}}J(x)
(\hat c_x+\hat c_x^+)dx \;,\;
\sum_{i=0}^{n-1}\tilde{g}_i \hat c^+_i\hat{c}_i\right]
+\left[\int_{0}^{x_{max}}g(x)
\hat c^+_x \hat c_x dx \;,\;
\sum_{i=0}^{n-1}\tilde J_i\left(\hat c_i+\hat{c}^+_i\right)
\right]\hat O^I_S&=&0\,,
\end{eqnarray*}
and we are left with those terms in Eq.~\eqref{eq:comm} that involve
non-local bath operators,
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{JK}\hat C_{JK} &=&
\hat O^I_S\left[\int_{0}^{x_{max}}J(x)
\left(\hat c_x+\hat c_x^+\right)dx \;,\;
2\sum_{i<j=0}^{n-1}
\tilde{K}_{ij}\left(\hat c_i\hat c^+_j+\hat c_i^+\hat c_j
+\hat c^+_i\hat c_i\hat c^+_j\hat c_j\right)\right] \\
&&-2\left[\int_0^{x_{max}}\int_x^{x_{max}}K\left(|x-x'|\right)
\left(\hat c_x\hat c^+_{x'}+ \hat c_x^+\hat c_{x'}+
\hat c^+_x\hat c_x\hat c^+_{x'}\hat c_{x'}\right) dxdx'\;,\;
\sum_{i=0}^{n-1}\tilde J_i
\left(\hat c_i+\hat{c}^+_i\right)\right]\hat O^I_S \,,\nonumber \\
\label{KK} \hat C_{K} &=&\\
&& 4\left[
\int_0^{x_{max}}\int_x^{x_{max}}K\left(|x-x'|\right)
\left(\hat c_x\hat c^+_{x'}+\hat c_x^+\hat c_{x'}
+\hat c^+_x\hat c_x\hat c^+_{x'}\hat c_{x'}\right) dxdx' \;,\;
\sum_{i<j=0}^{n-1}\tilde{K}_{ij}\left(
\hat c_i\hat c^+_j+\hat c_i^+\hat c_j
+\hat c^+_i\hat c_i\hat c^+_j\hat c_j\right)\right]\,,\nonumber\\
\label{GK}\hat C_{gK}
&=& 2\left[\int_0^{x_{max}}\int_x^{x_{max}}K\left(|x-x'|\right)
\left(\hat c_x\hat c^+_{x'}+\hat c_x^+\hat c_{x'}
+\hat c^+_x\hat c_x\hat c^+_{x'}\hat c_{x'}\right) dxdx'\;,\;
\sum_{i=0}^{n-1}\tilde{g}_i \hat c^+_i\hat{c}_i\right]\\
&&-2\left[\int_{0}^{x_{max}}g(x)
\hat c^+_x\hat c_x dx \;,\;
\sum_{i<j=0}^{n-1}\tilde{K}_{ij}\left(
\hat c_i\hat c^+_j+\hat c_i^+\hat c_j
+\hat c^+_i\hat c_i\hat c^+_j\hat c_j\right)
\right]\,.\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Using these definitions of $\hat C_{JK}$, $\hat C_K$, $\hat
C_{gK}$ and the triangular inequality, the norm of the commutator of
the full generator and the surrogate one can be rewritten,
\begin{eqnarray}
\left\|[\hat H,\hat H_{P_n}]\right\| \leq
\left\|[\hat H_S,\hat O^I_S]\right\|2R_J(P_n
+\!\|\hat C_{JK}\|\!+\!\|\hat C_{KK}\|\!+\!\|\hat C_{gK}\| \,,
\label{eq:norm}
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{displaymath}
R_J(P_n)\!\leq\!\sum_i\left(
\left\| J(x_i)\delta x_i(c_i+c^+ _i)\!-\!\!\int_{\delta x_i}J(x)(c_x+c^+_x)dx\right\|\right)
\end{displaymath}
bounds the error made by evaluating the integral over
$J(x)(c_x+c^+_x)$ in terms of the Riemann sum built on
the partition $P_n$. This error vanishes in the limit
$|P_n|\rightarrow 0$, where $|P_n|=\max_{i\leq n}\delta x_i$. The
norm of the remaining terms in Eq.~\eqref{eq:norm}
can be evaluated analogously. To this end, we rewrite $\hat C_{JK}$ in
Eq.~\eqref{JK},
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat C_{JK}&=&2\hat O^I_S\sum_{i\neq j}J(x_i)\tilde{K}_{ij}
\left[\hat c_i+\hat c^+_i \;,\;
\hat c_i\hat c^+_j+\hat c_i^+\hat c_j
+\hat c^+_i\hat c_i\hat c^+_j\hat c_j\right]\\
&&-2\hat O^I_S\int_0^{x_{max}} \sum_{i:x_i\neq x}
K\left(|x-x_i|\right)
\tilde{J_i}\left[\hat c_i+\hat c^+_i \;,\;
\hat c_i\hat c^+_x+ \hat c_i^+\hat c_x+
+\hat c^+_i\hat c_i\hat c^+_x\hat c_x\right] dx\,,\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
such that we can estimate
\begin{equation}
\|C_{JK}\|\leq2\|\hat O^I_S\|R_{JK}(P_n)\,,\label{eq:RJK}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
R_{JK}(P_n)&=&\sum_{j=0}^{n-1}\sum_{i\neq j}
\delta x_i\Bigg\|\int_{\delta x_j}
K\left(|x-x_i|\right)J(x_i)
\left[\hat c_i+\hat c^+_i \;,\;
\hat c_i\hat c^+_x+\hat c_i^+\hat c_x
+\hat c^+_i\hat c_i\hat c^+_x\hat c_x\right]dx \\
&&\quad\quad\quad\quad-\delta x_j
K\left(|x_j-x_i|\right)J(x_i)
\left[\hat c_i+\hat c^+_i \;,\;
\hat c_i\hat c^+_j + \hat c_i^+\hat c_j +
\hat c^+_i\hat c_i\hat c^+_j\hat c_j\right] \Bigg\|\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
bounding the error made by evaluating the integral over $x$ by
the corresponding Riemann sum over $P_n$.
Analogously we obtain
\begin{equation}
\|\hat C_{gK}\|\leq 2R_{gK}(P_n) \label{eq:RgK}
\end{equation}
with
\begin{eqnarray}
R_{gK}(P_n)&=&\sum_{j=0}^{n-1}\sum_{i\neq j}
\delta x_i\Bigg\|\int_{\delta x_j}g(x_i)K\left(|x-x_i|\right)
\left[\hat c^+_i\hat c_{x'}+
\hat c^+_i\hat c_{i}\hat c^+_{x'}\hat c_{x'}\;,\;
\hat c^+_i\hat c_{i}\right]dx \\
&&\quad\quad\quad\quad
-\delta x_j g(x_i)K(|x_i-x_j|)\left[\hat c^+_i\hat c_{j} \nonumber
+\hat c^+_i\hat c_{i}\hat c^+_{j}\hat c_{j}\;,\;
\hat c^+_i\hat c_{i}\right]\Bigg\|
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{equation}
\hat C_{K}=4\int_0^{x_{max}}dx
\sum_{\substack{i\neq j\\i:x_i\neq x}}
K(|x-x_i|)\tilde{K}_{ij}
\left(\hat d_1+\hat d_2+\hat d_3+\hat d_4+\hat d_5\right)\,,
\label{eq:ck}
\end{equation}
\end{widetext}
where
\begin{subequations}\label{eq:diffs}
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat d_1&=&\hat c_x\left[\hat c^+_i\;,\;\hat c_i\right]\hat c^+_j
-\hat c_j\left[\hat c^+_i\;,\;\hat c_i\right]\hat c^+_x \,,\\
\hat d_2&=& \hat c^+_j\hat c_j
\left[\hat c_i\;,\;\hat c^+_i\hat c_i\right]c^+_{x}
-\hat c_x\hat c^+_{x}\left[\hat c_i\;,\;\hat c^+_i\hat
c_i\right]c^+_{j}
\,,\\
\hat d_3&=& \left[\hat c_i\;,\;\hat c^+_i\hat c_i\right]
\left(\hat c^+_j\hat c_jc^+_x-\hat c^+_x\hat c_xc^+_j\right)\,,\\
\hat d_4&=&\hat c_x
\left[\hat c^+_i\;,\;\hat c^+_i\hat c_i\right]\hat c^+_j\hat c_j
-\hat c_j\left[\hat c^+_i\;,\;\hat c^+_i\hat c_i\right]\hat
c^+_x\hat c_x\,,\\
\hat d_5&=&\left(\hat c^+_j\hat c_jc^+_x
-\hat c^+_x\hat c_xc^+_j\right)
\left[\hat c_i\;,\;\hat c^+_i\hat c_i\right]\,.
\end{eqnarray}
\end{subequations}
Equations~\eqref{eq:diffs} imply that $\hat C_K$
depends on the partition along $x$, i.e., it would vanish if
$\sum_j\rightarrow \int dx$.
Its norm can consequently be bounded as
\begin{equation}
\|\hat C_{K}\|\leq 2R_{K}(P_n)
\label{eq:RKK}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{widetext}
\begin{eqnarray}
R_{K}(P_n)=5\sum_j\sum_{i\neq j}\left|
\delta x_i\delta x_j\int_{\delta x_j}
K\left(|x-x_i|\right)K\left(|x_i-x_j|\right)
\max (\|\hat d_1\|,\|\hat d_2\|,\|\hat d_3\|,\|\hat d_4\|,
\|\hat d_5\|)\right|dx.
\end{eqnarray}
Using Eqs.~\eqref{eq:norm}, \eqref{eq:RJK}, \eqref{eq:RgK} and
\eqref{eq:RKK}, the final estimate can be written
\begin{eqnarray}
\left\|[\hat H,\hat H_{P_n}]\right\|&\leq&
2\left(
\left\|\left[\hat H_S\;,\;\hat O^I_S\right]\right\|R_J(P_n)
+\left\|\hat A_S\right\|R_{JK}(P_n)+R_{gK}(P_n)+R_{K}(P_n)
\right)\nonumber\\
&=&2\left(
\left\|\left[\hat H_S\;,\;\hat O^I_S\right]\right\|R_J(P_n)
+R_B(P_n)\right)\,,\label{eq:R12}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{widetext}
where $R_B(P_n)$ comprises of all the errors due to discretization
of the integrals involving $K(|x-x'|)$, $J(x)K(|x-x'|)$ and
$g(x)K(|x-x'|)$.
Since $J(x)$ represents energy relaxation, $R_J(P_n)$
vanishes for pure dephasing. Similarly, $R_B(P_n)$ captures
the intra-bath interactions and vanishes for normal modes. Using
Eqs~\eqref{eq:R12} and \eqref{eq:A} one obtains
\begin{widetext}
\begin{equation}
R_1(P_n)\leq\left\|\hat A_S\right\|
t^2\left(
\left\|\left[\hat H_S\;,\;\hat O^I_S\right]\right\|R_J(P_n)
+R_B(P_n)\right)
\left[2+t^2\left(
\left\|\left[\hat H_S\;,\;\hat O^I_S\right]\right\|R_J(P_n)
+R_B(P_n)\right)\right]
\label{eq:R1}\end{equation}
\end{widetext}
thus showing that at finite times the error $R_1(P_n)$
depends on how well the integrals are approximated
by the Riemann sums.
The second contribution to the error, $R_2(P_n)$ in
Eq.~\eqref{eq:aplusb}, represents the distance between $\hat A_S$ and
its time evolution under $\hat H-\hat H_{P_n}$. It can be estimated
\begin{eqnarray}
R_2(P_n)\!&=&\!\!\left\|e^{i(\hat H - \hat H_{P_n})t}\hat A_S
e^{-i(\hat H-\hat H_{P_n})t}-\hat A_S\right\|\!\!\nonumber\\
&&\leq\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\frac{t^k}{k!}\!\left\|\hat
C_k^{H-H_{P_n}}\right\|
\label{eq:BCHR2}
\end{eqnarray}
with
\[
\hat C^{H-H_{P_n}}_k =
\left[\hat H-\hat H_{P_n} \;,\; \hat C^{H-H_{P_n}}_{k-1}\right]
\]
and $\hat C^{H-H_{P_n}}_0=\hat O_S$
using the Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff formula and
the triangular inequality.
Since
\begin{displaymath}
\left\|\hat C_1^{\hat H-\hat H_{P_n}}\right\|
=\left\|\left[\hat H-\hat H_{P_n} \;,\;\hat A_S\right]\right\|
\leq2\left\|\hat A_S\right\|\left\|\hat H-\hat H_{P_n} \right\|\,,
\end{displaymath}
we obtain for $\hat C^{\hat H-\hat H_{P_n}}_k$,
\begin{equation}
\left\|\hat C^{H-H_{P_n}}_k\right\| \leq
2^k \left\|\hat A_S\right\|\left\|\hat H-\hat H_{P_n}\right\|^k.
\end{equation}
Substituting this into Eq.~\eqref{eq:BCHR2} yields the following
estimate for $R_2(P_n)$,
\begin{equation}
R_2(P_n)\leq\left\|\hat A_S\right\|
\left(e^{2\|\hat H-\hat H_{P_n}\|t}-1\right)\label{eq:R2}.
\end{equation}
For finite time, the error $R_2(P_n)$ vanishes in the limit
$n\rightarrow\infty$.
We conclude from Eqs.~\eqref{eq:A}, \eqref{eq:R12} and \eqref{eq:R2}
that, for a fixed finite time $t$, the error $R(P_n)$ can be made
arbitrarily small by proper choice of the partition. It is thus
sufficient to represent a continuous bath with infinitely many DOF
by a finite set of 'surrogate' modes. Note that in our derivation no
assumption on the system-bath interaction or intra-bath couplings were
made.
As a final remark we note that, as long as the full Hamiltonian
contains bounded operators, the bounds,
Eq.~\eqref{eq:LR_A} for discrete DOF and Eq.~\eqref{eq:R2} for continuous
DOF, depend only on the coupling structure and not the specific
algebraic form of $\hat H$.
\section{The Suzuki-Trotter Decomposition}
At finite $t$ the effective generator of the reduced system evolution
has the generic form
\begin{displaymath}
\hat H_{X_n} = \sum_{i,j\in X_n}\hat h_{ij}.
\end{displaymath}
where without loss of generality we assume two-body interactions. The
set $X_n$ is that of the relevant DOF on which $\hat H_{X_n}$ acts
and $\hat h_{ij}$ is the generic interaction between two DOF. At
$t<\infty$ the effective propagator generated by $\hat H_{X_n}$
can be approximated by applying a Suzuki-Trotter
expansion~\cite{Trotter59,SuzukiCMP94}
\begin{equation}
e^{-i\hat H_{X_n}t}\approx
\left( \prod_{\{i,j\}\in X_n}e^{-i\hat h_{ij}\Delta t}\right)^{m_n}\,,
\label{eq:trott}
\end{equation}
where $\Delta t = t/m_n$.
The generator $\hat H_{X_n}$ contains $K_n\leq|X_n|^2$ two-body terms.
The error introduced by approximating $e^{-i\hat H_n\Delta t}$
within each $\Delta t$ by a product of $K_n$ terms
is of the order
$\epsilon_2\leq\frac{1}{2}\mathcal{O}^2K_{n}^2(\Delta t)^2$
\cite{DeRaedtCPR87,PoulinPRL11}. A prespecified error $\epsilon_2/2$ for
the whole time $t$ is
achieved by taking $m_n=\mathcal{O}^2 t^2 K_{n}^2/\epsilon_2$ Trotter
steps, i.e., by choosing $\Delta t=\epsilon_2/(t\mathcal{O}^2 K_{n}^2)$.
The product formula in Eq.~\eqref{eq:trott} can be generalized to
generators exhibiting arbitrary
time-dependence~\cite{PoulinPRL11}.
\section{Extension to $k$-body interactions}
\subsection{Extension of the dynamical bounds}
A generic generator defined on a discrete set and containing $k$-body
interactions is written as
\begin{equation}
\hat H=\sum_{i_1,i_2,\cdots,i_k}\hat h_{i_1,i_2,\cdots,i_k}\,,\label{eq:kbo}
\end{equation}
where $i_1,\cdots,i_k\in(0,\infty)$, and $\hat h_{i_1,\cdots,i_k}$ is
a generic $k$-body interaction.
This Hamiltonian defines a hypergraph, i.e., an ordered pair $G=(N,E)$
with the set of nodes $N$ made up of all the degrees of freedom
$\hat H$ acts upon and $E$ comprising the set of
non-empty subsets of $N$, called hyperedges or links, for which
$\|\hat h_{i_1,\cdots,i_k}\|\neq0$. Since all interactions are
$k$-local in Eq.~\eqref{eq:kbo}, all hyperedges have size
$k$, and the hypergraph is $k$-uniform. A graph can therefore be
regarded as a 2-uniform hypergraph. The adjacency matrix $A^h_{ij}$ of
a hypergraph $G$ is defined as the matrix whose entries $A^h_{ij}$
correspond to the number of hyperedges containing both degrees of
freedom $i$ and $j$~\cite{RodriguezAML09}.
The connectivity of a node $c_i$ is given by the number of hyperedges
involving the node, $c_i=\sum_jA^{h}_{ij}$. The hypergraph is therefore
{\it locally finite} if $\max_{i\in N}c_i=\bar c_i<\infty$. One can
then define the coupling matrix $J$ on the hypergraph,
\begin{displaymath}
J_{ij}=\sqrt{\sum_{\mu\nu}\left(
\sum_{\substack{i_1,\cdots,i_k : \\ \exists (k,k') : i_k=i,
i_{k'}=j}}
[J^{\mu\nu}_{i_1,\cdots,i_k}]^2\right)}\,,
\end{displaymath}
and consequently bound its norm by $\|J\|\leq\max_{i\in N}\sum
J_{ij}$. This implies that Eq. (6) in the main text holds in the same
form with $\mathcal O=\max_{i_1,\cdots,i_k}\|\hat h_{i_1,\cdots,i_k}\|$.
Equation (9) in the main text holds formally unaltered as well, with
the Riemann sums calculated for the relative $k$-body terms.
\subsection{Suzuki-Trotter decomposition}
The propagator for a $k$-body effective generator of the form
Eq.~\eqref{eq:kbo} is decomposed as
\begin{displaymath}
e^{-i\hat H_{X_n}t}\approx \left(
\prod_{\{i_1,\cdots,i_k\}\in X_n}e^{-i\hat h_{i_1,\cdots,i_k}t}\right)^{m_n}\,.
\end{displaymath}
The error estimate in the previous section holds formally unaltered
with $K_n\leq|X_n|^k$. One could then use the
Solovay-Kitaev algorithm~\cite{DawsonQIC06} to further
decompose each $k$-unitary into a product of one- and two-body
unitaries chosen from a suitable set. To achieve an accuracy $\epsilon$
for each $k$-unitary transformation, $n_{SK}=a\log_2^b(\epsilon^{-1})$
operations are required with $a$, $b$ constants. If one chooses
$\epsilon=\epsilon_2/(2n_d)$, the effective propagator is simulated with an
accuracy $\epsilon_2$ employing $n'_d=a n_d\log_2^b(n_d/\epsilon_2)$ one- and two-body
unitaries, i.e., with a computational effort that scales polynomially
in time and number of effective DOF~\cite{PoulinPRL11}.
|
\subsubsection{\bf $\nu_e$ appearance measurements}
\par
The value of $\theta_{13}$ may also be deduced by looking for $\nu_{e}$ appearance in experiments that measure neutrino conversion probabilities. This includes experiments such as T2K~\cite{Abe:2011sj} and MINOS~\cite{MINOS_theta13}.
\par
Let us focus on T2K~\cite{Abe:2011sj} for the purposes of our discussion. At T2K the neutrino energy peaks around $0.6\,\text{GeV}$ and the ND(s) and FD are at $280\,\text{m}$ and $295\,\text{Km}$ respectively. This ensures $\Delta_{32}\sim\pi/2$ at the FD when $E\sim0.6\,\text{GeV}$, giving an oscillation maximum. These base lengths also enable us to use all the approximations for LBL again at the FD. The ND effects can again be quantified and studied as before.
\par
The transition probability in vacuum, keeping $\Delta m^2_{21}$ explicitly, may be written as
\begin{eqnarray}
P_{\text{\tiny{LBL}}}^{\mu e}&=& 4|U_{\mu 3}|^2 |U_{e3}|^2\sin^2\Delta_{31}+4|U_{\mu 2}|^2 |U_{e2}|^2\sin^2\Delta_{21}+ 8 |U^{*}_{\mu 3}| |U_{e 3}| |U_{\mu 2}| |U^{*}_{e2}| \sin\Delta_{31} \sin\Delta_{21}\cos (\Delta_{32}-\delta_3)\nonumber\\
&+&4 |U_{\mu 3}| |U_{e3}| |\beta''| \sin\Delta_{31}\sin (\Delta_{31}-\delta_1)+4 |U_{\mu 2}| |U_{e2}| |\beta''| \sin\Delta_{21}\sin (\Delta_{21}-\delta_2)+ 2\big(|U_{\mu 4}|^2 |U_{e 4}|^2+ |U_{\mu 5}|^2 |U_{e5}|^2\nonumber\\
&+& |U_{\mu 4}| |U^*_{e4}| |U^*_{\mu 5}| |U_{e5}| \cos\delta\big) ~~\;,
\label{mueconversion}
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
\beta''&=&\sum_{i\geq4} U_{\mu i}^{*} U_{ei}\; , \nonumber \\
\delta_1 &=& \arg\left( U^*_{\mu 3} U_{e3} \beta'' \right) \;,\nonumber \\
\delta_2 &=& \arg\left( U^*_{\mu 2} U_{e2} \beta'' \right) \;,\nonumber \\
\delta_3 &=& \arg\left( U^*_{\mu 3} U_{e3} U_{\mu 2} U^*_{e2}\right) \;.
\end{eqnarray}
\par
The only approximation we have made in Eq.\,(\ref{mueconversion}) is to average terms containing large sterile mass-squared differences. In contrast to the previous case there now appears non-trivial CP phases, as this is a conversion probability. Due to the presence of these phases there could be interesting interferences between the various terms and it's seen that one can no longer drop terms, as we did in the survival probability case, without significant errors.
\par
These phases which appear in the LBL limit are in general independent of the phase $\delta$ extracted from the SBL global fits. Also note that when $\beta''\neq0$ the phase $\delta_3$ is not independent and is given by $\delta_1-\delta_2$. The effective CP phases $\delta_1$ and $\delta_2$ may be related to the `fundamental' CP phases $\delta_{12}$ and $\delta_{13}$ in some particular parametrization of $\mathcal{U}^{3+2}_{\text{\tiny{PMNS}}}$ (Appendix A).
\par
To get a better understanding of what the various terms in Eq.\,(\ref{mueconversion}) mean, we briefly look at the corresponding expression in the $3\nu\text{SM}$ case. In the $3\nu\text{SM}$ the conversion probability has the well-known form
\begin{eqnarray}
P^{\text{\tiny{LBL}}}_{\mu e} \simeq P^{3\nu\text{\tiny{SM}}}_{\text{\tiny{ATM.}}}+P^{3\nu\text{\tiny{SM}}}_{\odot}+2\sqrt{P^{3\nu\text{\tiny{SM}}}_{\odot} P^{3\nu\text{\tiny{SM}}}_{\text{\tiny{ATM.}}}}\cos(\Delta_{32}-\delta_3)\, ,
\label{3nsmconv}
\end{eqnarray}
with
\begin{eqnarray}
P^{3\nu\text{\tiny{SM}}}_{\text{\tiny{ATM.}}}&\cong&\sin^2\theta_{23}\sin^2 2\theta_{13}\sin^2\Delta_{31}\; ,\nonumber\\
P^{3\nu\text{\tiny{SM}}}_{\odot}&\cong&\cos^2\theta_{23}\sin^2 2\theta_{12}\sin^2\Delta_{21}\; .
\end{eqnarray}
\par
The first and second terms in Eq.\,(\ref{3nsmconv}) are the atmospheric and solar oscillation contributions. The last term denotes an `interference' between the atmospheric and solar oscillations with a relative phase shift $\delta_3$. Label this term $P^{\text{\tiny{INT.}}-\delta_3}_{\odot-\text{\tiny{ATM.}}}$ and in terms of the matrix elements it is
\begin{equation}
P^{\text{\tiny{INT.}}-\delta_3}_{\odot-\text{\tiny{ATM.}}}\equiv 8 |U^{*}_{\mu 3}| |U_{e 3}| |U_{\mu 2}| |U^{*}_{e2}| \sin\Delta_{31} \sin\Delta_{21}\cos (\Delta_{32}-\delta_3)\;.
\end{equation}
If we define $\delta_{CP}=-\arg(U_{e3})$, then for small $|U_{e3}|$ values, $\delta_3$ in the $3\nu\text{SM}$ is almost equal to $-\delta_{CP}$. The $ P^{3\nu\text{\tiny{SM}}}_{\odot}$ term is $\mathcal{O}(\Delta^2_{21})$ and small for most experiments we are interested in. The $P^{\text{\tiny{INT.-$\delta_3$}}}_{\odot-\text{\tiny{ATM.}}}$ term is superficially sensitive to the mass hierarchy, since under $+|\Delta m^2_{32}|\rightarrow-|\Delta m^2_{32}|$ it picks up a negative sign and the argument $(|\Delta m^2_{32}|-\delta_3)\rightarrow (|\Delta m^2_{32}|+\delta_3)$. Nevertheless, it should be noted that there is no actual sensitivity in the vacuum case, since a rescaling of the CP phase, $\delta_3\rightarrow \pi-\delta_3$, would undo the above transformation~\cite{Minakata:2001qm}.
\par
For later comparison to ``$\,3+2$", in Fig.\,\ref{3neuSMfigs} we make some illustrative plots in the $3\nu\text{SM}$ case, assuming T2K baseline ($295\,\text{Km}$). Note that in the $3\nu\text{SM}$ case
\begin{equation}
8 |U_{\mu 3}|^2 |U_{e3}|^2=2\sin^2\theta_{23}\sin^22\theta_{13}\;.
\end{equation}
Plotting this combined quantity in Fig.\,\ref{3neuSMfigs} (top left) and later allows us to readily consider a non-maximal atmospheric sector in $|U_{e3}|$ extraction. The CP phase $\delta_3$ now is almost equal to $-\delta_{CP}$, for small $ |U_{e3}|$.
Note from Fig.\,\ref{3neuSMfigs} (top right) that, for a fixed value of the CP phase, the theoretical differences between NH and IH can be more pronounced as we move away from $\Delta_{32}\sim\pi/2$. This of course does not imply any actual sensitivity to the mass hierarchy in these measurements, due to the invariance under $\delta_3\rightarrow \pi-\delta_3$ and $+|\Delta m^2_{32}|\rightarrow-|\Delta m^2_{32}|$ mentioned earlier~\cite{Minakata:2001qm}.
The bi-probability plot, bottom figure in Fig.\,\ref{3neuSMfigs}, shows the probability orbits in the $(P_{\mu e},\, \overline{P}_{\bar{\mu}\bar{e}})$ plane. The orbits are traced as we vary $\delta_3$, whose values may be read off from the color wheel at the origin, and the size of the ellipses are determined by the magnitude of $|U_{e3}|$. Since $\Delta_{32}\sim\pi/2$ the $\cos\delta_3$ contribution in the interference term is small and the ellipses get squeezed as $\Delta_{32}\rightarrow \pi/2$, tending towards a line~\cite{Barger:2001yr}. Due to this there is no $(\delta_3,\theta_{13})$ degeneracy in the plotted orbits. In this case, if matter matter effects are small (at T2K, for instance, they are small to good approximation), CP-violation can in principle be measured directly by comparing $P_{\mu e}$ and $\overline{P}_{\bar{\mu}\bar{e}}$.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=7.5cm,angle=0]{Ue3ext_3neuSM.jpg}
~~~~~~~~~~~\includegraphics[width=7.5cm,angle=0]{3neuSM_Espread.jpg}
\includegraphics[width=7.5cm,angle=0]{proborbit3neuSM.jpg}
\caption{Plots in the $3\nu\text{SM}$ case, assuming T2K baseline, showing extracted $8 |U_{\mu 3}|^2 |U_{e3}|^2$ for $E=0.6\,\text{GeV}$ (top-left plot) and conversion probabilities in the energy bins $\{0.4\,\text{GeV},\,0.6\,\text{GeV},\,1.2\,\text{GeV}\}$ for fixed $8 |U_{\mu 3}|^2 |U_{e3}|^2$ (top-right plot). The thick-lines denote NH and the dotted lines denote IH. The top-left plot is for four fixed probabilities - $0.07,\,0.05,\,0.03\,\text{and}\,0.01$. For comparison, the CHOOZ limit at $0.19$ ($90\%$ C.L.) is shown. To avoid clutter, we have not shown in the plots the best-fit values from the other experiments - $0.041^{+0.047}_{-0.031}$ (MINOS-NH), $0.079^{+0.071}_{-0.053}$ (MINOS-IH), $0.11^{+0.1}_{-0.06}$ (T2K-NH), $0.14^{+0.11}_{-0.08}$ (T2K-IH) and $0.085\pm0.051$ (Double-CHOOZ preliminary)~\cite{{MINOS_theta13}, {Abe:2011sj}, {new-DCHOOZ}}. The bi-probability plot ($\overline{P}_{\bar{\mu}\bar{e}}$ vs. $P_{\mu e}$) for five different values of $4 |U_{e3}|^2 (1-|U_{e3}|^2)$, corresponding to Table \ref{ue3dissvals}, is also plotted for the NH case. The color coding on them denotes the values of $\delta_{3}$ and the values may be ascertained from the color wheel displayed at the origin. Apart from $|U_{e3}|$, for simplicity, wherever applicable all other matrix elements have been assumed to be close to their tribimaximal values.}
\label{3neuSMfigs}
\end{figure}
\par
The first three terms in Eq.\,(\ref{mueconversion}) correspond to these terms above - atmospheric, solar and an interference term between them. The next two terms in Eq.\,(\ref{mueconversion}) are \emph{contributions solely from sterile neutrinos and modulate the $P^{3\nu\text{\tiny{SM}}}_{\text{\tiny{ATM.}}}$ and $ P^{3\nu\text{\tiny{SM}}}_{\odot}$ with relative phase shifts of $\delta_1$ and $\delta_2$ respectively}. Let us label these terms $\Delta P^{\beta''-\delta_1}_{\text{\tiny{ATM.}}}$ and $\Delta P^{\beta''-\delta_2}_{\odot}$,
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta P^{\beta''-\delta_1}_{\text{\tiny{ATM.}}}&\equiv&~ 4 |U_{\mu 3}| |U_{e3}| |\beta''| \sin\Delta_{31}\sin (\Delta_{31}-\delta_1)\nonumber\;,\\
\Delta P^{\beta''-\delta_2}_{\odot}&\equiv&~4 |U_{\mu 2}| |U_{e2}| |\beta''| \sin\Delta_{21}\sin (\Delta_{21}-\delta_2)\;.
\end{eqnarray}
The last three terms are energy independent residues obtained after averaging out terms involving large sterile neutrino mass-squared differences. Let us call these residue terms collectively as $\rho^{\text{res.}}$,
\begin{equation}
\rho^{\text{res.}}\equiv~2\big(|U_{\mu 4}|^2 |U_{e 4}|^2+ |U_{\mu 5}|^2 |U_{e5}|^2+|U_{\mu 4}| |U^*_{e4}| |U^*_{\mu 5}| |U_{e5}| \cos\delta\big)\;.
\label{residue}
\end{equation}
Though higher in order, they become important for small values of $|U_{e3}|$ to give a positive-definite conversion probability. It is also worth emphasizing that both $P^{\text{\tiny{INT.}}-\delta_3}_{\odot-\text{\tiny{ATM.}}}$ and $\Delta P^{\beta''-\delta_1}_{\text{\tiny{ATM.}}}$ are $\propto |U_{e3}|$. This observation will become relevant later when we try to understand cancellations among them.
\par
In Fig.\,\ref{d1d2} we show contour plots of the conversion probability $P_{\mu e}$, for two fixed values of $|U_{e3}|$. T2K base length and characteristic neutrino energy have again been assumed. For the T2K ND distances ($280\,\text{m}$) and $E_{\nu}=0.6\,\text{GeV}$, the effect of sterile neutrinos on the ND fluxes is relatively minimal, but still leads to noticeable spectral distortion. We have included this effect in the analysis and the plots. Focusing primarily on $E_{\nu}\sim0.6\,\text{GeV}$ may be justified by the fact that the J-PARC $\nu_\mu$ beam has a very narrow side band~\cite{Abe:2011sj} and in addition, under ideal conditions, most of the statistical power in $\sin^22\theta_{13}$ extraction may be expected to come from the region of the first oscillation maximum ($\Delta_{32}\sim\pi/2$), tuned at $0.6\,\text{GeV}$. We will look at the effects of varying $E$ later for comparison.
\par
Couple of things may be noted immediately from these contour plots in the $(\delta_1,\delta_2)$ plane, at $\Delta_{32}\sim\pi/2$. The largest conversion to $\nu_e$ takes place in the vicinity of $(0,-\pi/2)$ in both cases. In fact this is found to be true for all intervening values of $|U_{e3}|$ as well. In this region both $P^{\text{\tiny{INT.}}-\delta_3}_{\odot-\text{\tiny{ATM.}}}$ and $\Delta P^{\beta''-\delta_1}_{\text{\tiny{ATM.}}}$ have the same sign and constructively interfere with $P^{3\nu\text{\tiny{SM}}}_{\text{\tiny{ATM.}}}$. Heuristically, let us denote this situation as
\begin{equation}
(0,-\pi/2):P_{\mu e}^{\Delta_{32}\sim\pi/2}\sim P^{3\nu\text{\tiny{SM}}}_{\text{\tiny{ATM.}}}\oplus\left[ P^{\text{\tiny{INT.}}-\delta_3}_{\odot-\text{\tiny{ATM.}}}\oplus\Delta P^{\beta''-\delta_1}_{\text{\tiny{ATM.}}}\right]\;,
\end{equation}
where $\oplus$ denotes constructive interference and $\ominus$ denotes destructive interference. As we decrease $|U_{e3}|$ the conversion probability decreases as expected but the maximal conversion region is relatively unchanged.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=8.5cm,angle=0]{d1d2_fig1.jpg}
\includegraphics[width=8.5cm,angle=0]{d1d2_fig2.jpg}
\end{center}
\caption{Contour plots of $\nu_{\mu}\rightarrow\nu_e$ conversion probability, with T2K parameters, as a function of two independent phases $\delta_1$ and $\delta_2$ near ${\Delta_{32}\sim\pi/2}$ for the NH case. The T2K ND effects have been included. The color-coding denotes the magnitude of the conversion probability in each case. The quantity $ 4 |U_{\mu 3}|^2 (1- |U_{\mu 3}|^2)$ in the $3\nu\text{SM}$ case would have corresponded exactly to $\sin^2 2\theta_{13}$. In the ``$\,3+2$" case, as we had commented earlier, it deviates from $\sin^2 2 \theta_{13}$ by terms of $\mathcal{O}(\theta^2_s)$. In terms of $|U_{e3}|$ the above two plots correspond to $0.22$ (left) and $0.085$ (right), capturing the $|U_{e3}|$ range in Table \ref{ue3dissvals}. In this case, besides $|U_{e3}|$ and the global-fit values of Table \ref{globalfit}, again all other matrix elements have been assumed to be close to their tribimaximal values.}
\label{d1d2}
\end{figure}
\par
Similarly, the lowest conversion probabilities occur in the vicinity of $(\pm\pi,-\pi/2)$, where $P^{\text{\tiny{INT.}}-\delta_3}_{\odot-\text{\tiny{ATM.}}}$ and $\Delta P^{\beta''-\delta_1}_{\text{\tiny{ATM.}}}$ have the same sign but now destructively interfere with $P^{3\nu\text{\tiny{SM}}}_{\text{\tiny{ATM.}}}$,
\begin{equation}
(\pm\pi,-\pi/2):P_{\mu e}^{\Delta_{32}\sim\pi/2} \sim ~P^{3\nu\text{\tiny{SM}}}_{\text{\tiny{ATM.}}} \ominus \left[ P^{\text{\tiny{INT.}}-\delta_3}_{\odot-\text{\tiny{ATM.}}}\oplus\Delta P^{\beta''-\delta_1}_{\text{\tiny{ATM.}}}\right]\;.
\end{equation}
\par
Probably even more interesting is the observation of a thin band near $\delta_2=\pi/2$ for which the conversion probability is almost constant over the full range of $\delta_1$. In this band there is an almost perfect cancellation between the $P^{\text{\tiny{INT.}}-\delta_3}_{\odot-\text{\tiny{ATM.}}}$ and $\Delta P^{\beta''-\delta_1}_{\text{\tiny{ATM.}}}$ terms,
\begin{equation}
(\forall \delta_1,+\pi/2):P_{\mu e}^{\Delta_{32}\sim\pi/2} \sim ~P^{3\nu\text{\tiny{SM}}}_{\text{\tiny{ATM.}}}\oplus\left[ P^{\text{\tiny{INT.}}-\delta_3}_{\odot-\text{\tiny{ATM.}}}\ominus\Delta P^{\beta''-\delta_1}_{\text{\tiny{ATM.}}}\right]\; .
\label{d2ppiby2}
\end{equation}
The conversion probability in this case should almost be identical to the conversion probability in the $3\nu\text{SM}$ case, when the interference term $P^{\text{\tiny{INT.}}-\delta_3}_{\odot-\text{\tiny{ATM.}}}$ in the $3\nu\text{SM}$ limit almost completely vanishes (i.e. ($\Delta_{32}-\delta_3)\,\simeq \pm\pi/2$ in Eq. (\ref{3nsmconv})). In the $3\nu\text{SM}$ case, near $\Delta_{32}\sim\pi/2$, this happens at $\delta_3=0$ and $\delta_3=\pm\pi$. The conversion probabilities are indeed found to match as expected upon comparison. Again, for the global-fit and close-to-tribimaximal values we are working with, \emph{this conclusion is seen to be true, independent of $U_{e3}$, since both $P^{\text{\tiny{INT.}}-\delta_3}_{\odot-\text{\tiny{ATM.}}}$ and $\Delta P^{\beta''-\delta_1}_{\text{\tiny{ATM.}}}$ are $\propto |U_{e3}|$}.
\par
When $\delta_2=0$, it is seen that the terms $P^{\text{\tiny{INT.}}-\delta_3}_{\odot-\text{\tiny{ATM.}}}$ and $\Delta P^{\beta''-\delta_1}_{\text{\tiny{ATM.}}}$ are out of phase with each other by $\pi/2$ in the phase $\delta_1$ (or now equivalently $\delta_3$). Due to this, the conversion probability attains its maximum and minimum values at $\delta_3=\pi/4$ and $\delta_3=-3\pi/4$ respectively when $\Delta_{32}\sim\pi/2$.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=7.0cm,angle=0]{proborbitd2_1.jpg}
~~~~~~~~~~~~\includegraphics[width=7.0cm,angle=0]{proborbitd2_2.jpg}
\includegraphics[width=7.0cm,angle=0]{proborbitd2_3.jpg}
\end{center}
\caption{Probability orbits in the ``$\,3+2$" neutrino scenario for the NH case. The respective values of $4 |U_{e3}|^2 (1-|U_{e3}|^2)$ are labelled on the orbits. As before, apart from $|U_{e3}|$ and the global-fits, all other matrix elements have been assumed to be close to their tribimaximal values. It is observed that in contrast to the $3\nu\text{SM}$ case, the $(\delta_3,\theta_{13})$ degeneracy may be re-introduced depending on the value of the phase $\delta_2$. Also observe that $\delta_2=-\pi/2$ and $\delta_2=+\pi/2$ are orthogonal choices for which $\overline{P}_{\bar{\mu}\bar{e}}$ and $P_{\mu e}$ remain almost constant respectively, as $\delta_3$ traces the orbit. These may be compared to the $3\nu\text{SM}$ probability orbits in Fig.\,\ref{3neuSMfigs}. The value of $\delta_3$ at any point in the orbit may again be deduced from the color wheel at the origin.}
\label{SterileProbOrbits}
\end{figure}
\par
In Fig.\,\ref{SterileProbOrbits} we look at the probability orbits in the $(P_{\mu e},\, \overline{P}_{\bar{\mu}\bar{e}})$ plane for $\Delta_{32}\sim\pi/2$. We see a rich behavior in the orbits depending on the value of $\delta_2$. These may again be understood in terms of interference between $P^{\text{\tiny{INT.}}-\delta_3}_{\odot-\text{\tiny{ATM.}}}$ ($\overline{P}^{\text{\tiny{INT.}}-\delta_3}_{\odot-\text{\tiny{ATM.}}}$) and $\Delta P^{\beta''-\delta_1}_{\text{\tiny{ATM.}}}$ ($\Delta \overline{P}^{\beta''-\delta_1}_{\text{\tiny{ATM.}}}$), in $P_{\mu e}$ ($\overline{P}_{\bar{\mu}\bar{e}}$). Since $P(\bar{\nu}_\alpha \rightarrow \bar{\nu}_\beta;U)=P(\nu_\alpha \rightarrow \nu_\beta;U^*)$, all the phases change sign as we go from neutrinos to anti-neutrinos. Specifically as seen from Eq.\,(\ref{d2ppiby2}), for $\delta_2=-\pi/2$, the $\overline{P}^{\text{\tiny{INT.}}-\delta_3}_{\odot-\text{\tiny{ATM.}}}$ and $\Delta \overline{P}^{\beta''-\delta_1}_{\text{\tiny{ATM.}}}$ terms cancel each other for $\overline{P}_{\bar{\mu}\bar{e}}$ leaving a residue almost independent of $\delta_3$. This may be symbolically expressed as
\begin{eqnarray}
(\forall \delta_1,-\pi/2):\overline{P}_{\bar{\mu} \bar{e}}^{\Delta_{32}\sim\pi/2} &\sim& ~P^{3\nu\text{\tiny{SM}}}_{\text{\tiny{ATM.}}}\oplus\left[ \overline{P}^{\text{\tiny{INT.}}-\delta_3}_{\odot-\text{\tiny{ATM.}}}\ominus\Delta \overline{P}^{\beta''-\delta_1}_{\text{\tiny{ATM.}}}\right]\; .
\end{eqnarray}
It is also interesting to note that for $\delta_2=0$ the $(\delta_3,\theta_{13})$ degeneracy is reintroduced even when $\Delta_{32}\sim\pi/2$. This is clearly seen from the fact that the elliptic orbits for adjacent $|U_{e3}|$ values intersect. At the points of intersection both $\overline{P}_{\bar{\mu}\bar{e}}$ and $P_{\mu e }$ have the same magnitudes for different values of $\delta_3$ and $|U_{e3}|$. This degeneracy \textit{can now mix CP-conserving and CP-violating solutions}. An example of this may be observed in the $\delta_2=0$ case of Fig.\,\ref{SterileProbOrbits} where the orbit labelled by $0.183$ intersects the orbit labelled by $0.106$. The former solution is CP-violating ($\delta_3\neq0$) whereas the latter is CP-conserving ($\delta_3\simeq0$). Note that in the bi-probability discussions, to first approximation, the effects of the base length ($L$) and neutrino energy ($E$) only appear through $\Delta_{32}\sim\pi/2$. Due to this the general features of the probability orbits should be more widely valid, as long as we are in the vicinity of a conversion maximum.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=7.5cm,angle=0]{Ue3ext_fig1.jpg}
~~~~~~~~~~~~\includegraphics[width=7.5cm,angle=0]{Ue3ext_fig2.jpg}
\includegraphics[width=7.5cm,angle=0]{Ue3ext_fig3.jpg}
\end{center}
\caption{Extracted values of $8 |U_{\mu 3}|^2 |U_{e3}|^2$ in the ``$\,3+2$" case, with T2K parameters ($L=295\,\text{Km}$, $E=0.6\,\text{GeV}$), assuming fixed conversion probabilities - $0.07,\,0.05,\,0.03,$ and $0.01$. The thick-lines are for NH and the dotted-lines are for IH. We re-emphasize that the quantity $8 |U_{\mu 3}|^2 |U_{e3}|^2$ plotted would exactly correspond to $2\sin^2\theta_{23}\sin^22\theta_{13}$ in the $3\nu\text{SM}$. The other matrix elements have been chosen as in the previous cases. For comparison, the preliminary best-fit value from Double-CHOOZ is at $0.085\pm0.051$~\cite{{new-DCHOOZ}}.}
\label{Ue3extsterile}
\end{figure}
\par
Fig.\,\ref{Ue3extsterile} shows the extracted values of $8 |U_{\mu 3}|^2 |U_{e3}|^2$ for fixed conversion probabilities, again assuming that most of the statistical significance is coming from the region near $\Delta_{32}\sim\pi/2$. The thick-lines indicate NH and the dotted-lines indicate IH for comparison.
\par
The different values of $8 |U_{\mu 3}|^2 |U_{e3}|^2$ extracted in Fig.\,\ref{Ue3extsterile} are easily understood by looking at the corresponding conversion probabilities near that particular CP phase region. For a fixed conversion probability, positive (negative) interference terms from $P^{\text{\tiny{INT.}}-\delta_3}_{\odot-\text{\tiny{ATM.}}}$ and $\Delta P^{\beta''-\delta_1}_{\text{\tiny{ATM.}}}$ must be compensated by lower (higher) value of $|U_{e3}|$. Therefore, the variation of the extracted $|U_{e3}|$ magnitude as we vary $\delta_3$ must be anti-correlated with the conversion probability variation.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=7.5cm,angle=0]{Espread_1.jpg}
~~~~~~~~~~~\includegraphics[width=7.65cm,angle=0]{Espread_2.jpg}
\includegraphics[width=7.5cm,angle=0]{Espread_3.jpg}
\end{center}
\caption{Conversion probabilities $P_{\mu e}$ in the ``$\,3+2$" case, for three different neutrino energies - $0.4\,\text{GeV}$ (red), $0.6\,\text{GeV}$ (green) and $1.2\,\text{GeV}$ (blue). The thick-lines are for NH and the dotted-lines are for IH as before. They are plotted for a fixed $8 |U_{\mu3}|^2 |U_{e3}|^2$ of $0.085$. It is clear that there may be significant differences between NH and IH depending on $E$ and the CP phase structure.}
\label{Espread}
\end{figure}
\par
Another point we would like to emphasize is that the actual $|U_{e3}|$ value extracted depends on the assumed value of $|U_{\mu3}|$, which may be extracted, as we saw in Eq.\,(\ref{musurv3p2gen}), from a $\nu_\mu$ disappearance measurement such as MINOS. We saw in the case of LBL, and specifically MINOS, that the presence of sterile neutrinos cause the value of extracted $|U_{\mu3}|$ also to shift to lower values by a few percent
\begin{equation}
|U_{\mu3}|^{3+2}_{\text{\tiny{extr.}}}~\lesssim~|U_{\mu3}|^{3\nu\text{SM}}_{\text{\tiny{extr.}}} \; .
\end{equation}
Due to these considerations, plotting $8 |U_{\mu 3}|^2 |U_{e3}|^2$ in Fig.\,\ref{Ue3extsterile} allows us to incorporate a non-maximal atmospheric sector and $|U_{\mu 3}|$ readily.
Let us try to understand some of the theoretical features in the plots.
From Fig.\,\ref{3neuSMfigs} we observe that in the $3\nu\text{SM}$ case the extracted $|U_{e3}|$ is the same for normal and inverted hierarchy when $\delta_3=\pm\pi/2\, \forall \, E$. This is due to the fact that the interference term becomes $\propto\pm\sin^2\Delta_{31}$ for $\delta_3=\pm\pi/2$. It is also clear that the maximum difference between normal and inverted hierarchies occur at $\delta_3=\{0,\pm \pi\} \,\forall \, E$, as expected from Eq.\,(\ref{3nsmconv}).
It is worth re-emphasizing that these theoretical features again do not imply actual experimental sensitivities to neutrino mass hierarchy, in vacuum, due to the invariance under $\delta_3\leftrightarrow\pi-\delta_3$.
\par
Along similar lines we can understand the features in the ``$\,3+2$" case. The NH and IH cases should give the same extracted $|U_{e3}|$ when the terms which transform under $|\Delta m^2_{32}|\rightarrow-|\Delta m^2_{32}|$, specifically $P^{\text{\tiny{INT.}}-\delta_3}_{\odot-\text{\tiny{ATM.}}}$ and $\Delta P^{\beta''-\delta_1}_{\text{\tiny{ATM.}}}$, sum to the same numerical value, apart from the $|U_{e3}|$ factor that is common to both. If a term by term equivalence is demanded (which is a stronger condition than required) between NH and IH, we must have
\begin{eqnarray}
\left[\cos (|\Delta_{32}|-\delta_3)+\cos (|\Delta_{32}|+\delta_3)\right]&\rightarrow&0\; ,\nonumber\\
\left[\sin(|\Delta_{31}|+\delta_1)-\sin (|\Delta_{31}|-\delta_1)\right]&\rightarrow&0\; ,
\end{eqnarray}
These give the solutions in the $(\delta_1,\delta_2)$ space :
\begin{eqnarray}
\text{NH} \equiv \text{IH}~\forall \,(L,\,E)~:~(0,\pm\pi/2),\,(\pi,\pm\pi/2),\,(-\pi,\pm\pi/2)\;.~~~~~~
\end{eqnarray}
These regions are clearly visible in the top-left ($\delta_2=-\pi/2$) and bottom ($\delta_2=+\pi/2$) plots of Fig.\,\ref{Ue3extsterile}, with the understanding that $\delta_3=\delta_1-\delta_2$.
\par
Imposing the weaker condition that the net sum of $P^{\text{\tiny{INT.}}-\delta_3}_{\odot-\text{\tiny{ATM.}}}$ and $\Delta P^{\beta''-\delta_1}_{\text{\tiny{ATM.}}}$ be equivalent in the NH and IH cases leads to the solution
\begin{eqnarray}
\text{NH} \equiv \text{IH}\,\forall \,(L,\,E):\frac{\sin\delta_1}{\cos(\delta_1-\delta_2)}\simeq
\frac{2 |U_{\mu 2}| |U^{*}_{e2}| \sin\Delta_{21}\cos|\Delta_{32}|}{|\beta''|\cos|\Delta_{31}|}.
\end{eqnarray}
This is independent of $|U_{e3}|$ and $|U_{\mu 3}|$. For $E=0.6\,\text{GeV}$ ($\Delta_{32}\sim\pi/2$ for $L_{\text{\tiny{T2K}}}$), $(\delta_1,\delta_2) \sim (\pi/4,0)$ and $(-3\pi/4,0)$ are among the approximate solutions to the above equation. This equivalence between NH and IH can be seen clearly in the top-right plot of Fig.\,\ref{Ue3extsterile} near these regions.
\par
For most of our theoretical discussions till this point, we were focused on the region near $\Delta_{32}\sim\pi/2$ at T2K, and hence at neutrino energies near $600\,\text{MeV}$. As perviously noted, it may be argued that this is not too egregious a choice since the J-PARC $\nu_\mu$ beam has a very narrow side band and in addition, naively, most of the statistical power in $\sin^22\theta_{13}$ extraction must come from the region of the first oscillation maximum, tuned at $0.6\,\text{GeV}$. Nevertheless it is important to explore the variations with $E$, especially considering that the T2K $\nu_e$ appearance measurement observed 4 events outside the $0.6\,\text{GeV}$ bin.
\par
Fig.\,\ref{Espread} shows the variation in the conversion probability $P_{\mu e}$ as we vary $E$ for NH and IH. They are plotted for a fixed $8 |U_{\mu3}|^2 |U_{e3}|^2$ of $0.085$. We focus on the $400\,\text{MeV}$, $600\,\text{MeV}$ and $1200\,\text{MeV}$ energy bins. These bins correspond to $\Delta_{32}\sim3\pi/4$, $\Delta_{32}\sim\pi/2$ and $\Delta_{32}\sim\pi/4$ for the T2K baseline. As is clear, the variations may be substantial between NH and IH as we move away from the oscillation maximum depending on $(\delta_1,\delta_2)$. We could now pose the question - for a fixed conversion probability near $\Delta_{32}\sim\pi/2$ what is the smallest $|U_{e3}|$ it may be associated with for any CP phase structure in the $3\nu\text{SM}$ and ``$\,3+2$" cases ?
\par
In Fig.\,\ref{Ue3min} we show the minimum attainable $|U_{e3}|$ values, in terms of $4 |U_{e3}|^2 (1-|U_{e3}|^2)$, in the $3\nu\text{SM}$ and ``$\,3+2$" scenarios. The range of conversion probabilities in Fig.\,\ref{Ue3min} correspond to those in Fig.\,\ref{Ue3extsterile}. Note that \emph{the smallest possible $|U_{e3}|$ in the ``$\,3+2$" case is always significantly smaller than that possible in the $3\nu\text{SM}$,}
\begin{equation}
|U_{e3}|^{3\nu\text{SM}}_{\text{\tiny{smallest}}}~>~ |U_{e3}|^{3+2}_{\text{\tiny{smallest}}}\;.
\end{equation}
\emph{Also observe that, though reduced, the smallest $|U_{e3}|$ values in ``$\,3+2$" are still different from zero, albeit extremely tiny for small conversion probabilities}. This is because, $P_{\odot}$ and $\Delta P^{\beta''-\delta_2}_{\odot}$ by themselves are not sufficient to fulfill a given conversion probability in the range shown.
\par
In the 3-neutrino scenario, from the T2K lower-bound curves~\cite{Abe:2011sj} (which give the $90 \%$ C.L. lower bound on $\sin^22\theta_{13}$ as $0.03-0.04$ for $\delta_{\text{\tiny{CP}}}=0$), the smallest possible $\sin^22\theta_{13}$ is about $0.02-0.025$, at $\delta_{\text{\tiny{CP}}}\simeq-\pi/2$. If we assume that the lower-bound curves correspond approximately to constant conversion probabilities, then using those approximate $P_{\mu e}$ values in the ``$\,3+2$" scenario we may estimate, from Fig.\,\ref{Ue3min}, a lower limit for $4 |U_{e3}|^2 (1-|U_{e3}|^2)$. This gives for the ``$\,3+2$" case,
\begin{equation}
4 |U_{e3}|^2 (1-|U_{e3}|^2)~\gtrsim ~~0.008-0.01; \;\;\;\; (|U_{e3}| ~\gtrsim ~~0.04-0.05) \;\;\; {\rm at \; 90 \% \; \text{C.L.}}~~~\;.
\end{equation}
Based on the above discussion, we note that in the ``$\,3+2$" case, the results from T2K imply a $90 \%$ C.L. lower bound that is still within the reach (sensitivity) of future reactor neutrino experiments like Daya Bay~\cite{Wang:2011tp}, and consistent with the $1\sigma$ range of $\sin^22\theta_{13}$ recently reported by the Double-CHOOZ experiment.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=11.25cm,angle=0]{Ue3_Minimization_Efixed.jpg}
\caption{Minimum possible $|U_{e3}|$ in the $3\nu\text{SM}$ and ``$\,3+2$" cases (NH and IH) expressed in terms of $4 |U_{e3}|^2 (1-|U_{e3}|^2)$. In the plot, $E$ is fixed at $0.6\,\text{GeV}$, the implicit assumption being that most of the statistical power in $|U_{e3}|$ extraction may come from the vicinity of $E\sim 0.6\,\text{GeV}$ (equivalently $\Delta_{32}\sim\pi/2$ for T2K baseline) which is the oscillation maximum. It is clear that the lower-bounds on the extracted $|U_{e3}|$ are generally much smaller with a ``$\,3+2$" assumption, but still non-zero. The best-fit values in the $3\nu\text{SM}$ for comparison are - $0.041^{+0.047}_{-0.031}$ (MINOS-NH), $0.079^{+0.071}_{-0.053}$ (MINOS-IH), $0.11^{+0.1}_{-0.06}$ (T2K-NH), $0.14^{+0.11}_{-0.08}$ (T2K-IH) and $0.085\pm0.051$ (Double-CHOOZ preliminary)~\cite{{MINOS_theta13}, {Abe:2011sj}, {new-DCHOOZ}}.}
\label{Ue3min}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection {\bf Matter effects}
\par
All the above effects, due to the presence of sterile neutrinos, may be further modified by matter effects, depending on the base length and $E$.
In the $3\nu\text{SM}$ case these matter effects may be quantified as~\cite{Akhmedov:2004ny}
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{P}^{3\nu\text{SM}}_{ee}&=&1 - 4 s_{13}^2 \frac{\sin^2 (A_\text{\tiny{M}}-1)\Delta_{31}}{(A_\text{\tiny{M}}-1)^2}- \epsilon^2 \sin^2 2\theta_{12} \frac{\sin^2
A_\text{\tiny{M}}\Delta_{31}}{A_\text{\tiny{M}}^2} \,,\nonumber \\
\mathcal{P}^{3\nu\text{SM}}_{e\mu}&=&4 s_{13}^2 s_{23}^2 \frac{\sin^2 (A_\text{\tiny{M}}-1)\Delta_{31}}{(A_\text{\tiny{M}}-1)^2}+2 \epsilon \,s_{13}\,\sin 2\theta_{12}\sin2\theta_{23} \cos(\Delta_{31} - \delta_{\rm CP})\frac{\sin A_\text{\tiny{M}}\Delta_{31}}{A_\text{\tiny{M}}} \frac{\sin (A_\text{\tiny{M}}-1)\Delta_{31}}{A_\text{\tiny{M}}-1} \nonumber\\
&+& \epsilon^2 \sin^2 2\theta_{12} c_{23}^2 \frac{\sin^2
A_\text{\tiny{M}}\Delta_{31}}{A_\text{\tiny{M}}^2} \;,
\label{mattereffs}
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{equation}
\epsilon=\frac{\Delta m^2_{21}}{\Delta m^2_{31}}~~,~~A_\text{\tiny{M}}=\frac{2E V_\text{\tiny{M}}}{\Delta m^2_{31}}\;.
\end{equation}
Eq.\,(\ref{mattereffs}) is written to second order in $\epsilon$ and $\sin\theta_{13}$, assuming a constant matter-density potential~\cite{Akhmedov:2004ny}
\begin{equation}
V_\text{\tiny{M}}\simeq7.56\times 10^{-14}\left(\frac{\rho_{\text{\tiny{crust}}}}{\text{g}/\text{cm}^3}\right)Y_{e}~~~\text{eV}\;,
\end{equation}
where $\rho_{\text{\tiny{crust}}}$ is the crust matter density and $Y_e$ is the number of electrons per nucleon. For earth matter $Y_e\simeq0.5$ to very good approximation.
\par
For a constant earth-crust density $\rho_{\text{\tiny{crust}}}\simeq\,3 \,\text{g}/\text{cm}^3$, we can estimate using the characteristic experimental parameters that
\begin{eqnarray}
&A^\text{\tiny{D-CHOOZ}}_\text{\tiny{M}}&\simeq~0.0003\nonumber\; ,\\
&A^\text{\tiny{T2K}}_\text{\tiny{M}}~~~&\simeq~0.06\nonumber\; ,\\
&A^\text{\tiny{MINOS}}_\text{\tiny{M}}&\simeq~0.3\;.
\end{eqnarray}
Using the above values and Eq.\,(\ref{mattereffs}) we can make estimates to convince ourselves that for Double-CHOOZ the matter effects are almost completely irrelevant and the extracted $|U_{e3}|$ is hardly affected. For T2K, it is seen that the matter effects are still relatively minimal (near $E\sim0.6\,\text{GeV}$) but induce at most a few percent change in the extracted $|U_{e3}|$ relative to the vacuum assumption. In MINOS the matter effects can become more significant and may induce larger modifications of the extracted $|U_{e3}|$ somewhat obscuring any possible additional effects due to sterile neutrinos.
\par
In both cases above, for a fixed conversion probability, the effect of matter interactions is to \emph{decrease} (\emph{increase}) the extracted $|U_{e3}|$ for NH (IH). This is probably most easily understood in a 2-neutrino limit by noting that the effect of the matter potential is to increase (decrease) the effective $\sin^22\theta_{\text{\tiny{M}}}$ coefficient for NH (IH). Crudely, to lowest order, the above conclusion should still hold approximately in the ``$\,3+2$" neutrino case. Also note that in contrast to matter effects, the direction in which $|U_{e3}|$ was modified due to sterile neutrinos depended intricately on the $(\delta_1,\delta_2)$ CP phase structure. A comprehensive analysis of $\theta_{13}$ extraction including matter-effects at MBL/LBL, in the presence of two sterile neutrinos, is beyond the scope of the present work~(see \cite{Karagiorgi:2011ut} and references therein in this context, for a ``$\,3+1$" SBL fit incorporating matter effects).
\begin{subsubsection} {\bf Comparison to the ``$\,3+1$" case.}
It is interesting to point out in the MBL/LBL limit that for $P_{\mu e}$, if one were to use the best-fit values in ``$\,3+1$" for the matrix elements, as in \cite{Giunti:2011ht} say, the numerical values of $\beta''$ and the energy independent residue term $\rho^{\text{res.}}$ defined in Eq.\,(\ref{residue}) comes out to be numerically almost the same. In the ``$\,3+2$" case we have
\begin{eqnarray}
|\beta^{''}|_{\text{``}3+2\text{"}}&=&0.0351\nonumber\;,\\
\rho^{\text{res.}}_{\text{``}3+2\text{"}}&=&0.0021\;
\end{eqnarray}
and in the ``$\,3+1$" case we get for the equivalent values,
\begin{eqnarray}
|\beta^{''}|_{\text{``}3+1\text{"}}&=&0.0354\nonumber\;,\\
\rho^{\text{res.}}_{\text{``}3+1\text{"}}&=&0.0025\; .
\end{eqnarray}
\par
These quantities along with the 2 independent phases are the only relevant quantities in the LBL/MBL limit that depend on the presence of sterile neutrinos. The larger $\Delta m^2_{41}$ one obtains from SBL fits in ``$\,3+1$", relative to ``$\,3+2$" $\Delta m^2$ values, is irrelevant for MBL/LBL since the terms containing it get averaged at the FD anyway.
\end{subsubsection}
\end{subsection}
\end{section}
\begin{section}{Summary and Conclusions}
In the present study, we revisited some of the recent neutrino observations in the context of sterile neutrinos and the global fits from SBL experiments, to understand their impact on current and upcoming MBL/LBL measurements.
\par
We noted that in general, for LBL experiments, the existence of sterile neutrinos lead to a distinct parametrization of the oscillation survival probabilities in terms of a normalization factor and a modified coefficient of the energy dependent term. We analyzed the MINOS neutrino and anti-neutrino disappearance data~\cite{{Adamson:2011ig},{Adamson:2011fa},{Adamson:2011ch}} from this perspective. Though the parametrization does lead to a marginal improvement in fit, it was found that the current MINOS data by itself does not definitively discriminate the ``$\,3+2$" scenario or the parameter values obtained from SBL fits. It was found that the $|U_{\mu 3}|$ confidence interval shifts to lower values by a few percent when the possible existence of sterile neutrinos are taken into account.
\par
It was also commented that the recent measurements of a possibly non vanishing reactor angle $\theta_{13}$ may be affected by the existence of sterile neutrinos. We pointed out that the existence of sterile neutrinos may induce a modification of this angle (more precisely $|U_{e3}|$) in experiments that look at neutrino conversion probabilities, such as T2K and MINOS, and the perceived value may be shifted significantly from the ``true" value in these cases. We also studied in detail the effects of additional sterile neutrino terms and their interference due to CP phases, in the ``$\,3+2$" conversion probabilities. The probability orbits in the bi-probability plots also exhibited interesting features distinct from $3\nu\text{SM}$. It was, for instance, observed that the $(\delta_3,\theta_{13})$ degeneracy may be re-introduced depending on the CP phase structure in the ``$\,3+2$" scenario and that there may be orbits where either the $\overline{P}_{\bar{\mu}\bar{e}}$ or $P_{\mu e}$ value remains almost constant with changing $\delta_3$.
\par
It was also reiterated in the study that in the reactor experiments, these modifications due to sterile states are less significant. Due to this, the matrix element $|U_{e3}|$ when determined from survival probabilities under the $3\nu\text{SM}$ assumption, is close to the ``$\,3+2$" value, as compared to when determined from conversion probabilities. Neutrino disappearance experiments include Double-CHOOZ~\cite{Akiri:2011zz} and upcoming experiments such as Daya Bay~\cite{Wang:2011tp} and RENO~\cite{Jeon:2011zz} that will measure $\theta_{13}$ to high precision. In this context we also conclude from our study that the results from T2K imply a $90 \%$ C.L. lower-bound on $|U_{e3}|$, in the ``$\,3+2$" neutrino case, which is still within the sensitivity of future reactor neutrino experiments like Daya Bay~\cite{Wang:2011tp}, and consistent with the one-$\sigma$ range of $\sin^22\theta_{13}$ recently reported by the Double-CHOOZ experiment. Finally, we argued that the results in the ``$\,3+1$" scenario, using the recent best-fit values, would be very close to the medium/long baseline results we obtained in the ``$\,3+2$" case. This was attributed to the numerical equivalence of the relevant parameters in both cases.
\par
Our analysis suggests that if the SBL global fits, including the anomalies, are in fact legitimate indications of sterile neutrinos in nature, then there may be interesting effects in MBL/LBL neutrinos experiments. A more comprehensive study in the ``$\,3+2$" scenario including matter effects at MBL/LBL terrestrial neutrino experiments, such as MINOS~\cite{MINOS_theta13} and No$\nu$A~\cite{Davies:2011vd}, is left for future exploration. We also plan to pursue in future, a study of how the ``$\,3+2$" scenario affects survival probabilities for solar neutrinos~\cite{Giunti:2009xz}, using current global fit parameters.
\par
\vspace{1mm}
\textbf{Note added :} After the submission of this article a similar work \cite{Giunti:2011vc} appeared that discusses the recent Double-CHOOZ results considering the energy dependence of the events at the ND induced by the presence of sterile neutrinos. The final conclusion is similar to ours namely that the value of $\sin^2 2\theta_{13}$ is not significantly modified with respect to the three neutrino case, although due to the sterile neutrino effects the final uncertainties associated with the result are somewhat larger than the ones quoted by the Double-CHOOZ experiment.
\end{section}
\begin{acknowledgments}
We thank E. Blucher, Z. Djurcic, J. Evans, G. O. Gann, M. Goodman, J. Kopp and M. Sanchez for discussions. C.W would like to acknowledge discussions with I. Mocioiu during an early investigation that partly motivated the present work. Work at ANL is supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Div. of HEP, Contract DE-AC02-06CH11357. B.B and A.T were supported in part by the United States Department of Energy through Grant No. DE-FG02-90ER40560. A.T also acknowledges support from the Sidney Bloomenthal Fellowship during latter stages of this work.
\end{acknowledgments}
\begin{appendix}
\section{Matrix elements}
For completeness, we list some of the relevant matrix elements in terms of the angles and phases in a standard parametrization,
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{U}^{3+2}_{\text{\tiny{PMNS}}}=\prod^{3}_{j>i,i=1}~\mathbb{R}_{ij}\; .
\end{eqnarray}
The multiplication of matrices is to be perfomed from right to left. The rotation matrices may be real or complex. We choose a CP phase parametrization that is consistent with that employed in~\cite{Kopp:2011qd}. Under this convention the matrices $\mathbb{R}_{12},\,\mathbb{R}_{13},\,\mathbb{R}_{15},\,\mathbb{R}_{34}$ and $\mathbb{R}_{35}$ carry CP phases.
\par
The sterile neutrino matrix elements in this convention are
\begin{eqnarray}
U_{e 4}&=&\cos\theta_{15} \sin\theta_{14}\;,\\
U_{e 5}&=&e^{-i\delta_{!5}}\sin\theta_{15}\;,\\
U_{\mu 4}&=&\cos\theta_{14} \cos\theta_{25} \sin\theta_{24}-e^{i\delta_{15}} \sin\theta_{14} \sin\theta_{15} \sin\theta_{25}\;,\\
U_{\mu 5}&=&\cos\theta_{15} \sin\theta_{25}\;.
\end{eqnarray}
\par
The sterile-neutrino angles ($\theta_{14},\,\theta_{15},\,\theta_{24},\,\theta_{25}$) and phase $\delta_{15}$ can in principle be extracted from SBL measurements and specifically the global fits of Table \ref{globalfit}.
\par
The active-neutrino matrix elements pertinent to our study come out to be
\begin{eqnarray}
U_{e 2}&=&\cos\theta_{13} \cos\theta_{14} \cos\theta_{15} e^{-i \delta_{12}} \sin\theta_{12}\;,\\
U_{e 3}&=&\cos\theta_{14} \cos\theta_{15} e^{-i \delta_{13}} \sin\theta_{13}\;,\\
U_{\mu 2}&=&\cos\theta_{12} \cos\theta_{23} \cos\theta_{24} \cos\theta_{25} + e^{-i \delta_{12}}
\sin\theta_{12} (\cos\theta_{13} (-\cos\theta_{25} \sin\theta_{14} \sin\theta_{24} - \cos\theta_{14} e^{i \delta_{15}} \sin\theta_{15} \sin\theta_{25}) \nonumber\\
&-& \cos\theta_{24} \cos\theta_{25} e^{i \delta_{13}} \sin\theta_{13} \sin\theta_{23})\; ,\\
U_{\mu 3}&=&\cos\theta_{13} \cos\theta_{24} \cos\theta_{25} \sin\theta_{23}-e^{-i \delta_{13}} \sin\theta_{13} (\cos\theta_{25} \sin\theta_{14} \sin\theta_{24}+\cos\theta_{14} e^{i \delta_{15}} \sin\theta_{15} \sin\theta_{25})\;.
\end{eqnarray}
The effective phases $\delta_1$ and $\delta_2$ can be related in principle to the `fundamental' CP phases $\delta_{12}$ and $\delta_{13}$ using the above relations.
\end{appendix}
|
\section{Introduction}
The dynamics of linear scalar perturbations in alternative theories of gravity, as well as in exotic models of dark energy (DE) and dark matter, can differ significantly from that predicted by the cosmological concordance model, $\Lambda$CDM, even when the expansion histories are the same~\cite{Koyama:2005kd,Song:2006ej,Pogosian:2007sw,Dvali:2007kt,Silvestri:2009hh}. As in~\cite{Zhao:2009fn}, we will use the term {\it modified growth} (MG) when referring to all these models, including those based on General Relativity (GR).
It is expected that ongoing and upcoming tomographic weak lensing (WL) surveys, such as the {\it Dark Energy Survey}~(DES)\cite{DES} and {\it Large Synoptic Survey Telescope} (LSST)~\cite{LSST}, combined with the CMB and SNe data, will tightly constrain such modifications of growth dynamics on cosmological scales~\cite{Zhao:2009fn,Zhao:2008bn,Lombriser:2010mp,Song:2010fg, Zhao:2010dz,Giannantonio:2009gi,Daniel:2010ky,Bean:2010zq}.
Quite generally, a theory of gravity specifies how the metric perturbations relate to each other and how they are sourced by perturbations in the stress-energy tensor. In GR these relations are given by the {\it anisotropy} and {\it Poisson} equations, respectively. As in~\cite{Amendola:2007rr,BZ08,Zhao:2008bn,Zhao:2009fn,Pogosian:2010tj,Caldwell:2007cw,Jain:2007yk,arXiv:1109.4583}, we introduce two functions of time and scale, $\mu(a,k)$ and $\gamma(a,k)$, to allow for general departures of these equations from their $\Lambda$CDM form. By definition, these functions are equal to unity in $\Lambda$CDM, but generally have a time- and/or scale-dependence in alternative models of gravity and in models with clustering DE or a significant hot dark matter component, such as massive neutrinos.
Different, but in essence equivalent, parameterizations are used
in~\cite{Hu:2007pj,BZ08,Amendola:2007rr,Daniel:2010ky,Bean:2010zq,Kunz:2006ca,Dore:2007jh,Acquaviva:2008qp,Daniel:2008et,Wei:2008vw}.
Such parametrizations can be used to test the validity of $\Lambda$CDM in a model-independent way, which is the main focus of this paper. If, instead, one aims to test a particular theory, there is no need to use these two functions, since one can derive the exact equations from the action and then calculate predictions for the observables to constrain the parameters (typically just a few) of the theory. However, as we will discuss in Section~\ref{sec:projection}, even in this case it can be advantageous to ``store'' information contained in observables into intermediate functions, such as our $\mu$ and $\gamma$. For instance, rather than modifying the standard Boltzmann codes, such as CAMB~\cite{camb,Lewis:1999bs}, differently for each specific model alternative to $\Lambda$CDM, one can modify them once to work for arbitrary $\mu$ and $\gamma$. Then, to evaluate observables in a given theory, it remains to work out its prediction for $\mu$ and $\gamma$. These may be approximate expressions, valid over a limited range of scales, or obtained by numerically solving a smaller set of equations to find $\mu$ and $\gamma$.
In~\cite{Zhao:2009fn}, a Fisher forecast and Principal Component Analysis (PCA) were performed to find the eigenmodes and eigenvalues of $\mu$ and $\gamma$ for surveys like DES and LSST, complemented with CMB and SNe data. The number of well-constrained modes approximately corresponds to the number of degrees of freedom (DoF) of these functions that can be measured by the surveys. Their scale and time dependence indicate the ranges where the surveys will be most likely to detect deviations from $\Lambda$CDM. The aim of this paper is to provide the details and to expand the study of \cite{Zhao:2009fn} in several ways. We present a detailed study of degeneracies between the MG functions and other cosmological parameters, paying special attention to the degeneracy with the DE equation of state $w(z)$. We also present the PCA of another choice of MG functions that helps to demonstrate the information content of WL surveys. We then investigate the effect of some of the systematics expected in WL surveys, and demonstrate the utility of the PCA approach as a data compression stage by using it to derive constraints on a parameter of a specific model.
\section{The formalism}
\label{sec:formalism}
\subsection{Evolution of linear perturbations}\label{sec:formalismA}
We consider linear scalar perturbations to the flat Friedmann-Robertson-Walker Universe, with the choice of the Newtonian gauge for the metric. The line element reads
\begin{equation}\label{FRW}
ds^2 = a(\tau)^2[-(1+2\Psi)d\tau^2+(1-2\Phi)dx^2] \,,
\end{equation}
where $\Psi$ and $\Phi$ represent time- and space-dependent scalar perturbations of the metric and $\tau$ is the conformal time. We work in Fourier space, using the same symbols to indicate the perturbations in space and their Fourier transformed counterparts, i.e $\Psi=\Psi(a,k)$ and $\Phi=\Phi(a,k)$. The same convention is applied to the matter density contrast $\delta\equiv \delta\rho/\rho$ and the divergence of the velocity field $\theta \equiv i k^j v_j$. We assume that the matter perturbations obey the standard conservation equations, which for dark matter read:
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{matter-conservation}
\dot{\delta}+\theta -3\dot{\Phi}&=&0 \\
\dot{\theta}+ \mathcal{H} \theta - k^2 \Psi&=&0 \ ,
\label{matter-continuity}
\end{eqnarray}
where the dot denotes differentiation with respect to conformal time $\tau$, and $\mathcal{H} \equiv a^{-1}da/d\tau$. For the sake of simplicity we ignore radiation or baryonic effects, but they can be easily included if relevant.
One needs two additional equations to close the system for the four variables $\Phi$, $\Psi$, $\delta$ and $\theta$. These are normally provided by a theory of gravity, which prescribes how the two metric potentials relate to each other, and how they are sourced by the matter perturbations. Since we aim to test potential departures from $\Lambda$CDM, rather than working with a particular gravity theory, we close the system of equations by introducing two general functions of scale and time defined via:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{gamma}
\frac{\Phi}{\Psi} &\equiv &\gamma(a,k) \\
\label{parametrization-Poisson}
k^2\Psi &\equiv & - 4 \pi {a^2} G \mu(a,k) \rho\Delta \,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\Delta \equiv \delta + 3\mathcal{H}\theta/k^2$ is the comoving matter density perturbation. Eqs.~(\ref{matter-conservation})-(\ref{parametrization-Poisson}) form a closed system that can be used to calculate the evolution of perturbations for any given functions $\mu$ and $\gamma$; they were extensively discussed in \cite{Pogosian:2010tj}. There, among other things, it was explicitly shown that they respect the superhorizon consistency conditions for adiabatic perturbations \cite{Bardeen:1980kt,Wands:2000dp} as long as $(k/\mathcal{H})^2 / (\mu \gamma) \rightarrow 0$ when $(k/\mathcal{H}) \rightarrow 0$. In the Newtonian limit the functions $\mu$ and $\gamma$ are related to the Post-Newtonian-Parameters (PPN) of the Eddington-Robertson-Schiff formalism~\cite{will-book}. Specifically, $\mu\rightarrow\alpha_{{\rm PPN}}$, and $\gamma\rightarrow-\gamma_{{\rm PPN}}/\alpha_{{\rm PPN}}$ where $\alpha_{{\rm PPN}}$ and $\gamma_{{\rm PPN}}$ represent respectively the strength of gravity and the amount of curvature per unit mass.
By design, we have $\mu=\gamma=1$ in the standard cosmological model $\Lambda$CDM. Departures of $\mu$ and/or $\gamma$ from unity can happen if, for example, DE clusters or if it carries a non-negligible anisotropic stress. Alternatively, one could have $\mu \ne 1$ due to a significant fraction of massive neutrinos, which free stream on small scales. Finally, alternative gravity models generally predict scale- and time-dependent $\mu$ and/or $\gamma$ \cite{Silvestri:2009hh}.
As mentioned in Introduction, the main benefit of using these functions is that they allow for a model-independent test of the growth dynamics on cosmological scales. Any measured deviation of either $\mu$ or $\gamma$ from unity would signal a departure from the $\Lambda$CDM model. It should be emphasized that $\mu$ and $\gamma$ do not necessarily have a simple form in specific models of MG, and generally depend on the choice of the initial conditions \cite{Skordis:2008vt,Ferreira:2010sz,Baker:2011jy}. For instance, in scalar-tensor models of gravity, the ratio of $\Phi$ and $\Psi$ is not a fixed function of $k$ and $a$. Instead, it is an expression that involves the time derivatives of $\Psi$ and $\Phi$. This means that $\mu$ and $\gamma$ correspond to {\it solutions} of equations of motion of a theory, rather than being a general prediction of a theory. Nevertheless, the functions $\mu$ and $\gamma$, while phenomenological in nature, are theoretically consistent and allow us to test for departures from $\Lambda$CDM independent of how complex the underlying theory of gravity is. One simply needs to be careful when translating the findings on $\mu$ and $\gamma$ into results on the parameters of specific models~\cite{Zuntz:2011aq}, paying attention to the choice of the initial conditions and possible additional simplifications, such as the quasi-static approximation.
Depending on the circumstances, such as the type of data available or the type of theory one wants to test, it can be more convenient to replace either $\mu$ or $\gamma$ with the function $\Sigma(a,k)$ defined as
\begin{equation}\label{Sigma}
k^2(\Phi+\Psi) \equiv - 8 \pi a^2 G \Sigma(a,k) \rho\Delta
\end{equation}
The advantages of using different combinations of $\mu$, $\gamma$ and $\Sigma$ are discussed at length in~\cite{Pogosian:2010tj}. In this paper we will present and compare the results for $(\mu,\gamma)$ and $(\mu,\Sigma)$.
The implementation of this formalism in CAMB, which uses the synchronous gauge, is detailed in
\cite{Zhao:2008bn,Hojjati:2011ix}.
\subsection{Principal Component Analysis}
\label{sec:formalismB}
Our goal is to determine how well $\mu(a,k)$ and $\gamma(a,k)$ can be constrained by future surveys, minimizing any assumption on the functions themselves. Therefore, rather than employing a specific expression for $\mu$ and $\gamma$, we will treat them as unknown functions of both time and scale, and bin them on a grid in the $(z,k)$ space (notice that we are now using the redshift $z$ as the time variable). With $m$ z-bins and $n$ k-bins, we have $m\times n$ grid points to which we associate a value of the two functions. This is a $2\times 2$-dimensional problem, and in~\cite{Zhao:2009fn} we indicated these values with $\mu_{ij}$ and $\gamma_{ij}$. However, in practice, we transformed the 2D problem into a 1D one by mapping the grid into a chain, therefore transforming the matrices of values into two $m\times n$-dimensional vectors. We shall indicate the components of the vectors with $\mu_{i}$ and $\gamma_{i}$ where $i=1,\dots,m\times n$. In addition, we also bin the DE equation of state $w(z)$ in redshift, creating a $m$-dimensional vector and vary the usual cosmological parameters: the Hubble constant
$h$, cold dark matter density $\Omega_ch^2$, the baryon density
$\Omega_bh^2$, the optical depth $\tau$, the scalar spectral index
$n_s$, and the amplitude of scalar perturbations $A_s$. We assume that the bias is scale-independent on the linear scales considered in our analysis and introduce $N_b$ constant bias parameters, one for each photometric bin of the survey.
We then use the Fisher matrix formalism to estimate the anticipated covariance of our parameters $p_i$, $i=1,\dots,2\times m \times n + m + 6+ N_b$.
According to the Cramer-Rao theorem, any unbiased estimators for the parameters will give a covariance matrix that is not better than the inverse of the Fisher matrix of the parameters.
Therefore, after choosing our observables and experiments as described in next Section, we build the Fisher information matrix for the parameters $p_i$. Then, we invert it to determine the anticipated covariance matrix
\begin{equation}
\label{covariance}
C_{ij} \equiv \langle (p_i-{\bar p_i})(p_j-{\bar p_j})\rangle \ ,
\end{equation}
where ${\bar p_i}$ are the assumed best fit, or ``fiducial'', values.
Suppose that we want to know how well a given combination of experiments will measure $\mu$. We marginalize over the other parameters, and consider the $\mu$ block of the covariance matrix, $C^{\mu}_{ij}$.
Since the individual pixels of $\mu$ are highly correlated, the covariance matrix will be non-diagonal, and the value of $\mu$ in any particular bin will be practically unconstrained. The PCA is a way to decorrelate the parameters and find their linear combinations that are best constrained by data. Namely, we solve an eigenvalue problem to find a matrix $W^{\mu}$ that diagonalizes $C^{\mu}$:
\begin{equation}
C^{\mu} = (W^{\mu})^T \Lambda W^{\mu} \ ; \ \ \Lambda_{ij} = \lambda_i \delta_{ij} \ ,
\label{rotate}
\end{equation}
where $\lambda_i$'s are the eigenvalues. Smaller values of $\lambda_i$ correspond to the better constrained linear combinations of $\mu$'s:
\begin{equation}
\alpha_i = \sum_{j=1}^{m \times n} W^{\mu}_{ij} (\mu_j-{\bar \mu_j}) \ .
\label{alphas}
\end{equation}
One can think of $\alpha$'s as the new set of uncorrelated parameters obtained by a rotation of $\mu$'s, with the error on $\alpha_i$ given by $\sqrt{\lambda_i}$. In practice, one finds that only a few of the $\alpha$'s are well constrained (i.~e. their $\lambda$'s are small), while most are essentially unconstrained. This is the main benefit of performing a PCA -- it takes a function with many (infinite) degrees of freedom and isolates their few uncorrelated linear combinations that can be constrained by a given experiment. By construction, $W^TW=I$, so Eq.~(\ref{alphas}) can be inverted as
\begin{equation}
\mu_i-{\bar \mu_i} = \sum_{j=1}^{m \times n} W^{\mu}_{ij} \alpha_j \ .
\label{inverted1}
\end{equation}
where $i$ labels a point on the $(z,k)$ grid and $j$ label the eigenmode. Thus, taking the continuous limit, and using $\bar{\mu}=1$ as the fiducial value, we can formally rewrite this as
\begin{equation}
\mu(z,k) = 1+ \sum_j \alpha_j W^{\mu}_{j} (z,k) \ ,
\label{inverted2}
\end{equation}
which is an expansion of $\mu$ into an orthogonal basis of eigenvectors $W^{\mu}_{j} (z,k)$. We can now rearrange the eigenvectors into a 2D form and plot them as surfaces in the $(z,k)$ space. We will refer to these surfaces as the principal components (PC's) or {\it eigenmodes}; the shapes of the best constrained eigenmodes indicate the kind of features in $\mu$ that experiments are most likely to constrain. The regions in $(z,k)$ where the best constrained eigenmodes peak indicate the {\it sweet spots}, i.e. the intervals in time and scale where a given experiment will be more sensitive to departures from $\Lambda$CDM. The number of nodes in the $z$ and $k$ directions indicate the degree of sensitivity of the surveys to the $z$- and $k$-dependence of $\mu$. The same procedure can be repeated for the function $\gamma(a,k)$ (or $w(a)$), in this case isolating and diagonalizing the $\gamma$ block of the covariance matrix to determine the eigenvectors $W^{\gamma}(z,k)$ and the corresponding eigenvalues.
The procedure outlined above addresses the ability of data to constrain $\mu$ and $\gamma$ separately\footnote{We note that in this paper we do not attempt to reconstruct $\mu(a,k)$ and $\gamma(a,k)$ from data, nor we propose PCA as a reconstruction tool. Instead we forecast the ability of surveys to detect departures of $\mu$ and $\gamma$ from unity and use PCA to determine the best constrained eigenmodes.}. Namely, when deriving the eigenmodes and eignevalues of $\mu$ ($\gamma$) we marginalize over $\gamma$ ($\mu$). However, observations probe combinations of the potentials $\Phi$ and $\Psi$ that depend on both $\mu$ and $\gamma$. This yields a degeneracy between $\mu$ and $\gamma$ and, by marginalizing over one, we lose the information that is common to both functions. In addition to forecasting separate constraints on $\mu$ and $\gamma$, one may want to know how sensitive data is to \emph{any} departure from the standard growth. Namely, we may want to answer a less ambitious, yet equally interesting, question of whether either of the two functions deviates from unity, without specifying which. For this purpose, we want to save the information common to both functions, which we previously lost by mutual marginalization. Hence, we consider the combined principal components of $\mu$ and $\gamma$. We follow the same procedure as before, except now we diagonalize the block of the covariance matrix containing the pixels of $\mu$ \emph{and} $\gamma$. The components of the matrix that diagonalizes $C^{\mu\gamma}$ will be $W^{\mu\gamma}_{ij}$ where now $i,j=1....2\,m\times n$; each eigenmode $j$ consists now of a double series of pixels on the $(k,z)$ grid, representing combined eigenmodes in the two sub-spaces.
\subsection{Covariance matrix for $\Sigma$}\label{sec:formalismC}
As discussed in~\cite{Pogosian:2010tj}, the choice of two functions parametrizing MG is not unique. Depending on the circumstances, it can be preferable to replace $\gamma$ with the function $\Sigma$ defined in Eq.~(\ref{Sigma}), and work with the combination ($\mu$,$\Sigma$). In that case, one way to proceed is to repeat the procedure outlined in Sec.~\ref{sec:formalismB} for the new combination ($\mu$,$\Sigma$). Alternatively, one can use the information already stored in the ($\mu$,$\gamma$) pixels to infer the covariance matrix for $\Sigma$, which is what we proceed to do. From Eqs.~(\ref{gamma})-(\ref{Sigma}), we have
\begin{equation}
\Sigma= \frac{1}{2} \mu (1+\gamma)\,.
\end{equation}
Then, pixelizing $\Sigma$ on the same $(k,z)$ grid, we can derive its covariance matrix in terms of the covariance matrix elements for $\mu$ and $\gamma$ as
\begin{eqnarray}
C^{\Sigma\Sigma}_{ij} &=& \frac{1}{4} [ \mu_i\mu_j C^{\gamma\gamma}_{ij} + (1+\gamma_i) (1+\gamma_j) C^{\mu\mu}_{ij} \nonumber \\
&+& \mu_i(1+\gamma_j) C^{\gamma \mu}_{ij}+\mu_j(1+\gamma_i)C^{\mu\gamma }_{ij} ],
\end{eqnarray}
where, for example, $C^{\gamma \mu}_{ij}$ is the covariance between $\gamma_i$ and $\mu_j$. Analogously, one can derive the covariance of $\Sigma$ with $\mu$, $C^{\Sigma\mu}$.
\section{The observables}
\label{sec:observables}
The ongoing and future tomographic large scale structure surveys (like DES~\cite{DES}, PAN-STARR~\cite{PAN-STARR} and LSST~\cite{LSST}) will provide measurements of galaxy number counts (GC) and weak lensing (WL) on the same patch of sky, as well as a large number of supernovae (SN). This, in combination with the full sky CMB data from WMAP and Planck, allows us to consider all possible cross-correlations: CMB-WL, CMB-LSS, LSS-WL, in addition to the three auto-correlation functions. This information can be used to forecast constraints on the differences between the metric potentials and the scale-time variation of the effective Newton constant, parametrized respectively by $\gamma$~(\ref{gamma}) and $\mu$~(\ref{parametrization-Poisson}). In what follows, we provide a brief overview of the observables and the assumptions about the experiments which only have minor differences from the assumptions used in \cite{Zhao:2008bn}.
\subsection{Angular spectra}
For any two fields, $X(\mathbf{\hat{n}})$ and $Y(\mathbf{\hat{n}})$, measured by an observer as function of the direction on the sky $\mathbf{\hat{n}}$, one can define the angular power spectrum $C_\ell^{XY}$ via
\begin{equation}
C^{XY}(\theta) = \sum_{\ell=0}^{\infty} \frac{2\ell+1}{4 \pi}C_\ell^{XY} P_\ell(\cos\theta) \ ,
\label{eq:leg_series}
\end{equation}
where $C^{XY}(\theta) \equiv C^{XY}(|\mathbf{\hat{n}}_1 - \mathbf{\hat{n}}_2|) \equiv \left<X(\mathbf{\hat{n}}_1)Y(\mathbf{\hat{n}}_2)\right>$ is the two-point correlation function, and $P_\ell$ are the Legendre functions. In a flat universe, $C_\ell^{XY}$ can be expressed in terms of the primordial curvature power spectrum $\Delta_{\cal R}^{2}$ and the angular transfer functions $I_{\ell}^{X,Y}(k)$ as
\begin{equation}
C_\ell^{XY}= 4\pi \int \frac{dk}{k} \Delta_{\cal R}^{2}
I_{\ell}^X(k) I_{\ell}^Y(k), \label{eq:gen}
\end{equation}
where $I_{\ell}$ are the transfer functions defined as
\begin{equation}
I_{\ell}^X(k) = \int_0^{z_*} d z W_X(z) j_\ell[kr(z)]\tilde{\cal X}(k, z).
\label{eq:I_gen}
\end{equation}
and similarly for $I_\ell^Y$.
In the above, $z_*$ is a sufficiently high redshift at which the initial condition for the mode $k$ is specified, $j_\ell$ are the spherical Bessel functions, $r(z)$ the comoving distance to a point at redshift $z$, and $W_X$ are the window functions which, depending on the observable, specify the range of redshifts contributing to $X$. Finally, $\tilde{\cal X}(k, z)$ is the Fourier transform of the three-dimensional field ${\cal X}(\hat{n}r(z),z)$ responsible for producing the two-dimensional observable $X$ ({\it i.e.} $X(\hat{n})=\int_0^\infty dz \,W_X(z){\cal X}(\hat{n}r(z),z)$\,).
A detailed derivation of the above expressions is given in \cite{Zhao:2008bn}. We adopt adiabatic initial conditions as detailed in \cite{Ma:1995ey,Garriga:2003nm}. The observable quantities for which we evaluate $I_\ell$'s are GC in several photometric redshift bins, the WL shear in several bins, and the CMB temperature anisotropy.
For GC, we have
\begin{equation}
I_{\ell}^{G_i}(k) = b_i \int_0^{z_*} d z W_{G_i}(z) j_\ell[kr(z)]\delta(k, z) \ ,
\label{eq:I_delta}
\end{equation}
where $b_i$ is the bias, $W_{G_i}(z)$ is the normalized selection function for the $i$th redshift bin, and $\delta(k, z)$ is the density contrast transfer function (and we have dropped the tilde following the convention outlined in Sec.~\ref{sec:formalismA}). We work under the assumption that on large scales the bias can be treated as scale-independent and can be modeled with one free parameter $b_i$ for each redshift bin $i$.
For weak lensing, the relevant $I_\ell$'s are given by
\begin{equation}
\label{wls}
I_{l}^{\kappa_{i}}(k)=\int_0^{z_*} dz
W_{\kappa_{i}}(z) j_{l}[kr(z)] (\Psi+\Phi) \ ,
\end{equation}
where $W_{\kappa_{i}}(z)$ is the window
function for the $i$th bin of sheared galaxies with a normalized
redshift distribution $W_{S_i}(z)$, {\it i.e.}:
\begin{equation}
W_{\kappa_{i}}(z)=\int_z^{\infty} dz' \frac{r(z')-r(z)}{r(z)}
W_{S_i}(z') \ .
\end{equation}
The transfer functions for the CMB temperature anisotropy receive contributions from the last-scattering surface (at $z \sim 1100$) and from more recent redshifts via the Integrated Sachs-Wolfe (ISW) effect. The modifications of gravity considered in this paper are negligible at recombination. Therefore, their only imprint on the CMB will be via the ISW effect. For the ISW contribution to the CMB, we have
\begin{equation}
I_{\ell}^{ISW}(k) = \int_0^{z_*} dz e^{-\tau(z)} j_{\ell}[kr(z)] {\partial \over \partial z}\left[\Psi+\Phi\right] \ ,
\label{eq:I_ISW}
\end{equation}
where $\tau(z)$ is the opaqueness function.
We numerically evaluate the transfer functions $I_\ell$ using the first version of the publicly available code MGCAMB ({\it Modified Growth with CAMB})~\cite{Zhao:2008bn}\footnote{A new version of MGCAMB was recently introduced in \cite{Hojjati:2011ix}, and is publicly available at \url{http://www.sfu.ca/~aha25/MGCAMB.html}. The first version was based on CAMB-Sources, which made it easy to evaluate WL and GC spectra, but was not compatible with CosmoMC. The later version is written as a patch for CAMB, is compatible with CosmoMC, but does not evaluate WL and GC spectra yet.} and obtain the angular spectra
$C_{l}^{XY}$. A joint analysis of CMB and data from a tomographic lensing survey with $M$ GC redshift bins and
$N$ WL bins gives us a total of $3+M(M+1)/2+N(N+1)/2+M+N+MN$
different types of $C_{\ell}$'s respectively from CMB, GC, WL, GC$\times$CMB,
WL$\times$CMB and WL$\times$GC, (we do not correlate
CMB polarization with GC and WL). For example, combining Planck with
DES, with $M=4$ GC bins and $N=4$ WL bins, gives us $47$ different
types of spectra. A combination of Planck with LSST, with $10$ GC
bins and $6$ WL bins, gives us $155$ different $C_{\ell}$'s.
We only use the parts of the spectra that correspond to the linear
cosmological regime. Including higher $\ell$, or smaller scales,
would require us to account for non-linear effects which, strictly
speaking, are not allowed within our framework. To accurately model
growth on non-linear scales, one needs input from N-body
simulations, which can only be performed for specific modified
gravity theories. The fact that we are not testing a specific model,
but constraining a general departure from GR, defined in terms of
linear perturbation variables, precludes us from having a reliable
description of non-linear corrections. We restrict ourselves
to the linear regime by cutting off the $C_{\ell}^{XY}$ spectra at
$\ell_{\rm max} \sim 0.2~h\,r(z_{s})$. This cutoff
roughly corresponds to $k_{\rm max}\sim 0.2\,h {\rm Mpc}^{-1}$ at
$z=0$. There is certainly a wealth of information about MG parameters on smaller scales \cite{Beynon:2009yd},
and while it would be tempting to include it in our analysis, it would make our predictions unreliable since our analysis is limited to linear theory.
\subsection{Fisher matrices}
\label{sec:fisher}
To determine how well the surveys will be able to constrain
our model parameters, we employ the standard Fisher matrix
technique~\cite{Fisher}. The inverse of the Fisher matrix $F_{ab}$
provides a lower bound on the covariance matrix of the model
parameters via the Cram$\acute{\rm e}$r-Rao inequality, ${\bf C}
\geq {\bf F}^{-1}$~\cite{Fisher}. For zero-mean Gaussian-distributed
observables, like the angular correlations $C^{XY}_\ell$, the Fisher matrix is given by
\begin{equation}
F_{ab} =
f_{\rm sky} \sum_{\ell=\ell_{\rm min}}^{\ell_{\rm max}}\frac{2\ell +
1}{2} {\rm Tr}\left( \frac{\partial {\bf C_\ell}}{\partial p_a} {\bf
\tilde{C}_\ell^{-1}}\frac{\partial {\bf C_\ell}}{\partial p_b} {\bf
\tilde{C}_\ell^{-1}} \right) \ ,
\label{eq:Fisher}
\end{equation}
where $p_{a}$ is the ${a}^{\rm th}$ parameter of our model and ${\bf
\tilde{C}_\ell}$ is the ``observed'' covariance matrix with elements
$\tilde{C}^{XY}_\ell$ that include contributions from noise:
\begin{equation}
\tilde{C}^{XY}_\ell= C^{XY}_\ell+N^{XY}_\ell \ .
\label{eq:NoiseAdd}
\end{equation}
Eq.~(\ref{eq:Fisher}) assumes that all fields
$X(\hat{\bf n})$ are measured over contiguous regions covering a
fraction $f_{\rm sky}$ of the sky. The value of the lowest multipole
can be approximately inferred from $\ell_{\rm min} \approx \pi
/(2f_{\rm sky})$. It is also possible to write expressions for
separate contributions to the Fisher matrix from particular subsets
of observables, as detailed in \cite{Zhao:2008bn}.
The noise matrix $N^{XY}_\ell$ includes the statistical noise as well as the expected
systematic errors. Systematics are notoriously difficult
to predict, and are often ignored in forecasts.
In this paper, we consider two cases -- the case when $N^{XY}_\ell$ includes the statistical noise only, and the case
when certain types of systematics are included. We follow \cite{Huterer:2005ez,Zhan:2008jh} and consider three sources of systematics for future tomographic surveys: photo-$z$ errors, as well as additive and multiplicative errors due to the uncertainty of the point spread function (PSF) measurements. The details of our modeling of the systematic effects are presented in Appendix~\ref{sec:appendix}. Our assumptions about the statistical errors in CMB, CG and WL are presented in the following subsection.
For supernovae, the information matrix is
\begin{equation}
F^{\mathrm{SN}}_{ab}= \sum_{i}^{N} {1\over
\sigma(z_i)^2 } {\partial m(z_i)\over \partial p_a} {\partial
m(z_i)\over
\partial p_b}.
\label{fisher:sne}
\end{equation}
where $m(z)$ is their redshift-dependent
magnitude, the summation is
over the redshift bins, and $\sigma(z_i)=0.13$ (see Sec. \ref{sec:cmbsn} for details).
Given a set of theoretical covariance matrices over a given
multipole range, and the specifications for the expected noise in
specific experiments, we can compute the Fisher matrix. The
derivatives with respect to the parameters (pixels of $\mu$ and $\gamma$ in our case) are computed numerically using finite differences.
\subsection{Experiments}
\label{sec:experiments}
The data considered in our forecasts include CMB temperature and polarization (T and E), WL of distant galaxies, GC, their
cross-correlations, and SNe observations. We assume CMB T and
E data from the Planck satellite~\cite{Planck}, the galaxy
catalogues and WL data by the \emph{Dark Energy Survey}~\cite{DES} and \emph{Large Synoptic Survey Telescope} (LSST)~\cite{LSST}, complemented by a SNe data set provided by the futuristic Euclid-like survey \cite{euclidsn}.
\subsubsection{DES and LSST}
We take the total galaxy number density to be given by
\begin{equation}
N_G(z) \propto z^2 {\rm exp}(-(z/z_0)^2) \ ,
\end{equation}
which is a slight modification of the model due to Wittman {\it et al.}~\cite{Wittman}. The parameter $z_0$ depends on the experiment and defines the redshift at which the most galaxies will be observed. The galaxies can be divided into photometric redshift bins, labeled with index $i$,
\begin{equation}
N_G(z) = \sum_i N_{G_i}(z).
\end{equation}
In our analysis, we assume that the photometric
redshift errors are Gaussian distributed,
and that their rms fluctuations increase with redshift as
$\sigma(z)=\sigma_\mathrm{max}(1+z)/(1+z_\mathrm{max})$.
The bin sizes are chosen to increase proportionally to the errors.
The resulting photometric redshift distributions are given by
\begin{equation}
N_{G_i}(z) = \frac{1}{2} N_G(z)\left[
\mathrm{erfc}\biggl( \frac{z_{i-1}-z} {\sqrt{2} \sigma(z)}\biggr)
- \mathrm{erfc}\biggl( \frac{z_i-z}{\sqrt{2} \sigma(z)}\biggr) \right],
\label{eq:erfc}
\end{equation}
where erfc is the complementary error function. For a given photometric redshift bin, the normalized window function that appears in Eq.~(\ref{eq:I_delta}) is given by
\begin{equation} \label{windowfunction}
W_{G_i}(z) = \frac{N_{G_i}(z)}{N^i} \,
\end{equation}
where $N^i$ is the total number of galaxies in the $i$th bin.
DES is a project aimed at studying the
nature of the cosmic acceleration, and is planned to start
observations in 2012~\cite{DES}. DES includes a 5000
square degree multi-band, optical survey probing the redshift range
$0.1 < z < 1.3$ with a median redshift of $z=0.7$ and an approximate
1-$\sigma$ error of $0.05$ in photometric redshift. In our
simulation, for both WL and GC, we assume a sky fraction $f_{\rm{sky}}=0.13$, and an angular density of galaxies
$N_G=10$ gal$/$arcmin$^2$. We also assume $\gamma_{\rm rms}=0.18+0.042\,z$, which is the rms shear stemming from the intrinsic
ellipticity of the galaxies and measurement noise, and the photometric redshift uncertainty given by $\sigma(z)=0.05(1+z)$.
LSST is a proposed large
aperture, ground-based, wide field survey telescope~\cite{LSST}. It
is expected to cover up to half of the sky and
catalogue several billion galaxies out to redshift $z\sim 3$. For LSST forecasts, we adopt parameters from the recent review paper by the LSST
collaboration~\cite{Ivezic:2008fe}. Namely, we use $f_{\rm{sky}}=0.5$, $N_{G}=50$ gal$/$arcmin$^2$ for both WL and counts, $\gamma_{\rm
rms}=0.18+0.042\, z$, and $\sigma(z)=0.03\,(1+z)$.
For both DES and LSST, we take the GC photometric bins to be
separated by $5\sigma(z)$. This leads to four redshift bins for DES
and ten for LSST. For WL (source) galaxies, we use four bins for DES
and six for LSST.
\subsubsection{CMB, Supernovae, and other priors on cosmological parameters}
\label{sec:cmbsn}
In our forecasts, we assume spatially flat geometry and parametrize the dark energy equation of state using 20 bins from $z=0$ to $z=3$ uniform in $z$, and one wide bin from $z=3$ to $z=1100$. In addition to the MG parameters, and the $N_b \equiv M$ bias parameters, we vary $h$, $\Omega_ch^2$,
$\Omega_bh^2$, $\tau$, $n_s$, and $A_s$. Their
fiducial values are taken to be those from the WMAP 7-year data best
fit~\cite{wmap7}: $\Omega_b h^2 = 0.023, \Omega_c h^2 =
0.11, h=0.71, \tau = 0.088, n_s=0.963$. The fiducial values for
bias parameters are motivated by the parametrized halo model
described in \cite{HuJain}. Imposing a prior on the value of
$h$ from the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) did not make a noticeable
difference in our results.
We assume the expected CMB data from the Planck mission~\cite{Planck} of the \emph{European Space Agency} (ESA) using the same parameters as in \cite{Zhao:2008bn}. In addition, to better constrain the background expansion parameters, we include simulated SNe luminosity data for a Euclid-like survey, {\it e.g.}, the one proposed in \cite{euclidsn}.
We generate 4012 data points randomly distributed
in 14 redshift bins from $z = 0.15$ to $z = 1.55$, and combine
300 low-z SNe from the Nearby Supernova Factory (NSNF) survey \cite{NSNF}. We calculate the exact distance modulus for each
model, and put a Gaussian noise with rms error of $\sigma=0.13$
to displace all the data points. The absolute magnitude, or the so-called nuisance parameter ${\cal M}$, is treated as an undetermined parameter in our analysis.
Note that DES and LSST will produce their own SNe luminosity measurements that we did not include in our forecasts. Instead, we assume that a high quality SNe catalogue will eventually become available, and focus on the dependence of MG constraints on the quality of
the WL and GC data.
\section{The PCA of linearized MG}
\label{sec:mgpca}
In this Section we analyze the principal components (eigenmodes) of the functions $\mu$ and $\gamma$ defined in Sec.~\ref{sec:formalism} for the combination of large scale structure (WL and GC), CMB and SNe experiments detailed in Sec.~\ref{sec:experiments}. In particular, we want to investigate the effect of degeneracies with other cosmological parameters on the eigenmodes and eigenvalues of $\mu$ and $\gamma$. For this purpose, in Subsection~\ref{pca-all-fixed}, we start with the simplest case where only uncertainties in the pixelated functions $\mu$ and $\gamma$ (referred to as ``MG pixels'') are considered, with all other parameters fixed to their fiducial values. The highest redshift pixels ($3<z<30$) of $\mu$ and $\gamma$ are outside the range directly probed by the WL surveys. However, they do impact the observables: $\mu(z>3,k)$ re-sets the amplitude of the growth at all lower redshifts, while $\gamma(z>3,k)$ affects the ISW contribution to the CMB temperature anisotropy. The sensitivity of observables to variations in $\mu(z>3,k)$ and $\gamma(z>3,k)$ depends on the assumed high-$z$ cutoff -- making the high-z interval wider increases the sensitivity. Thus below we focus on quantities that are independent of this cutoff, such as the eigenmodes and eigenvalues of $\mu$ and $\gamma$ obtained after marginalizing over the high-z MG pixels, as well as the uncertainty in the overall growth between recombination and $z=3$, which is directly controlled by $\mu(z>3,k)$, but is independent of the choice of the high-$z$ cutoff (see \ref{error-r}). In \ref{MObias}, we discuss effects of marginalizing over the high-$z$ pixels and galaxy bias parameters. In (\ref{MOeverything}), we consider degeneracies with the cosmological vanilla parameters $\{\Omega_b{h}^{2},\Omega_c{h}^{2},h, \tau, n_s,A_s\}$ and the effective equation of state $w(z)$. Throughout this Section, we always marginalize over the SNe nuisance parameter. To gain additional insight, we also project our findings onto the function $\Sigma$.
We examine the parameter degeneracies using LSST as the fiducial survey for WL and GC. Then, in \ref{des-compare}, we compare the final case, in which we marginalize over all the parameters except the $\mu$ and $\gamma$ in the range $0<z<3$, to the analogous forecast for DES.
\subsection{PCA for LSST with all parameters, except MG pixels, fixed (high-z information included)}
\label{pca-all-fixed}
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\includegraphics[width=1.05\columnwidth]{IV_A_mugamma.jpg}
\caption{The eigenmodes of $\mu$ and $\gamma$ for LSST(+SN+CMB) with all other parameters fixed to fiducial values.}
\label{fig:IV_A_mugamma}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\includegraphics[width=1.05\columnwidth]{IV_A_combined.jpg}
\caption{The {\it combined} eigenmodes of $(\mu,\gamma)$ for LSST(+SN+CMB) with all other parameters fixed to fiducial values.}
\label{fig:IV_A_combined}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[tbph]
\includegraphics[width=1.05\columnwidth]{IV_A_Sigma.jpg}
\caption{The eigenmodes of $\Sigma$ for LSST(+SN+CMB) with all other parameters fixed to fiducial values.}
\label{fig:IV_A_Sigma}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[tbph]
\includegraphics[width=1.05\columnwidth]{IV_A_errors.jpg}
\caption{The uncertainties (square roots of covariance eignevalues) associated with the eigenmodes of $\mu$, $\gamma$, $\Sigma$ and the combined $(\mu,
\gamma)$ case for LSST(+SN+CMB) with all other parameters fixed to fiducial values.}
\label{fig:IV_A_errors}
\end{figure}
As a first step, we study the eigenmodes and associated uncertainties of the MG functions without considering their covariance with other parameters. We do this by isolating and inverting the block of the Fisher matrix containing only MG pixels (including the high-z bins) and diagonalizing the resulting covariance matrix.
Fig.~\ref{fig:IV_A_mugamma} shows some of the eigenmodes of $\mu$ and $\gamma$. Each panel in these plots represents a region in $(z,k)$ space with an eigenmode function plotted as a surface, as described in Sec.~\ref{sec:formalismA}. We order, and consequently number, the eigenmodes according to how well they can be constrained, {\it i.e.} following the ordering of the corresponding errors (square root of the covariance matrix eigenvalues) from the smallest (best constrained) to the largest (least constrained).
The first feature to notice is in the $\mu$ eigenmodes (top two rows in Fig.~\ref{fig:IV_A_mugamma}), where the best constrained modes peak at high-$z$, and show no features at low z; we need to get to the 16th mode to start seeing some features in the $z<3$ interval, which is the actual redshift range of LSST. This is because $\mu$ directly affects the growth of matter density perturbations, and changing the amplitude of perturbations at some redshift affects the growth at lower redshifts. As we discuss in \ref{error-r}, the constraint on $\mu$ at $z>3$ depends strongly on the width of the bin, i.e. the value of the arbitrarily chosen high-$z$ cutoff. It is also highly correlated with $\mu$ in lower redshift bins and some of the vanilla cosmological parameters.
Unlike $\mu$, the best constrained modes of $\gamma$ do not have a support at high $z$. They peak at low redshifts (bottom two rows in Fig.~\ref{fig:IV_A_mugamma}). This follows from the fact that, according to our definition, to measure $\gamma$ one needs to measure both $\Phi$ and $\Psi$. Therefore, bounds on $\gamma$ come mostly from combining the GC data, which probes $\Psi$ (affected by $\mu$), with the WL signal probing $(\Phi+\Psi)$ (affected by both $\mu$ and $\gamma$). One can also see that there are modes that peak at $z>3$ and at low k (very large scales). This is mainly due to the ISW effect, seen as a contribution to the CMB temperature spectrum, which is sensitive to the time variation of both potentials at all times after the last-scattering.
An important thing to notice is that the best constrained modes of $\mu$ and $\gamma$ show oscillations (nodes) in $k$, but no nodes in the $z$-direction. One has to look at the higher number modes to start seeing oscillations in $z$. For instance, for $\mu$, the first $z$-node appears in the $26$th eigenmode. The number of nodes is indicative of the sensitivity of the function to changes in $k$ and $z$, and we see that the experiments are significantly more sensitive to scale-dependent features of the MG functions, and not as sensitive to the time-dependence. As already pointed out in~\cite{Zhao:2009fn}, this is expected, since the impact of a scale-dependent change in $\mu$ (or $\gamma$) is directly translated into a scale-dependent feature in the WL and GC spectra. For instance, in the case of GC, $\mu$ effectively appears as a scale-dependent normalization factor. On the other hand, the projection of time-dependent features of the MG functions onto the observables involves integration over time which makes detecting $z$-dependent features harder. Also, the amount of information coming from the radial ($z$-direction) is limited by the fact that LSST only probes structures at $z \lesssim 3$, and by the fact that we consider only linear scales, effectively cutting off a significant volume at low $z$.
Fig.~\ref{fig:IV_A_combined} shows the best {\it combined} eigenmodes of $(\mu,\gamma)$. Every combined eigenmode is represented by a pair of values at each point on the $(k,z)$ grid, one value resulting from a variation of $\mu$ on that grid point and the other from a variation of $\gamma$ on the same grid point. We show each eigenmode as a pair of surfaces, one corresponding to $\mu$ and the other to $\gamma$. It can be noticed that the best constrained modes peak at high redshift, which is the result of high sensitivity of the growth to changes in $\mu$ in the high-$z$ bins. Since $\gamma$ does not directly affect the growth rate, the $\gamma$ surfaces of these eigenmodes have a very low amplitude, requiring us to amplify them by a factor of 100 in order to make them visible in the plots. The combined eigenmodes that peak at low redshifts, starting from the 13th, do not exhibit separation of scale or time dependent oscillations, but rather have a diagonal form in the $(z,k)$ space, showing a degeneracy between scale and time. This is because the WL observables dominate the information for combined modes at low redshift. Indeed, the changes in the weak lensing kernel due to a shift of the lens along the line of sight ({\it i.e.} a change in redshift) are degenerate with those due to a resizing of the lens ({\it i.e.} a change in scale).
Fig.~\ref{fig:IV_A_Sigma} shows the best eigenmodes for the function $\Sigma$. As it is clear from its definition~(\ref{Sigma}), $\Sigma$ is directly sensitive to the lensing potential $(\Phi +\Psi)$; therefore its signal comes mainly from low redshifts and it does not have well constrained high redshift modes. For this reason the plots for $\Sigma$ span only over the low redshift interval. From these plots we notice a $k-z$ degeneracy analogous to the one found in the combined $(\mu,\gamma)$ modes as it is clear from a comparison of Fig.~\ref{fig:IV_A_combined} and Fig.~\ref{fig:IV_A_Sigma}.
Finally, Fig.~\ref{fig:IV_A_errors} shows the uncertainties (square roots of covariance eigenvalues) associated with the eigenmodes of $\mu$, $\gamma$, $\Sigma$ and the combined modes. As expected, the combined eigenmodes are constrained best, since they contain all of the information about any departure of either $\mu$ or $\gamma$ from unity. The constraints on $\gamma$ are the weakest, since $\gamma$ is not directly constrained by WL nor GC, while $\mu$ does better than $\gamma$ since it is directly constrained by GC. The eigenmodes of $\mu$ that peak at $z>3$ are constrained better than those of $\Sigma$, while $\Sigma$ is measured better than $\mu$ for modes with support at lower redshifts. This is because at low redshifts most of the information comes from WL, which is directly sensitive to $\Sigma$. As mentioned earlier, the bounds on the $z>3$ bin of $\mu$ are dependent on the arbitrary cutoff and in the next subsection we will marginalize over it.
\subsection{PCA for LSST after marginalizing over high z and galaxy bias, everything else is fixed}
\label{MObias}
In order to remove the dependence of our results on the arbitrary choice of the upper cutoff of the high-$z$ bins ($3<z<30$), we marginalize over the high-z pixels. This is achieved by removing the rows and columns corresponding to high-$z$ pixels from the covariance matrix of the previous subsection, and then diagonalizing it to find the eigenmodes and eigenvalues. This essentially removes all the information about the growth at $z>3$ and, with that, all the $z>3$ features in the eigenmodes. This is seen in Figs.~\ref{fig:IV_2_B_mugamma}-\ref{fig:IV_2_B_Sigma}, where the eigenmodes for $\mu$, $\gamma$, the combined $(\mu,\gamma)$ and $\Sigma$ are shown for this case.
\begin{figure}[tbph]
\includegraphics[width=1.05\columnwidth]{IV_2_B_mugamma.jpg}
\caption{The eigenmodes of $\mu$ and $\gamma$ for LSST(+SN+CMB) after marginalizing over the high-$z$ bins, with all other parameters fixed to fiducial values.}
\label{fig:IV_2_B_mugamma}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[tbph]
\includegraphics[width=1.05\columnwidth]{IV_2_B_combined.jpg}
\caption{The combined eigenmodes of $(\mu,\gamma$) for LSST(+SN+CMB) after marginalizing over the high-z bins, with all other parameters fixed to fiducial values.}
\label{fig:IV_2_B_combined}
\end{figure}
From Fig.~\ref{fig:IV_2_B_mugamma} we notice that, in the absence of the high-$z$ information, the first few best constrained eigenmodes of $\mu$ and $\gamma$ have similar shapes. However, this similarity fades for the higher order eigenmodes, reflecting the different dependences of the two functions on the metric potentials. For instance, the first node in $z$ appears at the $9$th mode for $\mu$ and only at the $12$th for $\gamma$, reflecting a higher sensitivity of $\mu$ to time dependent features.
\begin{figure}[tbph]
\includegraphics[width=1.05\columnwidth]{IV_2_B_Sigma.jpg}
\caption{The eigenmodes of $\Sigma$ for LSST(+SN+CMB) after marginalizing over the high-z bins, with all other parameters fixed to fiducial values.}
\label{fig:IV_2_B_Sigma}
\end{figure}
The best constrained combined $(\mu,\gamma)$ eigenmodes have the same shapes in the $\mu$- and $\gamma$-surfaces, but the $\gamma$-surfaces have a lower amplitude (Fig.~\ref{fig:IV_2_B_combined}). This is again explained by the fact that both functions are constrained by the same experiments (WL and GC), therefore having similar eigenmodes, with $\mu$ being more directly related to the growth of structure.
As can be observed from Fig.~\ref{fig:IV_2_B_Sigma}, after marginalizing over the high-z bins, the best eigenmodes of $\Sigma$ are very similar to the combined $(\mu,\gamma)$ modes. Indeed, once the high-z information is removed, the combined modes are primarily constrained by WL and, therefore, carry more or less the same information as the $\Sigma$ modes.
\begin{figure}[tbph]
\includegraphics[width=1.05\columnwidth]{IV_2_B_errors.jpg}
\caption{The uncertainties associated with the eigenmodes of $\mu$, $\gamma$, $\Sigma$ and the combined $(\mu,\gamma)$ modes for LSST(+SN+CMB), after marginalizing over the high-z bins only (M.o. high-z), and after marginalization over the high-z bins and the galaxy bias parameters (M.o. high-z+bias), with all other parameters fixed to fiducial values.}
\label{fig:IV_2_B_errors}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[tbph]
\includegraphics[width=1.05\columnwidth]{IV_2_B3_mugamma.jpg}
\caption{The eigenmodes of $\mu$ and $\gamma$ for LSST(+SN+CMB), after marginalizing over the high-z bins and the galaxy bias parameters, with all other parameters fixed to fiducial values.}
\label{fig:IV_2_B3_mugamma}
\end{figure}
Fig.~\ref{fig:IV_2_B_errors} shows the uncertainties associated with the eigenmodes of $\mu$, $\gamma$, $\Sigma$ and the combined $(\mu,\gamma$) modes after marginalizing over the high-z bins. Comparing to Fig.~\ref{fig:IV_A_errors}, we see that now there is no crossing over of the errors on $\mu$ and $\Sigma$, {\it i.e.} all the PCs of $\Sigma$ do better than the $\mu$ ones. This is due to the disappearance of the eigenmodes with high-$z$ support. In addition, we notice a small overall degradation of constraints, which is due to throwing away the information common with the low-z bins.
Next, we marginalize over the galaxy bias parameters. This is achieved by inverting the part of the Fisher matrix that includes the MG pixels and the bias parameters. This effectively removes the information about the overall normalization of $\mu$. This is manifested in the disappearance of some of the eigenmodes, including the homogeneous eigenmodes, e.g. present in Fig.~\ref{fig:IV_2_B_mugamma} but not in Fig.~\ref{fig:IV_2_B3_mugamma}. The same happens to the eigenmodes of $\Sigma$ and of the combination $(\mu,\gamma$) and we do not plot them.
\subsection{PCA for LSST after marginalizing over the vanilla cosmological parameters and $w(z)$.}
\label{MOeverything}
\begin{figure}[tbph]
\includegraphics[width=1.05\columnwidth]{LSST-mu-gamma-wo_highz-no_sys.jpg}
\caption{The eigenmodes of $\mu$ and $\gamma$ for LSST(+SN+CMB) after marginalizing over all other parameters.}
\label{fig:LSST-mu-gamma-wo_highz-no_sys}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[tbph]
\includegraphics[width=1.05\columnwidth]{LSST-com-wo_highz-no_sys.jpg}
\caption{The combined eigenmodes of $(\mu,\gamma)$ for LSST(+SN+CMB) after marginalizing over all other parameters.}
\label{fig:LSST-com-wo_highz-no_sys}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[tbph]
\includegraphics[width=1.05\columnwidth]{LSST-Sigma-wo_highz-no_sys.jpg}
\caption{The eigenmodes of $\Sigma$ for LSST+SN+CMB after marginalizing over all other parameters.}
\label{fig:LSST-Sigma-wo_highz-no_sys}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[tbph]
\includegraphics[width=1.05\columnwidth]{LSST-errors.jpg}
\caption{The uncertainties associated with the eigenmodes of $\mu$, $\gamma$, $\Sigma$ and the combined $(\mu,\gamma)$ modes for LSST+SN+CMB after marginalizing over all other parameters. Two cases are shown: with $w$ bins fixed to their fiducial value of $-1$ (dots joined by lines), and with $w$ bins varied and marginalized over (triangles).}
\label{fig:LSST-errors}
\end{figure}
We now marginalize over the cosmological parameters: $\{ \Omega_ch^2, \Omega_bh^2, h, \tau, n_s, A_s\}$ and the binned values of $w(z)$. By doing so we account for the covariance of MG pixels with the vanilla $\Lambda$CDM parameters and the effective dark energy equation of state. Figs.~\ref{fig:LSST-mu-gamma-wo_highz-no_sys}-\ref{fig:LSST-errors} show the PCA results for this case.
The impact of marginalizing over $w(z)$, as opposed to setting it to $w=-1$, is not dramatic and we do not separately show the eigenmodes for the latter case. The associated eignevalues, plotted in Fig.\ref{fig:LSST-errors}, show only a minor differences. This is, in part, due to the high quality of the assumed SNe dataset (see Sec.~\ref{sec:cmbsn}). However, it is also because of marginalizing over the vanilla parameters, the galaxy bias parameters and the high-z bins, which already throws away most of the information that is common between the MG pixels and $w(z)$. The effect of marginalizing over bias parameters and $w$ bins is minor changes in the shape of modes (e.g. second mode in Fig.~\ref{fig:LSST-mu-gamma-wo_highz-no_sys} to be compared with second mode in Fig.~\ref{fig:IV_2_B3_mugamma}), disappearance of some of the modes and an overall degradation of constraints.
\subsection{Constraints on the growth at high redshift}
\label{error-r}
The growth at $z > 3$ is not directly probed by the large scale structure surveys we are considering in this paper. Any modification to growth at $z>3$, such as due to variations of high-$z$ MG pixels, is observed as an overall shift of the amplitude of the growth at all subsequent (i.e. lower) redshifts. This can, in principle, be compensated by counter-variations of the low-$z$ MG pixels. However, we find that bounds on high-$z$ pixels are still relatively tight (at a percent level), even after marginalizing over the low-$z$ bins. Such tight constraints are due to the large width of high-z pixels. Namely, a small change in value of $\mu$ in the high-$z$ bins results in an accumulated modification of growth that can only be compensated by a very large variation of the low-z pixels. On the other hand, the low-$z$ pixels are directly constrained by the surveys and large variations are not allowed. Of course, one can always make the bounds on the high-$z$ bins arbitrarily weak by making the bins narrower.
Since the width of high-$z$ pixels is a somewhat arbitrary parameter, one can ask if another quantity can be introduced to quantify the growth at $z=3$. We take this quantity to be the ratio $r(k)$, defined as:
\begin{equation}
\label{ratio}
r(k) \equiv \frac{\Delta(z=3,k)}{\Delta (z_{\rm rec},k)} \, ,
\end{equation}
where $\Delta$ is defined in Eq.~(\ref{parametrization-Poisson}) and $z_{\rm rec}$ denotes the redshift at recombination. We can estimate the variance in $r$ ($C_{rr} = \sqrt{\sigma_r^2}$) from
\begin{equation}
\sigma_r = \sum_i \frac{\partial r}{\partial {p_i}} \sigma_{p_i} \, ,
\end{equation}
where $p_i$'s are all the parameters of our model that affect $r$. Our calculation shows that $\sigma_r/r > 1$ for all $k$. In other words, $r$ is completely unbounded, as expected. Note that the calculation would need to be adjusted for DES, for which the highest redshift is $z =1.3$, instead of $z=3$.
\subsection{Comparison with DES}
\label{des-compare}
To get a further insight into how the MG constraints depend on the properties of the experiments, we compare PCA for LSST+CMB+SNe with that for DES+CMB+SN. That is, we interchange LSST with DES for the WL and GC data, while keeping the assumptions for the CMB and SNe data the same. We perform this comparison only for the case in which we marginalize over all parameters, {\it i.e.} high-z bins, bias parameters, cosmological vanilla parameters and $w(z)$, as in~\ref{MOeverything}.
Figs.~\ref{fig:DES-mu-gamma-wo_highz-no_sys} and \ref{fig:DES-com-wo_highz-no_sys} show the eigenmodes of $\mu$, $\gamma$ and $(\mu,\gamma)$ for DES+CMB+SN. These results should be compared to Figs.~\ref{fig:LSST-mu-gamma-wo_highz-no_sys} and \ref{fig:LSST-com-wo_highz-no_sys} for LSST. We choose to show a smaller number of eigenmodes, since there are not as many well constrained modes for DES as there are for LSST.
\begin{figure}[tbph]
\includegraphics[width=1.05\columnwidth]{DES-mu-gamma-wo_highz-no_sys2.jpg}
\caption{The eigenmodes of $\mu$ and $\gamma$ for DES+SN+CMB after marginalizing over all other parameters.}
\label{fig:DES-mu-gamma-wo_highz-no_sys}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[tbph]
\includegraphics[width=1.05\columnwidth]{DES-com-wo_highz-no_sys2.jpg}
\caption{The eigenmodes of the combined $(\mu,\gamma)$ modes for DES+SN+CMB after marginalizing over all other parameters.}
\label{fig:DES-com-wo_highz-no_sys}
\end{figure}
As can be seen from Figs.~\ref{fig:DES-mu-gamma-wo_highz-no_sys} and \ref{fig:DES-com-wo_highz-no_sys}, the range over which the eigenmodes vary is limited to smaller redshifts ($z < 1$), which reflects the redshift range probed by DES. Like in the case of LSST, there is a higher sensitivity to scale-dependent features. Furthermore, in the case of DES, there are modes with oscillations in $z$. Some of the combined eigenmodes are also absent for DES . Fig.~\ref{fig:errors-full} shows a comparison of the uncertainties associated with the modes for LSST and DES.
While the overall sensitivity of DES is less than LSST by a factor of few, DES, when combined with CMB and SNe data, is still able to constrain several eigenmodes with better than $10$\% accuracy. We may not be able to detect a time-dependent MG feature with high confidence from DES, but it is possible to constrain scale-dependent features.
\begin{figure}[tbph]
\includegraphics[width=1.05\columnwidth]{errors-full.jpg}
\caption{The uncertainties associated with the eigemodes of $\mu$, $\gamma$, $\Sigma$ and combined $(\mu,\gamma)$ modes for DES(+SN+CMB) and for LSST(+SN+CMB) errors, after marginalization over all other parameters.}
\label{fig:errors-full}
\end{figure}
\section{Effects of systematic errors}
\label{sec:systematics}
Systematics are notoriously hard to predict, and forecast results that include systematics are in general sensitive to the modeling and the assumed priors~\cite{Huterer:2005ez,Zhan:2008jh,Kirk:2011sw,Laszlo:2011sv}. Here we consider some of the systematics that will affect future tomographic surveys and study their impact on our PCA results. This can give us a general insight on how systematic errors could affect our inferences of the eigenmodes and the corresponding uncertainties. The systematics we consider here are the photo-$z$ errors and some of the errors in the measurement of the point spread function (PSF). These errors are modeled in~\cite{Huterer:2005ez,Zhan:2008jh} and we use their parametrization for our Fisher analysis.
The effects of the systematics are detailed in the Appendix, and with these assumptions we study the degradation of ability of DES and LSST to constrain MG by marginalizing over the systematics parameters without applying any prior. As we show later, the degradation is apparent, but not disastrous. It is true that the catastrophic photo-$z$ errors (CPE) for WL surveys~\cite{Bernstein:2009bq} can lead to disastrous degradation on the constraints of the cosmological parameters, but as shown in \cite{Bernstein:2009bq}, an additional 30,000 spectroscopic redshifts can help to control the bias in cosmological parameters due to CPE under the level of statistical errors. The most significant effect is to reduce the ability of LSST to detect the $z$-dependence of $\mu$. This is a preliminary analysis, which does not include scale-dependent systematics, which can be particularly important in MG studies (as was found in~\cite{Zhao:2010dz} where PCA was applied to a set of existing data including CFHTLS).
\begin{figure}[h]
\includegraphics[width=1.\columnwidth]{sys-comparison-com.jpg}
\caption{Top: The uncertainties associated with the combined $(\mu,\gamma)$ eigenmodes for LSST (left) and DES (right) for four cases: (I) without systematics and $w$ fixed, (II) without systematics but $w$ varied, (III) with systematics but $w$ fixed and (IV) with systematics and $w$ varied. Bottom: The uncertainties for LSST (left) and DES (right) relative to Case 1. }
\label{fig:sys-comparison-com}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h]
\includegraphics[width=1.\columnwidth]{sys-comparison-mu.jpg}
\caption{Top: The uncertainties associated with eigenmodes of $\mu$ for LSST (left) and DES (right) for four cases: (I) without systematics and $w$ fixed, (II) without systematics but $w$ varied, (III) with systematics but $w$ fixed and (IV) with systematics and $w$ varied. Bottom: The uncertainties for LSST (left) and DES (right) relative to Case 1. }
\label{fig:sys-comparison-mu}
\end{figure}
Let us look at the errors for combined eigenmodes shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:sys-comparison-com} for the following cases: (I) no systematics, with $w$ fixed; (II) no systematics, with $w$ varied; (III) with systematics, and $w$ fixed; (IV) with systematics, and $w$ varied. We can see that allowing for systematics degrades the constraints more than allowing for variations in $w$. Also, once the systematic errors are included, allowing $w$ to vary does not degrade the constraint further. This means that the MG pixels are more degenerate with the systematics parameters than the $w$ bins, implying that the uncertainty in the galaxy distributions, which is basically photo-$z$ error from the systematics, can affect the constraint on the growth more significantly than $w$ does. In general, the errors on the best constrained modes are degraded by $\lesssim 10\%$ for both LSST and DES. Another interesting observation is that the largest degradation does not happen for the first few modes, but for the intermediate modes. This is reasonable -- the first few modes do not have nodes in $z$ and thus are relatively immune to the systematics dominated by the photo-$z$ errors.
We have shown the errors on the eigenmodes for $\mu$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:sys-comparison-mu} where the same cases as above are considered. One notices that degradation on $\mu$ is less than what we had for combined case, especially no significant changes for DES are found. For $\gamma$, degradation is very small simply because the constraints on $\gamma$ eigenmodes are very weak in the first place. We are not therefore showing $\gamma$ errors here.
Another observation is that systematics can create new, or destroy existing modes, so that the modes with the same order in the PCA sequence in the cases with and without systematics can be different modes. One can see this clearly by looking at the eigensurfaces in Fig.~\ref{fig:LSST-sys-comparison}, where we illustrate the three $\mu$ modes and one $\gamma$ mode with and without systematics. They look similar except that the modes with systematics in general have more nodes in $k$, indicating that systematics do not just dilute
the constraints on the old modes, but also make some modes disappear (or make them very poorly constrained). The general trend is that eigenmodes with very high frequency features in $k$ are no longer well-constrained after inclusion of systematics.
\begin{figure}[h]
\includegraphics[width=1.05\columnwidth]{LSST-sys-comparison.jpg}
\caption{The eigenmodes for LSST(+SN+CMB). The upper(lower) panel corresponds to the case without(with) systematics. The $10$th, $11$th and $12$th modes of $\mu$ without systematics, are compared to the $8$th, $11$th and $12$th modes of $\mu$ with systematics respectively. These modes are chosen since they correspond to the last z-independent and first z-dependent mode respectively, in the two case (with and without systematics). Analogously, the $4$th eigenmode of $\gamma$ without systematics is compared to the $4$th mode of $\gamma$ with systematics. It is an illustration of how LSST eigenmodes are distorted as a result of accounting for systematics.}
\label{fig:LSST-sys-comparison}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h]
\includegraphics[width=1.05\columnwidth]{DES-sys-comparison.jpg}
\caption{The eigenmodes for DES(+SN+CMB). The upper(lower) panel corresponds to the case without(with) systematics. The three modes of $\mu$ and first mode of $\gamma$ without systematics, are compared to corresponding modes of $\mu$ with systematics. It is an illustration of how DES eigenmodes would be distorted due to systematics.}
\label{fig:DES-sys-comparison}
\end{figure}
Overall, we find that the inclusion of systematics results in a noticeable, but not dramatic, dilution of the constraints on MG from DES. This is because photo-$z$ errors would most immediately affect the $z$-dependence of MG, to which DES was already mostly insensitive even without systematics. The main constraints from DES, as can be seen from the shape of the eigenmodes, will be on the scale-dependence of $\mu$ and $\gamma$, and that information is somewhat reduced, but mostly preserved. The impact of the systematics on LSST could be more significant, simply because LSST has a higher potential for resolving $z$-dependent features. In this preliminary analysis, we find that allowing for systematic errors under the assumptions of \cite{Huterer:2005ez,Zhan:2008jh} preserves most of the scale-dependent information from LSST, but decreases our ability to measure eigenmodes of $\mu$ with $z$-dependent features.
\section{Degeneracy between MG parameters and dark energy EoS}
\label{sec:w}
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\includegraphics[width=1.\columnwidth]{w-PCA.pdf}
\caption{Top: First three eigenmodes of $w(z)$ with (left) and without (right) MG included. Bottom: Errors for $w(z)$ eigenmodes with and without MG included (there is a prior of $0.5$ on $w$ bins). } \label{fig:w-PCA}
\end{figure}
In Sec.~\ref{MOeverything}, we marginalized over the binned equation of state and analyzed the impact of this marginalization on the eigenmodes of $\mu$ and $\gamma$. Here we investigate how marginalizing over MG pixels affects the eigenmodes and eigenvalues of $w(z)$. In this case, we diagonalize the block of the covariance matrix containing the 21 $w$-bins. Fig.~\ref{fig:w-PCA} (top) shows the best three eigenmodes of $w$ in the case when $\mu$ and $\gamma$ pixels are co-varied, and when they are fixed to their fiducial values.
The most noticeable effect of the marginalization is a reduction of the amplitude of the best constrained modes at higher z. In other words, letting MG parameters vary squeezes the best constrained eigenmodes of $w(z)$ towards low redshift. This is expected, since most of the information on $w(z)$ comes from the SNe and from the probes of LSS at higher redshift. The latter is largely degenerate with MG, and so the high-$z$ information on $w(z)$ is erased. On the other hand, LSS does not contribute much to the low-z information, since we restrict to modes in the linear regime, therefore the marginalization has little impact on the low-redshift parts of the $w(z)$ modes.
Overall the effects of the marginalization over the MG functions are not dramatic and future surveys will have the ability to measure {\emph{both}} $w$ and MG. Fig.~\ref{fig:w-PCA} (bottom) shows the degradation of errors on the $w$ eigenmodes after marginalizing over other parameters, including MG. Note that a prior of $\sigma_i = 0.5$ has been put on the bins of $w$.
\section{Projected errors on parameters of specific models from principal components}
\label{sec:projection}
MG pixels can be viewed as a compressed form for the information we get from observation about the linear growth. One can perform a PCA and store this information in the eigenmodes and their eigenvalues. The advantage of PCA is that the information can be compressed and used more efficiently, namely, the well-constrained eigenmodes usually carry almost all of the existing information.
Exploiting information stored in the eigenmodes, we can easily emulate any other parameterization to forecast parameter errors without regenerating the Fisher matrices from scratch~\cite{Crittenden:2005wj}. In other words, we can treat MG pixels as our observables and use them to calculate the Fisher matrices for specific model parameters.
The Fisher matrix can be written as
\begin{equation}
F_{ab} = \sum_{\alpha \beta} {\partial O_{\alpha} \over \partial p^a} C^{-1}_{\alpha \beta} {\partial O_{\beta} \over \partial p^b} \ ,
\end{equation}
where $O_{\alpha}$ are cosmological observables and $p^a$ are parameters of a specific model. This can be rewritten as
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{fisherinfisher}
F_{ab} &=& \sum_{ij} {\partial \mathcal{P}_i \over \partial p^a} \left[ \sum_{\alpha \beta} {\partial O_{\alpha} \over \partial \mathcal{P}_i} C^{-1}_{\alpha \beta} {\partial O_{\beta} \over \partial \mathcal{P}_j}\right] {\partial \mathcal{P}_j \over \partial p^b} \ , \nonumber \\
&=& \sum_{ij} {\partial \mathcal{P}_i \over \partial p^a}~ F_{ij}~ {\partial \mathcal{P}_j \over \partial p^b}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\mathcal{P}$'s are MG pixels and $F_{ij}$ is the $ij$ element of their Fisher matrix.
All we need now is to expand the derivatives of the MG pixels with respect to a given parameter in the eigenmode basis. That is, for each of the new parameters, we find the coefficients $\mathcal{C}^{a}_{l}$ such that \footnote{Note that since we are working on a discrete ($k,z$) grid, our equations are in a discrete form. Analogous expressions could be written for the continuous case. For example, Eq.~(\ref{partials}) for a continuous $\mu$ function would be ${\partial {\mu(a,k)} \over \partial p^a} = \sum_l \mathcal{C}^{a}_{\mu,l}~ {e}^{\mu}_l(a,k)$.}
\begin{equation}
\label{partials}
{\partial{\mathcal{P}_i} \over {\partial p^a}} = \sum_l \mathcal{C}^{a}_{l} ~ {e}^{l}_i \ ,
\end{equation}
where the sum is over all the eigenmodes and ${e}^{l}_i$ is value of the $l$th eigenmode at the $i$th pixel of the 2D ($k,z$) grid. Substituting Eq.~(\ref{partials}) in Eq.~(\ref{fisherinfisher}), we can then find the Fisher matrix for the parameters of our model by simple projection as
\begin{equation}
\label{fisherprojected}
F_{ab} = \sum_i \mathcal{C}^a_i ~ \mathcal{C}^b_i ~ \lambda_i^{-1} \ ,
\end{equation}
where again the sum is over all the eigenmodes, and $\lambda_i$'s are the corresponding eigenvalues of the covariance matrix for MG pixels.
We now illustrate the details of this method by applying it to a one-parameter model which gives a good approximation of $f(R)$ theories in the quasi-static limit~\cite{Giannantonio:2009gi} (and which is a customized form of the more general parametrization introduced in~\cite{BZ08})
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{B0}
\mu(a,k)&=&\frac{1}{1-1.4 \cdot 10^{-8} \lambda^2a^3}\frac{1+\frac{4}{3}\lambda^2\,k^2a^4}{1+\lambda^2\,k^2a^4}\,, \nonumber \\
\gamma(a,k)&=&\frac{1+\frac{2}{3}\lambda^2\,k^2a^4}{1+\frac{4}{3}\lambda^2\,k^2a^4}\,,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\lambda^2=B_0\,c^2/(2H_0^2)$ and $c$ is the speed of light. The parameter $\lambda$ is the mass of the $f(R)$ scalar degree of freedom today. In \cite{Schmidt:2009am,Lombriser:2010mp}, a bound of $B_0 \lesssim 10^{-3}$ at $95$\% confidence level was found based on the current cluster abundance data, which extends to mildly non-linear scales.
Here, we forecast the constraints on $B_0$ from LSST, based only on linear scales, in two ways: using a direct Fisher matrix calculation and a Fisher matrix projection described above. We choose $B_0 = 0$, corresponding to GR, as the fiducial model. We use the same combination of future data for the direct Fisher matrix calculations as we did for the PCA of MG, and use the eigenmodes and eigenvalues of Section~\ref{MOeverything} for the Fisher matrix projection. The derivatives on the left hand side of Eq.~(\ref{partials}) can be calculated analytically from Eq.~(\ref{B0}). Since we are working on a 2D grid of $k$ and $a$, we use the averaged value of these derivative expressions over each pixel and compute the expansion coefficients of eq.~(\ref{partials}) numerically. Table \ref{tab:B0} shows the forecasted constraints on $B_0$ from LSST and DES combination data obtained using the two methods. The results show a reasonable agreement.
\begin{table}[tbph]
\begin{tabular}{|cc|cc|}
\hline
\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{DES} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{LSST}\\
\hline
Direct & Projection & Direct & Projection \\
\hline
$1.5 \cdot 10^{-6}$ & $2.5 \cdot 10^{-6}$ & $3.1 \cdot 10^{-7}$ & $ 2.4 \cdot 10^{-7}$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Error forecasts for the $B_0$ parameter for DES and LSST in combination with CMB and SNe data.The results for Fisher matrix projection formalism used here is compared to the direct Fisher matrix calculation. }
\label{tab:B0}
\end{table}
One should be careful when working with projection method. For example, the priors used for calculating the covariance matrix for MG pixels ($C_{ij}$ in eq.~(\ref{fisherinfisher})) should be the same as the priors that would be used for a direct fisher analysis for a model. Ideally, the fiducial models should also be the same in both approaches.
As mentioned before, one of the advantages of the PCA approach is that we are able to compress information using only the best principal components. We find that in order to reproduce the errors shown in the ``Projection'' columns of Table~\ref{tab:B0} at about $95$\% precision we only need $\sim 25$\% of the eigenmodes. Such compression of information can be useful, given the increasing volume of cosmological data.
\section{Summary and Outlook}
In this paper we have extended the principal component analysis first performed in~\cite{Zhao:2009fn}.
As shown in previous sections, upcoming and future weak lensing surveys will provide high precision data on the relationships between matter overdensities, curvature of space and the Newtonian potential, offering an unprecedented opportunity to test GR on cosmological scales.
In Section~\ref{sec:formalism} we have introduced the MG functions needed to parametrize the evolution of cosmological perturbations on linear scales. As discussed in~\cite{Pogosian:2010tj}, there is not a unique choice of these functions, and we have presented results for two alternative choices: the pair used in~\cite{Zhao:2009fn}, with $(\mu,\gamma)$ encoding deviations in the Poisson and anisotropy equations, respectively, as well as the pair $(\mu,\Sigma$), with $\Sigma$ in Eq.~(\ref{Sigma}) directly related to the WL potential. The main benefit of using these functions is that they allow for a model-independent test of the growth dynamics on cosmological scales even though they do not necessarily have a simple form in specific models of MG. Quite generally, in fact, they are defined through {\it solutions} of the equations of motion and depend on the choice of the initial conditions; still one can store observable information in these functions in a model independent way, and simply use care when translating the findings on $\mu$ and $\gamma$ into results on the parameters of specific models~\cite{Zuntz:2011aq}. In Sec.~\ref{sec:formalismB} we have given a detailed description of how to perform the two-dimensional PCA of these functions with the aim of offering a useful technical reference for anyone who wishes to apply PCA to modified growth. In the same spirit, we have reviewed the observables and surveys used for our analysis in Sec.~\ref{sec:observables}.
The bulk of the results is presented in Sec.~\ref{sec:mgpca}, where we have analyzed the principal components (eigenmodes) of the MG functions for the combination of WL survey, CMB and SNe experiments detailed in Sec.~\ref{sec:experiments}. As already noted in~\cite{Zhao:2009fn}, the number of well-constrained eigenmodes gives a forecast of how many degrees of freedom describing deviations from GR will be constrained, and is particularly informative when comparing the outcome for different surveys. The shapes of the eigensurfaces indicate the regions of scale and redshift where the surveys under consideration will be most sensitive to departures from GR.
We have given a detailed presentation of the eigenmodes and eigenvalues of the functions $\mu$, $\gamma$, $\Sigma$ as well as of the combination $(\mu,\gamma)$, comparing them and interpreting the differences. We have studied thoroughly the degeneracy between the MG functions and other cosmological parameters by progressively varying and marginalizing over the different parameters. At every step we have interpreted and explained the effects of the marginalizations. Of particular interest is the analysis of the degeneracy with the equation of state. We have found that after marginalizing over the MG functions, the high-z information on $w(z)$ is erased and its best constrained eigenmodes are squeezed towards low redshift; however, as we show in Sec.\ref{sec:w}, the effects of the marginalization are not dramatic and future surveys will have the ability to constrain \emph{both} $w$ and modified growth.
From the comparison of the results for LSST and DES, in Sec.~\ref{des-compare}, we notice that LSST will have overall a higher sensitivity to modified growth and will be more sensitive to time-dependent features. In Sec.~\ref{sec:systematics}, we studied the effects of WL systematics for LSST, and found that the degradation of constraints on MG is not significant, at least of the systematics models we have considered, and especially after one marginalizes over an arbitrary $w(z)$.
Finally, we have shown the utility of the PCA approach as a data compression stage. One can store the information contained in observables in terms of the MG pixels, or the eigenmodes of two functions. One can later use this information to project on to constraints on the parameters of specific models. For example, in Sec.~\ref{sec:projection}, we projected the errors on the MG functions to forecast the error in $B_0$. We have shown that only a fraction of the total number of eigenmodes is needed to obtain this constraint.
The degeneracy between $\mu$ and $\gamma$ or $\Sigma$ can be further broken by adding information from redshift space distortions (RSD) measurements~\cite{Song:2010fg}. It will be interesting to extend our analysis to include RSD for surveys that simultaneously measure lensing and peculiar velocities, such as DESpec and Euclid.
Another direction for future work is to revisit the assumed scale-independence of the galaxy bias. In \cite{Hui:2007zh}, it was shown that a scale-dependent growth necessarily implies a scale-dependent bias on linear scales. In the present analysis, this was effectively encoded in our function $\mu$, but in a future study it may be interesting to include the scale-dependent bias explicitly. In addition to scale-dependent bias, scale-dependent initial conditions are also likely to be degenerate with the MG modes (and probably worse, as they impact lensing as well.)
Arguably, this is a more likely degree of freedom than the MG scale dependence.
Our technique represents a model-independent way of analyzing the power of cosmological surveys to constrain modified growth. In addition to forecasts, it can be applied to current data. For instance, given an array of experiments, one can use a Fisher forecast to first find the eigenmodes, then fit the amplitudes of these modes to real data. Because these modes are expected to be (nearly) orthogonal to each other, it does not matter if one fits them one by one or simultaneously. If any of them is found to deviate from zero significantly, it would constitute a smoking gun for modified gravity. Alternatively, if Fisher forecasted eigenmodes are found to be non-negligibly correlated, it would indicate that the fiducial model assumed in their derivation was
wrong and that a modification is needed. One may also attempt reconstructing $\mu(k,z)$ and $\gamma(k,z)$ from data, using the correlated prior technique introduced in \cite{Crittenden:2005wj, Crittenden:2011aa} for reconstructions of $w(z)$.
\acknowledgments
We acknowledge helpful discussions with Tessa Baker, Pedro Ferreira, Fabian Schmidt, Constantinos Skordis. LP thanks the Institute of Cosmology and Gravitation in Portsmouth for hospitality. The work of AH and LP is supported by an NSERC Discovery Grant. GZ, RC and KK are supported by STFC grant ST/H002774/1. AS is supported by NSF grant No. AST-0708501. KK is also supported by the ERC and the Leverhulme trust.
|
\section*{Introduction}
Galaxies do not evolve in isolation. They interact with other
galaxies and, more subtly, with the gas in their immediate
environments. Mergers of comparable-mass, gas-rich galaxies trigger
star-formation bursts by driving matter into galaxy centers, but
theory predicts that such starbursts are short-lived: the central gas
is rapidly driven away by escaping galactic winds powered by massive
stars and supernova explosions or by a central supermassive black hole
\cite{hopkins06}. Such feedback mechanisms could transform gas-rich
spiral galaxies into poststarburst galaxies \cite{zabludoff96} and
eventually into elliptical-type galaxies with little or no star
formation \cite{synder11}. Mergers are not required to propel galaxy
evolution, however. Even relatively secluded galaxies accrete matter
from the intergalactic medium (IGM), form stars, and drive matter
outflows into their halos or out of the galaxies entirely
\cite{keres09,opp10}. In either case, the competing processes of gas
inflows and outflows are expected to regulate galaxy evolution.
Outflows are evident in some nearby objects
\cite{veilleux05,heckman00,rupke05,martin06} and are ubiquitous in
some types of galaxies
\cite{pettini01,tremonti07,steidel10,rubin10a,hamann99,grimes09};
their speeds can exceed the escape velocity. Nevertheless, their
broader impact on galaxy evolution is poorly understood. First, their
full spatial extent is unknown. Previous studies
\cite{veilleux05,martin06,rubin10b,moe09,dunn10,edmonds11,hamann11,kriss11,capellupo11}
have revealed flows with spatial extents ranging from a few parsecs up
to $\approx 20$ kiloparsecs (kpc). However, because of their low
densities, outer regions of outflows may not have been detected with
previously used techniques, and thus the flows could be much
larger. Second, the total column density and mass of the outflows is
poorly constrained. Previous outflow observations are often limited to
low-resolution spectra of only one or two ions (e.g., Na~{\sc i} or
Mg~{\sc ii}) or rely on composite spectra that cannot yield precise
column densities. Without any constraints on hydrogen (the vast bulk
of the mass) or other elements and ions, these studies are forced to
make highly uncertain assumptions to correct for ionization, elemental
abundances, and depletion of species by dust. Finally, galactic winds
contain multiple phases with a broad range of physical conditions
\cite{veilleux05}, and wind gas in the key temperature range between
10$^{5} - 10^{6}$ K (where radiative cooling is maximized) is too cool
to be observed in X-rays; detection of this so-called ``warm-hot''
phase requires observations in the ultraviolet (UV).
To study the more extended gas around galaxies, including regions
affected by outflows, we used the Cosmic Origins Spectrograph (COS) on
the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) to obtain high-resolution spectra of
the quasistellar object (QSO) PG1206+459 ($z_{\rm QSO} = 1.1625$). By
exploiting absorption lines imprinted on the QSO spectrum by
foreground gaseous material, we can detect the low-density outer
gaseous envelopes of galaxies, regions inaccessible to other
techniques. We focus on far-ultraviolet (FUV) absorption lines at rest
wavelengths $\lambda _{\rm rest} < 912$ \AA. This FUV wavelength
range is rich in diagnostic transitions \cite{verner94}, including the
Ne~{\sc viii} 770.409, 780.324\AA\ doublet, a robust probe of warm-hot
gas, as well as banks of adjacent ionization stages. The sight line
to PG1206+459 pierces an absorption system, at redshift $z_{\rm abs} =
0.927$, that provides insights about galactic outflows. This
absorber has been studied before \cite{ding03}, but previous
observations did not cover Ne~{\sc viii} and could not provide
accurate constraints on {\sc H~i} in the individual absorption
components.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=19.0cm, angle=0]{1209850fig1.eps}
\caption{(Top) Small portion of the Keck HIRES spectrum of
PG1206+459 \cite{ding03}. Tick marks at top indicate components detected at
various velocities in the Mg~\textsc{ii} 2803.53 \AA\ transition. A
velocity scale in the rest frame of the affiliated galaxy 177\_9 is
inset at bottom. Gray indicates a feature not due to Mg~\textsc{ii}
2803.53 \AA . (Bottom) Small portion of the ultraviolet spectrum
of PG1206+459 recorded with the Cosmic Origins Spectrograph (COS) on
HST that shows {\sc H i} Lyman series absorption lines (marked with
ticks and labels) at the redshift of the Mg~\textsc{ii} complex in
the upper panel, including H~\textsc{i} Ly$\zeta$ through Ly$\sigma$
(highest lines are marked but not labeled). \label{fig_llplot}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=19.0cm, angle=0]{1209850fig2.eps}
\caption{Continuum-normalized absorption profiles (black
lines) of various species detected in the Lyman limit/Mg~\textsc{ii}
absorber shown in Figure~\ref{fig_llplot}, plotted in velocity with
respect to the galaxy 177\_9 redshift (i.e., $v = 0$ km s$^{-1}$ at
$z$ = 0.927). Labels below each absorption profile indicate the
species and rest wavelength. We fitted 9 components to the COS and
STIS data \cite{ding03}. Component centroids are indicated by gray
lines, and the Voigt-profile fits are overplotted with red lines
\cite{refsom}. Yellow lines indicate contaminating features from
other redshifts/transitions. The two panels at lower left compare
apparent column density profiles \cite{savage91} of the {\sc N~v}
and Ne~{\sc viii} doublets.\label{spec_stack}}
\end{figure}
This absorber is illustrated in
Figures~\ref{fig_llplot}-\ref{navcompare} including the COS data
\cite{refsom}. The absorber is a ``partial'' Lyman limit (LL) system
(i.e., the higher Lyman series lines are not saturated), which enables
accurate $N$({\sc H~i}) measurement (Fig.~\ref{fig_llplot}). A wide
variety of metals and {\sc H~i} lines are detected in at least 9
components \cite{refsom} spanning a large velocity range from $-317$
to $+1131$ km s$^{-1}$ (Figs.~\ref{fig_llplot}-\ref{spec_stack}). The
Ne~{\sc viii} doublet is unambiguously detected
(Fig.~\ref{spec_stack}) with a total Ne~{\sc viii} column density of
$N$(Ne~{\sc viii}) = $10^{14.9}$ cm$^{-2}$ \cite{refsom}, which is
$\approx 10\times$ higher than any previous $N$(Ne~{\sc viii})
detections in intervening absorbers \cite{savage05,narayanan11}. The
component at +1131 km s$^{-1}$ exceeds $v_{\rm escape}$ of any
individual galaxy, and the other components have very similar
properties to the +1131 km s$^{-1}$ component \cite{refsom},
suggesting a common origin. Whether the other components have $v >
v_{\rm escape}$ depends on the (unknown) potential well, but allowing
for projection effects and noting that the gas is already far from the
affiliated galaxy (see below), several of the other components could
also be escaping. Combined with detection of Ne~{\sc viii}, the
detections of banks of adjacent ions ({\sc N~ii}/{\sc N~iii}/{\sc
N~iv}/{\sc N~v};{\sc O~iii}/{\sc O~iv};{\sc S~iii}/{\sc S~iv}/{\sc
S~v}) place tight constraints on physical conditions of the gas.
Notably, the velocity centroids and profile shapes of lower and higher
ionization stages are quite similar (Figure~\ref{navcompare}).
This strong Ne~{\sc viii}/LL absorber is affiliated with a galaxy near
the QSO sight line \cite{refsom,ding03}. This galaxy, which we refer
to as 177\_9, is the type of galaxy expected to drive a galactic
superwind (Fig.~\ref{galaxy_montage}). Like poststarburst
\cite{tremonti07} and ultraluminous infrared galaxies \cite{chen10},
galaxy 177\_9 is very luminous and blue \cite{refcolor} -- based on M*
from DEEP2 \cite{willmer06}, the galaxy luminosity $L = 1.8 L$*. The
MMT spectrum in Fig.~\ref{galaxy_montage} is also similar to those of
the poststarburst galaxies in \cite{tremonti07}, with higher Balmer
series absorption lines, [O~\textsc{ii}] emission, and [Ne~\textsc{v}]
emission indicative of an AGN \cite{refsom}. Most importantly, the
galaxy has a large impact parameter from the QSO sight line, $\rho$ =
68 kpc \cite{cosmology}, which implies that the gaseous envelope of
177\_9 has a large spatial extent.
The component-to-component similarity of the absorption lines
(Fig.~\ref{navcompare}) suggests a related origin. To further
investigate the nature of this absorber, we have used photoionization
models \cite{ferland98} to derive ionization corrections and elemental
abundances \cite{refsom}. These models indicate that the individual
components have high abundances ranging from $\approx 0.5\times$ to
$3\times$ those in the Sun (Table S2). Such high abundances (or
metallicities) favor an origin in outflowing ejecta enriched by
nucleosynthesis products from stars; at the large impact parameter of
177\_9, corotating outer-disk/halo gas or tidal debris from a low-mass
satellite galaxy would be expected to have much lower
metallicity. Tidal debris from a massive galaxy could have high
metallicity, but we are currently aware of only one luminous galaxy
near the sight line at the absorber redshift \cite{neargalnote};
another luminous galaxy interacting with 177\_9 is not evident. The
absorber could also be intragroup gas, but somehow it must have been
metal enriched, so some type of galactic outflow is implicated in any
case.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=15.0cm, angle=0]{1209850fig3.eps}
\caption{Comparison of apparent column density profiles
\cite{savage91} of the Lyman limit absorber affiliated with galaxy
177\_9. In each panel, the C~\textsc{ii} 687.05 \AA\ profile (black
histogram) is compared to another species (colored circles) as
labeled at upper left; the comparison species profile is also scaled
by the factor in parentheses following the species label. Gray lines
indicate regions contaminated by unrelated absorption. As in
Figure~\ref{spec_stack}, $v = 0$ km s$^{-1}$ at $z$ =
0.927.\label{navcompare}}
\end{figure}
The photoionization models also constrain the total hydrogen column
(i.e., {\sc H~i} + {\sc H~ii}), and combined with $r \geq 68$ kpc,
this allows mass estimates. Using fiducial thin-shell models
\cite{refsom}, we find that the mass of cool, photoionized gas in
individual components ranges from $0.6\times 10^{8} - 14\times 10^{8}$
solar masses. However, photoionization fails (sometimes by orders of
magnitude) to produce enough S~\textsc{v}, N~\textsc{v}, and
Ne~~\textsc{viii}; these species must arise in hot gas at $T > 10^{5}$
K. Using equilibrium and non-equilibrium collision ionization models
\cite{refsom}, we find that the warm-hot gas contains much more mass
than the cold gas, with individual components harboring $10\times
10^{8} - 400\times 10^{8} M_{\odot}$ in hot material. These are rough
estimates with many uncertainties. For example, if the absorption
arises in thin filaments analogous to those seen in starburst galaxies
\cite{veilleux05} or AGN bubbles \cite{fabian08}, the cold-gas mass
could reduce to $\approx 10^{6} M_{\odot}$ per component. However, as
in the thin-shell models, the warm-hot gas could harbor 10-150$\times$
more mass in such filaments \cite{refsom}. In either case (shells or
filaments), given the similarity of the cold and warm-hot absorption
lines (Fig.~\ref{navcompare}), the Ne~\textsc{viii}-bearing plasma
must be a transitional phase that links the colder and hotter material
and thus provides insights on the outflow physics. The
Ne~\textsc{viii}/N~\textsc{v} phase is not photoionized, so it must be
generated through interaction of the cold gas with a hotter ambient
medium analogous to X-ray emitting regions seen in nearby galaxies.
How this occurs is an open question; the absorbers could be material
cooling from the hot phase down to the cool gas, or the cool clouds
could have a hotter and more ionized surface that is evaporating.
Low-density plasma in the $T = 10^{5} - 10^{6}$ K range has been
effectively hidden from most outflow studies. In principle, the
O~\textsc{vi} 1032,1038 \AA\ doublet can reveal such gas, but it is
unclear whether the O~\textsc{vi} arises in photoionized $10^{4}$ K
gas, hotter material at $\approx 10^{5.5}$ K, or both \cite{tripp08}.
The Ne~\textsc{viii} doublet avoids this ambiguity, and we have found
that this warm-hot matter is a substantial component in the mass
inventory of a galactic wind. Moreover, this wind has a large spatial
extent, and the mass carried away by the outflow will affect the
evolution of the galaxy. While earlier studies of poststarburst
outflows focused on Mg~\textsc{ii} and could not precisely constrain
the metallicity, hydrogen column, and mass, these studies do indicate
that poststarburst outflows are common: 22/35 of the poststarbursts in
\cite{tremonti09} showed outflowing Mg~{\sc ii} absorption with
maximum (radial) velocities of 500$-$2400 km s$^{-1}$, similar to the
absorption near 177\_9 (Figure~\ref{fig_llplot}), and 77\% and 100\%
of the poststarburst and AGN galaxies, respectively, in \cite{coil11}
drive outflows but with lower maximum velocities, which may be due to
selection of wind-driving galaxies in a later evolutionary stage.
With existing COS data, the effects of large-scale outflows on galaxy
evolution can be studied with the techniques presented here but with
larger samples \cite{tumlinson11}, with which it will be possible to statistically track how
outflows affect galaxies.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=15.0cm, angle=0]{1209850fig4.eps}
\caption{Montage of observations of the galaxy at $z_{\rm
gal} = 0.927$ that drives a large-scale outflow of metal-enriched
plasma. The galaxy, and the background QSO which reveals the outflow
via absorption spectroscopy, is shown in the upper-left panel in a
multicolor image obtained with the Large Binocular Telescope. This
galaxy, which we refer to as 177\_9, is the red object 8.63
arcseconds south of the bright QSO PG1206+459 ($z_{\rm QSO} =
1.1625$) at a position angle of 177$^{\circ}$ (N through E) from the
QSO. At the galaxy redshift, the angular separation from the QSO
sight line corresponds to an impact parameter of 68 kpc. The large
red circle in the upper-right panel indicates the rest-frame U-B
color and absolute B magnitude of 177\_9 compared to all galaxies
from the DEEP2 survey (grayscale, {\it 30}) and DEEP2 galaxies within
$\pm$0.05 of $z$(177\_9) (cyan points). The small purple circles
show poststarburst galaxies from \cite{tremonti07}. The lower panel
shows an MMT optical spectrum of 177\_9 (upper trace) with its
$1\sigma$ uncertainty (lower trace). The strong feature at $\approx
7600$ \AA\ is partially due to telluric
absorption.\label{galaxy_montage}}
\end{figure}
\vspace{0.5cm}
\noindent {\bf Supporting Online Material:} \\
Figs. S1 to S5 \\
Tables S1 to S2 \\
References (40-54) \\
\begin{table*}
\scriptsize
\centering
{\normalsize Table S1: Column Densities in the $z_{\rm abs}$ = 0.927 Absorption System of PG1206+459} \\
\begin{tabular}{llcccc}
\hline \hline
Species & Fitted & \multicolumn{4}{c}{log [Column Density (cm $^{-2}$)]} \\
\ & Transitions (\AA ) & \multicolumn{4}{c}{(component velocity centroid, km s$^{-1}$)} \\
\hline
\multicolumn{6}{c}{Component Group A ($-450 < v < 0$ km s$^{-1}$)} \\
\hline
\ & \ & (-317) & (-247) & (-162) & (-88) \\
{\sc H i} & Ly$\alpha$, Ly$\zeta$, Ly$\eta$ & 14.96$\pm$0.11 & 15.42$\pm$0.03 & 15.39$\pm$0.04 & 15.28$\pm$0.04 \\
{\sc C ii} & 687.05, 1334.53 & 13.65$\pm$0.03 & 13.83$\pm$0.03 & 13.80$\pm$0.05 & 13.51$\pm$ 0.04 \\
{\sc N ii} & 644.63 & 12.71$\pm$0.25 & 13.50$\pm$0.08 & 13.09$\pm$0.13 & 13.01$\pm$ 0.14 \\
Mg~{\sc ii} & 2796.35, 2803.53 & 11.93$\pm$0.03 & 12.47$\pm$0.02 & 12.36$\pm$0.01 & 12.16$\pm$0.02 \\
Si~{\sc ii} & 1190.42,1193.29,1260.42,1526.71 & 12.25$\pm$0.14 & 12.24$\pm$0.17 & 12.52$\pm$0.08 & 12.43$\pm$0.11 \\
{\sc N iii} & 685.00, 763.34 & 14.50$\pm$0.02 & 14.42$\pm$0.03 & 14.20$\pm$0.04 & 14.02$\pm$0.05 \\
{\sc O iii} & 702.33 & $\geq$14.65 & $\geq$14.65 & $\geq$14.52 & $\geq$14.55 \\
{\sc S iii} & 698.73, 724.29 & 13.17$\pm$0.03 & 13.21$\pm$0.03 & 13.19$\pm$0.03 & 12.88$\pm$0.06 \\
{\sc N iv} & 765.15 & $\geq$14.24 & $\geq$14.37 & $\geq$14.14 & $\geq$14.06 \\
{\sc O iv} & 787.71 & $\geq$14.91 & $\geq$14.88 & $\geq$14.82 & $\geq$14.86 \\
Si~{\sc iv} & 1393.76, 1402.77 & 13.00$\pm$0.04 & 12.94$\pm$0.05 & 13.05$\pm$0.09 & 13.16$\pm$0.04 \\
{\sc S iv} & 657.34 & 13.20$\pm$0.03 & 13.25$\pm$0.03 & (blended) & (blended) \\
{\sc N v} & 1238.82, 1242.80 & 14.30$\pm$0.04 & 14.30$\pm$0.05 & 13.40$\pm$0.18 & 13.96$\pm$0.08 \\
{\sc S v} & 786.48 & 12.88$\pm$0.03 & 12.84$\pm$0.03 & 12.67$\pm$0.05 & 12.31$\pm$0.08 \\
Ne~{\sc viii}& 770.41, 780.32 & 13.71$\pm$0.29 & 14.04$\pm$0.08 & (not detected) & 14.07$\pm$0.04 \\
Mg~{\sc x} & 624.95 & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$\longleftarrow \ \ \ <14.04 \ \ \ \longrightarrow $} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$\longleftarrow \ \ \ <13.94 \ \ \ \longrightarrow $} \\
\hline
\multicolumn{6}{c}{Component Group B ($0 < v < 300$ km s$^{-1}$)} \\
\hline
\ & \ & (65) & (+108) & (+159) & \\
{\sc H i} & Ly$\alpha$, Ly$\zeta$, Ly$\eta$, Ly$\nu$ & 16.28$\pm$0.13 & 16.76$\pm$0.08 & 16.32$\pm$0.07 & \ \\
{\sc C ii} & 687.05, 1334.53 & $\geq$14.10 & $\geq$14.36 & 13.88$\pm$0.07 & \ \\
{\sc N ii} & 644.63 & 14.01$\pm$0.04 & 14.04$\pm$0.05 & 13.62$\pm$0.12 & \ \\
Mg~{\sc ii} & 2796.35, 2803.53 & 13.39$\pm$0.03 & 13.36$\pm$0.01 & 12.84$\pm$0.01 & \ \\
Si~{\sc ii} & 1190.42,1193.29,1260.42,1526.71 & 13.50$\pm$0.12 & 13.39$\pm$0.04 & 13.06$\pm$0.09 & \\
{\sc N iii} & 763.34 & 14.64$\pm$0.04 & 14.54$\pm$0.13 & 14.65$\pm$0.12 & \\
{\sc O iii} & 702.33 & (saturated) & (saturated) & (saturated) & \\
{\sc S iii} & 698.73, 724.29 & 13.62$\pm$0.04 & 13.58$\pm$0.04 & 13.66$\pm$0.03 & \\
{\sc N iv} & 765.15 & (saturated) & (saturated) & (saturated) & \\
{\sc O iv} & 608.40, 787.71 & (saturated) & (saturated) & (saturated) \\
Si~{\sc iv} & 1393.76, 1402.77 & 13.32$\pm$0.03 & 13.28$\pm$0.04 & 13.47$\pm$0.03 & \\
{\sc S iv} & 657.34 & 13.47$\pm$0.04 & 13.13$\pm$0.09 & 13.66$\pm$0.04 & \\
{\sc N v} & 1238.82, 1242.80 & 13.93$\pm$0.06 & 13.94$\pm$0.10 & 13.84$\pm$0.11 & \\
{\sc S v} & 786.48 & 12.93$\pm$0.04 & (blended) & (blended) & \\
Ne~{\sc viii}& 770.41, 780.32 & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$ \longleftarrow \ \ 14.53 \pm 0.04 \ \ \longrightarrow$ } & 14.21$\pm$0.05 \\
Mg~{\sc x} & 624.95 & \multicolumn{3}{c}{$\longleftarrow \ \ \ <14.20 \ \ \ \longrightarrow $} & \\
\hline
\multicolumn{6}{c}{Component Group C ($1000 < v < 1250$ km s$^{-1}$)} \\
\hline
\ & \ & (+1084) & (+1131) & \ & \\
{\sc H i} & Ly$\alpha$, Ly$\zeta$, Ly$\iota$, Ly$\xi$ & 15.02$\pm$0.16 & 15.93$\pm$0.03 & \ & \\
{\sc C ii} & 687.05 & 12.92$\pm$0.14 & 13.58$\pm$0.04 & \ & \ \\
{\sc N ii} & 644.63 & (blended) & (blended) & \ & \\
Mg~{\sc ii} & 2796.35, 2803.53 & $< 11.37$ & 12.10$\pm$0.04 & \ & \\
Si~{\sc ii} & 1190.42,1193.29,1260.42,1526.71 & $< 12.37$ & 12.53$\pm$0.12 & \ & \\
{\sc N iii} & 685.00, 763.34 & (blended) & (blended) & \ & \\
{\sc O iii} & 702.33 & 13.48$\pm$0.09 & $\geq$14.64 & \ & \\
{\sc S iii} & 698.73, 724.29 & $< 12.33$ & 13.55$\pm$0.03 & \ & \\
{\sc N iv} & 765.15 & 12.53$\pm$0.12 & 13.59$\pm$0.02 & \ & \\
{\sc O iv} & 608.40, 787.71 & 13.95$\pm$0.05 & $\geq$15.02 & \ & \\
Si~{\sc iv} & 1393.76, 1402.77 & (not detected) & 13.63$\pm$0.05 & \ & \\
{\sc S iv} & 657.34 & 12.18$\pm$0.35 & 13.30$\pm$0.03 & \ & \\
{\sc N v} & 1238.82, 1242.80 & $< 13.49$ & $< 13.56$ & \ & \\
{\sc S v} & 786.48 & 11.87$\pm$0.32 & 13.03$\pm$0.03 & \ & \\
Ne~{\sc viii}& 770.41, 780.32 & 13.30$\pm$0.27 & 13.78$\pm$0.09 & \ & \\
Mg~{\sc x} & 624.95 & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$\longleftarrow \ \ \ <14.08 \ \ \ \longrightarrow $} & \ & \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
\paragraph*{Data reduction and column density measurements.}
We have reduced the Cosmic Origins Spectrograph observations of
PG1206+459 as described in \cite{meiring11}, including careful
alignment of individual exposures (which are intentionally offset on
the detector to reduce the effects of fixed-pattern noise),
flatfielding, and direct determination of uncertainties from the source
and background counts (COS has a photon-counting detector). The default COS data are highly oversampled,
so we binned the spectra to Nyquist sampling of the 15 km s$^{-1}$
spectral resolution of the instrument.
Our column-density measurements are summarized in Table~S1. A
unique aspect of the HST/COS data presented in this paper is the
coverage of lines in the rest-frame far-ultraviolet (FUV) at
wavelengths between 600 \AA\ and 912 \AA . These lines cannot be
observed in the Milky Way because interstellar hydrogen completely
absorbs light at these wavelengths from any sources beyond a small
region around the Sun. This is unfortunate because the FUV is rich in
spectral diagnostics of physical conditions and gas composition
(\textit{23}). Indeed, these lines are rarely observed in any
astrophysical context, although they are powerful tools for solar
physics. To access these diagnostics, we use quasars to search for
absorption lines at redshifts $z >$ 0.5 so that the FUV transitions
are redshifted into the standard HST bandpass ($\lambda _{\rm HST} >
1150$ \AA ). For example, $z_{\rm abs} >$ 0.5 redshifts the Ne~{\sc
viii} 770.41,780.32 \AA\ doublet into the wavelength range
observable with HST. In principle, these lines can be studied from
the ground for sufficiently high $z_{\rm abs}$ systems, but in
practice this is extremely difficult because the ``Ly$\alpha$ forest''
imprints hundreds of closely spaced absorption lines on the spectrum
at such high redshifts and makes detailed analysis of FUV metal lines
very difficult. More importantly, high-redshift QSO sightlines have a
high probability of encountering an optically thick Lyman limit
absorber that completely absorbs the QSO flux in the rest-frame FUV
range. Consequently, we have elected to study FUV absorption lines at
$z_{\rm abs} <$ 1.5, which cannot be observed from the ground but are
in a redshift range where the Ly$\alpha$ forest is much thinner,
blending is less common, and optically thick LL systems are rare (even
in this redshift range, some blending with interloping lines from
other redshifts occurs, as can be seen from Figure~2). Accordingly,
we have targeted QSOs at $z_{\rm QSO} \approx 1 - 1.5$ in order to
have a large total redshift path over which to search for the
Ne~\textsc{viii} doublet and the other FUV lines. Spectrographs on
the HST before COS and on the Far Ultraviolet Spectroscopic Explorer
generally could not target QSOs at $z \gg 0.5$ because they are mostly
too faint to observe with those instruments in practical exposure
times. Consequently, the Ne~\textsc{viii} doublet has been only
rarely detected ({\it 27}), and some of the lines in Table~S1 have
never been seen in interstellar or intergalactic contexts.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=9.0cm, angle=0]{1209850figS1.eps}
{Figure S1: (Top) The apparent column density profiles
(\textit{28}) of Ne~{\sc viii} 780 \AA\ (black lines)
and Ne~{\sc viii} 770 \AA\ (red lines with dots) before
the 780 \AA\ line is corrected for a blend with {\sc H~i} Ly$\gamma$
at $z_{\rm abs}$ = 0.55137. The smooth blue line shows a model of
the Ly$\gamma$ line, based on the well-detected {\sc H~i} Ly$\beta$
and Ly$\epsilon$ lines at the same redshift (Ly$\delta$ is lost in a
strong blend). (Bottom) By correcting the data with the
H~\textsc{i} Ly$\gamma$ model, the {\sc H~i} blend is effectively
removed, and the residual profile of Ne~{\sc viii} 780
\AA\ is found to be in excellent agreement with 770 \AA .}
\end{figure}
To overcome the occasional blending problem, we use two strategies to
measure column densities. First, we use as many transitions as
possible to constrain a given species by simultaneously fitting Voigt
profiles to all of the lines. For example, we simultaneously fit the
{\sc S~iii} lines at 698.73 and 724.29 \AA\ (in principle, we could
also fit the {\sc S~iii} line at 677.75 \AA , but this line is
redshifted into a region that is badly affected by {\sc O~i} emission
from the Earth's exosphere, and at the time of this writing, the COS
data reduction software could not exclude that contamination). In
velocity ranges where one transition is affected by a strong blend,
that velocity range is masked out in the problematic line but is still
constrained by the other transitions used in the fit. Second, in some
cases we can estimate the strength of the blended interloper and
divide it out of the profile of interest. An example of this
technique is shown in Figure~S1. The upper panel of this figure
compares the apparent column density profiles ({\it 28}) of the
Ne~{\sc viii} 770.41,780.32 \AA\ lines in the component at $v = +1131$
km s$^{-1}$. In this component, the Ne~{\sc viii} 780.32 \AA\ line is
blended with an {\sc H~i} Ly$\gamma$ line at $z_{\rm abs} =
0.55137$. Fortunately, the {\sc H~i} Ly$\beta$ and Ly$\epsilon$ lines
are also clearly detected at $z_{\rm abs} = 0.55137$, and by fitting
the Ly$\beta$ and Ly$\epsilon$ transitions, we can predict the
strength of the Ly$\gamma$ line and remove it from the blend with the
Ne~{\sc viii} 780.32 \AA\ profile. The Ly$\gamma$ line modeled in
this way is shown with a smooth blue line in the upper panel of
Figure~S1, and the lower panel of Figure~S1 shows the Ne~{\sc viii}
780.32 \AA\ profile after the correction for the Ly$\gamma$ blend has
been applied. In the lower panel the two Ne~{\sc viii} apparent column
density profiles are in excellent agreement. We have used similar
modeling to correct for the {\sc H~i} Ly$\beta$ line at $z_{\rm abs}$
= 0.46435, which is somewhat blended with the Ne~{\sc viii} 780.32
\AA\ line in the component at $v = -317$ km s$^{-1}$.
With this approach, we have measured the column densities of a wide
array of low- , intermediate- , and high-ionization metals in the
PG1206+459 absorption system at $z_{\rm abs}$ = 0.927, and our column
density measurements are listed in Table~S1. For convenience in
comparisons with previous work (\textit{24}), we divide the components
into the three groups they defined (groups A, B, and C). We fit nine
components, the maximum number we can effectively constrain with free
fits to the COS data (four components in group A, three in group B,
and two in group C). In some cases, the lines are so strong that
saturation precludes a useful column density measurement, and in these
cases we simply indicate that the component is ``saturated'' in
Table~S1. In other cases, the lines are strong enough to be
moderately saturated but at a level that can be inferred from the
profile shapes, especially when multiple lines of varying strength are
fitted simultaneously. In these cases we report the column density
indicated by profile fitting in Table~S1, but we indicate the line as
a lower limit because the profile fitting may still suffer significant
systematic uncertainty due to saturation.
\paragraph*{Properties of the affiliated galaxy.}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=8.00cm, angle=0]{1209850figS2a.eps}
\includegraphics[width=8.00cm, angle=0]{1209850figS2b.eps}
{Figure S2: Expanded views of portions of the MMT spectrum of galaxy
177\_9 from Figure~4 including (a) the region of
the spectrum near the [Ne~\textsc{v}] lines at 3345.8 and 3425.9 \AA
, and (b) the region near the [O~\textsc{ii}] emission at 3727
\AA\ and [Ne~\textsc{iii}] emission at 3868.8 \AA . As in
Figure~4, the upper histogram shows the flux from
the galaxy and the lower histogram shows the 1$\sigma$ flux
uncertainty.}
\end{figure}
The MMT spectrum of galaxy 177\_9 (Figure~4), shows
highly significant [O~\textsc{ii}] emission along with a 4$\sigma$
emission feature that we identify as the [Ne~\textsc{v}] 3426
\AA\ transition. This [Ne~\textsc{v}] 3426 emission is often a
signature of an active galactic nucleus \cite{shields10}; however, it
is expected to be accompanied by weaker [Ne~\textsc{v}] and
[Ne~\textsc{iii}] emission features at 3346 and 3869
\AA\ \cite{shields10}. These weaker emission features are not
immediately obvious in Figure~4, which calls the
[Ne~\textsc{v}] 3426 identification into question. However, as we
show in Figure~S2, the weaker neon emission lines are confused by
ambiguous continuum placement as well as the intrinsic noisiness of
the spectrum. A weak feature is evident at the expected wavelength of
[Ne~\textsc{v}] $\lambda$3346 (Figure~S2a). The significance of this
feature depends on where the galaxy continuum is drawn in, but it is
expected to be a factor of $\sim$3 weaker than [Ne~\textsc{v}]
$\lambda$3426 and thus is consistent with the stronger [Ne~\textsc{v}]
line. The [Ne~\textsc{iii}] $\lambda$3869 line (Figure~S2b) is nested
between absorption lines and is close to the 4000 \AA\ break as well
as a strong telluric absorption feature. The complexity of this
spectral region, combined with noise, makes the continuum placement
highly uncertain, and a [Ne~\textsc{iii}] $\lambda$3869 feature with
the expected strength could easily be present. Given the good
agreement of the [Ne~\textsc{v}] $\lambda$3426 and [O~\textsc{ii}]
$\lambda$3727 features, we conclude that the [Ne~\textsc{v}]
$\lambda$3426 identification is reliable. In turn, this implies that
the [O~\textsc{ii}] $\lambda$3727 emission might not be a suitable
indicator of the star formation rate in 177\_9 because the
[O~\textsc{ii}] could be predominantly due to the AGN emission-line
region \cite{abel08,yan06}.
While it is interesting that the spectral features, high luminosity,
and blue rest-frame color of galaxy 177\_9 are similar to those of
poststarburst galaxies ({\it 11,37}), we caution that its
color and spectral features are noisy, and it is necessary to reduce
these uncertainties to reliably classify the galaxy. The galaxy color
is uncertain because it is derived from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey
(SDSS) photometry of this object, and the galaxy is close to the SDSS
detection limit. Unfortunately, the LBT images were not obtained in
conditions suitable for photometry. For comparison with the DEEP2
galaxy color-magnitude diagram (Figure~4), we have
transformed the SDSS photometry of 177\_9 into a rest-frame U-B color
using the K-correction and methods of (\textit{29}), and this
introduces some systematic uncertainty. However, the poststarburst
galaxies from (\textit{11}) shown in Figure~4
were transformed from SDSS filters to rest-frame U-B in an identical
fashion, and the offset of these poststarburst galaxies from the
``blue cloud'' of ordinary galaxies is similar to the offset seen in
SDSS filters directly (\textit{37}). Deeper photometry of 177\_9
would help to elucidate its nature.
We also note that another bright galaxy, apart from 177\_9, is evident
close to the PG1206+459 sight line (the yellow object northwest of the
QSO in Fig.~4). We obtained an MMT spectrum of this
galaxy, but unfortunately the spectrum does not reliably constrain its
redshift. However, the absence of features in the wavelength range of
the MMT spectrum, the angular extent of this galaxy, and its color
suggest that it has $z \ll$ 0.927. This conclusion is corroborated by
the photometric redshifts of this object from the SDSS database, which
range from $z_{\rm phot} = 0.21$ \cite{csabai03} to $z_{\rm phot} =
0.43$ \cite{oyaizu08}.
\paragraph*{Ionization, metallicity, and mass: cool phase.}
We obtain accurate {\sc H~i} measurements from the Lyman series lines
(Figs.~1$-$2). The {\sc H~i} column
densities are not high enough to prevent photoionization by the UV
background light. Consequently, to estimate the total mass we apply
standard photoionization models to account for the ionized hydrogen
({\sc H~ii}) using CLOUDY, v8.0 (\textit{33}). We assume the gas is
photoionized by the diffuse UV background from quasars \cite{haardt96}
and require the models to match the observed $N$({\sc H~i}), $N$({\sc
S~iii}), and $N$({\sc S~iv}) on a component-by-component basis. We
prefer {\sc S~iii} and {\sc S~iv} because sulfur does not deplete onto
dust and the lines are weak enough so that they are not confused by
unresolved saturation. Some components are blended with unrelated
lines from other redshifts, but we account for blends (and in some
cases remove them) by employing multiple transitions (see above). We
characterize the models by the ionization parameter ($\equiv$ ionizing
photon density/particle density), which is adjusted to fit the {\sc
S~iii}/{\sc S~iv} ratio, and then the metallicity is adjusted to fit
the observed column densities with $N$(H~\textsc{i}) fixed to the
observed value. We have modeled the components at $v = -317,-247,65,$
and 1131 km s$^{-1}$ (the components with good {\sc S~iii}/{\sc S~iv}
measurements); examples of the models and results are shown in
Figure~S3. We do not expect these models to fit perfectly -- there are
many uncertain model parameters such as the shape and intensity of the
UV background, the relative abundance patterns (we assume the solar
pattern), and confusion due to dust depletion. Given these caveats,
the models (Figure~S3) compare reasonably well to the observations --
with the ionization parameter fixed by {\sc S~iii}/{\sc S~iv}, most of
the remaining low- and intermediate-ionization stages agree with the
models to within 0.3 -- 0.5 dex. We obtain several robust results:
First, while the metallicity is uncertain by $\approx 0.3$ dex due to
radiation field uncertainties, the gas must be highly enriched
(Table~S2). Second, the observed Ne~{\sc viii}, {\sc N~v}, and {\sc
S~v} columns are significantly higher (in some cases, by orders of
magnitude) than predicted by the photoionization models. These species
must arise in a separate, higher ionization phase. Third, the models
require high total hydrogen ({\sc H~i} + {\sc H~ii}) columns even with
high metallicities, and this in turn implies large masses.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=11.5cm, angle=0]{1209850figS3.eps}
{Figure S3: Comparison of the observed column densities in
two of the absorber components to predictions from a CLOUDY
(\textit{33}) photoionization model. The columns show results for
the components at (a) $-317$ km s$^{-1}$, and (b) +1131 km s$^{-1}$.
In each panel, the column densities predicted by the model are shown
with smooth curves and the observed columns are plotted with
discrete symbols at the ionization parameter that provides the best
fit to the observed {\sc S~iii} and {\sc S~iv} column
densities. Some species (e.g., N~\textsc{iv}, N~\textsc{v},
S~\textsc{v}, Ne~\textsc{viii}) do not agree with the models due to
contributions from the hot-gas phase (Figure~S5). The
species corresponding to the curves and discrete symbols are
indicated by the legends in column (a). Column density uncertainties
are usually smaller than the symbol sizes. The
underabundance of Mg~\textsc{ii} and Si~\textsc{ii} in (b) could be
due to dust, which depletes these species, but these ions are
sensitive to the shape of the ionizing flux field.}
\end{figure}
We can obtain a rough estimate of the mass ($M$) in the outflowing
components using a standard thin-shell model \cite{rupke05b}: $M = \mu
m_{p} N_{\bot}({\rm H})_{\rm total} \Omega r^{2}$, where $r$ is the
shell radius ($\geq$ impact parameter = 68 kpc), $N_{\bot}({\rm
H})_{\rm total}$ is the total H column perpendicular to the shell
surface, $\Omega$ is the shell solid angle, $m_{p}$ is the proton
mass, and $\mu = 1.3$ accounts for the additional mass of helium. To
calculate $\Omega$, we assume the outflow full opening angle $\theta$
ranges between 45 and 135$^{\circ}$ as observed in nearby starburst
and AGN outflows (\textit{6}). Unlike many previous studies, we
are not observing a sight line directly toward the galaxy that
launches the outflow, so me must convert our observed total hydrogen
column densities (along the line of sight) into $N_{\bot}({\rm
H})_{\rm total}$. To make this conversion, we adopt the simplified
geometry shown in Figure~S4. We detect absorption at both negative and
positive velocities with respect to the galaxy
(Figure~2), and despite the large velocity separation,
the positive- and negative-velocity gas has similar properties. This
can be understood if we are detecting the front and back sides of a
biconical outflow, as illustrated in Figure~S4, but this requires that
the sight line is roughly parallel to the outflow axis (or else only
the front or back side shell would be detected, but not both). In
this situation, if the sight line to the background QSO is at large
enough impact parameter ($\rho$), it will not penetrate the shells and
no absorption will be detected (position A in Figure~S4). At the
maximum impact parameter that intercepts the shells (position B), we
see that $r = \rho / sin (\theta /2)$ and $N_{\bot}$(H) = $N$(H)$_{\rm
total}$\ cos ($\theta$/2). As the sight line is moved to smaller
impact parameters (e.g., position C), $r$ will increase and
$N$(H)$_{\rm total}$ $\longrightarrow N_{\bot}$(H), both of which will
increase the mass compared the value calculated assuming the sight
line is at position B. Thus, by calculating the mass assuming the
sight line is near position B, we derive a lower limit. With these
assumptions, we obtain the $N_{\bot}$(H) values and masses summarized
in Table~S2 for the cool (low-ionization) phase.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=9.0cm, angle=90]{1209850figS4.eps}
{Figure S4: Schematic sketch of the simplified geometry assumed to
roughly estimate shell mass. We assume that the sight line to the
background QSO is roughly parallel to the outflow axis so that the
front and back sides of the biconical outflow are intercepted by the
sight line. We assume that the shells are at the cone caps, so an
observer at position A would not detect the outflow because that
sight line does not intercept the bicone. Position B represents the
maximum impact parameter that pierces the shell, and at this
position, $N_{\bot}$(H) = $N$(H)$_{\rm total}$\ cos ($\theta$/2),
where $\theta$ is the full opening angle. As the observer moves from
position B toward position C and toward viewing the galaxy directly,
$N$(H)$_{\rm total}$ $\longrightarrow N_{\bot}$(H), and $r$
increases, both of which increase the calculated mass in the shell.
Therefore, the mass calculated assuming position B provides a lower
limit on the true mass.}
\end{figure}
\begin{table*}
\scriptsize
\centering
{\normalsize Table S2: Metallicities (Elemental Abundances) and Thin-Shell Masses
of Individual Components in the Absorption Line
System}
\begin{tabular}{llccccccc}
\hline \hline
\ & \multicolumn{4}{c}{\underline{ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ Cool Phase \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ }} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{\underline{ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ Hot Phase \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ }} \\
Component & \ & \ & \multicolumn{2}{c}{(Thin-shell model)} & \ & \multicolumn{2}{c}{(Thin-shell model)} & Gas \\
Velocity & Metallicity & log $N$(H)$_{\rm total}$ & log $N_{\bot}$(H)$_{\rm total}$ & Mass & log $N$(H)$_{\rm total}$ & log $N_{\bot}$(H)$_{\rm total}$ & Mass & Temperature \\
(km s$^{-1}$) & \ & \ & \ & ($10^{8} M_{\odot}$) & \ & \ & ($10^{8} M_{\odot}$) & ($10^{5}$ K) \\ \hline
$-317$ & 3 $Z_{\rm solar}$ & 18.0 & 17.6$-$18.0 & 0.6$-$1 & 19.2$-$19.8 & 18.8$-$19.8 & 10$-$80 & $2.2 - 3.8$ \\
$-247$ & 1 $Z_{\rm solar}$ & 18.5 & 18.1$-$18.5 & 2$-$4 & 20.1$-$20.4 & $19.7 - 20.3$ & $80-300$ & $3.3 - 4.0$ \\
$+65$ & 0.5 $Z_{\rm solar}$ & 19.1 & 18.7$-$19.1 & 8$-$14 & 20.4$-$20.5 & $19.9 - 20.5$ & $100-400$ & $4.2 - 4.5$ \\
$+1131$ & 1 $Z_{\rm solar}$ & 18.6 & 18.2$-$18.6 & 3$-$5 & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
Of course, this model is highly simplified compared to the complex
situation that is likely in real outflows. For example, the schematic
sight lines in Figure~S4 could be tilted toward the galaxy somewhat,
and front- and back-side absorption would still be detected. However,
the sight line must have an impact parameter of 68 kpc, so as it is
tilted toward the galaxy, the radius becomes larger and $N$(H)$_{\rm
total}$ $\longrightarrow N_{\bot}$(H), so our mass calculations are
still lower limits in this situation. More importantly, the geometry
of the outflowing material could be completely different from thin
shells. If the absorption arises in a context similar to the multiple
bubbles and filaments seen near some AGN in the nearby universe
\cite{blanton03,fabian11} or the multifilament outflows extending away
from the disks of nearby starburst galaxies (\textit{6}), then the
geometry is much more complex, although the absorption could still
originate in a thin shell or filament. In filaments, the mass could
be substantially lower. For example, the optical filaments of NGC1275
are long and skinny with dimensions of 0.07 kpc by 6 kpc (\textit{35})
and thus have a cold-gas mass $\approx 10^{6} M_{\odot}$. However, as
discussed below, the total column density and mass in the
Ne~\textsc{viii} phase is substantially higher than the cold-gas mass.
The network of optical filaments centered on NGC1275 extend up to
$\approx 70$ kpc from the galaxy \cite{conselice01}, so the scale of
NGC1275 emission is similar to the scale of the absorption near galaxy
177\_9. The complex velocity distribution of the absorption lines
near 177\_9 (Figure~1 - 2) -- with more components at negative
velocities than positive velocities -- could arise naturally in a set
of bubbles, shells, and filaments like those surrounding NGC1275. We
note that magnetic fields have been suggested to stabilize the skinny
filaments of NGC1275 (\textit{35}) as well as many other central
cluster galaxies \cite{mcdonald10} and starburst galaxies
(\textit{6}). It would be interesting to consider whether
magnetically confined gas could prevent the low- and high-ionization
gas from developing different kinematics and thus explain the striking
similarity and alignment of the low- and high-ionization lines in the
PG1206+459 absorber (Figure~3).
At this time, many configurations and models remain viable for the
absorption affiliated with 177\_9, so the thin-shell masses in
Table~S2 should be viewed as order-of-magnitude
calculations, but it is interesting to note that even though there are
large uncertainties, the absorbing gas is likely to contain substantial mass.
It is also possible to consider thick shells and clumping of the gas
within the shells \cite{rupke05b}, but more detailed observational
constraints must be obtained for such models.
\paragraph*{Ionization and mass: hot phase.}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=11.5cm, angle=0]{1209850figS5.eps}
{Figure S5: (a) Comparison of the observed N~\textsc{v},
S~\textsc{v}, and Ne~\textsc{viii} column densities to predictions
from equilibrium and nonequilibrium collisional ionization models.
Observed columns are plotted with discrete symbols at the
temperature that provides the best fit to the models, which are
shown with smooth curves. Species corresponding to the symbols and
curves are indicated in the legend at upper left. The left column
shows fits for the component at $v = -317$ km s$^{-1}$ for the
following models \cite{gnat07}: (a) nonequilibrium ionization in
plasma that is rapidly and isochorically cooling (i.e., at constant
density) from an initial temperature of $5 \times 10^{6}$ K, (b)
same but for isobaric (constant pressure) nonequilibrium cooling
gas, and (c) collisional ionization equilibrium. Panels (d) -- (f)
show the same models for the component at $v = -247$ km s$^{-1}$.
In both components, Mg~\textsc{x} is not detected, and a 3$\sigma$
upper limit is shown.}
\end{figure}
We see from Fig.~S3 that the observed N~\textsc{v} and Ne~{\sc viii}
must arise from a more highly ionized and hotter phase than the low
ions. The strong correlation between the velocity centroids and
profile shapes of the low- and high-ions suggest a physical
connection; the highly ionized species may arise in the
evaporating/ablating surface of the outflowing cool clouds or,
conversely, the cool clouds may be rapidly cooling and condensing out
of the hot outflow. Some of the intermediate ions (N~\textsc{iv},
O~\textsc{iv}, S~\textsc{v}) may exist in both the photoionized and
hot phases. To estimate the mass in the highly ionized phase in light
of these possibilities, we use the Ne~{\sc viii}/{\sc N~v} ratio to
constrain the hot-phase gas temperature using three collisional
ionization models \cite{gnat07}, including rapidly cooling models, as
shown in Figure~S5. Then we assume the Ne~{\sc viii} phase has the
same metallicity as the cooler (photoionized) cloud at the same
velocity and adjust $N({\rm H})_{\rm total}$ to match the observed
$N$(Ne~{\sc viii}) and $N$({\sc N~v}). Figure~S5 shows examples of
the models for the $-317$ and $-247$ km s$^{-1}$ components, including
the isochoric and isobaric nonequilibrium models and the collisional
ionization equilibrium (CIE) model from \cite{gnat07}. Table~S2
summarizes the masses (from the thin-shell model above) and gas
temperatures derived for the hot phase of three of the components; the
lowest masses and temperatures in Table~S2 result from the isochoric
nonequilibrium (rapidly cooling) model, and the highest
masses/temperatures result from assuming CIE. We find that all three
models provide acceptable fits and imply comparable masses.
Interestingly, when these models are fit based on Ne~{\sc viii}/{\sc
N~v}, they naturally predict about the right amount of S~\textsc{v}.
The models are also consistent with the upper limits on Mg~\textsc{x}
and the looser constraints on species that are more uncertain due to
moderate saturation (e.g., N~\textsc{iv}, O~\textsc{iv}). We have also
investigated whether the Ne~\textsc{viii} phase could arise in gas
photoionized by AGN flux from the affiliated galaxy. This model does
not work well -- we cannot match the Ne~\textsc{viii}/N~\textsc{v}
without significantly violating other constraints (other column
densities) from the data.
In principle, the hot gas could have a higher metallicity than the
cool gas. The hot extraplanar gas of NGC1569, for example, has a
higher metallicity than its underlying {\sc H~i} disk\cite{martin02},
which suggests that chemically enriched hot gas is preferentially
escaping into the halo, as predicted in some galactic wind models
\cite{maclow99}. However, the high degree of similarity of the low-
and high-ion profiles in the PG1206+459 absorber (Figure~3) argues
against this situation. If the cool and hot gas had separated
sufficiently so that the hot phase had significantly higher
metallicity, then the cool and hot gas would have different
kinematical properties. Instead, the low- and high-ion profiles are
remarkably similar. We note that in the central galaxies of
cooling-flow clusters, the metallicity of the hot phase has been
estimated to range from 1$\times$ to 3$\times$ the metallicity of the
cooler phase based single-temperature models fit to X-ray emission
\cite{mcdonald10}, so our assumption of similar metallicites in the
cool and hot phases would be reasonable in this context. However, as
emphasized in \cite{mcdonald10}, there are substantial systematic
uncertainties in those metallicity estimates, and in some cases the
signal-to-noise is not adequate to support definitive conclusions.
Moreover, the ``cool'' phase metallicity is also based on X-ray
emission data with low spectral resolution, so we do not know if the
cool and hot phases in that study are as well-aligned kinematically as
the UV data presented in this paper.
|
\section{Introduction}
It can be said that all physical theories we know today are gauge
theories. The standard model of particle physics is a {\it
bona fide} gauge theory which has yielded up to the present
an excellent description of all particle physics data, i.e.\
in effect, we believe, all known physical phenomena besides
gravity, while gravity itself can be considered as a sort of
gauge theory as well. Unfortunately, this rather grandiose
picture is spoiled by the following facts. On the one hand,
in present formulations of the standard model, besides gauge
principles based on geometry, some extraneous phenomenological
inputs
are needed, such as a Higgs scalar to break the
electroweak symmetry, and 3 generations of fermions together
with all their peculiar mass and mixing patterns. On the
other hand, the interpretation of gravity as a gauge theory
involves further twists, namely that the gauge group has to
be soldered to space-time and that the space-time metric is
to function as dynamical variables. It would be conceptually
much more appealing if one can somehow remove from the
standard model the necessity for those injections from
experiment, and at the same time to put it with gravity in
some common gauge theoretical framework. Even practically,
it may be rewarding if this can be done, for it would very
likely help to reduce the large number of parameters needed
to be fed in from experiment by the standard model, which
subtracts much from our faith in it as a candidate for a
fundamental theory.
The purpose of this paper is to review a proposal first made
some years ago \cite{physcons} and further developed since,
which will be referred to here as the framed gauge theory
(FGT) framework. This suggests that one includes as dynamical
variables in the formulation of a gauge theory the frame
vectors in internal symmetry space, in addition to the usual
gauge vector boson and matter fermion fields. These frame
vectors or vielbeins, one can argue, are an integral part of
the gauge structure since they have to be there to specify
the frames to which the gauge transformations refer. That
they can be taken as dynamical variables is familiar already
in the theory of gravity where vierbeins are often taken in
place of the metric as dynamical variables. Indeed, by
introducing now the frame vectors (or ``framons'') also in particle
physics as dynamical variables, one might have made the first
tentative step towards its desired rapprochement with gravity,
for without the framons, there has been so far in the standard
model no analogue to the metric in gravity.
But of what good is FGT to particle physics itself? Consider
first just the electroweak sector. There, experiment tells us
that the gauge symmetry $su(2) \times u(1)$ has to be broken,
and for that one introduces in the standard electroweak theory
an $su(2)$ doublet of Higgs scalar fields. But that is exactly
what a framon in $su(2)$ would look like, for being a frame
vector, it transforms as the fundamental representation
of the symmetry, i.e., a doublet in $su(2)$, but under Lorentz
transformations in space-time, it is a scalar. In other
words, by adopting the FGT philosophy, one would obtain as part
of the gauge structure automatically the Higgs scalar that one
needs. There are, of course, two frame vectors in $su(2)$
which are orthogonal to each other, but these are neatly
paralleled by the quantities usually denoted by $\phi$ and
$\phi^c$ in the standard electroweak theory, which are what
appear in the Yukawa term coupled respectively to the up and
down components of the quark or lepton fields. That being
the case, one would not be too surprised to find, as will be
shown later, that in the FGT language the standard electroweak
theory appears just as the ``minimally framed'' gauge theory
with gauge symmetry $su(2) \times u(1)$, but with the Higgs
boson now forming an integral part of the gauge structure.
But what about the strong sector? If one were to take there
the frame vectors in $su(3)$ colour as dynamical variables as
FGT implies, would it not break the colour symmetry where we
want colour to be confining and exact? Intriguingly, this
need not be the case. Return first to the electroweak theory,
where we recall that in place of the picture usually adopted
of the local gauge symmetry $su(2) \times u(1)$ being broken
spontaneously by Higgs fields, one could equally have adopted
instead the picture \cite{tHooft,Bankovici} where the local
symmetry is confining; what is broken is only a global
symmetry which one may call the ``dual'' $\widetilde{su}(2)
\times \tilde{u}(1)$ to the local one above. Indeed, one may
even prefer this ``confinement picture'' to
the usual one of spontaneous breaking of the local symmetry
as a physically more appealing interpretation of the same
symmetry-breaking phenomenon. Applying then this confinement
picture to colour $su(3)$ above, one concludes correspondingly
that what FGT implies is only that there is a global symmetry
$\widetilde{su}(3)$ ``dual'' to the original local colour $su(3)$
that is broken, while $su(3)$ colour itself remains confining
and exact.
The appearance of a new global $su(3)$ symmetry in particle
theory would in fact be welcome, for the existence of 3 fermion
generations in nature has already suggested to many such a
symmetry \cite{horizontal}. But can the particular
$\widetilde{su}(3)$ here play
the desired role of fermion generations? This symmetry arises in
FGT simply from the fact that frame vectors, by their very nature,
have to carry two types of indices, one type referring to the
local and the other to a global reference frame. Recall as
example the vierbeins in gravity, usually denoted as $e^a_\mu$
and labelled by the two types of indices $\mu$ and $a$. Since
physics should be independent of the choice of reference
frames, gravity is invariant under Lorentz transformations in
$a$. For the same reason then, particle physics should also
be invariant under $\widetilde{su}(3)$. Initially, only
framons carry this global index, say $\tilde{a} = \tilde{1},
\tilde{2},\tilde{3}$, while all other fundamental, including
fermionic, fields would carry only the local index, say $a =
1,2,3$. Remember, however, that in the confinement picture
of the electroweak theory \cite{tHooft,Bankovici}, quarks and
leptons appear not as fundamental fermion fields but as bound
states, via $su(2)$ confinement, of these with the fundamental
scalars, i.e.\ in the FGT scenario with the framons, and can
acquire therefore from the latter the 3-valued global index
$\tilde{a}$ to play the role of fermion generations.
In other words, it would appear that the FGT framework contains
in it already the ingredients for providing not only a Higgs
field necessary for breaking the electroweak symmetry but also
exactly 3 generations of quarks and leptons as experiments seem
to demand. But can it really do so in practice? Encouraged
by the above observations, let us proceed to construct, as one
did successfully, it seems, for the electroweak theory, the
corresponding ``minimally framed'' theory for the gauge symmetry
$su(3) \times su(2) \times u(1)$. One obtains then a construct
which one can call the framed standard model (FSM). As will be
shown later, this is found indeed to give the Higgs field and 3
generations of quarks and leptons as expected. Moreover, it is
found that these quarks and leptons appearing as fermion-framon
bound states via $su(2)$ confinement have mass matrices at tree
level of the form:
\begin{equation}
m = m_T {\balpha}{\balpha}^\dagger
\label{mfact}
\end{equation}
where the vector ${\balpha}$ is ``universal'', meaning that it
is independent of the fermion species, i.e.\ whether it is up or
down in flavour or whether it is a quark or a lepton. Now, such
a ``universal'' rank-one mass matrix, giving only one heavy state
in each species and the unit matrix as the mixing matrix, has
long been advocated \cite{Fritsch,Harari} as a good zeroth-order
starting point since it is already not that far from the actual
situation observed in experiment.
But this is not all. The FSM is by construction invariant, as
it ought to be by previous arguments, under both the original
local gauge symmetry $su(3) \times su(2) \times u(1)$, and its
``dual'', i.e.\ the global symmetry $\widetilde{su}(3) \times
\widetilde{su}(2) \times \tilde{u}(1)$. This doubled invariance
places severe restrictions on the form that terms of the action
containing the framon fields can take, in particular on the
self-interaction potential, say $V[\Phi]$, of the framon field
$\Phi$. This $V[\Phi]$, on minimization, will tell us what
the vacuum will look like, and will allow us further to evaluate
renormalization effects on the vacuum and hence also on the
vector ${\balpha}$ from the mass matrix (\ref{mfact}). And
these renormalization effects are found to give automatically
deviations from the zeroth order approximation above and lead to
a hierarchical mass spectrum for both quarks and leptons, as well
as mixing matrices qualitatively similar to that experimentally
observed with CP-violation included.
In other words, it would appear that the FSM when formulated as
an FGT is capable of reproducing all those idiosyncrasies of the
standard model mentioned at the beginning such as the Higgs
boson and the 3 fermion generations together with their mass and
mixing patterns as consequences of the gauge principle as wanted.
In what follows, we shall review the procedure whereby those of
the above results concerning the structure of the model are
deduced, i.e.\ all apart from those outlined in the last paragraph
which are derived from the dynamics. Although most of the
reviewed material has appeared in some form or another before,
e.g. in \cite{prepsm}, time and experience have given it the
greater clarity and cogency now needed when viewed in the present
wider context. The derivation of results outlined in the last
paragraph is not reviewed because it has been completed only
recently and is reported in separate papers \cite{dfsm,r2m2}
to which the reader can be referred.
One turns instead to the other structural question raised at the
beginning, namely whether particle physics when formulated now
as an FGT can be put with gravity on a common gauge theoretical
footing. As already noted, by the introduction of frame vectors
as dynamical variables in particle physics one has already taken
a first step towards a possible rapprochement with gravity, for
this will mean that particle theory will now acquire also a
variable metric, though here not in space-time but in internal
symmetry space. However,
if one were to borrow the Kaluza-Klein idea that internal space
may be part of a larger space-time compactified to a very
small size, then a metric in space-time and in internal space
may not appear as so very different concepts. Indeed, building
on this in the last section, one is led to some interesting
speculations on how the two sides, i.e.\ particle physics on the
one hand and gravity on the other, may perhaps be brought closer
together as just two different parts of the same overarching
``framed'' gauge theoretical framework.
Taken all together, these considerations, to be expanded below,
would seem to suggest that the FGT framework could perhaps be
taken with some credibility, or at least considered worth exploring,
as a viable basis for the physics we know today.
\section{Frames and Minimal Frames}
First, we need to make precise what is meant above by framing.
Apart from gravity, the framing of which in terms of vierbeins
is already familiar, what interests us here is the framing of
the standard model of particle physics, i.e.\ the gauge theory
with gauge symmetry $su(3) \times su(2) \times u(1)$. Before
starting on this, however, let us first consider each of its 3
component symmetries, namely $su(3)$, $su(2)$ and $u(1)$.
In the notation here adopted, lower case letters as in $su(N)$
denote the algebra but capital letters as in $SU(N)$ the group.
The same algebra, of course, may correspond to different groups;
thus, for example, both $SU(2)$ and $SO(3)$ have $su(2)$ as their
algebra, but $SU(2)$ double covers $SO(3)$. What specifies which
group one is dealing with in a given theory is the representations
which appear in the theory. For instance, only the $SU(2)$
theory, not $SO(3)$, has doublets as representations. Since
the theories we are interested in all contain fields in the
fundamental representation of $su(N)$, it is with those with
gauge groups $SU(N)$ that we shall be concerned.
As for the vierbeins $e_\mu^a$ in gravity, frame vectors in an
$SU(N)$ theory can be taken as the column vectors of the matrix
relating the local frame to the global reference frame, say:
\begin{equation}
\Phi = (\phi_a^{\tilde{a}}),
\label{Phi}
\end{equation}
where the row index $a$ refers to the local frame and the column
index $\tilde{a}$ to the global reference frame. Since both the
local and global frames here are unitary, the matrix $\Phi$ is
itself an element of $SU(N)$. Local $SU(N)$ transformations
on $\Phi$ act from the left while global $\widetilde{SU}(N)$
transformations act from the right.
The frame vectors $\bphi^{\tilde{a}}$ in $su(N)$ space labelled
by index $\tilde{a}$ transform as fundamental representations
under the local $su(N)$, but are scalars under space-time
Lorentz transformations, and they satisfy originally, of course,
the following conditions:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)] They have unit length,
$|{\bphi}^{\tilde{a}}| = 1$;
\item[(b)] They are mutually orthogonal, ${\bphi}^{\tilde{a}}
\cdot {\bphi}^{\tilde{b}} = 0,\ \tilde{a} \neq \tilde{b}$;
\item[(c)] The determinant is real.
\end{itemize}
But, in adopting them as dynamical variables as proposed, we
are in effect promoting them into fields. They should then be
allowed to take any complex values as ordinary scalar fields do,
in which case they will not be able to satisfy all 3 conditions
above. However, these $\phi_a^{\tilde{a}}$ need not all be taken
as independent variables, so that some of the conditions can
still be retained. We ask then what is the most economical
arrangement with the smallest number of ``framons'' introduced.
We shall say then that the resulting theory is ``minimally
framed''.
Consider first $SU(2)$ as an example. There are 2 frame vectors
${\bphi}^{\tilde{1}}$ and ${\bphi}^{\tilde{2}}$ which
satisfy the 3 conditions (a), (b) and (c). To allow them to
take any complex values when promoted to framon fields as
stipulated, we must of course relax the condition (a), but we
can still keep the other 2 conditions. Explicitly, since the
framons are not required to be independent, we can write:
\begin{equation}
\phi^{\tilde{2}}_r =- \epsilon_{rs} (\phi^{\tilde{1}}_s)^*,
\label{su2ortho}
\end{equation}
which will keep the 2 framons orthogonal and of equal length
while keeping also the determinant real, but will still allow both
to take all complex values. One needs to introduce then as
framons in the minimally framed theory only 1 complex vector
or 4 real scalars. Alternatively, one can think of this as a
problem of embedding $SU(2)$ in $\bbr^n$, where it is well known
that the minimal embedding is as the unit sphere in $\bbr^4$.
Consider next $SU(3)$, where there are 3 frame vectors.
To promote these into fields
we must again relax condition (a),
but we can no longer retain the condition (b) that the framons
remain mutually orthogonal as we did for $SU(2)$. Indeed, if
we write down here the parallel to (\ref{su2ortho}), thus:
\begin{equation}
\phi^{\tilde{3}}_r = \epsilon_{rst} (\phi^{\tilde{1}}_s)^*
(\phi^{\tilde{2}}_t)^*,
\label{su3ortho}
\end{equation}
we find that this will give the 3 framons enforcedly different
physical dimensions, which we cannot accept. We are left then
with only condition (c), namely that the determinant is real,
which still allows the different framons to have the same
physical dimension since the determinant, though complicated,
is multilinear in all its elements. The same conclusion holds
for any $SU(N)$, $N > 2$.
One concludes therefore that for the ``minimally framed theory''
one needs to introduce only 4 real scalar fields as framons for
the $SU(2)$ theory, but for $SU(N), N > 2$ theory one needs
in general $2 N^2 - 1$ real scalar fields, e.g. 17 for $SU(3)$.
This leaves now only the $u(1)$ factor still to be considered.
Here orientation means just a phase, and relative orientation
just a phase difference. Hence, the analogue of $\Phi$ above
for the $su(N)$ factors is here a phase factor of the form:
\begin{equation}
\Phi = \exp i g_1 (\alpha - \tilde{\alpha}),
\label{Phiu1}
\end{equation}
with $\alpha$ $x$-dependent, transforming under the local $u(1)$
but $\tilde{\alpha}$ $x$-independent, transforming under the
global $\tilde{u}(1)$. The framon field is then a complex
scalar field with its phase as in (\ref{Phiu1}) above.
Having now specified what framing means for each of the theories
with the symmetries $su(2), su(2)$ and $u(1)$, we are ready to
tackle the physical theories with the product symmetry.
\section{The Electroweak Theory}
As a warming-up exercise before we proceed to the full standard
model, let us first consider the electroweak theory, which is
a gauge theory with the gauge symmetry $su(2) \times u(1)$. As
it is usually formulated, the standard gauge principles have to
be supplemented by the introduction of the Higgs scalar to break
the $su(2)$ symmetry as required by experiment. Here we wish
to approach the problem anew from the viewpoint of framed gauge
theory (FGT), and try to show that the same electroweak theory
will emerge as the minimally framed gauge theory for the same
gauge symmetry, but now with the Higgs scalar thrown in as an
integral part of the framed gauge theoretical framework.
In the same spirit then as what was done above in section 2 for
the $su(N)$ symmetries, we ask first what scalar framon fields
are to be introduced for the theory to be ``framed''. The frame
vectors, and hence also the framons to which they are promoted,
are to be representations of the symmetry $su(2) \times u(1)$,
and there are two ways of building representations of a product
from those of its factors, namely as the product or as the sum.
Suppose we appeal again to economy, or ``minimality'' for whatever
it is worth, and ask which gives the smaller number of scalar
fields, we would favour the product, $2 \times 1$ being smaller
than $2 + 1$. Hence, one would introduce as framon fields two
$su(2)$ doublets: $\bphi^{\tilde{r}}$ labelled by the
global index $\tilde{r} = \tilde{1}, \tilde{2}$, each forming
also a representation of the local $u(1)$ symmetry, or in other
words, each carrying also a $u(1)$ (hyper-)charge.
What $u(1)$ charges should they carry? To answer this, again
a question of representations, one would need first, as in the
$su(N)$ symmetries above, to specify the gauge group. There
are 3 groups all having $su(2) \times u(1)$ as its algebra, namely
$SU(2) \times U(1), SO(3) \times U(1)$ and $U(2) = (SU(2) \times
U(1))/\bbz_2$. By examining the fields present in the standard
electroweak theory, noting for example that $su(2)$ doublets
exist with half-integral $u(1)$ (hyper-)charges, one comes to
the conclusion \cite{ourbook} that $U(2)$ is the gauge group one
needs. From this, it follows that the framon fields ${\bphi}
^{\tilde{r}}$ above should also carry half-integral $u(1)$ charges.
Moreover, from the last section, one has learned that for $su(2)$,
one can further economize on the number of framons introduced by
insisting that $\phi_r^{\tilde{r}}$ satisfy the orthogonality
condition (\ref{su2ortho}), leaving then only one doublet independent,
i.e.\ in total just 2 complex or 4 real scalar fields as variables.
This means also that whatever $u(1)$-charge $\bphi^{\tilde{1}}$
carries, then $\bphi^{\tilde{2}}$ would carry the opposite. Note
however that $\bphi^{\tilde{1}}$ and $\bphi^{\tilde{2}}$ need
not themselves be eigenstates of the $u(1)$-charge, which can be
chosen instead as any two mutually orthogonal linear combinations.
These we can specify by introducing a vector, say ${\bgamma} =
(\gamma^{\tilde{r}})$ in $\widetilde{su}(2)$ space, such that
the following vectors, now back in $su(2)$ space, are eigenstates
of the $u(1)$-charge with the (hyper-)charges shown:
\begin{eqnarray}
\bphi^{(+)} & = & \sum_{\tilde{r}} \gamma^{\tilde{r}}
\bphi^{\tilde{r}};\ y = g_1/2, \nonumber \\
\bphi^{(-)} & = & \sum_{\tilde{r}} \gamma'^{\tilde{r}}
{\bphi}^{\tilde{r}};\ y = -g_1/2,
\label{bphipm}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\bgamma'$ is the vector orthogonal to ${\bgamma}$ in
$\widetilde{su}(2)$ space. This notation is useful later when
invariance under $\widetilde{su}(2)$ is considered. Otherwise,
it is convenient to choose a frame in $\widetilde{su}(2)$ space
such that ${\bgamma}$ points in the $(1, 0)$ direction so that
$\bphi^{\tilde{1}}$ coincides with $\bphi^{(+)}$ as is often
done in the literature. Notice that $\bphi^{(+)}$ has exactly
the same $su(2)$ representation and $u(1)$ charges as the Higgs
field in the standard electroweak theory.
Next, we turn to the action for the framed theory which we want
to be invariant not only under the local gauge symmetry $su(2)
\times u(1)$ we started with, but also under the global symmetry
$\widetilde{su}(2) \times \tilde{u}(1)$. Since only the framon
fields carry the global indices, we need consider here only those
new terms of the action which contain the framons, as the others,
such as the gauge field action or the kinetic energy term of the
fermions, will be the same as in the standard electroweak theory.
Of the new terms containing framons, consider first the potential
term of framon self-interaction which one can take, as usual, to
be a polynomial of even powers of the framon fields, but only up
to and including quartic terms for renormalizability. To ensure
invariance under the double symmetry $su(2) \times u(1) \times
\widetilde{su}(2) \times \tilde{u}(1)$, we saturate all indices
in all possible ways, and end up with the following general form:
\begin{equation}
V[\Phi] = - \mu \sum_{r,\tilde{r}} (\phi_r^{\tilde{r}})^* \phi_r
^{\tilde{r}} + \lambda \left(\sum_{r,\tilde{r}} (\phi_r^{\tilde{r}})^*
\phi_r^{\tilde{r}}\right)^2 + \kappa \sum_{r,s,\tilde{r},\tilde{s}}
(\phi_r^{\tilde{r}})^* \phi_r^{\tilde{s}} (\phi_s^{\tilde{s}})^*
\phi_s^{\tilde{r}},
\label{VPhiEW}
\end{equation}
which can be written more succinctly in terms of the matrix $\Phi$
introduced in (\ref{Phi}) above as:
\begin{equation}
V[\Phi] = - \mu \tr(\Phi^{\dagger} \Phi)
+ \lambda \left(\tr(\Phi^{\dagger} \Phi)\right)^2
+ \kappa \tr(\Phi^{\dagger} \Phi \Phi^{\dagger} \Phi).
\label{VPhiEWa}
\end{equation}
As written, this depends on both the vectors $\bphi^{\tilde{1}}$
and $\bphi^{\tilde{2}}$, of which, however, only one is independent.
Eliminating, say, $\bphi^{\tilde{2}}$ in terms of $\bphi^{\tilde{1}}$
using the orthogonality condition (\ref{su2ortho}), one is left with
the usual Mexican hat potential of the standard electroweak theory
with $\bphi^{\tilde{1}}$ identified with the Higgs field there. That
this is so can most easily seen by again rewriting (\ref{VPhiEW})
in terms of the vectors $\bphi^{\tilde{r}} = (\phi_r^{\tilde{r}})$,
thus:
\begin{equation}
V[\Phi] = - \mu \sum_{\tilde{r}} |\bphi^{\tilde{r}}|^2
+ \lambda \left(\sum_{\tilde{r}} |\bphi^{\tilde{r}}|^2\right)^2
+ \kappa \sum_{\tilde{r},\tilde{s}}
|(\bphi^{\tilde{r}})^{\dagger}\cdot\bphi^{\tilde{s}}|^2.
\label{VPhiEWb}
\end{equation}
Since what the condition (\ref{su2ortho}) says is that the two vectors
$\bphi^{\tilde{1}}$ and $\bphi^{\tilde{2}}$ are mutually orthogonal
and have the same length, it follows immediately that (\ref{VPhiEWa})
is reduced to:
\begin{equation}
V[\Phi] = - 2 \mu |\bphi|^2 + (4 \lambda + 2 \kappa) |\bphi|^4
\label{VPhiEWbb}
\end{equation}
as claimed.
Secondly, consider the kinetic energy term of the framons, which
we can write most succinctly in terms of the matrix $\Phi$ as:
\begin{equation}
\tr((D_\mu \Phi)^{\dagger} D_\mu \Phi),
\label{KEofPhi}
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
D_\mu \Phi = \partial_\mu \Phi - ig_2 B_\mu \Phi
- \half i g_1 A_\mu \Phi \Gamma,
\label{DmuPhi}
\end{equation}
where $\Gamma$ is the matrix:
\begin{equation}
\Gamma = (\bgamma, -\bgamma') = \left( \begin{array}{cc}
\gamma^{\tilde{1}} & - \gamma'^{\tilde{1}} \\ \gamma^{\tilde{2}}
& - \gamma'^{\tilde{2}}
\end{array} \right),
\label{Gamma}
\end{equation}
so that by construction:
\begin{equation}
\Phi \Gamma = (\bphi^{(+)}, - \bphi^{(-)})
= \left( \begin{array}{cc} \phi_1^{(+)} & - \phi_1^{(-)} \\
\phi_2^{(+)} & - \phi_2^{(-)} \end{array} \right),
\label{PhiGamma}
\end{equation}
thus giving the correct $u(1)$ charges, $\pm g_1/2$ respectively,
to the two vectors $\bphi^{(\pm)}$. The term (\ref{KEofPhi}) is
explicitly invariant both under all local $su(2) \times u(1)$
and under all global $\widetilde{su}(2) \times \tilde{u}(1)$
transformations, as required.
To show that the term (\ref{KEofPhi}) above under the condition
(\ref{su2ortho}) is in fact the same as the corresponding term in the
standard electroweak theory, all we need is to choose $\bgamma$ to
be real and point in the up direction, making thus $\bphi^{(+)}$
the same as $\bphi^{\tilde{1}}$. A direct calculation then shows
that, because of (\ref{su2ortho}), the two terms coming respectively
from $\bphi^{(+)}$ and $\bphi^{(-)}$ are in fact identical and add
up for $\bphi^{(+)} = \bphi$ to just:
\begin{equation}
2 (D_\mu \bphi)^{\dagger} D_\mu \bphi,
\label{KEofphiEW}
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
D_\mu = \partial_\mu - i g_2 B_\mu - \half i g_1 A_\mu,
\label{DmuphiEW}
\end{equation}
i.e.\ of the form familiar in the standard electroweak theory.
Lastly, we need to consider the Yukawa term coupling the framon
to the fermion fields, which we can write as usual as:
\begin{equation}
Y \bar{\psi}^r \phi_r^{(-)} \half (1 + \gamma_5) \psi
+ Y' \bar{\psi}^r \phi_r^{(+)} \half (1 + \gamma_5) \psi'
+ {\rm h.c.}
\label{Yukawaw}
\end{equation}
with only the proviso that $\bphi^{(\pm)} = (\phi_r^{(\pm)})$ is now
to be taken in general as (\ref{bphipm}) above which exhibits its
required invariance also under $\widetilde{su}(2)$.
One sees therefore that in the framed gauge theory language, the
minimally framed theory with gauge symmetry $su(2) \times u(1)$
is indeed just the standard electroweak theory as claimed, but
now with the framon field playing the role of the standard Higgs
scalar already built in as part of the gauge structure. For the
electroweak theory itself, this is merely a formal gain, but as
we shall see, when the same considerations are applied to the
standard model, we shall arrive at more substantial results.
Before we proceed further, however, let us first recall some old
results of 't~Hooft \cite{tHooft} and of Banks and Rabinovici
\cite{Bankovici} which will be of use later. The theory given
by the action just derived for the symmetry $su(2) \times u(1)$
is usually interpreted as one in which the local symmetry is
spontaneously broken. But, as these authors have shown, it may
equally be interpreted as a theory in which the $su(2)$ symmetry
confines and remains exact; what is being broken is only a global
symmetry associated with it which can be identified with what is
denoted by $\widetilde{su}(2)$ above. This global symmetry is
broken explicitly by the choice of the vector ${ \bgamma}$ in
$\widetilde{su}(2)$ space which specifies the eigenstates with a
definite $u(1)$ charge $\pm g_1/2$. So it can be said, as did
't~Hooft, that it is electromagnetism which breaks that global
symmetry. In this interpretation, or ``confinement picture'' as it
will be called in what follows, only $su(2)$ neutral states can
appear as physical particles, hence neither the $su(2)$ doublet
scalar and fermion fields, nor the $su(2)$ triplet gauge boson
fields, can appear as free particles.
The physical states known to us are all bound states
formed via $su(2)$ confinement out of the fundamental scalar and
fermion fields. Thus, for example, the Higgs scalar $h$ and the
vector bosons $W$-$Z$ appear as respectively the ``$s$-wave''
and ``$p$-wave'' bound states of a framon-antiframon pair:
\begin{equation}
tr(\Phi^{\dagger} \Phi) \sim F^2 + 2Fh + \ldots,
\label{hbound}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\Phi^{\dagger}(\partial_\mu - i g_2 B_\mu) \Phi
\sim i g_2 \tilde{B}_\mu,
\label{WZbound}
\end{equation}
where $F$ represents the vacuum expectation value of the framon
field, while the leptons and quarks appear as bound states of a
framon with a fundamental fermion, respectively:
\begin{equation}
\Phi^{\dagger} \bpsi \sim \bchi,
\label{lbound}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\Phi^{\dagger} \bpsi_a \sim \bchi_a,
\label{qbound}
\end{equation}
with $a$ in the latter the colour index. Notice that although
both these leptons and quarks are by construction singlets in
$su(2)$, they are both doublets in $\widetilde{su}(2)$, having
each acquired from its framon constituent an $\widetilde{su}(2)$
index, and it is the latter global symmetry which now plays the
role of the up-down flavour in the confinement picture. Hence,
this symmetry being broken by electromagnetism as explained
above, it will give different masses for up and down flavoured
states. Although in the way the theory is at present applied,
the confinement picture is mathematically equivalent \cite{tHooft}
to the usual spontaneous breaking picture as interpretations of
the same electroweak theory, some may find one more physically
appealing than the other. In what follows for the standard model,
we shall adopt the confinement picture as the more convenient for
our purpose.
\section{The Framed Standard Model}
The standard model is a gauge theory with the gauge symmetry
$su(3) \times su(2) \times u(1)$. Our first question, as with
the electroweak theory before, is what scalar framon fields are
to be introduced so as to make the theory ``framed''. Framons
are to be representations of the local gauge symmetry. Again,
for a product symmetry, there are two choices, either the sum
or the product representation, and this applies to the product
between any pair. If we appeal as before to economy for the
smallest number of real scalar framon fields we have to add,
we shall end up again with the product representation for both
$su(3) \times u(1)$ and $su(2) \times u(1)$, but the sum
representation for $su(3) \times su(2)$ since $3 + 2 < 3 \times 2$.
In other words, we shall end up with the overall representation
$(su(3) + su(2)) \times u(1)$, i.e.\ $({\bf 3}+{\bf 2}) \times {\bf
1}$.
Next, when taken together, as in section 2, the framons should
form a matrix transforming from the left as a representation
of the local symmetry, here $su(3) \times su(2) \times u(1)$,
but from the right as a representation of its ``dual'', i.e.\
the global symmetry $\widetilde{su}(3) \times \widetilde{su}(2)
\times \tilde{u}(1)$. So again the question arises as to
which representation of the global symmetry it should belong.
Here, the criterion of ``minimal framing'' is no guide, since the
symmetry being global, whatever choice of representation
will lead to the same number of scalar framon fields. If one
were to choose $ ({\bf \tilde{3}} + {\bf \tilde{2}}) \times
{\bf \tilde{1}}$, identical to the choice above for the local
symmetry, the theory would just break up into two separate
theories, i.e.\ the electroweak theory plus chromodynamics
disjoint from each other, which is neither an interesting nor a
realistic situation. One opts instead therefore, by invoking
the anthropic principle perhaps, for the more interesting
all-product representation ${\bf \tilde{3}} \times {\bf \tilde{2}}
\times {\bf \tilde{1}}$.
As the result of these considerations, one is then led to
introduce, for the minimally framed gauge theory with gauge
symmetry $su(3) \times su(2) \times u(1)$, the following two
types of framons; first the ``weak'' framons which transform as
doublets under local $su(2)$ but are invariant under local
$su(3)$:
\begin{equation}
\phi_r^{\tilde{r} \tilde{a}} = \alpha^{\tilde{a}} \phi_r^{\tilde{r}},
\ \ \tilde{a} = \tilde{1}, \tilde{2},\tilde{3},
\ \ r = 1, 2, \ \ \tilde{r} = \tilde{1}, \tilde{2},
\ \ \ \ y = \pm 1/2, \ \ \tilde{y} = \mp 1/2,
\label{wframon}
\end{equation}
and secondly the ``strong'' framons which transform as triplets
under local $su(3)$ but are invariant under local $su(2)$:
\begin{equation}
\phi_a^{\tilde{r} \tilde{a}} = \beta^{\tilde{r}} \phi_a^{\tilde{a}},
\ \ a = 1, 2, 3, \ \ \tilde{a} = 1, 2, 3,
\ \ \tilde{r} = 1, 2,
\ \ \ \ y = - 1/3, \ \ \tilde{y} = 1/3.
\label{sframon}
\end{equation}
The $\phi$'s in (\ref{wframon}) and (\ref{sframon}) are local,
i.e.\ $x$-dependent, quantities, while the $\alpha$'s and $\beta$'s
are global, i.e.\ $x$-independent, with $\phi_r^{\tilde{r}},
\beta^{\tilde{r}}, \tilde{r} = \tilde{1}, \tilde{2}$ transforming
as doublets under $\widetilde{su}(2)$ and $\phi_a^{\tilde{a}},
\alpha^{\tilde{a}}, \tilde{a} = \tilde{1}, \tilde{2}, \tilde{3}$,
transforming as triplets under $\widetilde{su}(3)$. Hence both
types of framons, by construction, transform as the product
representation ${\bf \tilde{3}} \times {\bf \tilde{2}}$ under the
global symmetry $\widetilde{su}(3) \times \widetilde{su}(2)$, as
stipulated, but we have yet to justify the assignments above in
(\ref{wframon}) and (\ref{sframon}) for their $u(1)$ charge $y$
and $\tilde{u}(1)$ charge $\tilde{y}$.
As in the electroweak theory before, to assign them appropriate
$u(1)$ charges, one needs first to specify the gauge group. There
are again several groups corresponding to the algebra $su(3) \times
su(2) \times u(1)$, but by examining the representations of all the
fields appearing in the standard model, one concludes \cite{ourbook}
that the gauge group is that group obtained by identifying in the
covering group $SU(3) \times SU(2) \times U(1)$ the following
sextets of elements:
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{
(c, f, y) = (\omega c, f, z^4 y) = (\omega^2 c, f, z^2 y)}\nonumber \\
&& {}
= (c, - f, z^3 y)= (\omega c, -f, z y) = (\omega^2 c, -f, z^5 y)\;,
\label{U23}
\end{eqnarray}
where $c$, $f$, $y$, are elements in respectively in the groups $SU(3)$,
$SU(2)$, and $U(1)$, and
\begin{equation}
z = \exp i \pi/3
\label{z}
\end{equation}
with $\omega$ being the cube root of unity, which group one can
call here $U(3,2,1)$. With $U(3,2,1)$ as gauge group, the allowed
representations are \cite{ourbook}:
\begin{eqnarray}
&(1, 1); \ \ \ & y = 0 + n, \nonumber \\
&(1, 2); \ \ \ & y = \half + n, \nonumber \\
&(3, 1); \ \ \ & y = -\third + n, \nonumber \\
&(3, 2); \ \ \ & y = \sixth +n,
\label{yadmit}
\end{eqnarray}
where the first number inside the brackets denotes the dimension
of the representation of $su(3)$ and the second number that of
$su(2)$, and $n$ can be any integer, positive or negative. It then
follows that one has the $u(1)$ and $\tilde{u}(1)$ charges for the
framons as given in (\ref{wframon}) and (\ref{sframon}), where we
have kept for simplicity only those charges with the smallest
allowed absolute values.
These are then the framon fields that are to be introduced for the
minmally framed theory with gauge symmetry $su(3) \times su(2)
\times u(1)$. They are not all independent, but according to the
analysis in section 2, the weak framons $\phi_r^{\tilde{r}}$ are
to satisfy the condition (\ref{su2ortho}) while the strong framons
$\phi_a^{\tilde{a}}$ the condition that their determinant is real,
leaving thus altogether 21 independent real scalar fields in the
theory.
A distinguishing feature of these framon scalars, of course,
is that they carry, in addition to the local indices $r$ and
$a$ which they share with the standard gauge boson and matter
fermion fields, the global indices $\tilde{r}$ and $\tilde{a}$.
One needs to ask then what physical significance these global
indices possess. In other words, one would wish to know which
physical particles carry these global indices as quantum numbers.
Recalling now the confinement picture of 't~Hooft and of Banks
and Rabinovici for the interpretation of symmetry-breaking in the
electroweak theory, one sees that none of the framon fields as
listed can manifest themselves as actual particles, since they
all carry $su(2)$ and $su(3)$ indices and have to be confined.
They have to form bound or confined states either with each other
or with other fields carrying these indices, and only those states
thus formed which are neutral under both $su(2)$ and $su(3)$ can
appear as actual particles. Those confined by $su(2)$ would appear
to us now, at the present level of our experimental capability, as
elementary, but those confined by colour $su(3)$ alone are hadrons,
which we have learnt already by experiment to penetrate and resolve
into their coloured constituents. At this level then, which we may
call the standard model scenario, we need take account only of the
deeper confinement by $su(2)$. Let us then ask in this standard
model scenario, what $su(2)$ neutral bound states will appear which
have weak framons as constituents and which will carry, by virtue
of the weak framon(s) they contain, these global indices as quantum
numbers. The examination of such particles would reveal to us the
sought-for physical significance, if any, that these global indices
possess.
First, the weak framons can form $su(2)$-neutral bound state
with their own conjugates via $su(2)$ confinement, saturating
thereby the $su(2)$ indices $r$ which appear in (\ref{wframon})
as follows:
\begin{equation}
h_W = \sum_{\tilde{a} r \tilde{r}} \alpha^*_{\tilde{a}}
(\phi_{\tilde{r}}^r)^* \phi_r^{\tilde{r}} \alpha^{\tilde{a}},
\label{hWFSM}
\end{equation}
or else via the $su(2)$ gauge bosons $B_\mu$ as follows:
\begin{equation}
W_\mu = \sum_{\tilde{a} r s \tilde{r}} \alpha^*_{\tilde{a}}
(\phi_{\tilde{r}}^r)^* (\partial_\mu - ig_2 B_\mu^{rs})
\phi_s^{\tilde{r}} \alpha^{\tilde{a}}.
\label{WmuFSM}
\end{equation}
These are the exact parallels of (\ref{hbound}) and (\ref{WZbound})
in section 3 for the electroweak theory, called by 't~Hooft there
respectively the $s$-wave and $p$-wave bound states, of the
framon-antiframon pair. We notice that the extra global indices
$\tilde{a}$ are here summed over and do not in the end figure, and
one has not yet learned anything new about them.
Secondly, again as in the electroweak theory, in parallel
to (\ref{lbound}) and (\ref{qbound}) in the preceding section, the
weak framons of (\ref{wframon}) can also form with the fundamental
fermion fields $\bpsi = (\psi_r)$ and $\bpsi_a = (\psi_{ra})$ the
following bound states:
\begin{equation}
\chi^{\tilde{r} \tilde{a}}
= \sum_{r} \alpha^{* \tilde{a}} \phi_r^{*\tilde{r}} \psi_r,
\label{LFSM}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\chi_a^{\tilde{r} \tilde{a}}
= \sum_{r} \alpha^{* \tilde{a}} \phi_r^{*\tilde{r}} \psi_{ra},
\label{QFSM}
\end{equation}
which, in the confinement picture, are to be interpreted respectively as
leptons and quarks, and these now have to carry the same global
quantum numbers as their weak framon constituents since their
fundamental fermion constituents carry none. They will carry the
2-valued global index $\tilde{r}$ which we have already learned
before to interpret as up-down flavour. But they will now also
carry a new 3-valued global index $\tilde{a}$, which can play the
role of the fermion generation index. Of course, as to whether
$\tilde{a}$ can actually function for leptons and quarks as the
generation index is a question which can only be answered by
a detailed study of its properties, a question on which we shall
devote much attention below, but that such an index does emerge
automatically from framing seems already quite interesting.
This is not all. The weak framons (\ref{wframon}) carry also
a global $\tilde{u}(1)$ charge $\tilde{y}$. Because of the
intrinsic $\tilde{u}(1)$ invariance built into the theory,
this $\tilde{u}(1)$ charge is necessarily conserved. So what
physical significance does it possess? Again, the $\tilde{y}$
charges from the framon-antiframon pair cancel in (\ref{hWFSM})
and (\ref{WmuFSM}) giving a zero value for both the Higgs and
the $W - Z$ bosons, but it does not now cancel in (\ref{LFSM})
and (\ref{QFSM}), since only the framon, but not the fermion,
constituents carry this $\tilde{u}(1)$ charge, which thus
takes the value $\tilde{y} = \pm \half$ for both leptons and
quarks. Recalling now from (\ref{yadmit}) that
the fundamental fermions fields $\psi_r$ and $\psi_{ra}$ carry
respectively the $u(1)$ charges $y =- \half, \sixth$, one has for
leptons in (\ref{LFSM}) and quarks in (\ref{QFSM}) respectively
$y = -\half \mp \half, \sixth \mp \half$. Hence it follows that:
\begin{equation}
\tilde{y} = - y + \half(B - L),
\label{BminusL}
\end{equation}
which is then the physical meaning of $\tilde{y}$ that we seek.
Given that $y$ is itself a conserved quantity from the
$u(1)$-invariance of the theory, it follows from the conservation
of the $\tilde{u}(1)$ charge $\tilde{y}$ that the global quantum
number $B - L$ has also to be conserved. It would thus seem
that one has found here a gauge
principle \cite{LeeYang} , namely $\tilde{u}(1)$-invariance peculiar to the
framed gauge theoretical framework, from which baryon number
conservation (in its modern form of $B - L$ conservation) would
emerge as a consequence.
These conclusions on the global indices are summarized in the
Table \ref{globalsym}, where the entries in the last row are yet
to be discussed. One sees that even at this stage, the FSM seems
already to have offered answers to two questions posed at the
beginning, first, on the origin of the Higgs boson and second,
tentatively, also on the origin of fermion generations, with
the unexpected bonus of $B - L$ conservation thrown in.
\begin{table}
\begin{eqnarray*}
\begin{array}{||c||c|c|c||}
\hline \hline
{\rm Symmetry} & \widetilde{su}(3) & \widetilde{su}(2) & \tilde{u}(1) \\
\hline \hline
{\rm Index/Charge} & \tilde{a} & \tilde{r} & \tilde{y} \\ \hline
{\rm Interpretation} & {\rm fermion\ generation} &
{\rm up/down\ flavour} & B-L \\ \hline
{\rm Status} & {\rm Broken\ by}\ \balpha &
{\rm Broken\ by}\ \bgamma & {\rm Exact} \\
& {\rm (from\ weak\ sector)} &
{\rm (from\ e.m.\ sector)} & \\ \hline \hline
\end{array}
\end{eqnarray*}
\caption{The global symmetries and their physical interpretations}
\label{globalsym}
\end{table}
As above in the electroweak theory, our next objective would
be to construct an action for the framed standard model based on
invariance principles. Framons having been introduced as field
variables in FSM, the onus is in principle upon us to include in
the FSM action all terms which can be constructed with the framons
(\ref{wframon}) and (\ref{sframon}), either by themselves or
together with the other fields occurring in the theory, namely
the gauge boson and matter fermion fields, so long as the action
is invariant under both the original local gauge symmetry $su(3)
\times su(2) \times u(1)$ and its ``dual'', the global symmetry
$\widetilde{su}(3) \times \widetilde{su}(2) \times \tilde{u}(1)$,
conditional only on it being renormalizable. As above in the
electroweak theory, these terms are of three types. First there
will be a term involving only the framons by themselves, which
we shall call the framon potential $V[\Phi]$. Secondly, there will
be the framon kinetic energy terms involving the gauge bosons via
the covariant derivatives of the framons. Lastly, there are the
Yukawa terms coupling the framons to fermions. Of course, there
will also be terms in the action containing no framons at all, but
these will be the same as in the ``unframed'' standard model. Of
the new terms containing the framon fields, we shall construct and
discuss each in turn below.
Consider first then the framon potential $V[\Phi]$ which will tell
us about, among other things, the FSM vacuum. The demand for the
double invariance under both the local $su(3) \times su(2) \times
u(1)$ and global $\widetilde{su}(3) \times \widetilde{su}(2)
\times \tilde{u}(1)$ symmetries stringently constrain the sort
of terms that can be constructed. Taking all terms up to fourth
order in the framon fields (\ref{wframon}) and (\ref{sframon}) for
renormalizability, and contracting all indices in every way to
ensure invariance, one is led to a potential of the following
form:
\begin{equation}
V[\Phi] = V_W[\Phi] + V_S[\Phi] + V_{WS}[\Phi]\,,
\label{VPhi}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
V_W[\Phi] & = & - \mu'_W \sum_{r,\tilde{r},\tilde{a}}
\phi_r^{\tilde{r} \tilde{a} *} \phi_r^{\tilde{r} \tilde{a}}
+ \lambda'_W \left[ \sum_{r,\tilde{r},\tilde{a}}
\phi_r^{\tilde{r} \tilde{a} *} \phi_r^{\tilde{r} \tilde{a}} \right]^2
+ \kappa_{1W} \sum_{r,s,\tilde{r},\tilde{s},\tilde{a},\tilde{b}}
\phi_r^{\tilde{r} \tilde{a} *} \phi_r^{\tilde{r} \tilde{b}}
\phi_s^{\tilde{s} \tilde{b} *} \phi_s^{\tilde{s} \tilde{a}}
\nonumber \\
& + & \kappa_{2W} \sum_{r,s,\tilde{r},\tilde{s},\tilde{a},\tilde{b}}
\phi_r^{\tilde{r} \tilde{a} *} \phi_r^{\tilde{s} \tilde{a}}
\phi_s^{\tilde{s} \tilde{b} *} \phi_s^{\tilde{r} \tilde{b}}
+ \kappa_{3W} \sum_{r,s,\tilde{r},\tilde{s},\tilde{a},\tilde{b}}
\phi_r^{\tilde{r} \tilde{a} *} \phi_s^{\tilde{r} \tilde{a}}
\phi_s^{\tilde{s} \tilde{b} *} \phi_r^{\tilde{s} \tilde{b}},
\label{VPhiW}
\end{eqnarray}
involves only the weak framons (\ref{wframon}),
\begin{eqnarray}
V_S[\Phi] & = & - \mu'_S \sum_{a,\tilde{r},\tilde{a}}
\phi_a^{\tilde{r} \tilde{a} *} \phi_a^{\tilde{r} \tilde{a}}
+ \lambda'_S \left[ \sum_{a,\tilde{r},\tilde{a}}
\phi_a^{\tilde{r} \tilde{a} *} \phi_a^{\tilde{r} \tilde{a}} \right]^2
+ \kappa_{1S} \sum_{a,b,\tilde{r},\tilde{s},\tilde{a},\tilde{b}}
\phi_a^{\tilde{r} \tilde{a} *} \phi_a^{\tilde{s} \tilde{a}}
\phi_b^{\tilde{s} \tilde{b} *} \phi_b^{\tilde{r} \tilde{b}}
\nonumber \\
& + & \kappa_{2S} \sum_{a,b,\tilde{r},\tilde{s},\tilde{a},\tilde{b}}
\phi_a^{\tilde{r} \tilde{a} *} \phi_a^{\tilde{r} \tilde{b}}
\phi_b^{\tilde{s} \tilde{b} *} \phi_b^{\tilde{s} \tilde{a}}
+ \kappa_{3S} \sum_{a,b,\tilde{r},\tilde{s},\tilde{a},\tilde{b}}
\phi_a^{\tilde{r} \tilde{a} *} \phi_b^{\tilde{r} \tilde{a}}
\phi_b^{\tilde{s} \tilde{b} *} \phi_a^{\tilde{s} \tilde{b}},
\label{VPhiS}
\end{eqnarray}
only the strong framons (\ref{sframon}), and
\begin{eqnarray}
\hspace*{-10mm}V_{WS}[\Phi] & = &
\!\! \nu_{11} \sum_{r,a,\tilde{r},\tilde{s},\tilde{a},\tilde{b}}
\phi_r^{\tilde{r} \tilde{a} *} \phi_r^{\tilde{r} \tilde{a}}
\phi_a^{\tilde{s} \tilde{b} *} \phi_a^{\tilde{s} \tilde{b}}
+ \nu_{21} \sum_{r,a,\tilde{r},\tilde{s},\tilde{a},\tilde{b}}
\phi_r^{\tilde{r} \tilde{a} *} \phi_r^{\tilde{r} \tilde{b}}
\phi_a^{\tilde{s} \tilde{b} *} \phi_a^{\tilde{s} \tilde{a}}
\nonumber \\
& + & \!\!\nu_{12} \sum_{r,a,\tilde{r},\tilde{s},\tilde{a},\tilde{b}}
\phi_r^{\tilde{r} \tilde{a} *} \phi_r^{\tilde{s} \tilde{a}}
\phi_a^{\tilde{s} \tilde{b} *} \phi_a^{\tilde{r} \tilde{b}}
+ \nu_{22} \sum_{r,a,\tilde{r},\tilde{s},\tilde{a},\tilde{b}}
\phi_r^{\tilde{r} \tilde{a} *} \phi_r^{\tilde{s} \tilde{b}}
\phi_a^{\tilde{s} \tilde{b} *} \phi_a^{\tilde{r} \tilde{a}}\,,
\label{VPhiWS}
\end{eqnarray}
involves both, linking thus the weak to the strong sector. Next,
recalling the fact that the weak framons (\ref{wframon}) are
subject to the condition (\ref{su2ortho}), one can simplify and
rewrite the 3
terms in $V[\Phi]$ in the following forms:
\begin{equation}
V_W[\Phi] = - \mu_W |\bphi|^2 + \lambda_W (|\bphi|^2)^2,
\label{VPhiW2}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
V_S[\Phi] = - \mu_S \sum_{a,\tilde{a}} (\phi_a^{\tilde{a}*}\phi_a^{\tilde{a}})
+ \lambda_S \left[ \sum_{a, \tilde{a}} (\phi_a^{\tilde{a}*}
\phi_a^{\tilde{a}}) \right]^2 + \kappa_S \sum_{a,b,\tilde{a},\tilde{b}}
(\phi_a^{\tilde{a}*} \phi_a^{\tilde{b}})
(\phi_b^{\tilde{b}*} \phi_b^{\tilde{a}}),
\label{VPhiS2}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
V_{WS}[\Phi] = \nu_1 |\bphi|^2 \sum_{a,\tilde{a}} \phi_a^{\tilde{a} *}
\phi_a^{\tilde{a}} + \nu_2 |\bphi|^2 \sum_a \left| \sum_{\tilde{a}}
(\alpha^{\tilde{a} *} \phi_a^{\tilde{a}})\, \right|^2,
\label{VPhiWS2}
\end{equation}
depending altogether on 7 real parameters $\mu_W, \lambda_W, \mu_S,
\lambda_S, \kappa_S, \nu_1$, and $\nu_2$.
The first thing we would wish to know from the framon potential
$V[\Phi]$ is presumably what it would imply for the vacuum in FSM.
Let us first examine the terms $V_W$ and $V_S$, each involving only
the weak and strong framons by themselves and see what they imply.
The term $V_W$ is the same as the potential in the electroweak
theory of which little more need be said at this juncture. To see
what $V_S$ would imply for the strong vacuum, it is convenient to
adopt a vector notation for the strong framons (\ref{sframon}) by
rewriting them as vectors in $\widetilde{su}(3)$ space, labelled
by the local colour index $a$,
thus:
\begin{equation}
\bphi_a = (\phi_a^{\tilde{a}}),
\label{bfphia}
\end{equation}
in terms of which $V_S[\Phi]$ then reads as:
\begin{eqnarray}
V_S[\Phi] & = & - \mu_S \sum_a |\bphi_a|^2
+ \lambda_S \left( \sum_a |\bphi_a|^2 \right)^2 \nonumber \\
& & + \kappa_S \sum_a \left( |\bphi_a|^2 \right)^2
+ \kappa_S \sum_{a \neq b} |\bphi_a^*\cdot\bphi_b|^2.
\label{VPhiSvec}
\end{eqnarray}
We are interested in the situation when the 3 parameters in it,
namely $\mu_S, \lambda_S, \kappa_S$, are all positive, in which
case, as in the familiar $V_W$ of the electroweak theory, the
vacuum values of $|\bphi_a|$ will be in general nonzero and the
vacuum degenerate. Of the terms in (\ref{VPhiSvec}), we see that
only the second $\kappa_S$ term depends on the orientations of the
vectors $\bphi_a$, the rest depending only on their lengths. Hence,
for $\kappa_S > 0$, the minimum for $V_S$ is attained when $\bphi_a$
are mutually orthogonal. Then, minimizing the remaining terms, which
are symmetric in $a$, with respect to the lengths of $\bphi_a$, we
deduce that these lengths should have equal, nonzero values. In
other words, we would obtain for the vacuum values of $\bphi_a$ an
orthonormal triad, as frame vectors are normally expected
to be. In passing, we note that since $V_S$ is symmetric under
$\widetilde{su}(3)$ by construction, so should be its degenerate
vacuum. The different vacua in the degenerate set here, however,
differ from one another only in the orientation of the orthonormal
triad of frame vectors in the $\widetilde{su}(3)$ or ``generation''
space, but otherwise look the same, making thus the degeneracy
unremarkable.
The situation, however, changes dramatically when the term
$V_{WS}$ is included, which links the strong to the weak sector.
In the notation introduced in (\ref{bfphia}), $V_{WS}$ appears
as:
\begin{equation}
V_{WS}[\Phi] = \nu_1 |\bphi|^2 \sum_a |\bphi_a|^2
- \nu_2 |\bphi|^2 \sum_a |(\balpha^* \cdot \bphi_a)|^2.
\label{VPhiWSvec}
\end{equation}
The first term depends on the weak framon field $\bphi$ only through its
length $|\bphi|$ and so just modifies the value of the parameter
$\mu_W$ in the weak potential $V_W$ and will not alter the basic
structure of the weak vacuum. But $V_{WS}$ contains a $\nu_2$
term involving the relative orientation between the the vectors
$\balpha$ and $\bphi_a$, which means that the strong vacuum
would be distorted from the snug orthonormal arrangement of frame
vectors it had before by the vector $\balpha$ coming from the
weak sector.
How the vector ${\balpha}$ will affect the vacuum values of
the strong framons $\phi_a^{\tilde{a}}$ is qualitatively easy
to see. To be specific, let us take $\nu_2 > 0$ and consider
first the situation when these framons are kept still having the
same length, thus allowing only their orientations to vary. Now
the $\nu_2$ term in (\ref{VPhiWSvec}) is smallest when the framons
$\bphi_a$ are all aligned with the vector $\balpha$, but this is
opposed by the second $\kappa_S$ term in (\ref{VPhiSvec}) which,
to attain its smallest value, would want instead the framons to
be mutually orthogonal. Hence the result of minimizing the two
terms together would be a compromise where the triad is squeezed
from orthogonality together towards the vector $\balpha$ which,
by the symmetry of the problem, would be symmetrically placed
with respect to the triad. Consider next the opposite situation
when the framons are kept mutually orthogonal but allowed only
to change their lengths relative to one another. We recall then
that it was the first $\kappa_S$ term in (\ref{VPhiSvec}) whose
minimization gave the result that the 3 lengths should be equal,
but this is now opposed by the $\nu_2$ term in (\ref{VPhiWSvec})
which, to achieve its smallest value, would prefer to have all
the length attributed to just one of the framons $\bphi_a$ and
$\balpha$ to be aligned with it. Minimizing the two terms
together would thus once more lead to a compromise where the
$\bphi_a$'s differ in length from one another and the vector
$\balpha$ is aligned with the longest. From these two examples,
it is clear then that when the framons are allowed to change
both their relative orientations and lengths, there will be
a trade-off between the two extremes. In other words, the
minimum of the potential is degenerate, with a varying amount
of squeeze on the triad compensated by a simultaneous change in
the relative framon lengths in a prescribed manner, with the
vector $\balpha$ snuggling up to, but not exactly aligned with,
the longest framon.
The properties of the FSM vacuum outlined in the two preceding
paragraphs can be confirmed, of course, by minimizing the
potential $V[\Phi]$. This has been done and the result is given
explicitly in \cite{dfsm}, but for the present discussion, only
the qualitative features described are needed.
In spite of their very different shapes, however, these vacua in
the degenerate set must nevertheless be equivalent to one another
under $\widetilde{su}(3)$ transformations, just as for the vacua
of $V_S[\Phi]$ before the linking term $V_{WS}[\Phi]$ was turned
on, since the whole potential $V[\Phi]$ was constructed to be
invariant under these transformations. And such they are, as
is shown in \cite{dfsm} with the explicit solution, provided of
course that the $\widetilde{su}(3)$ transformations are applied
not only to the framon vectors $\bphi_a$ but also to the vector
$\balpha$, and the results of the transformations are viewed
each in the appropriate gauge. However, if $\balpha$ is held
fixed while $\widetilde{su}(3)$ transformations are applied to
the framons alone, then they will appear distorted in different
ways from orthonormality, as outlined in the above paragraph.
It can thus be said that the vector $\balpha,$ coming from the
weak sector, breaks the $\widetilde{su}(3)$ symmetry in the same
sense that a bar magnet placed in vacuum is said to break space
rotation symmetry. It is in the same spirit too that it was
electromagnetism which breaks the $\widetilde{su}(2)$ symmetry
in the electroweak theory \cite{tHooft} via the vector $\bgamma$
in the preceding section. We thus have the intriguing pattern
of symmetry-breaking entered on the last row of Table 1. The
breaking of $\widetilde{su}(3)$ and $\widetilde{su}(2)$ are the
same in spirit but not in detail. On the one hand,
the $\widetilde{su}(3)$ breaking, but not the $\widetilde{su}(2)$
breaking, occurs already in the potential. On the other hand, in the
$\widetilde{su}(2)$ breaking the preferred direction ${\bgamma}$ is
distinguished by a local gauge interaction, namely that of the
electromagnetic $u(1)$, while for the $\widetilde{su}(3)$ breaking
the preferred direction ${\balpha}$ is not distinguished by a
parallel $su(2)$ gauge interaction.
The reason for these differences can be traced to
the fact that one has chosen, on the basis of what one called
``minimal framing'', the sum representation ${\bf {2}}
+ {\bf {3}}$ for $su(3) \times su(2)$ (hence the global
vector ${\balpha}$) but the product representation
${\bf {2}} \times {\bf {1}}$ for $su(2) \times u(1)$
What is interesting for the moment is that the different strong
vacua in the degenerate set are each attached to a value of the
vector $\balpha$ which is the same vector which gives a 3-valued
``generation'' index to the leptons and quarks in (\ref{LFSM})
and (\ref{QFSM}) above. It seems therefore that the strong
vacuum could have a lot to do, via this vector $\balpha$, with
the properties of fermion generations, such as their mixing and
mass hierarchy, and we would be interested now in what way this
$\balpha$ appears in the lepton and quark mass matrices from
which these properties are ultimately derived.
To answer this, let us next examine the Yukawa terms
coupling the weak framons to the fundamental fermion fields.
These terms
give rise to the lepton and quark mass matrices. To
do so, we have first to specify what fundamental fermion fields
are to be introduced. Not having yet given a geometric meaning
to fermion fields as we think we have to the boson fields, i.e.\
both to the vector bosons as gauge (connection) fields and to the
scalar bosons as framon (frame vector) fields, we have to rely
for selecting our fundamental fermion fields on information
gathered otherwise. Restricting ourselves for simplicity to
only the fundamental representation of each symmetry, we obtain
the following:
\begin{equation}
\psi(1,1), \psi(3,1), \psi(1,2), \psi(2,3)
\label{fundferm}
\end{equation}
where the first argument denotes the dimension of the $su(3)$
and the second that of the $su(2)$ representation, from which
the admissible $u(1)$ charge for each $\psi$ is then specified
by (\ref{yadmit}). Of these $\psi$'s, however, not all the
left- or right-handed components are needed. To see which are
the components needed, recall that in the confinement picture
we have adopted, the left-handed quarks and leptons are flavour
doublet bound states via $su(2)$ confinement of the $su(2)$
doublet fundamental fermion fields $\psi$ with the weak framon.
Then from the fact that in the standard model, based on
phenomenology, one allows only left-handed flavour doublets and
right-handed flavour singlets of quarks and leptons, it can
easily be shown that here only left-handed $su(2)$-doublet and
right-handed $su(2)$-singlet $\psi$'s are allowed, namely:
\begin{equation}
\psi_L(1,2), \psi_L(2,3), \psi_R(1,1), \psi_R(3,1).
\label{fundfermp}
\end{equation}
Proceeding with these as the fundamental fermion fields, one has
then for leptons:
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal A}_{\rm YK}\!\!\! &=& \!\!\!\sum_{[\tilde{a}] [b]} Y^{\rm lepton}_{[b]}
\bar{\psi}^r_{[\tilde{a}]} \alpha^{\tilde{a}} \phi_{r}^{(-)}
\half (1 + \gamma_5) \psi^{[b]}
+ \sum_{[\tilde{a}] [b]} Y'^{\rm lepton}_{[b]}
\bar{\psi}^r_{[\tilde{a}]} \alpha^{\tilde{a}} \phi_{r}^{(+)}
\half (1 + \gamma_5) \psi'^{[b]}
\nonumber \\
&& {} + {\rm h.c.}
\label{wYukawal}
\end{eqnarray}
and for quarks:
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal A}_{\rm YK}\!\!\! &=&\!\!\! \sum_{[\tilde{a}] [b]} Y^{\rm quark}_{[b]}
\bar{\psi}^{ra}_{[\tilde{a}]} \alpha^{\tilde{a}} \phi_{r}^{(-)}
\half (1 + \gamma_5) \psi_a^{[b]}
+ \sum_{[\tilde{a}] [b]} Y'^{\rm quark}_{[b]}
\bar{\psi}^{ra}_{[\tilde{a}]} \alpha^{\tilde{a}} \phi_{r}^{(+)}
\half (1 + \gamma_5) \psi_a^{'[b]}
\nonumber \\
&& {} + {\rm h.c.}
\label{wYukawaq}
\end{eqnarray}
which are of the usual form, except for the appearance of the
global vector $\balpha= (\alpha^{\tilde{a}})$ carried here by the
weak framon in (\ref{wframon}). Notice also that in order to
saturate the $\tilde{a}$ index carried by ${\balpha}$ so as
to make the whole invariant under $\widetilde{su}(3)$, one has
introduced 3 identical copies each of the (left-handed) fermion
fields $\psi_r$ for leptons and $\psi_{ra}$ for quarks, the
copies being labelled by the dummy index $[\tilde{a}]$. Under an
$\widetilde{su}(3)$ transformation, the terms (\ref{wYukawal})
and (\ref{wYukawaq}) will thus remain invariant only if one
relabels the fermion fields accordingly, but this should not
change the physics, given the that these fermion fields are
$\widetilde{su}(3)$ singlets and are identical otherwise. This
is the same argument as was used on the (right-handed) fields
\cite{Weinberg} so as to write any mass matrix in a hermitian
form independent of $\gamma_5$, as we shall also do immediately
below.
With these Yukawa terms (\ref{wYukawal}) and (\ref{wYukawaq}),
one obtains, by substituting for the weak framon its vacuum
expectation value, say $\zeta_W$, the following mass matrix
for both leptons and quarks:
\begin{equation}
m = \zeta_W \left( \begin{array}{c} \alpha^{\tilde{1}} \\
\alpha^{\tilde{2}} \\ \alpha^{\tilde{3}} \end{array} \right)
(Y_{[1]}, Y_{[2]}, Y_{[3]}) \half (1 + \gamma_5)
+\zeta_W \left( \begin{array}{c} Y^*_{[1]} \\ Y^*_{[2]} \\ Y^*_{[3]}
\end{array} \right) (\alpha^{\tilde{1}*}, \alpha^{\tilde{2}*},
\alpha^{\tilde{3}*}) \half (1 - \gamma_5).
\label{massmat}
\end{equation}
Then, again, by relabelling appropriately the right-handed fields
as mentioned in the preceding paragraph, one can rewrite the mass
matrix for both quarks and leptons in the factorized form
(\ref{mfact}), with:
\begin{equation}
m_T = \zeta_W \rho_T; \ \ \
\rho_T^2 = |Y_{[1]}|^2 + |Y_{[2]}|^2 + |Y_{[3]}|^2.
\label{mT}
\end{equation}
As expected, the mass matrices of quarks and leptons do depend
on the vector ${\balpha}$. Besides, they are of rank one, and
expressible as a product of ${\balpha}$ with its hermitian
conjugate as explained. But the vector ${\balpha}$,
originating as it does
as a factor of the weak framon, is of course independent of which
fermion the framon is bound to, so that in (\ref{mfact}) only
$m_T$ depends on the fermion type. Now such a ``universal'' rank-one
mass matrix for fermions has long been advocated \cite{Fritsch,
Harari} as a good starting point or zeroth-order approximation for
attacking the fermion mass hierarchy and mixing problems, since
it has only one massive eigenstate, and it gives for the mixing
matrix the identity matrix, neither of which conclusions is
a bad approximation to what is experimentally observed.
Now, starting with an $\widetilde{su}(3)$ ``generation'' symmetry
as it is done here, it is not trivial to end up with some masses
much larger than others, for any obvious breaking of the symmetry
would lead to a very different mass pattern. It is therefore
quite gratifying that the FSM leads automatically to the above
tree-level mass matrix that phenomenologists have long desired.
However, such a tree-level result is of practical value only
when one knows how to go further to evaluate higher order effects
so as to explain the nontrivial mixing between up-down flavours
and the nonzero masses of lower generations actually observed in
experiment. This last seems difficult in whatever scheme, given
that it would apparently involve breaking both the ``universality''
and the ``factorizabilty'' of the tree-level formula (\ref{mfact})
by subsequent radiative corrections. For example, to obtain
nontrivial mixing, whether in leptons or in quarks, one would need
to make $\balpha$ dependent on up-down flavour. As far as known,
however, only the electroweak interactions depend on flavour, and
they seem too weak to give the desired effects. This was the case
in the standard model when unframed, and remains so even in the
framed standard model; it was seen already that the weak potential
$V[\Phi]$ in (\ref{VPhiW2}) is the same as before and it can easily
be seen too that the kinetic energy term is also the same as in
(\ref{KEofPhi}) for the electroweak theory, as the extra factor of
${\balpha}$ carried by the weak framon (\ref{wframon}) is
just traced away.
Fortunately, however, there is a loop-hole in the above line of
reasoning which allows nontrivial mixing without breaking the
universality of $\balpha$, namely when the vector ${\balpha}$
happens to depend on scale. As a global parameter appearing in
the action, there is in principle no reason why $\balpha$ should
not acquire scale-dependence under renormalization as coupling
constants in general do. Whether it actually does in FSM will be
discussed below, but if we suppose that it
does, then the earlier conclusions on the quark or lepton masses
and mixing matrices deduced from the mass matrix (\ref{mfact}) will
have to be reassessed, for it has now to be specified at what scale
each quantity, whether mass or state vector, is to be measured.
Consider first as examples the two heaviest states in each flavour,
namely $t$ in up and $b$ in down. It was already noted that in
(\ref{mfact}), the coefficient $m_T$ can depend on flavour and can
thus be identified respectively with $m_t$ for up and $m_b$ for
down, assuming at the moment for simplicity that $m_T$ itself does
not depend on scale. But what are the state vectors of $t$ and $b$
in generation space? In each case, the state vector should be the
eigenvector of $m$ in (\ref{mfact}) with the single nonzero value,
namely $\balpha$ itself. But since $\balpha$ depends on scale by
assumption, one has to ask at what scale in each case to evaluate
this $\balpha$. Suppose we follow the standard convention and
evaluate it at their respective mass scales, we would have the
state vector for $t$ as ${\bf v}_t = \balpha(\mu = m_t)$ and for
$b$ as ${\bf v}_b = \balpha(\mu = m_b)$. Hence, the state vectors
${\bf v}_t$ and ${\bf v}_b$ for $t$ and $b$ will in general point
in different directions and give for the CKM matrix element $V_{tb}
= \langle {\bf v}_t|{\bf v}_b \rangle$ a value different from unity.
In other words, one would conclude that there will be mixing, quite
contrary to our earlier conclusion from (\ref{mfact}) when $\balpha$
was taken as scale-independent. And notice that this new conclusion
has been obtained without breaking the universality of $\balpha$,
i.e., without making $\balpha$ at any scale different for the two
different flavours.
Next, what about masses for the lower generations; will they become
nonzero also when $\balpha$ depends on scale? To answer this, we
need consider only one single flavour, say up, for example. The
state vector for $t$ we have already identified as ${\bf v}_t =
\balpha(\mu = m_t)$. The state vectors ${\bf v}_c$ and ${\bf v}_u$
have both to be orthogonal to ${\bf v}_t$ and have themselves to be
mutually orthogonal, the 3 states being by definition independent
quantum states. This means, of course, that at $\mu = m_t$, the
states ${\bf v}_c$ and ${\bf v}_u$ both have zero eigenvalues for
mass matrix $m$ in (\ref{mfact}). But these are not to be taken as
the masses for the $c$ and $u$ quarks, for by the usual convention
adopted above, these masses are to be evaluated at the scale of the
masses themselves, i.e.\ respectively at $\mu = m_c$ and $\mu = m_u$.
At these lower values of the scale, however, the scale-dependent
vector $\balpha$ would be pointing in different directions than at
$\mu = m_t$, i.e., no longer orthogonal to ${\bf v}_c, {\bf v}_u$,
hence giving nonzero solutions to both $m_c$ and $m_u$. It is as
if by virtue of this scale-dependence of $\balpha$, some of the
mass carried exclusively by this vector has leaked into the lower
states and imbued them with hierarchical but yet nonzero masses as
experiment indicate.
The possibility outlined above of a scale-dependent $\balpha$ in
(\ref{mfact}) giving rise both to mixing and a hierarchical mass
spectrum for both quarks and leptons has in fact been studied
phenomenologically for many years and is found so far to be quite
consistent with existing experimental data. Cast in this context
as a hypothesis of a rotating rank-one mass matrix (R2M2), it is
tested phenomenologically in \cite{btfit} and
reviewed in some detail in a recent paper \cite{r2m2} to which the
interested reader is referred. If sustained, these results from
rotation would relieve us from having to break the universality
of the mass matrix (\ref{mfact}) with respect to flavour, which
would be a gain in that we would then no longer have to look to
electroweak forces for the origin of mixing. The effect can now
arise in principle via rotation as a result of renormalization in
the flavour-independent strong sector which is strength-wise
much more favourable.
From the viewpoint taken in the analysis of \cite{r2m2} of mass
matrix rotation as a phenomenological hypothesis, it would appear
that any theory or model which can generate a mass matrix of form
(\ref{mfact}) with $\balpha$ rotating sufficiently speedily with
changing scale would have a fair chance of reproducing the existing
data on mixing and the mass hierarchy. Our interest is therefore
turned next on to the question whether and how such a dependence
on scale, or rotation, of $\balpha$, or of the mass matrix $m$, can
indeed arise from strong interaction in a theory. This would be
a nontrivial requirement because the mass matrix of both leptons
and quarks appear originally in the Yukawa term of the electroweak
sector, and it is not obvious that renormalization effects in the
strong sector would be transmitted there.
For the framed standard model, however, the interesting thing is
that this will be automatic, as follows. We recall that the FSM
vacuum is degenerate, with the vacuum values of the strong framons
in the different vacua in the degenerate set being distorted from
orthonormality in various ways by exactly the vector $\balpha$
coming from the electroweak sector and appearing as a factor in
lepton and quark mass matrices. Hence, if renormalization effects
in the strong sector changes the vacuum with changing scale, as
they normally would, so automatically would $\balpha$ change with
it. Thus, the only remaining question is whether the vacuum in
FSM will indeed change with scale as the result of renormalization
effects in the strong sector.
This question has been answered recently in the affirmative and
is reported in \cite{dfsm}. As a result, the vector $\balpha$
appearing in the quark and lepton mass matrix (\ref{mfact}) will
indeed rotate with changing scale as postulated in \cite{r2m2} and
shown there to lead to hierarchical masses and mixing. Further,
it is found in \cite{dfsm} that this rotating $\balpha$ will have
fixed points at scale $\mu = \infty$ and it has already been noted
just after (\ref{mT}) that it is universal. In other words,
the mass matrix for quarks and leptons which results from FSM is
shown to possess all those properties which have been identified
in \cite{r2m2} as being essential for a successful description of
the mass and mixing patterns for quarks and leptons observed in
experiment, although an explicit fit to data has yet to be done.
One point of interest worth noting is the following. In the FSM
scenario outlined above, up-down mixing arises from rotation
while the rotation itself is driven by renormalization effects
in the strong sector. So it might appear difficult to obtain in
the mixing matrix a CP-violating Kobayashi-Maskawa phase if the
strong sector is itself CP-conserving, as it is generally believed
to be. What is intriguing, however, is that rotation, as shown
in \cite{atof2cps,r2m2}, connects the CP-violating KM phase in
the CKM matrix to the theta-angle coming from topology in the
so-called strong CP problem. Thus, as is also shown in these
papers, removing the theta-angle by a chiral transformation so
as to make the strong interactions CP-invariant, which one can do
in FSM because the mass matrix is of rank one, will automatically
give a CP-violating phase to the CKM matrix which is
naturally of the order
of the magnitude experimentally observed, while offering at the
same time a new solution to the age-old strong CP problem.
It thus seems that just by the simple added device of ``framing''
the gauge theory with a gauge symmetry identical to that of the
standard model, one has gone quite some way towards answering
the questions posed at the beginning about what we called the
idiosyncrasies of the standard model. It offers an explanation
for the origin of not only the Higgs boson but also the three
fermion generations together with, qualitatively, their peculiar
mass and mixing patterns including CP-violation.
In addition, one has gained two bonuses not initially bargained
for, namely a gauge origin for $B - L$ conservation and a new
solution of the strong CP problem. One has yet, of course, to
ascertain whether the actual mass and mixing parameters observed
in experiment can indeed be accommodated in the FSM, and that all
the various new predictions that the FSM is bound to have would
either be consistent with existing data, or else are testable by
future experiments. This will, of course, be a long drawn-out
process, some parts of which, we hope, will be dealt with in
forthcoming papers. For the rest one would have to rely on future
scrutiny by the community. But even at this stage, it seems fair
to say that the framed standard model, and hence by association
also the framed gauge theory framework, has displayed sufficient
features of interest to merit further exploration.
Before one leaves the FSM, there is one more point to be noted
which will be of use later. Since frame vectors have been promoted
in FSM to be dynamical variables, so also will be the components
of the metric. Indeed, we recall that even at vacuum, the frame
vectors are in general distorted from orthonormality, and so the
metric will not in general be flat. Since the original local
gauge symmetry $su(3)$ is supposedly still to be confining and
exact, this means that it is the metric:
\begin{equation}
g^{\tilde{a} \tilde{b}}
= \sum_a (\phi_a^{\tilde{a}})^*\phi_a^{\tilde{b}}
\label{Gup}
\end{equation}
in the $\widetilde{su}(3)$ or generation space that is distorted
from flatness. The details of how this metric is distorted, and
some implications that this will have on phenomenology, can be
found in \cite{dfsm}. We note here only the fact that the metric
in $\widetilde{su}(3)$ is nonflat, which will be relevant for
the discussion in the next section.
\section{Speculations on Relation to Gravity}
Supposing tentatively that framed gauge theory does serve as a
viable basis for the standard model of particle physics more or
less as it is proposed, it would be natural to ask whether the
idea can be extended also to gravity which governs the large
scale physics not covered by particle theory. This is not a
priori hopeless, for we know already that the theory of gravity
is framed (indeed, as stated at the beginning, even the concept
of framing itself is originally borrowed from gravity), and that
it can be considered as a kind of gauge theory. The question
only is whether the two theories, particle theory and gravity,
can be brought closer together as to be recognizable as but two
branches of a common framework.
At this stage, let us for the moment throw caution to the wind
and set our imagination loose on the problem. Let us first list
down for this purpose some similarities and differences between
the two. In the language of this paper, they are both framed
theories, with each a local and a global symmetry. For the
particle theory, the local symmetry is $G$, say, and the global
symmetry $\tilde{G}$, i.e.\ explicitly $su(3) \times su(2) \times
u(1)$, and $\widetilde{su}(3) \times \widetilde{su}(2) \times
\tilde{u}(1)$. For gravity, the global symmetry operating in
the indices $a$ of the vierbeins $e^a_\mu$ is the Lorentz group
which we shall call here $H$ (not $\tilde{H}$, the reason for
which apparent switch in notation between tilde and no-tilde
will soon be obvious). The local symmetry $\tilde{H}$ we shall
take also to be the Lorentz group. This at first sight seems
quite off the mark, since the whole point in gravity is that the
metric becomes distorted by matter so that Lorentz invariance is
lost. However, we have already seen in the framed standard model
of the preceding section how a framed theory originally symmetric
under $\widetilde{su}(3)$ can have its symmetry broken by the
interaction and settles to a quite different metric. So may, we
think, be the case here too. Accepting this for the moment, we
arrange the information in the diagram Fig.\ \ref{Plan1}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\setlength{\unitlength}{1cm}
\begin{picture}(10,14)
\put(1,12){Internal}
\put(8,12){External}
\put(1.5,11){\Large{$\Xi$}}
\put(8.5,11){\Large{$X$}}
\put(1.5,8){\Large{$\widetilde{G}$}}
\put(8.5,8){\Large{$\widetilde{H}$}}
\put(1.1,7){global}
\put(8.2,7){local}
\put(1.1,6.5){broken}
\put(8.2,6.5){broken}
\put(1.5,3.5){\Large$G$}
\put(8.5,3.5){\Large$H$}
\put(1.2,2.5){local}
\put(8.1,2.5){global}
\put(1.2,2){exact}
\put(8.1,2){exact}
\end{picture}
\caption{Plan 1 for before Kaluza-Klein}
\label{Plan1}
\end{figure}
Notice that by ``local'' here, we mean that the transformations
of that symmetry can depend on the point $x$ in the ``external''
space $X$, i.e.\ our space-time, and by ``global'' that they do
not, and hence, up to now, they are tacitly taken as constant.
However, suppose we make the Kaluza-Klein assumption that the
``internal'' space $\Xi$ on which the internal symmetries $G$
and $\tilde{G}$ operate is compactified and very small in size,
then any quantity depending only on points in $\Xi$ but not on
points in $X$ would appear to us as effectively constant and be
considered as ``global''. Accepting this, we are then led to
the diagram Fig.\ \ref{Plan2}, where an arrow represents the
assertion that the quantity at the tail of the arrow depends on
points in the space at its head. As a result, we see that the
Kaluza-Klein assumption has made the arrangement now symmetric
between $\Xi, G, \tilde{G}$ on the one hand and $X, H, \tilde{H}$
on the other.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\setlength{\unitlength}{1cm}
\begin{picture}(10,14)
\put(1.5,11){\Large{$\Xi$}}
\put(8.5,11){\Large{$X$}}
\put(1.5,8){\Large{$\widetilde{G}$}}
\put(8.5,8){\Large{$\widetilde{H}$}}
\put(1.1,7){broken}
\put(8.2,7){broken}
\put(1.5,4){\Large$G$}
\put(8.5,4){\Large$H$}
\put(1.2,3){exact}
\put(8.2,3){exact}
\put(1,2.5){(confining)}
\put(8,2.5){(confining)}
\thicklines
\put(1.7,8.7){\vector(0,1){1.9}}
\put(8.8,8.7){\vector(0,1){1.9}}
\put(2.2,4.5){\vector(1,1){6}}
\put(8,4.5){\vector(-1,1){6}}
\end{picture}
\caption{Plan 2 for after Kaluza-Klein}
\label{Plan2}
\end{figure}
The 2 symmetries $G$ and $\tilde{H}$ remain local in the sense
that their elements may depend on points in the external space
$X$, but their nature would be quite different. Whereas for
the $G$-theory, the group elements operate on the internal space
$\Xi$ but depend on points in external space $X$, for the
$\tilde{H}$-theory, the group elements operate on the same space
$X$, on points of which they can themselves depend. Explicitly,
suppose we introduce for the $G$-theory $A^{ab}_\mu$ as the gauge
potential (connection) and from which we construct $F^{ab}_{\mu\nu}$
as the field tensor (curvature), with Latin indices in $\Xi$ but
Greek indices in $X$. With no known relationship between the
two types of indices, the simplest invariant that we can construct
is just $\sum_{ab\mu\nu} F^{ab}_{\mu\nu} F^{ab}_{\mu\nu}$, namely
the Lagrangian density for the Yang-Mills action. On the other
hand, the same considerations will give for the $\tilde{H}$-theory
the spin connection $\omega^{ab}_\mu$ as the gauge potential and the
Riemann curvature $R^{ab}_{\mu\nu}$ as the field, where both the
Latin and Greek indices are now in $X$, only referred to different
frames. A simpler invariant than before can thus be constructed
by contracting Latin with Greek indices by means of the vierbeins
$e^a_\mu$, giving then the scalar curvature $R^{\mu\nu}_{\mu\nu}
= e_a^\mu e_b^\nu R^{ab}_{\mu\nu} = R$, the Lagrangian density
for the Einstein action instead.
These two ``local'' theories, namely Yang-Mills on the left and
Einstein on the right, can be so different in nature without
destroying the symmetry between the two sides of the diagram of
Fig.\ \ref{Plan2} because they play each a different role there.
Indeed, according to the diagram, there is in principle also on
the right-hand side a Yang-Mills type theory with $H$ as the
symmetry group, and on the left-hand side an Einstein type theory
with $\tilde{G}$ as the symmetry group, and both are ``local'' in
the internal space $\Xi$. Only, we chose to ignore these theories
because we took $\Xi$ to be compactified and so small in size as
to make them inaccessible to us. In other words, it was the input
of the Kaluza-Klein assumption that $\Xi$ is small while $X$ is
extended compared to us that gave rise to this difference. The
structure of the two sides remain symmetric.
Having noted the symmetry in structure between the two sides of
Fig.\ \ref{Plan2}, let us turn to consider a little the
possible dynamics.
On the left-hand side, we said in the preceding section for the
particle theory that the $G$ symmetry is exact but the $\tilde{G}$
symmetry is broken, leading thus to a nonflat metric in $\tilde{G}$
-space. In parallel, we would say on the right-hand side that
the $H$-symmetry is exact but the $\tilde{H}$-symmetry is broken,
leading again to a nonflat metric; this is what we have always
wanted for gravity, although we do not know yet whether the metric
will be distorted by matter in the correct way. In the preceding
sections, we also said that the $G$-symmetry is confining so that
only $G$-neutral objects can propagate. An example is the Higgs
boson which appeared in this theory as a $G$-neutral bound (confined)
state of a framon-antiframon pair held together by $G$-confinement.
Suppose we now say in parallel on the right-hand side that the
$H$-symmetry is also confining. Then we would conclude that the
vierbeins $e^a_\mu$ themselves, not being $H$-neutral will have
to be confined, and can propagate only as bound vierbein pairs
held together by $H$-confinement, namely $\sum_a e^a_\mu e^a_\nu
= g_{\mu\nu}$ or gravitons, which would thus appear as gravity
analogues of the Higgs boson in particle theory.
In the particle theory on the left-hand side, we recall that
the self-interaction potential $V[\Phi]$ of the framons $\Phi$
plays an important role. What happens if we introduce on the
right for gravity also a self-interaction potential for the
vierbeins? The same symmetry arguments as before will lead to
a potential formally identical to that for the $su(3)$ theory of
the preceding section. Now we noted in the analysis there that
the $su(3)$ framons remain orthonormal at vacuum corresponding
to a Euclidean metric in $\widetilde{su}(3)$ space until the
symmetry is broken by interaction with framons from $su(2)$.
Virtually the same analysis on the potential for the vierbeins,
i.e.\ the $H-\tilde{H}$ framons on the right-hand side of Fig.\
\ref{Plan2}, will show that the vierbeins here will also be
orthonormal at a stationary point of the potential (although
with the indefinite signature, it is here not a minimum as it was
for the other case). This would seem to mean that when left to
themselves, the vierbeins would settle to orthonormality and the
metric to the Minkowski metric. In other words, in the absence of
or far away from other fields like matter, $X$ would settle down
automatically to a Minkowski world, which is probably the sort
of solutions we would seek in any case. In regions of space
dominated by matter, the effects of the framon potential will
presumably be negligible.
Matter fields in the particle theory on the left are usually
fermionic; fermionic fields too can be introduced on the right
for gravity with the ECKS formalism \cite{ecks} by means of the
vierbeins
and the spin connection. In either case, as usually formulated,
the fermion fields are inserted by hand without being ascribed
a geometrical significance. In the framework of framed gauge
theory we are considering, however, it appears that a possible
geometrical meaning for fermionic fields may emerge in the
following manner.
The symmetry displayed in Fig.\ \ref{Plan2} between the internal
structures on the left and the external structures on the right
may still seem defective in that the framons on the left, as
introduced in the preceding sections, are complex, whereas the
vierbeins on the right are real. This apparent asymmetry is
due, however, only to our own sloppy convention. When we have
spinor fields around, the symmetry group is not $SO(3)$ but
its double cover $SU(2)$. In the same way, when we have spinors
on the right-hand side of Fig.\ \ref{Plan2}, as indeed there are
in nature, the symmetry groups $H$ and $\tilde{H}$ should not
be taken as the Lorentz group $SO(3,1)$ as we did, but its
double cover $SL(2,\bbc)$\footnote{Strictly speaking, $SL(2,\bbc)$
double covers the proper orthochronous Lorentz group, usually
denoted $SO^+(3,1)$}. That being the case, we ought to have
chosen as framons, in parallel to the framons in $\Phi$ of the
preceding sections, not the vierbeins $e^a_\mu$ as we did, but
the elements of a matrix, $\Psi$ say, whose rows transform as
4-spinors under $H$ and whose columns transform as 4-spinors
under $\tilde{H}$, removing thus what had appeared as a defect
before in the symmetry between the left and right side of Fig.\
\ref{Plan2}.
One interesting consequence of taking $\Psi$ as framons instead
of the vierbeins as one did above is to have space-time spinors
now appearing as geometric objects. However, since they transform
as spinors under $H$, and $H$ is supposed to be confining, they
will have to be confined and cannot be taken as actual fermion
fields. They can form bound states with their own conjugates
giving bosonic fields like the graviton above, but can they form
bound states with something else to give fermionic fields? One
possibility is their bound states with differential forms in $H$
space. Saturating the $H$ indices in the framons with those of
the differential forms will give objects which now carry only
tilde indices, i.e.\ are neutral under $H$ and hence can propagate,
but still transform as spinors under $\tilde{H}$ as fermion fields
should. But further, being differential forms, they will mutually
anti-commute, again as fermion fields should. Has one then found
a geometric significance for fermionic matter?
In other words, one says that they
transform as spinors because they are framons in a theory with
the double cover of the Lorentz group as symmetry group, and they
anti-commute because they are basically line-elements. Amusingly,
a proton made up of 3 quarks will now appear as a volume element!
We notice, though, that to saturate the spinorial indices in
$\Psi$ one needs differential forms carrying also spinorial
indices, i.e.\ differential forms not in ordinary space-time $X$
with space-time vectors $x,t$ as co-ordinates, but in a spinor-valued
version of it with details yet to be worked out.
By this stage, it is probably clear to all our readers that we are
getting rapidly out of our depths, and that we have speculated
already much more than enough. But these speculations have given
us at least some delectable food for thought and, together with
what the framed gauge theory framework seemed to have done above
for the particle physics sector, new encouragement to continue
with its exploration.
|
\section{Introduction} \label{sec:Introduction}
Google launched its latest social networking
site Google+ on June 28$^{\rm th}$, 2011. According to comScore, an Internet traffic watcher, Google+
registered 25 million users in its first 5 weeks \cite{ComScore11},
which motivates a close scrutiny. Current
leader of social networking market and the key rival of Google+,
Facebook, has over 750 million registered users
\cite{FacebookStatistics11}. Facebook users share more than 30 billion
pieces of content (photos, videos, web links, notes, blog posts etc.) every month.
Google+ like other social networks is used for sharing private
information including
status updates, occupation, employment history, home and work addresses, contact numbers, relationship status, photos, videos,
etc. As Google+'s market penetration grows, so will the
amount of data shared by its users. With the enormous amount of data produced on
social networks, privacy is one of the issues widely discussed both in
media and academia \cite{Anderson08}. Considering the importance of protection of the
private information of its users Google+ has introduced circles as a new concept to address the issue.
Use of social networks has resulted in disclosure of
embarrassing information, loss of employment, suspension from school,
and blackmail \cite{Weiner11}. Social networks are
also used for social phishing attacks. Phishers harvest email
addresses to find the real names and social network profiles of their
victims \cite{Polakis10}. This harvest is possible because both
Google+ and Facebook require its users to use their real names and
allow search based on email addresses. Once
the real names and social network profiles are found, phishers extract
more information including people in the circles (or friend list) of
the victim, any comments, events attended etc. This information is
then used to craft personalized phishing attacks, called social
phishing \cite{Jagatic07}. Identity theft is costing US economy
\$15.6 billion a year
\cite{IdentityTheft11}. Moreover, social network status updates facilitated
robberies on several occasions, where the owner announced absence from
their property for a certain duration
\cite{FacebookRobbery10}. Furthermore, the large amount of data is also of
interest to advertisers and marketers. According to a survey by Social Media Examiner over 92\%
marketers use social networks as a tool
\cite{FacebookMarketer11}.
In view of the above discussion, it is very important and timely to analyze
Google+ and identify any privacy related issues. This is the
main goal of this paper.
\textbf{Our contributions: }
\newline
\begin{compactitem}[\textbullet]
\item We provide a preliminary analysis of privacy in Google+. We
identify that Google+ shares the metadata of photos uploaded
which could lead to privacy violations, discussed in Section
\ref{PhotoMetadata}. Moreover, Google+ encourages its users to
provide their past addresses and other names e.g. maiden name which
could be used for identity theft. For further details see Section
\ref{OtherNames}.
\item We compare Google+ circles (it's main privacy selling point) to
Facebook lists. We show that, although Google+ circles have a
better graphical user interface, they are logically and
functionally a subset of Facebook lists. Details are provided in
Section \ref{CirclesVSLists}.
\item We also make other comparisons between Facebook and Google+
including the use of encryption and the ability to disable comments
and message sharing. Further details are provided in Section \ref{OtherComparisons}
\end{compactitem}
\section{Google+ Privacy}
In this section we present some privacy related problems and features of Google+.
We also make a comparison with Facebook, when applicable.
\subsection{Google+'s photo metadata} \label{PhotoMetadata}
When a user uploads a photo on Google+, some metadata including the name of
the photo owner, the date and time the photo was taken, the make and model of
the camera etc. are made available to those with whom the photo is shared. This
set of information, in particular the date and time, may at first look
relatively innocent and trivial, but could in reality lead to some serious
privacy concerns. On August 10, 2007, in Pennsylvania (USA), a divorce lawyer
proved the spouse of the client being unfaithful to his partner, when the
electronic toll records showed him in New Jersey (USA) on that night and not
in a business meeting in Pennsylvania \cite{Divorce11}. With the metadata revealed by
Google+ a user might leak enough information to be legally held liable on
similar accounts.
Similarly, the make of the camera could be another concern for privacy. Higher
end cameras cost thousands of dollars. There have
been past incidents where the victims were killed for their cameras. In May 2011,
a Greek citizen, 44, was killed for his camera when taking his wife to the
hospital for child birth \cite{Camcorder11}.
Just to give an example of the level of information a picture exposes about
the camera, look at the metadata of the publicly shared pictures (from his Google+ profile) of Google co-founder
Larry Page, shown in Figure \ref{fig:Larry}. It reveals that
they he used a Canon EOS 5D Mark II camera to shoot his vacation
photographs. This camera is worth approximately USD 2000. This gives the robber
incentives.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\epsfig{file=./Larry, height = 3.1in, width = 3.3in}
\caption{Metadata from a photo by Larry Page on Google+}\label{fig:Larry}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Cities lived in and other names on profile} \label{OtherNames}
In the ``About'' section of personal information, Google+ encourages
its user to
provide the names of cities the user lived in and other names.
In the text box for other names, they write \textit{``For example: maiden name,
alternative spelling''}. Messages, photos and comments on social
networks and other online sources can be used to
infer family relationships. So, if someone can
link a profile to the profile of the mother and if the mother provides
the maiden name, then this could be used for identity theft, as
mother's maiden name is one of the most widely used secret question
\cite{Berghel00}. Moreover, the past addresses can only help the attacker with such
attacks.
\subsection{Google+ circles vs Facebook lists} \label{CirclesVSLists}
Paul Adams, then a Google employee, introduced the concept
of social circles \cite{Adams10}. These social circles act as the foundation
of circles in Google+. In Google+, by default there are four circles: ``friends'',
``family'', ``acquaintances'' and ``following''. We can remove/ rename any of the
default circles or add new circles. A user
can add any of her contacts to one or more circles just by a
simple drag and drop. Figure \ref{fig:GoogleCircle} shows the graphical
interface of Google+ circles. The intersection of two or more circles
can be a non-empty set.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\epsfig{file=./Circle, height = 1.1in, width = 3.3in}
\caption{Google+ Circles} \label{fig:GoogleCircle}
\end{figure}
A user can share the content of her choice with a specific set of her
circles, all her circles, her extended circles(people in all her
circles and all people in the circles of the people in her circles)
and with the public (everyone). Google+ does not allow any exceptions,
i.e.\ , if some content is shared with a larger circle, there is no way
to exclude any subset of that circle. Anything shared with the public is
shared with all circles including the family and friends circle, which
might not be what the user may require.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\epsfig{file=./FBExceptions, height = 1.7in, width = 3.3in}
\caption{Share content with list``All'' but hide from list
``CoWorkers'' on Facebook} \label{fig:FBExceptions}
\end{figure}
Facebook on the other hand calls all the user's connections as
``friends''. Friends could be divided into groups
called ``lists''. There is no default list, so any structure has to be
created from scratch. Content on Facebook
can be shared with one or more lists, exactly like Google+ circles. But,
there is one difference that makes Facebook lists more robust than
Google+ circles i.e.\ the possibility of making exceptions. In
Facebook, we can limit access of our content to a list which is a subsets
of a set of lists with whom the content is shared. This means, we can
share a message with a list called ``All'' (containing all our
contacts) and still make the content invisibile to our ``CoWorkers'', as shown in Figure
\ref{fig:FBExceptions}.
As Facebook's list creation was relatively cumbersome, recently a Facebook
application called ``Circle Hack'' \cite{CircleHack11} has been launched
which provides the Google+ circles graphical interface for Facebook
lists. The possibility and use of this application further proves our claim that Facebook lists are
logically and functionally a superset of Google+ circles.
\subsection{Google+ vs Facebook: other comparisons} \label{OtherComparisons}
Facebook uses an encrypted channel only for user authentication
(login) while Google+ uses it throughout the connection. This makes it harder to launch a
man in the middle attack against Google+. Moreover, Google+ allows
finer control of the content shared by a user. A user can disable comments
on a post at any time and enable it again later. This could be a
useful option to calm down any heated discussions, on the users wall,
between two contacts over the shared content or anything
else. Facebook, on the other hand, provides its users only with coarser control i.e.\ they
can only block a user from the entire wall but not on an individual content
basis (if it was initially shared with them). Furthermore, Google+ allows disabling
the resharing of a content at any instant on a content by content basis,
again its not possible in Facebook. Finally, Google+ allows its users to
edit their comments whenever they want. The time stamp of the last
editing remains visible on a comment, so users may modify or
backtrack their comments at any time. This too is not possible in
Facebook.
\section{Related work}
Bradshaw identified the first privacy flaw in Google+ \cite{Bradshaw11}. The flaw was that any
content shared with a particular circle could be reshared with anyone
by someone from those circles. Although resharing of information is
always possible in the electronic world, if someone downloads a copy
and upload it again. But,
the simplicity and provision of a share button without proper
authorization is a privacy problem. This problem is now fixed by Google+.
Social networks privacy and its potential threats have been widely
studied in recent years. One of the earliest works on potential threats to
individual's privacy including stalking, embarrassment and identity
theft was done by Gross \textit{et al.} \cite{Gross05}.
Felt \cite{Felt07} presented a vulnerability in Facebook Markup Language
which lead to session hijacking. Bonneau and Dhingra independently
presented conditional and limited unauthorized access to Facebook
photos \cite{Bonneau09b,Dhingra08}.
\section{Conclusion} \label{Conclusion}
To conclude, we provided a preliminary analysis of Google+
privacy. We expressed concern that Google+ shares the metadata of the photos
uploaded by its users. We also showed that Google+ encourages its
users to provide their other names, e.g.\ , maiden names which may help
in identity theft. Moreover, we provided a comparison of Google+
circles with Facebook lists and showed that the latter is a superset of
the former, both logically and functionally even though Google+ provides
a better graphical interface. Finally, we provided other comparisons,
including the use of encryption and the possibility of modifying
comments at a later stage,
between Facebook and Google+.
\bibliographystyle{abbrv}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:Introduction}
Modern quantum field theories are based on fundamental symmetries. This holds for quantum
electrodynamics (QED)
as well as for the standard model of elementary particle physics. Whenever physicists talk
about symmetries they usually think of gauge invariance or the discrete symmetries charge
conjugation \textit{C}, parity \textit{P}, and time reversal \textit{T}. However, there is one symmetry that often
takes a back seat: Lorentz invariance. This is not surprising, since until now there had
been no convincing experimental evidence for a violation of Lorentz invariance.\footnote{
At the end of September 2011 this seemed to change with the publication of the result by the
OPERA collaboration, which claimed to have discovered Lorentz violation in the neutrino
sector \cite{OPERA:2011zb}. A large number of theoretical models emerged trying to explain
the observed anomaly, for example by Fermi point splitting \cite{Klinkhamer:2011mf},
spontaneous symmetry breaking caused by the existence of a fermionic condensate
\cite{Klinkhamer:2011iz}, or a multiple Lorentz group structure \cite{Schreck:2011ni}.
However, the physics community remained sceptical and articles were published trying to
explain the result by an error source that had not been taken into account
\cite{Contaldi:2011,Besida:2011fi,vanElburg:2011ze}. Unfortunately, at the 25th International
Conference on Neutrino Physics and Astrophysics OPERA announced that their new measurement
yields a deviation of the neutrino velocity from the speed of light, which is consistent with
zero. Now again all laws of nature seem to obey Lorentz invariance.}
However, a violation of other symmetries is part of the everyday life of any high-energy
physicist. For example, violations of \textit{P} and \textit{CP} were measured long ago \cite{Wu:1957,Christenson:1964fg}
and a broken electroweak gauge symmetry with massive $\mathrm{W^{\pm}}$, and $\mathrm{Z^0}$ bosons is
an experimental fact. Why then should Lorentz symmetry and its violation not be of interest?
There exist good theoretical arguments for Lorentz invariance being a symmetry that is restored
at low energies \cite{ChadhaNielsen1983}. At the Planck length the topology of spacetime may be
dynamical, which could lead to it having a foamy structure. The existence of such a spacetime foam
\cite{Wheeler:1957mu,Hawking:1979zw} may define a preferred reference frame --- as is the case
for water in a glass --- and thus violate Lorentz invariance. Since a fundamental
quantum theory of spacetime is still not known, we have to rely on well-established theories such as
the standard model or special relativity for a description of Lorentz violation. By introducing
new parameters that deform these theories it is possible to parameterize Lorentz violation on
the basis of standard physics. One approach is to modify dispersion relations of particles. However,
such a procedure is very \textit{ad hoc} and it is not evident where the modification comes from. Therefore,
a more elementary possibility is to parameterize modifications on the level of Lagrange densities.
A collection of all Lorentz-violating deformations of the standard model that are gauge
invariant
is known as the Lorentz-violating extension of the standard model \cite{ColladayKostelecky1998}.
The minimal version of this extension relies on power-counting renormalizable terms, whereas the
nonminimal version also includes operators of mass dimension $d>4$ (see e.g. the analyses
performed in \cite{Kostelecky:2009zp,Kostelecky:2011gq,Cambiaso:2012vb}).
The theoretical consistency of the standard model itself has been verified by investigations based
on Lorentz-invariant quantum field theory that were performed over decades (see, for example,
Ref.~\cite{JordanPauli1928}). However, it is not entirely clear if a Lorentz-violating theory is
consistent. Some results on certain sectors of the standard model extension already
exist \cite{KosteleckyLehnert2000,AdamKlinkhamer2001,Liberati:2001sd,Mavromatos:2009xg,Casana-etal2009,
Casana-etal2010,Klinkhamer:2010zs,Klinkhamer:2011ez}, but there still remains a lot what we can learn about
Lorentz-violating quantum field theories.
Because of this it is very important to check Lorentz-violating deformations with
respect to fundamental properties such as microcausality and unitarity. Furthermore, it is of
significance whether the modified theory approaches the standard theory for arbitrarily small
deformations. The purpose of this paper is to investigate these questions.
Especially in the case where Lorentz violation resides in the photon sector, it can lead to a variety
of new effects, for example a birefringent vacuum \cite{ColladayKostelecky1998}, new particle
decays \cite{Beall:1970rw,Coleman:1997xq}, and ``aetherlike'' deviations from special relativity,
which are modulated with the rotation of the Earth around the Sun (e.g. Refs.~\cite{Phillips:2000dr,Bear:2000cd}).
From an experimental point of view, photons produce clean signals making the photon sector very important,
in bounding Lorentz-violating parameters.
There exist two gauge-invariant and power-counting renormalizable deformations of the photon
sector: Maxwell--Chern--Simons theory (MCS-theory) \cite{Carroll-etal1990} and modified
Maxwell theory \cite{ColladayKostelecky1998,KosteleckyMewes2002}. Each Lagrangian contains
additional terms besides the Maxwell term of standard electrodynamics. The consistency
of the isotropic and one anisotropic sector of modified Maxwell theory was already shown
in \cite{Klinkhamer:2010zs}. In this article a special sector, that violates parity and
is supposed to show no birefringence, will be investigated.
The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. 2 modified Maxwell theory is presented and
restricted to the parity-odd nonbirefringent case. Additionally, it is coupled to a
standard Dirac theory of massive spin-1/2 fermions, which leads to a theory of modified
QED. In Secs. 3 and 4, we review the nonstandard photon dispersion
relations and the gauge propagator, which are determined from the field equations
\cite{Casana-etal2009,Casana-etal2010}. That completes the current status of research
concerning this special sector of modified Maxwell theory. The successive parts of the
article deal with the main issue, beginning with the deformed polarization vectors, which can
also be obtained from the field equations. After setting up the building blocks we are ready
to discuss unitarity in Sec. 6 and microcausality in Sec. 7. The subsequent two sections are
devoted to the polarization vectors themselves. Since their form is rather uncommon ---
even when considering Lorentz-violating theories --- we make comparisons with MCS-theory and
other sectors of modified Maxwell theory. It will become evident that the polarization
vectors have a property that distinguishes them from the polarization vectors of standard
electrodynamics, even in the limit of vanishing Lorentz violation. To test, whether or not some
residue of the deformation remains in this limit, in Sec. 9 we compute the cross section of the
simplest tree-level process involving external modified photons that is also allowed by standard
QED: Compton scattering. We conclude in the last section. Readers may skip Secs. 4 -- 8 on first
reading.
\section{Modified Maxwell theory}
\label{sec:ModMaxtheory}
\subsection{Action and nonbirefringent Ansatz}
\label{sec:Action-nonbirefringent-Ansatz}
In this article, we focus on modified Maxwell theory~\cite{ChadhaNielsen1983,ColladayKostelecky1998,KosteleckyMewes2002}.
This particular Lorentz-violating theory is characterized by the action
\begin{subequations}\label{eq:action-modified-maxwell-theory}
\begin{eqnarray}
S_{\mathrm{modMax}}&=&\int_{\mathbb{R}^4}\mathrm{d}^4x\,
\mathcal{L}_\text{modMax}(x)\,,\\[2mm]
\mathcal{L}_\text{modMax}(x)&=& -\frac{1}{4}\,
\eta^{\mu\rho}\,\eta^{\nu\sigma}\,F_{\mu\nu}(x)F_{\rho\sigma}(x)
-\frac{1}{4}\,
\kappa^{\mu\nu\varrho\sigma}\,F_{\mu\nu}(x)F_{\varrho\sigma}(x)\,,
\label{eq:L-modified-maxwell-theory}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{subequations}
which involves the field strength tensor $F_{\mu\nu}(x)\equiv\partial_{\mu}A_{\nu}(x)-\partial_{\nu}A_{\mu}(x)$
of the $U(1)$ gauge field $A_{\mu}(x)$. The fields are defined on
Minkowski spacetime with global Cartesian coordinates
$(x^\mu)$ $=$ $(x^0,\boldsymbol{x})$ $=$ $(c\,t,x^1,x^2,x^3)$
and metric $g_{\mu\nu}(x)$ $=$ $\eta_{\mu\nu}$ $\equiv$
$\text{diag}\,(1,\, -1,\, -1,\, -1)\,$. The first term in
Eq. \eqref{eq:L-modified-maxwell-theory} represents the standard
Maxwell term and the second corresponds to a modification of the
standard theory of photons. The fixed background field
$\kappa^{\mu\nu\varrho\sigma}$ selects preferred
directions in spacetime and, therefore, breaks Lorentz
invariance.
The second term in Eq. \eqref{eq:L-modified-maxwell-theory} is
expected to have the same symmetries as the first. These correspond
to the symmetries of the Riemann curvature tensor,
which reduces the number of independent parameters to 20. Furthermore,
a vanishing double trace, $\kappa^{\mu\nu}_{\phantom{\mu\nu}\mu\nu}=0$,
is imposed. A nonvanishing $\kappa^{\mu\nu}_{\phantom{\mu\nu}\mu\nu}$
can be absorbed by a field redefinition \cite{ColladayKostelecky1998}
and does not contribute to physical observables. This additional
condition leads to a remaining number of 19 independent parameters.
Modified Maxwell theory has two distinct parameter sectors that can be
distinguished from each other by the property of birefringence.
The first consists of 10 parameters and leads to birefringent photon
modes at leading-order Lorentz violation. The second is made up of
9 parameters and shows no birefringence, at least to first order with
respect to the parameters. Since the 10 birefringent parameters are
bounded by experiment at the $10^{-32}$ level \cite{Kostelecky:2001mb},
we will restrict our considerations to the nonbirefringent sector,
which can be parameterized by the following
\textit{Ansatz}~\cite{BaileyKostelecky2004}:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:nonbirefringent-Ansatz}
\kappa^{\mu\nu\varrho\sigma}=
\frac{1}{2}\,\Big(
\eta^{\mu\varrho}\,\widetilde{\kappa}^{\nu\sigma}
-\eta^{\mu\sigma}\,\widetilde{\kappa}^{\nu\varrho}
-\eta^{\nu\varrho}\,\widetilde{\kappa}^{\mu\sigma}
+\eta^{\nu\sigma}\,\widetilde{\kappa}^{\mu\varrho}\Big)\,,
\end{equation}
with a constant symmetric and traceless $4\times 4$ matrix
$\widetilde{\kappa}^{\mu\nu}$. Here and in the following, natural units
are used with $\hbar=c=1$, where $c$ corresponds to the maximal
attainable velocity of the standard Dirac particles, whose action
will be defined in Sec.~\ref{sec:Coupling-to-standard-Dirac-particles}.
There exists a premetric formulation of classical electrodynamics,
that is solely based on the concept of a manifold and does not need a metric.
In this context a tensor density $F$ (electromagnetic field strength) and
pseudotensor densities $\mathcal{H}$, $\mathcal{J}$ (electromagnetic excitation
and electric current) are introduced. Since the resulting field equations for
these quantities are underdetermined, an additional relation between $F$ and
$\mathcal{H}$ has to be imposed, which is governed by the so-called constitutive
four-tensor $\chi$. Modified Maxwell theory emerges as one special case of this
description, namely as the principal part of the constitutive tensor previously
mentioned~\cite{Hehl:2003,Itin:2009aa}. In Eq.~(D.1.80) of the book \cite{Hehl:2003}
the nonbirefringent \textit{Ansatz} of Eq.~\eqref{eq:nonbirefringent-Ansatz} can be
found, as well. Section D.1.6 gives a motivation for it as the simplest --- but not
the most general --- decomposition of the principal part of $\chi$.
Furthermore, note that a special sector of \textit{CPT}-even modified Maxwell theory arises
as a contribution of the one-loop effective action of a \textit{CPT}-odd deformation
involving a spinor field and the photon field \cite{Gomes:2009ch}.
\subsection{Restriction to the parity-odd anisotropic case}
\label{sec:Parity-odd-anisotropic}
The anisotropic case considered concerns the parity-odd
sector of modified Maxwell theory \eqref{eq:action-modified-maxwell-theory}
with the \textit{Ansatz} from Eq.~\eqref{eq:nonbirefringent-Ansatz}.
This case is characterized by one purely timelike
normalized four-vector $\xi^{\mu}$ and one purely spacelike
four-vector $\zeta^{\mu}$ containing three real parameters
$\widetilde{\kappa}^{01}$, $\widetilde{\kappa}^{02}$, and
$\widetilde{\kappa}^{03}$\,:
\begin{subequations}\label{eq:definition-parity-odd-case}
\begin{eqnarray}
\widetilde{\kappa}^{\mu\nu}&=&
\frac{1}{2}\,(\xi^{\mu}\zeta^{\nu}+\zeta^{\mu}\xi^{\nu})
-\frac{1}{4} \, \xi^{\lambda}\zeta_{\lambda}\,\eta^{\mu\nu}
\label{eq:definition-parity-odd-case-widetildekappamunu}
\,,\\[2mm]
(\xi^{\mu})&=&(1,\,0,\,0,\,0)\,,\quad
(\zeta^{\mu})
\equiv (0,\,2\,\boldsymbol{\zeta})
=
(0,\,2\,\widetilde{\kappa}^{01},\,
2\,\widetilde{\kappa}^{02},\,
2\,\widetilde{\kappa}^{03})\,,
\label{eq:definition-parity-odd-case-four-vectors}
\\[2mm]
(\widetilde{\kappa}^{\mu\nu})&=&\begin{pmatrix}
0 & \widetilde{\kappa}^{01} & \widetilde{\kappa}^{02} & \widetilde{\kappa}^{03} \\
\widetilde{\kappa}^{01} & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
\widetilde{\kappa}^{02} & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
\widetilde{\kappa}^{03} & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
\end{pmatrix}\,,
\end{eqnarray}
\end{subequations}
where \eqref{eq:definition-parity-odd-case-widetildekappamunu}
is the most general \textit{Ansatz} for a symmetric and traceless
tensor constructed from two four-vectors.
The second term on the right-hand side
of \eqref{eq:definition-parity-odd-case-widetildekappamunu}
vanishes for the special choice \eqref{eq:definition-parity-odd-case-four-vectors}.
With the replacement rules given in \cite{KlinkhamerRisse2008b},
we can express our parameters in terms of the Standard Model Extension
(SME) parameters~\cite{KosteleckyMewes2002,BaileyKostelecky2004}:
\begin{subequations}\label{eq:parity-odd-case-SME}
\begin{eqnarray}
\widetilde{\kappa}^{01}&=&-(\widetilde{\kappa}_{\mathrm{o}+})^{(23)}\,,\\
\widetilde{\kappa}^{02}&=&-(\widetilde{\kappa}_{\mathrm{o}+})^{(31)}\,,\\
\widetilde{\kappa}^{03}&=&-(\widetilde{\kappa}_{\mathrm{o}+})^{(12)}\,.
\end{eqnarray}
\end{subequations}
Hence, the case considered here includes only parity-violating coefficients.
This parity-odd case may be of relevance, since it might reflect
the parity-odd low-energy effective photon sector of a quantum theory
of spacetime.
Besides five parameters of the birefringent sector of modified Maxwell
theory, whose coefficients are already strongly bounded, there is only one
alternative parity-odd Lorentz-violating theory for the photon sector, which
is gauge-invariant and power-counting renormalizable: MCS theory
\cite{Carroll-etal1990}. However, the MCS parameters are bounded to lie
below $10^{-42}\,\mathrm{GeV}$
by CMB polarization measurements \cite{Kostelecky:2008ts}.
Since the bounds are not as strong for the parity-odd case of nonbirefringent
modified Maxwell theory defined by Eq. \eqref{eq:definition-parity-odd-case},
a physical understanding of this case is of importance.
\subsection{Coupling to matter: Parity-odd modified QED}
\label{sec:Coupling-to-standard-Dirac-particles}
Modified photons are coupled to matter by the minimal coupling procedure
to standard (Lorentz-invariant) spin-$\textstyle{\frac{1}{2}}$ Dirac
particles with electric charge $e$ and mass $M$. This results in a
parity-odd deformation of QED~\cite{Heitler1954,JauchRohrlich1976,Veltman1994},
which is given by the action
\begin{equation}\label{eq:action-isotropic-modQED} \hspace*{0mm}
S_\text{modQED}^\text{parity-odd}\big[\widetilde{\kappa}^{0m},e,M\big] =
S_\text{modMax}^\text{parity-odd}\big[\widetilde{\kappa}^{0m}\big] +
S^\text{}_\text{Dirac}\big[e,M\big] \,,
\end{equation}
for $m=1$, 2, 3 and with the modified-Maxwell term
\eqref{eq:action-modified-maxwell-theory}--\eqref{eq:definition-parity-odd-case}
for the gauge field $A_\mu(x)$
and the standard Dirac term for the spinor field $\psi(x)$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:standDirac-action}
S^\text{ }_\text{Dirac}\big[e,M\big] =
\int_{\mathbb{R}^4} \mathrm{d}^4 x \; \overline\psi(x) \Big[
\gamma^\mu \big(\mathrm{i}\,\partial_\mu -e A_\mu(x) \big) -M\Big] \psi(x)\,.
\end{equation}
Equation \eqref{eq:standDirac-action} is to be understood with standard
Dirac matrices $\gamma^\mu$ corresponding to the Minkowski metric
$\eta^{\mu\nu}$.
\section{Dispersion relations}
\label{sec:Dispersion-relations-classical-causality}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
The field equations \cite{ColladayKostelecky1998,KosteleckyMewes2002,BaileyKostelecky2004}
of modified Maxwell theory in momentum space,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:field-equations-modified-maxwell-theory}
M^{\mu\nu}A_{\nu}=0 \,,\quad
M^{\mu\nu}\equiv
k^{\lambda}k_{\lambda}\,\eta^{\mu\nu}-k^{\mu}k^{\nu}
-2\,\kappa^{\mu\rho\sigma\nu}\,k_{\rho}k_{\sigma}\,,
\end{equation}
lead to the following dispersion relations~\cite{Casana-etal2009}
for the two physical degrees of freedom of
electromagnetic waves (labeled $\lambda=1,2$):
\begin{subequations}\label{eq:dispersion-relation-p-odd-1-2}
\begin{eqnarray}
\omega_1(\mathbf{k})&=&
\widetilde{\kappa}^{01}\,k_1
+\widetilde{\kappa}^{02}\,k_2
+\widetilde{\kappa}^{03}\,k_3
+\sqrt{|\mathbf{k}|^2+(\widetilde{\kappa}^{01}\,k_1
+\widetilde{\kappa}^{02}\,k_2+\widetilde{\kappa}^{03}\,k_3)^2}\,,
\label{eq:dispersion-relation-p-odd-1}\\[2mm]
\omega_2(\mathbf{k})&=&
\widetilde{\kappa}^{01}k_1\,
+\widetilde{\kappa}^{02}k_2\,
+\widetilde{\kappa}^{03}k_3\,
+\sqrt{1+(\widetilde{\kappa}^{01})^2
+(\widetilde{\kappa}^{02})^2+(\widetilde{\kappa}^{03})^2}\;|\mathbf{k}|
\label{eq:dispersion-relation-p-odd-2}\,,
\end{eqnarray}
\end{subequations}
for wave vector $\mathbf{k}=(k_1,\,k_2,\,k_3)$ and with
the terms linear in the components $k_m$ explicitly showing
the parity violation. To first order in $\widetilde{\kappa}^{0m}$,
the dispersion relations are equal for both modes, but they
differ at higher order.\footnote{It is evident that the so-called
nonbirefringent \textit{Ansatz} \eqref{eq:nonbirefringent-Ansatz}
is only nonbirefringent to first order in $\widetilde{\kappa}^{\mu\nu}$.
Nevertheless we will still use the term ``nonbirefringent'' in order to
distinguish from the nine-dimensional parameter sector of modified Maxwell
theory, which shows no birefringence at least to first-order Lorentz violation,
from the remaining ten coefficients. In the latter parameter region
birefringent modes emerge already at first order with respect to the
Lorentz-violating parameters \cite{KosteleckyMewes2002}.}
With the modified Coulomb and Amp\`{e}re law it can be shown that the
dispersion relations \eqref{eq:dispersion-relation-p-odd-1-2} indeed
belong to physical photon modes. The procedure given in
\cite{ColladayKostelecky1998} eliminates dispersion relations of
unphysical, i.e. scalar and longitudinal, modes from the field
equations. The two are given by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:dispersion-relation-unphysical}
\omega_0(\mathbf{k})=\omega_3(\mathbf{k})=|\mathbf{k}|\,,
\end{equation}
where the index ``0'' refers to the scalar and the index ``3''
to the longitudinal degree of freedom of the photon field.
The dispersion relations \eqref{eq:dispersion-relation-p-odd-1-2}
can be cast in a more compact form by defining
components of the wave-vector $\mathbf{k}$ which are parallel or orthogonal
to the background ``three-vector'' $\boldsymbol{\zeta}$:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:definition-k-orthogonal-k-parallel}
k_{\|}=\mathbf{k}\cdot \widehat{\boldsymbol{\zeta}}\,,\quad
k_{\bot}=|\mathbf{k}-
(\mathbf{k}\cdot\widehat{\boldsymbol{\zeta}})\,
\widehat{\boldsymbol{\zeta}}|\,,\quad
\widehat{\boldsymbol{\zeta}}
\equiv\frac{1}{\sqrt{(\widetilde{\kappa}^{01})^2
+(\widetilde{\kappa}^{02})^2+(\widetilde{\kappa}^{03})^2}}
\begin{pmatrix}
\widetilde{\kappa}^{01} \\
\widetilde{\kappa}^{02} \\
\widetilde{\kappa}^{03} \\
\end{pmatrix}\,,
\end{equation}
where $k_{\parallel}\in (-\infty,\infty)$ and $k_{\bot}\in [0,\infty)$.
By doing so, it is possible to write the dispersion relations
\eqref{eq:dispersion-relation-p-odd-1-2} as follows:
\begin{subequations}\label{eq:dispersion-relation-p-odd-1-2-mathcalE}
\begin{align}
\label{eq:dispersion-relation-p-odd-1-mathcalE}
\omega_1(k_{\bot},k_{\|})=\mathcal{E}\,k_{\|}
+\sqrt{k_{\bot}^2+(1+\mathcal{E}^2)\,k_{\|}^2}\,,
\end{align}
\begin{align}
\label{eq:dispersion-relation-p-odd-2-mathcalE}
\omega_2(k_{\bot},k_{\|})=
\mathcal{E}\,k_{\parallel}+\sqrt{1+\mathcal{E}^2}\,|\mathbf{k}|\,,
\end{align}
where the three Lorentz-violating parameters $\widetilde{\kappa}^{01}$,
$\widetilde{\kappa}^{02}$, and $\widetilde{\kappa}^{03}$ are contained
in the single parameter $\mathcal{E}$ that is defined as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:definition-parameter-calligraphic-e}
\mathcal{E} \equiv |\boldsymbol{\zeta}| \equiv
\sqrt{(\widetilde{\kappa}^{01})^2+(\widetilde{\kappa}^{02})^2
+(\widetilde{\kappa}^{03})^2}\,.
\end{equation}
\end{subequations}
It is obvious that $\mathcal{E}\in [0,\infty)$, whereas each single
parameter $\widetilde{\kappa}^{01}$, $\widetilde{\kappa}^{02}$, and
$\widetilde{\kappa}^{03}$ can be either positive or negative.
From the first definition of Eq. \eqref{eq:definition-k-orthogonal-k-parallel}
we see that negative parameters $\widetilde{\kappa}^{01}$, $\widetilde{\kappa}^{02}$,
$\widetilde{\kappa}^{03}$ are mimicked by a negative $k_{\parallel}$.
The phase and group velocity \cite{Brillouin1960} of the above two modes
can be cast in the following form for small enough $\mathcal{E}$:
\begin{subequations}
\label{eq:phase-velocity}
\begin{equation}
v_{\mathrm{ph},\,1}
\equiv\frac{\omega_1}{|\mathbf{k}|}
=1+\mathcal{E}\cos\theta
+\frac{\mathcal{E}^2}{2}\cos^2\theta+\mathsf{O}(\mathcal{E}^3)\,,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
v_{\mathrm{ph},\,2}\equiv \frac{\omega_2}{|\mathbf{k}|}=1+\mathcal{E}\cos\theta
+\frac{\mathcal{E}^2}{2}+\mathsf{O}(\mathcal{E}^3)\,,
\end{equation}
\end{subequations}
\begin{subequations}
\label{eq:group-velocity}
\begin{equation}
v_{\mathrm{gr},\,1}
\equiv \left|\frac{\partial \omega_1}{\partial \mathbf{k}}\right|
= 1+\mathcal{E}\cos\theta+\frac{\mathcal{E}^2}{2}+\mathsf{O}(\mathcal{E}^3)\,,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
v_{\mathrm{gr},\,2}
\equiv \left|\frac{\partial \omega_2}{\partial \mathbf{k}}\right|
= 1+\mathcal{E}\cos\theta+\left(1+\sin^2\theta\right)\frac{\mathcal{E}^2}{2}+\mathsf{O}(\mathcal{E}^3)\,,
\end{equation}
\end{subequations}
where $\theta$ is the angle between the three-momentum $\mathbf{k}$ and the unit
vector $\widehat{\boldsymbol{\zeta}}$: $\cos\theta=\mathbf{k}\cdot \widehat{\boldsymbol{\zeta}}/|\mathbf{k}|$.
To leading order in $\mathcal{E}$, the velocities above are equal:
\begin{equation}
v_{\mathrm{ph},\,1}=v_{\mathrm{ph},\,2}=v_{\mathrm{gr},\,1}=v_{\mathrm{gr},\,2}\,.
\end{equation}
Furthermore, Eqs. \eqref{eq:phase-velocity}, \eqref{eq:group-velocity}
show that both phase and group velocity can be larger than 1. However, what matters
physically is the velocity of signal propagation, which corresponds to the front
velocity \cite{Brillouin1960}:
\begin{equation}
v_{\mathrm{fr}}\equiv\lim_{k\mapsto\infty} v_{\mathrm{ph}}\,.
\label{eq:front-velocity}
\end{equation}
Equation \eqref{eq:front-velocity} can be interpreted as the velocity of the
highest-frequency forerunners of a signal. As can be seen from Eq.
\eqref{eq:phase-velocity}, $v_{\mathrm{ph}}$ and hence also $v_{\mathrm{fr}}$
do not depend on the magnitude of the wave vector, but only on its direction.
For $\mathcal{E}\ll 1$, we obtain $v_{\mathrm{fr},\,1}\simeq v_{\mathrm{fr},\,2}
\equiv v_{\mathrm{fr}}$, where
\begin{subequations}
\label{eq:inequalities-front-velocity}
\begin{eqnarray}
v_{\mathrm{fr}}
&<& 1 \;\;\text{for}\;\; \pi/2 < \theta < 3\pi/2\,, \\
v_{\mathrm{fr}}
&\geq& 1 \;\;\text{for}\;\; 0\leq \theta\leq \pi/2 \;\vee\; 3\pi/2\leq\theta<2\pi\,.
\end{eqnarray}
\end{subequations}
Observe that, for small enough $\mathcal{E}$, having $v_{\mathrm{fr}}< 1$ or
$v_{\mathrm{fr}}\geq 1$ does not depend on the Lorentz-violating parameters but only
on the direction in which the classical wave propagates. For completeness, we also
give the phase velocities for propagation parallel and orthogonal to
$\widehat{\boldsymbol{\zeta}}$:
\begin{subequations}
\begin{equation}
v_{\mathrm{ph},\|,\,1}=\frac{\omega_1(k_{\bot},k_{\|})}{k_{\|}}\,\Bigg|_{k_{\bot}=0}
=\mathcal{E}\,\mathrm{sgn}(k_{\parallel})+\sqrt{1+\mathcal{E}^2}=v_{\mathrm{ph},\|,\,2}\,,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
v_{\mathrm{ph},\bot,\,1}
=\frac{\omega_1(k_{\bot},k_{\|})}{k_{\bot}}\,\Bigg|_{k_{\|}=0}
=1\,,\quad v_{\mathrm{ph},\bot,\,2}=
\frac{\omega_2(k_{\bot},k_{\|})}{k_{\bot}}\,\Bigg|_{k_{\|}=0}=
\sqrt{1+\mathcal{E}^2}\,,
\end{equation}
\end{subequations}
with the sign function
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{sgn}(x)=\left\{\begin{array}{rcl}
1 & \text{for} & x>0\,, \\
0 & \text{for} & x=0\,, \\
-1 & \text{for} & x<0\,. \\
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
Note that the latter results are in agreement with the inequalities
of Eq. \eqref{eq:inequalities-front-velocity}. We conclude that the front
velocity can be larger than 1 for the wave vector pointing in certain
directions. That leads us to the issue of microcausality, which will be
discussed in Sec. \ref{sec:Microcausality-parity-odd}.
\section{Propagator in the Feynman gauge}
\label{sec:Propagator-parity-odd}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
\vspace*{-0mm}
So far, we have investigated the dispersion relations of the classical theory. For a
further analysis, especially concerning the quantum theory, the gauge propagator
will be needed. The propagator is the Green's function of the free field equations
\eqref{eq:field-equations-modified-maxwell-theory} in momentum space. In order to
compute it the gauge has to be fixed. We decide to use the Feynman
gauge~\cite{Veltman1994,ItzyksonZuber1980,PeskinSchroeder1995},
which can be implemented by the gauge-fixing condition
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{gf}}(x)=
-\frac{1}{2}\big(\partial_{\mu}\,A^{\mu}(x)\big)^2\,.
\label{eq:gauge-fixing-feynman}
\end{equation}
The following \textit{Ansatz} for the propagator turns out to be useful:
\begin{align}\label{eq:propagator-parity-odd-coeff}
\widehat{G}_{\nu\lambda}\,
\big|^{\mathrm{Feynman}}
=-\mathrm{i}\,\Big\{
&+\widehat{a}\,\eta_{\nu\lambda}
+\widehat{b}\,k_{\nu}k_{\lambda}
+\widehat{c}\,\xi_{\nu}\xi_{\lambda}
+\widehat{d}\,(k_{\nu}\xi_{\lambda}+\xi_{\nu}k_{\lambda}) \notag \\
&+\widehat{e}\,\zeta_{\nu}\zeta_{\lambda}
+\widehat{f}\,(k_{\nu}\zeta_{\lambda}+\zeta_{\nu}k_{\lambda})
+\widehat{g}\,(\xi_{\nu}\zeta_{\lambda}+\zeta_{\nu}\xi_{\lambda})
\Big\}\,\widehat{K}_1\,.
\end{align}
The propagator coefficients $\widehat{a}=\widehat{a}(k^0,\mathbf{k})$, $\hdots$,
$\widehat{g}=\widehat{g}(k^0,\mathbf{k})$ and the scalar propagator part
$\widehat{K}_1=\widehat{K}_1(k^0,\mathbf{k})$ follow from the system of equations
$(\widehat{G}^{-1})^{\mu\nu}\widehat{G}_{\nu\lambda}=\mathrm{i}\,\delta^{\mu}_{\phantom{\mu}\lambda}$
with the differential operator
\begin{equation}
(G^{-1})^{\mu\nu}=\eta^{\mu\nu}\partial^2
-2\, \kappa^{\mu\varrho\sigma\nu}\partial_{\varrho}\partial_{\sigma}\,,
\end{equation}
in Feynman gauge transformed to momentum space.
Scalar products $\xi^{\mu}\xi_{\mu}$, $\zeta^{\mu}\zeta_{\mu}$, and $\xi^{\mu}\zeta_{\mu}$
will be kept in the result, in order to gain some insight in the
covariant structure of the functions. However, we remark that,
for the case considered, $\xi^2 \equiv \xi^{\mu}\xi_{\mu}=1$,
$\zeta^2\equiv \zeta^{\mu}\zeta_{\mu}=-4\mathcal{E}^2$,
and $\xi\cdot\zeta\equiv\xi^{\mu}\zeta_{\mu}=0$.
Specifically, the propagator coefficients and the scalar
propagators $\widehat{K}_1$ and $\widehat{K}_2$, where $\widehat{K}_2$
appears in some of these coefficients, are given by
\begin{subequations}\label{eq:propagator-result-parity-odd-scalar-1-2}
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:propagator-result-parity-odd-scalar-1}
\widehat{K}_1 &=&
\frac{2}{2\,k\cdot \xi\,k\cdot\zeta+k^2\,\big(2-\xi\cdot\zeta\big)}\,,
\\
\label{eq:propagator-result-parity-odd-scalar-2}
\widehat{K}_2&\equiv&\frac{4}{4\,k\cdot\xi\,k\cdot\zeta
+\xi^2(k\cdot\zeta)^2+\zeta^2(k\cdot\xi)^2+k^2(4-\xi^2\zeta^2)}\,,
\end{eqnarray}
\end{subequations}
\begin{subequations}
\label{eq:propagator-result-parity-odd-coeff}
\begin{equation}
\widehat{a}=1\,,
\end{equation}
\begin{align}
\widehat{b}&=-\frac{1}{4\,k^4}\left\{\Upsilon\,\widehat{K}_2-2\,\chi\,\Big(2\,k\cdot\xi\,k\cdot\zeta
+k^2(2-\xi\cdot\zeta)\Big)\right\}\,,
\label{eq:propagator-result-parity-odd-coeff-b}
\end{align}
\begin{equation}
\widehat{c}=\frac{1}{4}\big[k^2\zeta^2-(k\cdot \zeta)^2\big]\,\widehat{K}_2\,,
\label{eq:propagator-result-parity-odd-coeff-d}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\widehat{d}=\frac{k\cdot\xi\big(2\,(k\cdot \zeta)^2-k^2\zeta^2\big)+2\,k^2\,k\cdot\zeta}{4\,k^2}\,\widehat{K}_2\,,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\widehat{e}=\frac{1}{4}\big[k^2\xi^2-(k\cdot
\xi)^2\big]\,\widehat{K}_2\,,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\widehat{f}=\frac{k\cdot\zeta\big(2\,(k\cdot \xi)^2-k^2\xi^2\big)+2\,k^2\,k\cdot\xi}{4\,k^2}\,\widehat{K}_2\,,
\end{equation}
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:Upsilon-def}
\Upsilon&\equiv&-2\,k\cdot\xi\,k\cdot\zeta(2\,k^2-k\cdot\xi\,k\cdot\zeta)+(k\cdot\zeta)^2\big((k\cdot\xi)^2-k^2\xi^2\big) \nonumber \\
&&\quad\,+(k\cdot\xi)^2\big[(k\cdot\zeta)^2-k^2\zeta^2\big]+k^2\big[12\,k\cdot\xi\,k\cdot\zeta+\xi^2(k\cdot\zeta)^2 \nonumber \\
&&\quad\,+\zeta^2(k\cdot\xi)^2+k^2(4-\xi^2\zeta^2)\big]\,,
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{equation}
\widehat{g}=-\frac{1}{4}\big[2\,k^2+k\cdot\xi\,k\cdot\zeta\big]\,\widehat{K}_2\,,
\end{equation}
\end{subequations}
where definition \eqref{eq:Upsilon-def} enters
\eqref{eq:propagator-result-parity-odd-coeff-b}.
The poles of $\widehat{K}_1$ and $\widehat{K}_2$ can be
identified with the dispersion relations obtained in
Sec.~\ref{sec:Dispersion-relations-classical-causality}.
From $\widehat{K}_1(\omega_1,\mathbf{k})^{-1}=0$, that is
\begin{equation}
2\,k\cdot \xi\,k\cdot\zeta+k^2\,
\big(2-\xi\cdot \zeta\big)\,\Big|_{k_0=\omega_1}=0\,,
\label{eq:off-shell-dispersion-relation-1}
\end{equation}
the dispersion relation \eqref{eq:dispersion-relation-p-odd-1}
of the $\lambda=1$ mode is recovered. Similarly, the dispersion
relation \eqref{eq:dispersion-relation-p-odd-2} of the $\lambda=2$
mode follows from $\widehat{K}_2(\omega_2,\mathbf{k})^{-1}=0$, that is
\begin{equation}
4\,k\cdot\xi\,k\cdot\zeta+\xi^2(k\cdot\zeta)^2+\zeta^2(k\cdot\xi)^2+k^2(4-\xi^2\zeta^2)\,\Big|_{k_0=\omega_2}=0\,,
\label{eq:off-shell-dispersion-relation-2}
\end{equation}
The third pole $k^2=0$ corresponds to the
dispersion relation of scalar and longitudinal modes. This is clear
from the fact that this pole appears only in the gauge-dependent
coefficients $\widehat{b}$, $\widehat{d}$, and $\widehat{f}$.
These are multiplied by at least one photon four-momentum and
vanish by the Ward identity,\footnote{assuming $k^2\neq 0$}
if they couple to a conserved current \cite{PeskinSchroeder1995}.
Since the Ward identity results from
gauge invariance, it also holds for modified Maxwell theory, which
is expected to be free of anomalies \cite{ColladayKostelecky1998}.
Because of parity violation the physical poles are asymmetric
with respect to the imaginary $k^0$-axis.
The above result \eqref{eq:propagator-parity-odd-coeff}--
\eqref{eq:propagator-result-parity-odd-coeff} equals the propagator
given in \cite{Casana-etal2010}. Every propagator coefficient, which
contains the scalar propagator $\widehat{K}_2$, is also multiplied by
$\widehat{K}_1$. Hence, both modes appear together throughout the
propagator and the question arises, whether they can be separated.
It can be shown that the propagator can also be written in the following
form:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:split-propagator}
\widehat{G}_{\mu\nu}(k)\big|^{\mathrm{Feynman}}= \sum_{n=1,2}
\Xi_{\mu\nu}^{(n)}(k^0,\mathbf{k})\,
\Big(-\mathrm{i}\widehat{G}^{(n)}(k)\Big)\,,
\end{equation}
where the tensor structure $\Xi_{\mu\nu}$ is the same for both
parts, hence
\begin{align}
\label{eq:split-propagator-coefficient-functions}
\Xi_{\nu\lambda}^{(1)}=\Xi_{\nu\lambda}^{(2)}=&+\widehat{a}\,\eta_{\nu\lambda}
+\widehat{b}\,k_{\nu}k_{\lambda}
+\widehat{c}\,\xi_{\nu}\xi_{\lambda}
+\widehat{d}\,(k_{\nu}\xi_{\lambda}+\xi_{\nu}k_{\lambda}) \notag \\
&+\widehat{e}\,\zeta_{\nu}\zeta_{\lambda}
+\widehat{f}\,(k_{\nu}\zeta_{\lambda}+\zeta_{\nu}k_{\lambda})
+\widehat{g}\,(\xi_{\nu}\zeta_{\lambda}+\zeta_{\nu}\xi_{\lambda})\,,
\end{align}
with the coefficients $\widehat{a}$, \dots, $\widehat{g}$
from Eq. \eqref{eq:propagator-result-parity-odd-coeff}.
The scalar propagator functions are then given by:
\begin{equation}
\widehat{G}^{(1)}(k)=\frac{4\widehat{K}_1\widehat{K}_2^{-1}}{[(k\cdot\xi)^2-k^2]\zeta^2+(k\cdot\zeta)^2}\,,
\quad \widehat{G}^{(2)}(k)=-\frac{4}{[(k\cdot\xi)^2-k^2]\zeta^2+(k\cdot\zeta)^2}\,.
\label{eq:split-propagator-scalar-parts}
\end{equation}
The first part $\widehat{D}^{(1)}(k)$ contains both
polarization modes encoded in $\widehat{K}_1$ and $\widehat{K}_2$, whereas
the second part does not involve any mode. The denominator
$[(k\cdot\xi)^2-k^2]\zeta^2+(k\cdot\zeta)^2$ that appears in both parts does
not have a zero with respect to $k_0$, hence it contains no dispersion
relation. So it does not seem that the polarization modes can be separated,
such that each propagator part contains exactly one of the modes.
Finally, we can state that the structure of the propagator of parity-odd
nonbirefringent modified Maxwell theory is rather unusual. In the next
section we will compute the polarization vectors.
\section{Polarization vectors}
\label{sec:Polarization-vectors-parity-odd}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
\vspace*{-0mm}
In what follows, the physical (transverse) degrees of freedom will be
labeled with (1) and (2), respectively. For a fixed nonzero
``three-vector'' $\boldsymbol{\zeta}$ and a generic wave vector $\mathbf{k}$,
the polarization vector of the $\lambda=1$ mode reads
\begin{equation}\label{eq:polarization-mode1-parity-violating}
\big(\varepsilon^{(1)\,\mu}\big)
= \frac{1}{\sqrt{N'}}\;
\big(0,\, \boldsymbol{\zeta}\times\mathbf{k}\big)\big/
\big|\boldsymbol{\zeta}\times\mathbf{k}\big|\,,
\end{equation}
where $N'$ is a normalization factor to be given later.
The polarization vector of the $\lambda=2$
mode is orthogonal to \eqref{eq:polarization-mode1-parity-violating}
and has a longitudinal component. It is given by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:polarization-mode2-parity-violating}
(\varepsilon^{(2)\,\mu})=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N''}}
\frac{1}{\sqrt{|\boldsymbol{\varepsilon}^{(2)}|^2-(\varepsilon^0)^2}}
\left(\varepsilon^0,\,\boldsymbol{\varepsilon}^{(2)}\right)\,,
\end{equation}
with
\begin{subequations}
\label{eq:polarization-mode2-parity-violating-explict}
\begin{equation}
\varepsilon^0=\frac{1}{4}\Big(k^2-(k\cdot\xi)^2\Big)
\Big((k\cdot\zeta)^2-\zeta^2\left[k^2-(k\cdot\xi)^2\right]\Big)\,,
\end{equation}
\begin{align}
\boldsymbol{\varepsilon}^{(2)}&=
\left(2\,|\mathbf{k}|^2\,|\boldsymbol{\zeta}|^2-
\frac{|\mathbf{k}\times (\mathbf{k}\times \boldsymbol{\zeta})|^2}
{|\mathbf{k}|^2}
+2\,\sqrt{1+|\boldsymbol{\zeta}|^2}\,|\mathbf{k}|
\,(\mathbf{k}\cdot \boldsymbol{\zeta})\right)
\mathbf{k}\times (\mathbf{k}\times \boldsymbol{\zeta}) \notag \\
&\hspace{2cm}\,+\Big(\sqrt{1+|\boldsymbol{\zeta}|^2}\,|\mathbf{k}|
+\mathbf{k}\cdot\boldsymbol{\zeta}\Big)\;
\frac{|\mathbf{k}\times (\mathbf{k}\times\boldsymbol{\zeta})|^2}
{|\mathbf{k}|^2}\;\mathbf{k}\,.
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
The polarization vector $\varepsilon^{(1)}$ is a solution of the
field equations \eqref{eq:field-equations-modified-maxwell-theory},
when $k^0$ is replaced by $\omega_1(\mathbf{k})$ from
Eq. \eqref{eq:dispersion-relation-p-odd-1}. The polarization
$\varepsilon^{(2)}$ is the corresponding solution for $k^0$
replaced by $\omega_2(\mathbf{k})$ from Eq.
\eqref{eq:dispersion-relation-p-odd-2}. The normalization
factors $N'$ in \eqref{eq:polarization-mode1-parity-violating}
and $N''$ in \eqref{eq:polarization-mode2-parity-violating}
can be computed from the 00--component of the energy-momentum tensor.
Note that the above polarization vectors have been calculated in
the Lorentz gauge, $\partial_{\mu}\,A^{\mu}=0$.
For the Lorentz-violating decay processes considered,
both the $\lambda=1$ and the $\lambda=2$ polarization modes
contribute.
\begin{align}
\label{eq:polarization-sum-parity-violating-1}
\overline{\varepsilon}^{(1)\,\mu}\varepsilon^{(1)\,\nu}&=\frac{1}{N'}\;\Bigl\{-\eta^{\mu\nu}+\widehat{\Gamma}_1k^{\mu}k^{\nu}
+\widehat{\Delta}_1(k^{\mu}\xi^{\nu}+\xi^{\mu}k^{\nu})+\widehat{\Lambda}_1(k^{\mu}\zeta^{\nu}+\zeta^{\mu}k^{\nu}) \notag \\
&\hspace{1.42cm}+\widehat{\Phi}_1\,\xi^{\mu}\xi^{\nu}+\widehat{\Psi}_1\,\zeta^{\mu}\zeta^{\nu}+\widehat{\Theta}_1\,\big(\xi^{\mu}\zeta^{\nu}+\zeta^{\nu}\xi^{\mu}\big)\,
\Bigr\}\,\Big|_{k_0=\omega_1}\,,
\end{align}
with
\begin{subequations}
\label{eq:polarization-sum-coefficients-1}
\begin{equation}
\widehat{\Gamma}_1=\frac{\zeta^2}{Q}\,,\quad\widehat{\Delta}=\frac{\zeta^2\,\big[2k^2+k\cdot\xi\,k\cdot \zeta\big]}{Q(\zeta\cdot k)}\,,\quad\widehat{\Lambda}_1=-\frac{k\cdot\zeta}{Q}\,,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\widehat{\Theta}_1=-\frac{2k^2+k\cdot\xi\,k\cdot\zeta}{Q}\,,\quad \widehat{\Psi}_1=\frac{k^2\,\xi^2-(k\cdot\xi)^2}{Q}\,,\quad \widehat{\Phi}_1=\frac{k^2\,\zeta^2-(k\cdot\zeta)^2}{Q}\,,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
N'=\frac{1}{\omega_1}\sqrt{k_{\bot}^2+(1+\mathcal{E}^2)\,k_{\|}^2}\,,\quad Q=\zeta^2\,\big[k^2-(k\cdot\xi)^2\big]-(k\cdot\zeta)^2\,,
\end{equation}
\end{subequations}
where $\omega_1=\omega_1(k_{\bot},k_{\|})$ is given by
\eqref{eq:dispersion-relation-p-odd-1-mathcalE}. The denominator
$Q$ vanishes only for $\widetilde{\kappa}^{01}=\widetilde{\kappa}^{02}
=\widetilde{\kappa}^{03}=0$ or $k_{\bot}=0$.
If the polarization tensor of the $\lambda=1$ mode is contracted
with a gauge-invariant expression using the Ward identity,\footnote{This
means dropping terms that are proportional to at least one external
four-momentum $k^{\mu}$, which we denote by the word ``truncated''}
it can be replaced by $\Pi^{\mu\nu}|_{\lambda=1}$:
\begin{subequations}
\begin{equation}
\overline{\varepsilon}^{(1)\,\mu}\varepsilon^{(1)\,\nu}\mapsto \Pi^{\mu\nu}|_{\lambda=1}\,,
\end{equation}
\begin{align}
\label{eq:polarization-sum-parity-violating-1-truncated}
\Pi^{\mu\nu}|_{\lambda=1}&\equiv\overline{\varepsilon}^{(1)\,\mu}\varepsilon^{(1)\,\nu}
\;\big|^\text{truncated} \notag \\
&=\frac{1}{N'}\;\Bigl\{-\eta^{\mu\nu}
+\widehat{\Phi}_1\,\xi^{\mu}\xi^{\nu}+\widehat{\Psi}_1\,\zeta^{\mu}\zeta^{\nu}+\widehat{\Theta}_1
\big(\xi^{\mu}\zeta^{\nu}+\zeta^{\nu}\xi^{\mu}\big)\Bigr\}
\,\Big|_{k_0=\omega_1}\,.
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
The polarization tensor of the $\lambda=2$ mode is lengthy and
is best written up in terms of $k_{\|}$ and $k_{\bot}$ defined in
\eqref{eq:definition-k-orthogonal-k-parallel}.
\begin{align}
\label{eq:polarization-sum-parity-violating-2}
\overline{\varepsilon}^{(2)\,\mu}\varepsilon^{(2)\,\nu}
&=\frac{1}{N''}\Big\{+\widehat{\Gamma}_2k^{\mu}k^{\nu}+\widehat{\Delta}_2(k^{\mu}\xi^{\nu}
+\xi^{\mu}k^{\nu})+\widehat{\Lambda}_2(k^{\mu}\zeta^{\nu}+\zeta^{\mu}k^{\nu}) \notag \\
&\hspace{1.48cm}+\widehat{\Phi}_2\xi^{\mu}\xi^{\nu}
+\widehat{\Psi}_2\zeta^{\mu}\zeta^{\nu}+\widehat{\Theta}_2(\xi^{\mu}\zeta^{\nu}
+\zeta^{\mu}\xi^{\nu})\Big\}\,\Big|_{k_0=\omega_2}\,,
\end{align}
with
\begin{subequations}
\label{eq:polarization-sum-coefficients-2}
\begin{align}
\widehat{\Gamma}_2=\frac{\mathcal{E}^4}{\mathcal{N}}\Big[\mathcal{E}k_{\parallel}k_{\bot}^2+(2k_{\parallel}^2+k_{\bot}^2)\omega_2\Big]^2\,,
\end{align}
\begin{align}
\widehat{\Delta}_2=\frac{\mathcal{E}^4}{\mathcal{N}}\Big(\mathcal{E}k_{\parallel}k_{\bot}^2+(2k_{\parallel}^2+k_{\bot}^2)\omega_2\Big)\Big\{k_{\bot}^2|\mathbf{k}|^2-\mathcal{E}k_{\parallel}k_{\bot}^2\omega_2-\big[2k_{\parallel}^2+k_{\bot}^2\big]\omega_2^2\Big\}\,,
\end{align}
\begin{align}
\widehat{\Lambda}_2=-\frac{\mathcal{E}^3}{2\mathcal{N}}|\mathbf{k}|^2\Big(2k_{\parallel}\omega_2+\mathcal{E}k_{\bot}^2\Big)\Big[\mathcal{E}k_{\parallel}k_{\bot}^2+(2k_{\parallel}^2+k_{\bot}^2)\omega_2\Big]\,,
\end{align}
\begin{align}
\label{eq:terms-explicit-polarization-sum-2-1}
\widehat{\Phi}_2=\frac{\mathcal{E}^4}{\mathcal{N}}\Big[k_{\bot}^2(k_{\bot}^2-\omega_2^2)-\mathcal{E}k_{\parallel}k_{\bot}^2\omega_2+k_{\parallel}^2(k_{\bot}^2-2\omega_2^2)\Big]^2\,,
\end{align}
\begin{align}
\label{eq:terms-explicit-polarization-sum-2-2}
\widehat{\Psi}_2=\frac{\mathcal{E}^2}{4\mathcal{N}}|\mathbf{k}|^4(\mathcal{E}k_{\bot}^2+2k_{\parallel}\omega_2)^2\,,
\end{align}
\begin{align}
\label{eq:terms-explicit-polarization-sum-2-3}
\widehat{\Theta}_2=\frac{\mathcal{E}^3}{2\mathcal{N}}|\mathbf{k}|^2(\mathcal{E}k_{\bot}^2+2k_{\parallel}\omega_2)\Big[k_{\bot}^2(\omega_2^2-k_{\bot}^2)+\mathcal{E}k_{\parallel}k_{\bot}^2\omega_2-k_{\parallel}^2(k_{\bot}^2-2\omega_2^2)\Big]\,,
\end{align}
\begin{align}
\label{eq:terms-explicit-polarization-sum-2-4}
N''=\frac{\mathcal{E}^4k_{\bot}^2}{2\omega_2^2\mathcal{N}}|\mathbf{k}|^2\Big[&+(4k_{\parallel}^2+k_{\bot}^2)\omega_2^4+4\mathcal{E}k_{\parallel}k_{\bot}^2\omega_2^3+\big(4k_{\parallel}^4+2k_{\bot}^2k_{\parallel}^2+(\mathcal{E}^2-2)k_{\bot}^4\big)\omega_2^2
\notag \\
&+4\mathcal{E}k_{\parallel}k_{\bot}^2|\mathbf{k}|^2\omega_2+k_{\bot}^2|\mathbf{k}|^2(|\mathbf{k}|^2+\mathcal{E}^2k_{\bot}^2)\Big]\,.
\end{align}
where
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{N}=|\boldsymbol{\varepsilon}^{(2)}|^2-(\varepsilon^0)^2\,,
\end{equation}
\end{subequations}
and $\omega_2=\omega_2(k_{\bot},k_{\|})$ is given by
\eqref{eq:dispersion-relation-p-odd-2-mathcalE}. Again, if the
tensor is contracted with a gauge-invariant expression, it can
be replaced by $\Pi^{\mu\nu}|_{\lambda=2}$:
\begin{subequations}
\begin{equation}
\overline{\varepsilon}^{(2)\,\mu}\varepsilon^{(2)\,\nu}\mapsto \Pi^{\mu\nu}|_{\lambda=2}\,,
\end{equation}
\begin{align}
\label{eq:polarization-sum-parity-violating-2-truncated}
\Pi^{\mu\nu}|_{\lambda=2}&\equiv \overline{\varepsilon}^{(2)\,\mu}\varepsilon^{(2)\,\nu}
\;\big|^\text{truncated} \notag \\
&=\frac{1}{N''}\Big\{\widehat{\Phi}_2\xi^{\mu}\xi^{\nu}
+\widehat{\Psi}_2\zeta^{\mu}\zeta^{\nu}+\widehat{\Theta}_2(\xi^{\mu}\zeta^{\nu}
+\zeta^{\mu}\xi^{\nu})\Big\}\,\,\Big|_{k_0=\omega_2}\,.
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
Finally it holds that
\begin{equation}
k_{\mu}\left(\overline{\varepsilon}^{(1)\,\mu}\varepsilon^{(1)\,\nu}\right)(k)=0\,,\quad \lim_{\mathcal{E}\mapsto 0} k_{\mu}\left(\overline{\varepsilon}^{(2)\,\mu}\varepsilon^{(2)\,\nu}\right)(k)=0\,,
\end{equation}
where the second contraction only vanishes for $\mathcal{E}\mapsto 0$ due
to the longitudinal part of $\varepsilon^{(2)\,\mu}$.
The polarization vector \eqref{eq:polarization-mode2-parity-violating}
is normalized to unit length by $\mathcal{N}$. This normalization
factor cancels in $\Pi^{\mu\nu}|_{\lambda=2}$.
Note that the metric tensor $\eta^{\mu\nu}$ does not appear
on the right-hand side of \eqref{eq:polarization-sum-parity-violating-2-truncated},
whereas it does on the right-hand side of Eq.~
\eqref{eq:polarization-sum-parity-violating-1-truncated}.
Furthermore, note that each truncated polarization tensor $\Pi^{\mu\nu}|_{\lambda=1}$
and $\Pi^{\mu\nu}|_{\lambda=2}$ can be written in a covariant form.
This behavior is different from the polarization vectors of standard QED,\footnote{Also
in the isotropic and the parity-even anisotropic sector of modified Maxwell theory the
polarization tensor of one single transversal mode cannot be decomposed covariantly
\cite{Klinkhamer:2010zs}.} where only the whole polarization sum is covariant.
It is now evident that not only is the structure of the photon propagator uncommon,
but the polarization vectors are unusual as well. In the next section we will analyze
how both results are connected.
\section{The optical theorem and unitarity}
\label{sec:Optical-theorem-parity-odd}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
\vspace*{-0mm}
In order to investigate unitarity, the simple test of reflection positivity
used in Ref.~\cite{Klinkhamer:2010zs} for the isotropic case of modified Maxwell
theory cannot be adopted, because there are now essentially two
different scalar propagators, namely $\widehat{K}_1$ and $\widehat{K}_2$
from \eqref{eq:propagator-result-parity-odd-coeff}. Hence, we could either
examine reflection positivity of the full propagator or study the optical
theorem for physical processes involving modified photons. As unitarity of
the S--matrix results in the optical theorem and the latter is directly
related to physical observables, we choose to proceed with the second
approach.
The optical theorem will also show how the modified photon
propagator in Sec.~\ref{sec:Propagator-parity-odd}
is linked to the photon polarizations from the previous section.
The following computations will deal with the physical process that
we already considered for
isotropic modified Maxwell theory \cite{Klinkhamer:2010zs} in the
context of unitarity: annihilation of a left-handed electron
$e_L^-$ and a right-handed positron $e_R^+$ to a modified photon
$\widetilde{\gamma}$. The fermions are considered to be massless
particles, which renders their helicity a physically well-defined
state. Neglecting the axial anomaly, which is of higher order
with respect to the electromagnetic coupling constant, the axial
vector current $j^{\mu}_5=\overline{\psi}\gamma^{\mu}\gamma_5\psi$
is conserved: $\partial_{\mu}j^{\mu}_5=0$. This is the simplest
tree-level process including a modified photon propagator. It has no
threshold and is allowed for both photon modes.
We assume a nonzero Lorentz-violating parameter $\mathcal{E}$.
Furthermore, the four-momenta of the initial electron
and positron are not expected to be collinear.
If the optical theorem holds, the imaginary part of the forward scattering
amplitude $\mathcal{M}(e^{-}_{L}e^{+}_{R}\rightarrow e^{-}_{L}e^{+}_{R})$ is
related to the cross section for the production of a modified photon from a
left-handed electron and a right-handed positron:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:opt-theorem}
\hspace*{-5mm}
2\,\mathrm{Im}\left(\begin{array}{c}
\includegraphics{consistency-modmax-parity-odd_v1_fig1_opt-theorem1-lhs.pdf}
\end{array}
\right)
\stackrel{?}{=}
\int \mathrm{d}\Pi_1 \left|\begin{array}{c}
\includegraphics{consistency-modmax-parity-odd_v1_fig2_opt-theorem1-rhs.pdf}
\end{array}\right|^2\,.
\end{equation}
Herein, $\mathrm{d}\Pi_1$ is the corresponding one-particle phase space element.
By performing an integration over the four-momentum of the virtual photon,
the forward scattering amplitude $\mathcal{M}_{\widehat{1}}\equiv\mathcal{M}(e^{-}_{L}e^{+}_{R}\rightarrow
e^{-}_{L}e^{+}_{R})$ is given by
\begin{align}
\label{eq:forward-scattering-amplitude-optical-theorem}
\mathcal{M}_{\widehat{1}}&=\int \frac{\mathrm{d}^4k}{(2\pi)^4}\,\delta^{(4)}(k_1+k_2-k)\,
e^2\;\overline{u}(k_1)\gamma^{\lambda}\frac{\mathds{1}-\gamma_5}{2}v(k_2)\;
\overline{v}(k_2)\gamma^{\nu}\frac{\mathds{1}-\gamma_5}{2}u(k_1) \notag \displaybreak[0]\\
&\phantom{{}={}\int \frac{\mathrm{d}^4k}{(2\pi)^4}}\,\times\frac{1}{\widehat{K}_1^{-1}+\mathrm{i}\epsilon}\;
\big(+\eta_{\nu\lambda}
+\widehat{b}\,k_{\nu}k_{\lambda}
+\widehat{c}\,\xi_{\nu}\xi_{\lambda}
+\widehat{d}\,(k_{\nu}\xi_{\lambda}+\xi_{\nu}k_{\lambda}) \notag \\
&\phantom{{}={}\int \frac{\mathrm{d}^4k}{(2\pi)^4}\,\times\frac{1}{\widehat{K}_1^{-1}+\mathrm{i}\epsilon}\;\big(}+\widehat{e}\,\zeta_{\nu}\zeta_{\lambda}
+\widehat{f}\,(k_{\nu}\zeta_{\lambda}+\zeta_{\nu}k_{\lambda})
+\widehat{g}\,(\xi_{\nu}\zeta_{\lambda}+\zeta_{\nu}\xi_{\lambda})\big)\,,
\end{align}
with the propagator coefficients $\widehat{b}$, \dots, $\widehat{g}$ from
Eq. \eqref{eq:propagator-result-parity-odd-coeff}. Recall, that the physical
poles have to be treated via Feynman's $\mathrm{i}\epsilon$-prescription.
Hence, the denominator $\widehat{K}_2^{-1}$ from
Eq. \eqref{eq:propagator-result-parity-odd-scalar-2},
which appears in the coefficients $\widehat{b}$, $\widehat{c}$, $\widehat{d}$,
$\widehat{e}$, $\widehat{f}$, and $\widehat{g}$ also has to be replaced by
$\widehat{K}_2^{-1}+\mathrm{i}\epsilon$.
The first contribution to the imaginary part of the matrix element
$\mathcal{M}_{\widehat{1}}$ comes from the physical pole of the scalar
propagator function $\widehat{K}_1$ and corresponds to the dispersion relation
\eqref{eq:dispersion-relation-p-odd-1-mathcalE} of the
$\lambda=1$ polarization
mode. Using the positive and negative photon frequency of the parity-odd
case considered,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:dispersion-relation-1}
\widetilde{\omega}_{1}^+
\equiv
\mathcal{E}\,k_{\|}+\sqrt{k_{\bot}^2+(1+\mathcal{E}^2)\,k_{\|}^2}\,,\quad
\widetilde{\omega}_{1}^-
\equiv
\mathcal{E}\,k_{\|}-\sqrt{k_{\bot}^2+(1+\mathcal{E}^2)\,k_{\|}^2}\,,
\end{equation}
the scalar part of the propagator is
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{k\cdot\xi\,k\cdot\zeta+k^2+\mathrm{i}\epsilon}=\frac{1}{(k^0-\widetilde{\omega}_1^++\mathrm{i}\epsilon)(k^0-\widetilde{\omega}_1^--\mathrm{i}\epsilon)}\,.
\end{equation}
The pole with positive real part can be cast in the following form:
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{k^0-\widetilde{\omega}_{1}^++\mathrm{i}\epsilon}=\mathcal{P}\frac{1}{k^0-\widetilde{\omega}_{1}^+}-\mathrm{i}\pi\,\delta(k^0-\widetilde{\omega}_{1}^+)\,.
\end{equation}
Because of energy conservation only $\widetilde{\omega}_1^+$ and not
$\widetilde{\omega}_1^-$ contributes to the imaginary part. We define
$\widehat{\mathcal{M}}_{\widehat{1}}\equiv \mathcal{M}(e_L^-e_R^+\rightarrow\widetilde{\gamma})$
and obtain:
\begin{align}\label{eq:Optical-theorem-parity-odd}
2\,\mathrm{Im}(\mathcal{M}_{\,\widehat{1}})\big|_{\lambda=1}&=\int
\frac{\mathrm{d}^3k}{(2\pi)^{3}\,2\widetilde{\omega}_{1}^+}\,\delta^{(4)}(k_1+k_2-k) \notag \\
&\hspace{1.5cm}\times e^2\;\overline{u}(k_1)\gamma^{\nu}\frac{\mathds{1}-\gamma_5}{2}v(k_2)\;
\overline{v}(k_2)\gamma^{\mu}\frac{\mathds{1}
-\gamma_5}{2}u(k_1) \notag \\
&\hspace{1.5cm}\times
\frac{1}{N'}\;\big(-\eta_{\mu\nu}-\widehat{c}\,\xi_{\mu}\xi_{\nu}
-\widehat{e}\,\zeta_{\mu}\zeta_{\nu}
-\widehat{g}\,(\xi_{\mu}\zeta_{\nu}+\zeta_{\mu}\xi_{\nu})\big)
\notag \displaybreak[0]\\
&=\int \frac{\mathrm{d}^3k}{(2\pi)^{3}\,2\widetilde{\omega}_1^+}\,\delta^{(4)}(k_1+k_2-k)\,
(\widehat{\mathcal{M}}_{\widehat{1}}^{\,\dagger})^{\nu}(\widehat{\mathcal{M}}_{\widehat{1}})^{\mu}\Big(\Pi_{\mu\nu}|_{\lambda=1}\Big)
\notag \displaybreak[0]\\[1mm]
&=\int
\frac{\mathrm{d}^3k}{(2\pi)^{3}\,2\widetilde{\omega}_1^+}\,\delta^{(4)}(k_1+k_2-k)\left.
|\widehat{\mathcal{M}}_{\widehat{1}}|^2\right|_{\lambda=1}\,,
\end{align}
with
\begin{equation}
\left.\widehat{\mathcal{M}}_{\widehat{1}}\right|_{\lambda=1}\equiv \varepsilon^{(1)}_{\mu}(k)(\widehat{\mathcal{M}}_{\widehat{1}})^{\mu}(k)\,,
\end{equation}
and $k^0$ replaced by the dispersion relation $\widetilde{\omega}_1$ from
Eq. \eqref{eq:dispersion-relation-1}. Furthermore,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Nprime-parity-odd}
N'=1+\frac{k\cdot\zeta}{2\,\widetilde{\omega}_{1}^+}
=\frac{1}{\widetilde{\omega}_{1}^+}\,
\sqrt{k_{\bot}^2+(1+\mathcal{E}^2)\,k_{\|}^2}\,.
\end{equation}
Using the Ward identity, in the first step of Eq. \eqref{eq:Optical-theorem-parity-odd}
we could eliminate all propagator coefficients that are multiplied by at least one
photon four-momentum. Then we employed the truncated $\lambda=1$ polarization tensor
from Eq. \eqref{eq:polarization-sum-parity-violating-1-truncated}.
The second contribution to the imaginary part of the matrix element comes
from the $\lambda=2$ mode given by the dispersion relation \eqref{eq:dispersion-relation-p-odd-2-mathcalE}.
That mode is contained in $\widehat{K}_2$ from \eqref{eq:propagator-result-parity-odd-scalar-2}, where
Feynman's $\mathrm{i}\epsilon$-prescription leads to:
\begin{align}
\frac{1}{4\widehat{K}_2^{-1}+\mathrm{i}\epsilon}&=\frac{1}{4\,k\cdot\xi\,k\cdot\zeta+\xi^2(k\cdot\zeta)^2+\zeta^2(k\cdot\xi)^2+k^2(4-\xi^2\zeta^2)+\mathrm{i}\epsilon}
\notag \\
&=\frac{1}{4(k^0-\widetilde{\omega}_2^++\mathrm{i}\epsilon)(k^0-\widetilde{\omega}_2^--\mathrm{i}\epsilon)}\,,
\end{align}
with
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:dispersion-relation-2}
\widetilde{\omega}_2^+\equiv \mathcal{E}k_{\parallel}+\sqrt{1+\mathcal{E}^2}\,|\mathbf{k}|\,,\quad \widetilde{\omega}_2^-\equiv
\mathcal{E}k_{\parallel}-\sqrt{1+\mathcal{E}^2}\,|\mathbf{k}|\,.
\end{equation}
The pole with the positive real part results in the following
contribution to the imaginary part of the matrix element
$\mathcal{M}_{\,\widehat{1}}$:
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{k^0-\widetilde{\omega}_2^++\mathrm{i}\epsilon}=\mathcal{P}\frac{1}{k^0-\widetilde{\omega}_2^+}-\mathrm{i}\pi\delta(k^0-\widetilde{\omega}_2^+)\,.
\end{equation}
Again, the pole $\widetilde{\omega}_2^-$ with negative real part
does not contribute because of energy conservation.
Using the Ward identity leads to:
\begin{align}
\label{eq:Optical-theorem-parity-odd-2}
2\,\mathrm{Im}(\mathcal{M}_{\widehat{1}})\big|_{\lambda=2}&=\int\frac{\mathrm{d}^3k}{(2\pi)^{3}\,2\widetilde{\omega}_{2}^+}\,\delta^{(4)}(k_1+k_2-k) \notag \\
&\hspace{1cm}\times e^2\;\overline{u}(k_1)\gamma^{\nu}\frac{\mathds{1}-\gamma_5}{2}v(k_2)\;
\overline{v}(k_2)\gamma^{\mu}\frac{\mathds{1}
-\gamma_5}{2}u(k_1)\,\frac{\widehat{K}_1(\widetilde{\omega}_2^+,\mathbf{k})}{2(1-\widetilde{\omega}_2^-/\widetilde{\omega}_2^+)} \notag \\
&\hspace{1cm}\,\times \Big\{\big[(k\cdot \zeta)^2-k^2\zeta^2\big]\xi^{\mu}\xi^{\nu}+\big[(k\cdot
\xi)^2-k^2\xi^2\big]\zeta^{\mu}\zeta^{\nu}\Big. \notag \\
&\hspace{3.20cm}\,\Big.+\big[2\,k^2+k\cdot\xi\,k\cdot\zeta\big](\xi^{\mu}\zeta^{\nu}+\zeta^{\mu}\xi^{\nu})\Big\} \notag \\
&=\int \frac{\mathrm{d}^3k}{(2\pi)^{3}\,2\widetilde{\omega}_2^+}\,\delta^{(4)}(k_1+k_2-k)\,
(\widehat{\mathcal{M}}_{\widehat{1}}^{\,\dagger})^{\nu}(\widehat{\mathcal{M}}_{\widehat{1}})^{\mu}\Big(\Pi_{\mu\nu}|_{\lambda=2}\Big)
\notag \\
&=\int
\frac{\mathrm{d}^3k}{(2\pi)^{3}\,2\widetilde{\omega}_2^+}\,\delta^{(4)}(k_1+k_2-k)\left.
|\widehat{\mathcal{M}}_{\widehat{1}}|^2\right|_{\lambda=2}\,,
\end{align}
where
\begin{equation}
\left.\widehat{\mathcal{M}}_{\widehat{1}}\right|_{\lambda=2}\equiv \varepsilon^{(2)}_{\mu}(k)(\widehat{\mathcal{M}}_{\widehat{1}})^{\mu}(k)\,,
\end{equation}
and $k^0$ is to be replaced by $\widetilde{\omega}_2^+$ from
Eq. \eqref{eq:dispersion-relation-2}. Moreover, we have used that
for $k^0=\widetilde{\omega}_2^+$
\begin{align}
\frac{\widehat{K}_1(\widetilde{\omega}_2^+,\mathbf{k})}
{2(1-\widetilde{\omega}_2^-/\widetilde{\omega}_2^+)}
\Big\{\big[(k\cdot \zeta)^2&-k^2\zeta^2\big]\xi^{\mu}\xi^{\nu}
+\big[(k\cdot \xi)^2-k^2\xi^2\big]\zeta^{\mu}\zeta^{\nu}\Big. \notag \\
&\Big.+\big[2\,k^2+k\cdot\xi\,k\cdot\zeta\big](\xi^{\mu}\zeta^{\nu}
+\zeta^{\mu}\xi^{\nu})\Big\}=\Pi^{\mu\nu}|_{\lambda=2}\,,
\end{align}
with the right-hand side given by
\eqref{eq:polarization-sum-parity-violating-2-truncated}.
Adding the two contributions from Eqs.~\eqref{eq:Optical-theorem-parity-odd}
and \eqref{eq:Optical-theorem-parity-odd-2} leads to
\begin{align}
2\,\mathrm{Im}(\mathcal{M}_{\widehat{1}})&=2\,\mathrm{Im}(\mathcal{M}_{\widehat{1}})\big|_{\lambda=1}+2\,\mathrm{Im}(\mathcal{M}_{\widehat{1}})\big|_{\lambda=2}=
\notag \\
&=\sum_{\lambda=1,2}\int
\frac{\mathrm{d}^3k}{(2\pi)^3\,2\widetilde{\omega}_{\lambda}}\,\delta^{(4)}(k_1+k_2-k)\,\left.|\widehat{\mathcal{M}}_{\widehat{1}}|^2\right|_{\lambda}\,.
\end{align}
But the right-hand side of the previous equation is just the total cross
section of the scattering process. Hence, the optical theorem is valid for
the parity-odd sector of modified Maxwell theory. Furthermore, it reveals
the connection between the modified photon propagator (cf. Eq.
\eqref{eq:forward-scattering-amplitude-optical-theorem}) and the polarization
tensors (cf. penultimate line of Eqs. \eqref{eq:Optical-theorem-parity-odd}
and \eqref{eq:Optical-theorem-parity-odd-2}).
The optical theorem thus provides a good cross check for the obtained results
of Eqs. \eqref{eq:propagator-result-parity-odd-scalar-1-2},
\eqref{eq:polarization-sum-parity-violating-1-truncated}, and
\eqref{eq:polarization-sum-parity-violating-2-truncated}. Since the process
itself only plays a role at the level of providing a valid Ward identity,
the obtained result is consistent with having a unitary theory, at least for
a tree-level process involving conserved currents.
As a final remark we state that the unphysical pole $k^2=0$, which appears in the
propagator coefficients $\widehat{b}$, $\widehat{d}$, and $\widehat{f}$, is
prevented from being reached by energy conservation. Hence it plays no role
in the calculation.
\section{Microcausality}
\label{sec:Microcausality-parity-odd}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
\vspace*{-0mm}
In order to decide whether or not the particular case of parity-odd modified
Maxwell theory considered satisfies the condition of microcausality, we have
to compute the commutator of physical fields at different spacetime points
$y$ and $z$. The latter can be derived from the commutator of vector
potentials:
\begin{equation}
[A^{\mu}(y),A^{\nu}(z)]=[A^{\mu}(y-z),A^{\nu}(0)]\equiv [A^{\mu}(x),A^{\nu}(0)]=\mathrm{i}\theta^{\mu\nu}\widehat{D}(x)\,,
\end{equation}
where the second step follows from translation invariance.
The tensor structure of this expression is to be put into the function
$\theta^{\mu\nu}$. The causal structure of the commutator is completely
determined by the scalar commutator function $\widehat{D}(x)$, which
corresponds to the scalar part of the Feynman propagator (see, for instance,
Refs.~\cite{AdamKlinkhamer2001} and \cite{Klinkhamer:2010zs}). For this
reason we will restrict our considerations solely to $\widehat{D}(x)$
and forget about the tensor structure. Looking at the propagator
\eqref{eq:propagator-parity-odd-coeff} of Sec. \ref{sec:Propagator-parity-odd}
it is clear that there are two scalar parts, $\widehat{K}_1$ from Eq.
\eqref{eq:propagator-result-parity-odd-scalar-1} and $\widehat{K}_2$ from
Eq. \eqref{eq:propagator-result-parity-odd-scalar-2}, one for each photon
polarization. We begin with $\widehat{K}_1$:
\begin{align}
\widehat{D}_1(x)&=\oint_{C} \frac{\mathrm{d}k_0}{2\pi}
\int\frac{\mathrm{d}^3k}{(2\pi)^3}\;\frac{2}{2(k\cdot\xi)(k\cdot\zeta)
+k^2\,(2-\xi\cdot\zeta)}
\;\exp(\mathrm{i}\,k_0x_0+\mathrm{i}\,\mathbf{k}\cdot\mathbf{x})
\notag \\[1mm]
&=\oint_{C} \frac{\mathrm{d}k_0}{2\pi} \int
\frac{\mathrm{d}^3k}{(2\pi)^3}\;
\frac{1}{k_0^2-k_{\bot}^2-k_{\parallel}^2-2\,\mathcal{E}\,k_0\,k_{\parallel}}
\;\exp(\mathrm{i}\,k_0x_0+\mathrm{i}\,\mathbf{k}\cdot\mathbf{x})
\notag \\[1mm]
&=\oint_{C} \frac{\mathrm{d}k_0}{2\pi} \int
\frac{\mathrm{d}^3k}{(2\pi)^3}\;
\frac{1}{(k_0-\widetilde{\omega}_{1}^+)(k_0-\widetilde{\omega}_{1}^{-})}
\;\exp(\mathrm{i}\,k_0x_0+\mathrm{i}\,\mathbf{k}\cdot\mathbf{x})\,,
\end{align}
where positive and negative energies are defined in Eq.
\eqref{eq:dispersion-relation-1}. These are the poles of
the scalar propagator $\widehat{K}_1$, where $\widetilde{\omega}_{1}^+$
delivers the first contribution to the imaginary part of the forward
scattering amplitude considered in the previous section.
The evaluation of the contour integral gives
\begin{align}
\label{eq:microcausality-computation}
\widehat{D}_1(x)&=\mathrm{i}\int\frac{\mathrm{d}^3k}{(2\pi)^3}\,
\left[\frac{\exp(\mathrm{i}\,\widetilde{\omega}_{1}^+x_0)}{\widetilde{\omega}_{1}^+-\widetilde{\omega}_{1}^-}
+\frac{\exp(\mathrm{i}\,\widetilde{\omega}_{1}^-x_0)}{\widetilde{\omega}_{1}^--\widetilde{\omega}_{1}^+}
\right]
\exp(\mathrm{i}\,\mathbf{k}\cdot\mathbf{x})
\notag \\[1mm]
&=-\int
\frac{\mathrm{d}^3k}{(2\pi)^3}\,
\frac{1}{\sqrt{k_{\bot}^2+(1+\mathcal{E}^2)\,k_{\parallel}^2}}
\;\sin\left(\sqrt{k_{\bot}^2+(1+\mathcal{E}^2)\,k_{\parallel}^2}x_0\right)
\notag \\ &\hspace{3cm}\,\times
\exp\Big(\mathrm{i}\,k_{\bot}x_{\bot}
+\mathrm{i}\,(\mathcal{E}x_0+x_{\parallel})k_{\parallel}\Big)\,.
\end{align}
Substituting $k_{\parallel}=k_{\parallel}'/\sqrt{1+\mathcal{E}^2}$ the
integral results in
\begin{subequations}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:gauge-field-commutator-spatial-integration}
\widehat{D}_1(x)=-\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+\mathcal{E}^2}}\int
\frac{\mathrm{d}^3k'}{(2\pi)^3}\;
\frac{\sin(|\mathbf{k}'|x_0)}{|\mathbf{k}'|}\;
\exp(\mathrm{i}\,\mathbf{k}'\cdot\mathbf{X})\,,
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{X}\equiv
\begin{pmatrix}
x_{\bot} \\ 0 \\
(\mathcal{E}x_0+x_{\parallel})/\sqrt{1+\mathcal{E}^2}\\
\end{pmatrix}\,.
\end{equation}
\end{subequations}
Hence, Eq. \eqref{eq:gauge-field-commutator-spatial-integration}
is of the same form as an integral that appears in the context
of the standard propagator (see e.g. Eq. (26a) in Ref.~\cite{Heitler1954}).
This leads to the final result:
\begin{align}\label{eq:D-final-parity-odd}
\widehat{D}_1(x)&=-\frac{1}{2\pi\sqrt{1+\mathcal{E}^2}}\;
\mathrm{sgn}(x_0)\;
\delta\Big(x_0^2-2\,\mathcal{E}\,x_0\,x_{\parallel}
-(1+\mathcal{E}^2)\,x_{\bot}^2-x_{\parallel}^2\Big)
\notag \\[1mm]
&=-\frac{1}{2\pi\sqrt{1+\mathcal{E}^2}}\;
\mathrm{sgn}(x_0)\;
\delta\Big((x_0-\mathcal{E}\,x_{\parallel})^2
-(1+\mathcal{E}^2)\,x_{\bot}^2-(1+\mathcal{E}^2)\,x_{\parallel}^2\Big)\,.
\end{align}
Just as for the isotropic case of modified Maxwell theory, whose
consistency was discussed in Ref.~\cite{Klinkhamer:2010zs}, the commutator
function \eqref{eq:D-final-parity-odd} vanishes everywhere except
on the modified null cone
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:modified-null-cone-1}
(x_0-\mathcal{E}\,x_{\parallel})^2
-(1+\mathcal{E}^2)\,x_{\bot}^2-(1+\mathcal{E}^2)\,x_{\parallel}^2=0\,.
\end{equation}
An analogous calculation for the scalar part $\widehat{K}_2$ from
Eq. \eqref{eq:propagator-result-parity-odd-scalar-2} delivers the
following final result for the commutator function $\widehat{D}_2(x)$:
\begin{equation}
\widehat{D}_2(x)=-\frac{1}{2\pi (1+\mathcal{E})^{3/2}}\,\mathrm{sgn}(x_0)\,\delta\Big((x_0-\mathcal{E}\,x_{\parallel})^2-x_{\bot}^2-(1+\mathcal{E}^2)\,x_{\parallel}^2\Big)\,,
\end{equation}
which corresponds to a second modified null cone:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:modified-null-cone-2}
(x_0-\mathcal{E}\,x_{\parallel})^2-x_{\bot}^2-(1+\mathcal{E}^2)\,x_{\parallel}^2=0\,.
\end{equation}
Both null cones coincide to linear order in $\mathcal{E}$. This is not surprising,
since the theory is birefringent to quadratic order in the Lorentz-violating
parameters. Each of the Eqs. \eqref{eq:modified-null-cone-1} and \eqref{eq:modified-null-cone-2}
corresponds to a null cone, whose rotation axis is different for the past and future
null cone. Neither axes coincides with the time axis, but each is rotated by a
small angle, as shown in Fig. \ref{fig:modified-null-cones}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics{consistency-modmax-parity-odd_v1_fig5_new_nullcone_revised.pdf}
\caption{Null cone of the standard theory (blue, solid lines) and one of the modified
null cones (red, dashed lines) in configuration space $(x_0,x_{\bot},x_{\parallel})$.
Their rotation axes are shown as well (thin lines).}
\label{fig:modified-null-cones}
\end{figure}
Since there are two modes with two different dispersion relations,
one may wonder, if this result is sufficient for taking a decision
about microcausality. For this reason we tried to separate both
modes in Sec. \ref{sec:Propagator-parity-odd} with the result
\eqref{eq:split-propagator} -- \eqref{eq:split-propagator-scalar-parts}.
Therefore, we should investigate $\widehat{G}^{(1)}(k)$ and
$\widehat{G}^{(2)}(k)$ from Eq. \eqref{eq:split-propagator-scalar-parts}:
\begin{align}
\widehat{G}^{(1)}(x)&\equiv \oint_C \frac{\mathrm{d}k_0}{2\pi} \int \frac{\mathrm{d}^3k}{(2\pi)^3} \widehat{G}^{(1)}(k) \notag \\
&=\oint_C \frac{\mathrm{d}k_0}{2\pi} \int \frac{\mathrm{d}^3k}{(2\pi)^3}\,\frac{4\widehat{K}_1\widehat{K}_2^{-1}}{[(k\cdot\xi)^2-k^2]\zeta^2+(k\cdot\zeta)^2}\exp(\mathrm{i}\,k_0x_0+\mathrm{i}\,\mathbf{k}\cdot\mathbf{x}) \notag \\
&=\oint_C \frac{\mathrm{d}k_0}{2\pi} \int \frac{\mathrm{d}^3k}{(2\pi)^3}\,\frac{4\widehat{K}_2^{-1}}{[(k\cdot\xi)^2-k^2]\zeta^2+(k\cdot\zeta)^2}\frac{\exp(\mathrm{i}\,k_0x_0+\mathrm{i}\,\mathbf{k}\cdot\mathbf{x})}{(k_0-\widetilde{\omega}_1^+)(k_0-\widetilde{\omega}_1^-)}\,.
\end{align}
Using
\begin{equation}
\left.\frac{4\widehat{K}_2^{-1}}{[(k\cdot\xi)^2-k^2]\zeta^2+(k\cdot\zeta)^2}\right|_{k_0=\widetilde{\omega}_1^+}=\left.\frac{4\widehat{K}_2^{-1}}{[(k\cdot\xi)^2-k^2]\zeta^2+(k\cdot\zeta)^2}\right|_{k_0=\widetilde{\omega}_1^-}=1\,,
\end{equation}
then leads to the intermediate result of Eq. \eqref{eq:microcausality-computation}
and the rest of the computation is the same. Since $\widehat{G}^{(2)}(k)$ is a constant
function with respect to $k_0$, the evaluation of the contour integral in the complex
$k_0$-plane in
\begin{equation}
\widehat{G}^{(2)}(x)\equiv \oint_C \frac{\mathrm{d}k_0}{2\pi} \int \frac{\mathrm{d}^3k}{(2\pi)^3} \widehat{G}^{(2)}(k)\,,
\end{equation}
will immediately give zero. Hence, the dispersion relation corresponding to
the second mode does not seem to play any role here. The $\lambda=1$ mode
seems to be preferred compared to the $\lambda=2$ mode, what follows
from forcing a parity-odd theory to be nonbirefringent via the \textit{Ansatz}
\eqref{eq:nonbirefringent-Ansatz}. The transversal polarization vectors can
be interpreted as two distinct polarization modes: left- and right-handed.
In a parity-violating theory they are expected to behave differently, for
example with respect to their phase velocity. This would automatically
lead to birefringence, which is suppressed by using Eq. \eqref{eq:nonbirefringent-Ansatz}
as a basis.
The result of Eq. \eqref{eq:D-final-parity-odd} establishes microcausality
for the following parameter domain:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:mathcalE-domain}
\mathcal{E} \equiv |\boldsymbol{\zeta}| \in [0,\,\infty)\,,
\end{equation}
where $\boldsymbol{\zeta}$ is defined in terms of the SME
parameters by Eqs.~\eqref{eq:definition-parity-odd-case-four-vectors}
and \eqref{eq:parity-odd-case-SME}. Hence, the parity-odd ``nonbirefringent''
sector of modified Maxwell theory is unitary and microcausal for the full
parameter range.
\section{Comparison to other Lorentz-violating theories}
\label{sec:Propagator-polarizations-general-considerations}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
In the previous sections we have seen that both the modified photon propagator and the
polarization vectors have an uncommon structure.
For this reason, we want to have a general look at the photon propagator and polarization
vectors in other Lorentz-violating theories. We start with the photon polarizations of
MCS theory. Besides modified Maxwell theory, MCS theory is another possible example of a
gauge-invariant and power-counting renormalizable theory that violates Lorentz invariance
in the photon sector.
MCS theory is characterized by a mass scale $m_{\scriptscriptstyle{\mathrm{CS}}}$ and a
fixed spacelike\footnote{We assume the four-vector $\zeta^{\mu}$ to be spacelike, since
timelike MCS theory is expected to be nonunitary and noncausal \cite{AdamKlinkhamer2001}.}
``four-vector'' $\zeta^{\mu}$, that plays the role of a background field.
The Chern--Simons mass $m_{\scriptscriptstyle{\mathrm{CS}}}$ gives the amount of
Lorentz violation. MCS theory exhibits two photon modes, which we call `$\oplus$' and
`$\ominus$'. They obey different dispersion relations \cite{Carroll-etal1990}, which results
in birefringence. The polarization vectors follow from the field equations and, in temporal
gauge $A^0=0$, they are given by
\begin{subequations}
\begin{equation}
(\varepsilon^{\oplus\,\mu})=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N'}}\left(0\,,\,-2[(k\cdot \zeta)^2+k^2]\,,\,\mathrm{i}\frac{2\omega}{m_{\mathrm{\scriptscriptstyle{CS}}}}k^2\,,\,2k_{\parallel}k_{\bot}\right)\Bigg|_{\omega=\omega_{\oplus}}\,,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
(\varepsilon^{\ominus\,\mu})=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N''}}\left(0\,,\,-2[(k\cdot \zeta)^2+k^2]\,,\,\mathrm{i}\frac{2\omega}{m_{\mathrm{\scriptscriptstyle{CS}}}}k^2\,,\,2k_{\parallel}k_{\bot}\right)\Bigg|_{\omega=\omega_{\ominus}}\,,
\end{equation}
with the normalization constants
\begin{equation}
N'=4\frac{\omega^2k^2}{m^2_{\mathrm{\scriptscriptstyle{CS}}}}[2k^2+m^2_{\mathrm{\scriptscriptstyle{CS}}}\zeta^2]\Big|_{\omega=\omega_{\oplus}}\,,\quad N''=4\frac{\omega^2k^2}{m^2_{\mathrm{\scriptscriptstyle{CS}}}}[2k^2+m^2_{\mathrm{\scriptscriptstyle{CS}}}\zeta^2]\Big|_{\omega=\omega_{\ominus}}\,.
\end{equation}
\end{subequations}
Using the temporal gauge fixing four-vector $(n^{\mu})=(1,0,0,0)$, the polarization tensor for each of
the two modes can be cast in the following form (see \cite{Kaufhold:2005vj} for the truncated versions):
\begin{subequations}
\label{eq:polarization-tensors-mcs-theory}
\begin{equation}
\overline{\varepsilon}^{\oplus\,\mu}(k)\varepsilon^{\oplus\,\nu}(k)=\Pi^{\mu\nu}_{\mathrm{MCS}}\big|_{\omega=\omega_{\oplus}}\,,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\overline{\varepsilon}^{\ominus\,\mu}(k)\varepsilon^{\ominus\,\nu}(k)=\Pi^{\mu\nu}_{\mathrm{MCS}}\big|_{\omega=\omega_{\ominus}}\,,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{align}
\Pi^{\mu\nu}_{\mathrm{MCS}}&=\frac{1}{2k^2+m_{\mathrm{\scriptscriptstyle{CS}}}^2\zeta^2}\left[-\,k^2\eta^{\mu\nu}-\frac{k^2}{(k\cdot n)^2}k^{\mu}k^{\nu}+\frac{k^2}{k\cdot n}(k^{\mu}n^{\nu}+n^{\mu}k^{\nu})\right. \notag \\
&\phantom{{}={}\frac{1}{2k^2+m_{\mathrm{\scriptscriptstyle{CS}}}^2\zeta^2}\Big[}\left.-\,m_{\mathrm{\scriptscriptstyle{CS}}}^2\zeta^{\mu}\zeta^{\nu}-\mathrm{i}m_{\mathrm{\scriptscriptstyle{CS}}}\varepsilon^{\mu\nu\varrho\sigma}\left(\frac{k\cdot\zeta}{k\cdot n}k_{\varrho}n_{\sigma}-\frac{k^2}{k\cdot n}\zeta_{\varrho}n_{\sigma}\right)\right]\,.
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
The polarization sum of standard QED is expected to be recovered for vanishing
$m_{\scriptscriptstyle{\mathrm{CS}}}$. For the truncated polarization sum this is,
indeed, the case:
\begin{equation}
\lim_{m_{\scalebox{0.4}{CS}}\mapsto 0} \left.\Big\{\overline{\varepsilon}^{\oplus\,\mu}(k)\varepsilon^{\oplus\,\nu}(k)+
\overline{\varepsilon}^{\ominus\,\mu}(k)\varepsilon^{\ominus\,\nu}(k)\Big\}\right|^{\text{truncated}}=-\eta^{\mu\nu}\,.
\end{equation}
From
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:polarization-tensors-mcs-theory-limit}
\lim_{m_{\scalebox{0.4}{CS}}\mapsto 0} \overline{\varepsilon}^{\oplus\,\mu}(k)\varepsilon^{\oplus\,\nu}(k)
\,\Big|^{\text{truncated}}=\lim_{m_{\scalebox{0.4}{CS}}\mapsto 0}\overline{\varepsilon}^{\ominus\,\mu}(k)\varepsilon^{\ominus\,\nu}(k)
\,\Big|^{\text{truncated}}=-\frac{\eta^{\mu\nu}}{2}\,,
\end{equation}
it is evident that both modes deliver equal contributions to the polarization
sum. This even holds for nonvanishing $m_{\scriptscriptstyle{\mathrm{CS}}}$. Hence,
the behavior of MCS theory with respect to the polarization modes is completely
different compared to parity-odd nonbirefringent modified Maxwell theory. For
$m_{\scriptscriptstyle{\mathrm{CS}}}\mapsto 0$, there is no residual dependence
from the preferred spacetime direction $\zeta^{\mu}$ in the polarization tensors
of the individual modes, which can be seen from Eq.~\eqref{eq:polarization-tensors-mcs-theory-limit}.
Furthermore, for MCS-theory the photon propagator in the axial gauge has been shown
to be of the following form \cite{AdamKlinkhamer2001}:
\begin{equation}
G_{\mu\nu}(k)\Big|^{\mathrm{axial}}_{\mathrm{MCS}}=-\mathrm{i}\frac{k^2}{\mathscr{P}(k)}\left(\eta_{\mu\nu}+\hdots\right)\,,
\end{equation}
where further terms with the index structure composed of the four-momentum, the preferred
spacelike four-vector $\zeta^{\mu}$, the axial gauge vector and the four-dimensional
Levi-Civita symbol have been omitted.
The denominator $\mathscr{P}(k)$ is a fourth-order polynomial in $k^0$, with its
zeros corresponding to the two different physical dispersion relations. For a special case
of parity-odd `birefringent' modified Maxwell theory\footnote{with nonzero
parity-odd parameters $\kappa^{0213}$, $\kappa^{0123}$
(corresponding to the first two entries of the ten-dimensional vector from Eq.~(8)
in \cite{KosteleckyMewes2002}) plus those related by symmetries and all others set
to zero} we could show that the propagator in Feynman gauge looks like
\begin{equation}
G_{\mu\nu}(k)\Big|^{\mathrm{Feynman}}_{\substack{\mathrm{birefringent} \\
\mathrm{modMax}\hfill}}=-\mathrm{i}\frac{\mathscr{P}_1(k)}{\mathscr{P}_2(k)}\left(\eta_{\mu\nu}+\hdots\right)\,,
\end{equation}
where $\mathscr{P}_1(k)$ is a second-order polynomial in $k^0$, involving the
Lorentz-violating parameters and $\mathscr{P}_2(k)$ is of fourth order in $k^0$.
The two distinct physical dispersion relations of this birefringent theory follow
from $\mathscr{P}_2(k)=0$. Again, remaining propagator coefficients multiplied
by combinations of the four-momentum and preferred four-vectors have been omitted.
Hence, we see that our result for the propagator for parity-odd nonbirefringent
modified Maxwell theory given by Eqs. \eqref{eq:propagator-parity-odd-coeff} --
\eqref{eq:propagator-result-parity-odd-coeff} is rather unusual. For MCS-theory
and birefringent modified Maxwell theory (at least for the special case examined),
both physical modes emerge as poles of the coefficient before the metric tensor
$\eta_{\mu\nu}$. However, in the case of parity-odd nonbirefringent modified Maxwell
theory, the dispersion relation for the $\lambda=2$ polarization mode is not contained
in the coefficient $\widehat{K}_1$ of Eq. \eqref{eq:propagator-result-parity-odd-scalar-1},
which is multiplied with $\eta_{\mu\nu}$. This peculiarity is also mirrored in the
polarization tensors, where we have shown the interplay in the previous section.
\section{Limit of the polarization tensors for vanishing Lorentz violation}
\label{sec:Limit-polarizations-vanishing-lorentz-violation}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
Taking the limit $\mathcal{E}\mapsto 0$ followed by the limit
$k_{\bot}\mapsto 0$ (see the definition \eqref{eq:definition-k-orthogonal-k-parallel})
for the physical polarization vectors \eqref{eq:polarization-mode1-parity-violating} and
\eqref{eq:polarization-mode2-parity-violating} leads to:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:polarization-vectors-vanishing-lorentz-violation}
\lim_{\substack{\mathcal{E}\mapsto 0 \\ k_{\bot}\mapsto 0}} (\varepsilon^{(1)\,\mu})=\begin{pmatrix}
0 \\
0 \\
1 \\
0 \\
\end{pmatrix}\,,\quad \lim_{\substack{\mathcal{E}\mapsto 0 \\ k_{\bot}\mapsto 0}} (\varepsilon^{(2)\,\mu})=\begin{pmatrix}
0 \\
1 \\
0 \\
0 \\
\end{pmatrix}\,.
\end{equation}
Taking into account the limit of the four-momentum,
\begin{equation}
\lim_{k_{\bot}\mapsto 0} \begin{pmatrix}
k_{\bot} \\
0 \\
k_{\parallel} \\
\end{pmatrix}=\begin{pmatrix}
0 \\
0 \\
k_{\parallel} \\
\end{pmatrix}\equiv \begin{pmatrix}
0 \\
0 \\
k \\
\end{pmatrix}\,,
\end{equation}
the physical polarization vectors reduce to the standard
transversal QED results.
Note that for both vectors in Eq.
\eqref{eq:polarization-vectors-vanishing-lorentz-violation},
the order in which the limits are taken does not play any role.
As we will see below, this is not the case for the gauge-invariant
parts of the polarization tensors from
Eqs.~\eqref{eq:polarization-sum-parity-violating-1-truncated},
\eqref{eq:polarization-sum-parity-violating-2-truncated},
that is, if the polarization vectors are coupled to conserved
currents. For $\mathcal{E}\mapsto 0$ these tensors result in:
\begin{subequations}
\label{eq:polarization-tensors-physical-limit}
\begin{align}
\lim_{\mathcal{E}\mapsto 0} \Pi^{\mu\nu}|_{\lambda=1}=-\eta^{\mu\nu}-\frac{k_{\parallel}^2}{k_{\bot}^2}\xi^{\mu}\xi^{\nu}-\frac{|\mathbf{k}|^2}{k_{\bot}^2}\widehat{\zeta}^{\mu}\widehat{\zeta}^{\nu}-\frac{|\mathbf{k}|k_{\parallel}}{k_{\bot}^2}(\xi^{\mu}\widehat{\zeta}^{\nu}+\xi^{\nu}\widehat{\zeta}^{\mu})\,,
\end{align}
\begin{align}
\lim_{\mathcal{E}\mapsto 0} \Pi^{\mu\nu}|_{\lambda=2}=\frac{k_{\parallel}^2}{k_{\bot}^2}\xi^{\mu}\xi^{\nu}+\frac{|\mathbf{k}|^2}{k_{\bot}^2}\widehat{\zeta}^{\mu}\widehat{\zeta}^{\nu}+\frac{|\mathbf{k}|k_{\parallel}}{k_{\bot}^2}(\xi^{\mu}\widehat{\zeta}^{\nu}+\xi^{\nu}\widehat{\zeta}^{\mu})\,,
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
with $(\widehat{\zeta}^{\mu})=(0,\widehat{\boldsymbol{\zeta}})$ and
$|\mathbf{k}|=(k_{\scriptscriptstyle{\parallel}}^2+k_{\bot}^2)^{1/2}$.
For completeness, after inserting the explicit four-vectors, we obtain
the following matrices:
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
\label{eq:polarization-tensor-1-vanishing-E}
\lim_{\mathcal{E}\mapsto 0} \big(\Pi^{\mu\nu}|_{\lambda=1}\big)&=\frac{1}{k_{\bot}^2}\begin{pmatrix}
-|\mathbf{k}|^2 & 0 & 0 & -|\mathbf{k}|k_{\parallel} \\
0 & k_{\bot}^2 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & k_{\bot}^2 & 0 \\
-|\mathbf{k}|k_{\parallel} & 0 & 0 & -k_{\parallel}^2 \\
\end{pmatrix}\,,
\end{align}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:polarization-tensor-2-vanishing-E}
\lim_{\mathcal{E}\mapsto 0} \big(\Pi^{\mu\nu}|_{\lambda=2}\big)=\frac{1}{k_{\bot}^2}\begin{pmatrix}
k_{\parallel}^2 & 0 & 0 & |\mathbf{k}|k_{\parallel} \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
|\mathbf{k}|k_{\parallel} & 0 & 0 & |\mathbf{k}|^2 \\
\end{pmatrix}\,.
\end{equation}
\end{subequations}
Note that these matrix representations only hold for the special choice
$\widehat{\boldsymbol{\zeta}}=(0,0,1)$. It is evident that
the additional limit $k_{\bot}\mapsto 0$ does not exist for each contribution
$\Pi^{\mu\nu}|_{\lambda=1}$ or $\Pi^{\mu\nu}|_{\lambda=2}$ separately, but only
for the truncated polarization sum $\sum_{\lambda=1,2} \Pi^{\mu\nu}|_{\lambda}$,
which leads to the standard QED result.
For this reason, the polarization vectors are not only deformed ---
unlike for the isotropic case that was examined in Ref.~\cite{Klinkhamer:2010zs}
--- but their structure completely differs from standard QED. Besides that,
no covariant expression exists for each polarization tensor in standard QED,
where only the sum $\sum_{\lambda=1,2} \Pi^{\mu\nu}|_{\lambda}$ can be decomposed
covariantly.
\section{Physical process: Compton scattering with polarized photons}
\label{sec:Compton-scattering}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
\subsection{Description of the process}
\label{subsec:description-compton-process}
The results obtained for the polarization vectors in
Sec.~\ref{sec:Polarization-vectors-parity-odd} together with the observations
that followed forces us to think about the consistency of the modified theory.
The form of the propagator, the polarization vectors and tensors observed in
Secs. \ref{sec:Propagator-parity-odd}, \ref{sec:Polarization-vectors-parity-odd},
and \ref{sec:Limit-polarizations-vanishing-lorentz-violation} reveal the following
uncommon properties:
\begin{itemize}
\item[1)] one of the two physical photon modes seems to be preferred with
respect to the other,
\item[2)] both polarization vectors are interweaved with the spacetime
directions $\xi^{\mu}$ and $\zeta^{\mu}$, even for vanishing Lorentz-violating
parameters,
\item[3)] each physical polarization tensor can be written in covariant form,
\item[4)] and one of the physical polarization vectors has a longitudinal
part.
\end{itemize}
One the one hand, these peculiarities may emerge from the fact that a parity-odd
QED is combined with the claim of being nonbirefringent. Two physical photon
polarizations can be interpreted as two distinct polarization modes:``left-handed''
and ``right-handed''. These are supposed to behave differently because
of parity violation, for example with respect to the phase velocity
of each mode. Hence, birefringence would result from this, which clashes
with the nonbirefringent \textit{Ansatz} of Eq. \eqref{eq:nonbirefringent-Ansatz}.
On the other hand, the above properties may have emerged from a bad gauge
choice and could possibly be removed by picking a more appropriate gauge.
For this reason a physical process will be considered, whose cross
section does not depend on the gauge. If the mentioned behavior of the
polarization modes is not a gauge artifact, it will show up in the
results for polarized cross sections. The simplest tree-level process
involving external photons, which also occurs in standard QED, is Compton
scattering. We consider an electron scattered off a photon in the
$\lambda=1$ polarization and in the $\lambda=2$ polarization, respectively.
Hence, we want to compute cross sections for the processes
$e^-(p_1)\widetilde{\gamma}_1(k_1)\rightarrow e^-(p_2)\widetilde{\gamma}_1(k_2)$,
$e^-(p_1)\widetilde{\gamma}_1(k_1)\rightarrow e^-(p_2)\widetilde{\gamma}_2(k_2)$,
$e^-(p_1)\widetilde{\gamma}_2(k_1)\rightarrow e^-(p_2)\widetilde{\gamma}_1(k_2)$,
and $e^-(p_1)\widetilde{\gamma}_2(k_1)\rightarrow e^-(p_2)\widetilde{\gamma}_2(k_2)$,
where $\widetilde{\gamma}_{1,2}$ denotes a modified photon in the
$\lambda=1$ or $\lambda=2$ polarization state, respectively. The corresponding Feynman
diagrams are shown in Fig. \ref{fig:compton-scattering}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics{consistency-modmax-parity-odd_v1_fig3_compton.pdf}
\caption{Contributions to Compton scattering for polarized modified
photons $\widetilde{\gamma}_{1,2}$, where the subscript refers to the
photon polarization. The photon momenta are denoted as $k_a$ and the
electron momenta as $p_a$, where the label $a=1$, 2 refers to the
initial and final state, respectively.}
\label{fig:compton-scattering}
\end{figure}
For a review of Compton scattering experiments, refer to
Ref.~\cite{Fluegge1958}. Furthermore, Ref.~\cite{Bocquet:2010ke} gives a new bound
on two of the three parameters of parity-odd nonbirefringent modified Maxwell
theory from the study of Compton scattering kinematics at the GRAAL experiment\footnote{
whereas the experiment has been stopped by now} on the European Synchrotron
Radiation Facility (ESRF) at Grenoble in France.
\subsection{Numerical results for polarized Compton scattering cross sections}
\label{subsec:numerical-results-compton-scattering}
We choose special momenta $p_1$, $k_1$ for the initial electron and photon.
The outgoing photon momentum configuration is described in spherical coordinates
with polar angle $\vartheta$ and azimuthal angle $\varphi$. We consider the initial
momentum configuration, for which the electron is at rest:
$(p_1^{\mu})=(m,0,0,0)$, $(k_{1,\lambda}^{\mu})\equiv (\omega_{\lambda}(k),\mathbf{k})$
with $\mathbf{k}=(0,0,|\mathbf{k}|)=(0,0,k_1)$.
\begin{table}[b]
\centering
\setlength{\extrarowheight}{4pt}
\newcolumntype{C}[1]{>{\centering\arraybackslash}m{#1}}
\begin{tabular}{C{0.85cm}||C{2.1cm}|C{2.1cm}|C{2.1cm}|C{2.1cm}|C{2.1cm}C{0.1cm}}
\hline
\multirow{1}{*}{$k_1/m$} & \multirow{1}{*}{$10^{-1}$} & \multirow{1}{*}{$10^{-2}$} & \multirow{1}{*}{$10^{-3}$} & \multirow{1}{*}{$10^{-4}$} & \multirow{1}{*}{$10^{-5}$} \\
\hline
\multirow{1}{*}{$\sigma$} & \multirow{1}{*}{7.048378} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.214276} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.360869} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.375905} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.377413} \\
\hline
\hline
\multirow{1}{*}{$k_1/m$} & \multirow{1}{*}{$10^{-6}$} & \multirow{1}{*}{$10^{-7}$} & \multirow{1}{*}{$10^{-8}$} & \multirow{1}{*}{$10^{-9}$} & \multirow{1}{*}{$10^{-10}$} \\
\hline
\multirow{1}{*}{$\sigma$} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.377564} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.377579} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.377580} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.377580} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.377580} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Unpolarized total Compton scattering cross sections $\sigma$ in standard QED for different values of the initial photon
momentum $k_1$ according to the equation below (5-114) of \cite{ItzyksonZuber1980} or to Eq. (5.81) of \cite{PeskinSchroeder1995}.
The results are given in units of $\alpha^2$ with the fine structure constant $\alpha\equiv e^2/4\pi$. The electron mass is set to
$m=1$.}
\label{tab:Compton-scattering-standard-qed-1}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\setlength{\extrarowheight}{4pt}
\newcolumntype{C}[1]{>{\centering\arraybackslash}m{#1}}
\begin{tabular}{C{0.95cm}||C{1.6cm}|C{1.6cm}|C{1.6cm}|C{1.6cm}|C{1.6cm}|C{1.6cm}|C{2.0cm}C{0.1cm}}
\hline
\multirow{1}{*}{$k_1/m$} & \multirow{1}{*}{$\sigma_{11}$} & \multirow{1}{*}{$\sigma_{22}$} & \multirow{1}{*}{$\sigma_{12}$} & \multirow{1}{*}{$\sigma_{21}$} &
\multirow{1}{*}{$\sum_{\lambda'} \sigma_{1\lambda'}$} & \multirow{1}{*}{$\sum_{\lambda'} \sigma_{2\lambda'}$} & \multirow{1}{*}{$\frac{1}{2}\sum_{\lambda,\lambda'}\sigma_{\lambda\lambda'}$} \\
\hline
\hline
\multirow{1}{*}{$10^{-1}$} & \multirow{1}{*}{1.784650} & \multirow{1}{*}{5.263729} & \multirow{1}{*}{5.263729} & \multirow{1}{*}{1.784650} & \multirow{1}{*}{7.048379} & \multirow{1}{*}{7.048379} & \multirow{1}{*}{7.048379} \\
\hline
\multirow{1}{*}{$10^{-2}$} & \multirow{1}{*}{2.053890} & \multirow{1}{*}{6.160386} & \multirow{1}{*}{6.160386} & \multirow{1}{*}{2.053890} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.214277} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.214277} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.214277} \\
\hline
\multirow{1}{*}{$10^{-3}$} & \multirow{1}{*}{2.090221} & \multirow{1}{*}{6.270648} & \multirow{1}{*}{6.270648} & \multirow{1}{*}{2.090221} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.360869} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.360869} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.360869} \\
\hline
\multirow{1}{*}{$10^{-4}$} & \multirow{1}{*}{2.093976} & \multirow{1}{*}{6.281929} & \multirow{1}{*}{6.281929} & \multirow{1}{*}{2.093976} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.375905} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.375905} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.375905} \\
\hline
\multirow{1}{*}{$10^{-5}$} & \multirow{1}{*}{2.094353} & \multirow{1}{*}{6.283060} & \multirow{1}{*}{6.283060} & \multirow{1}{*}{2.094353} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.377413} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.377413} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.377413} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Polarized Compton scattering cross sections $\sigma_{\lambda\lambda'}$ (where $\lambda$ denotes the initial and $\lambda'$
the final photon polarization) of standard QED for different values of the initial photon momentum $k_1$ according to Eq. (11-13)
of \cite{JauchRohrlich1976}. The cross sections are given in units of $\alpha^2$ and the electron mass is set to $m=1$.}
\label{tab:Compton-scattering-standard-qed-2}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\setlength{\extrarowheight}{4pt}
\newcolumntype{C}[1]{>{\centering\arraybackslash}m{#1}}
\begin{tabular}{C{1.0cm}||C{1.6cm}|C{1.6cm}|C{1.6cm}|C{1.6cm}|C{1.6cm}|C{1.6cm}|C{1.6cm}C{0.1cm}}
\hline
\multirow{1}{*}{$\widetilde{\kappa}$} & \multirow{1}{*}{$\widetilde{\sigma}_{11}$} & \multirow{1}{*}{$\widetilde{\sigma}_{22}$} & \multirow{1}{*}{$\widetilde{\sigma}_{12}$} & \multirow{1}{*}{$\widetilde{\sigma}_{21}$} & \multirow{1}{*}{$\widetilde{\sigma}_{1X}$} & \multirow{1}{*}{$\widetilde{\sigma}_{2X}$} & \multirow{1}{*}{$\widetilde{\sigma}$} \\
\hline
\hline
\multirow{1}{*}{$10^{-1}$} & \multirow{1}{*}{6.283180} & \multirow{1}{*}{5.526582} & \multirow{1}{*}{2.033397} & \multirow{1}{*}{2.890066} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.316577} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.416647} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.366612} \\
& \multirow{1}{*}{6.283180} & \multirow{1}{*}{5.526586} & \multirow{1}{*}{2.033399} & \multirow{1}{*}{2.890066} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.316579} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.416652} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.366615} \\
\hline
\multirow{1}{*}{$10^{-2}$} & \multirow{1}{*}{6.283180} & \multirow{1}{*}{6.200243} & \multirow{1}{*}{2.093772} & \multirow{1}{*}{2.177939} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.376952} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.378182} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.377567} \\
& \multirow{1}{*}{6.283180} & \multirow{1}{*}{6.200245} & \multirow{1}{*}{2.093772} & \multirow{1}{*}{2.177939} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.376952} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.378184} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.377568} \\
\hline
\multirow{1}{*}{$10^{-4}$} & \multirow{1}{*}{6.283180} & \multirow{1}{*}{6.282133} & \multirow{1}{*}{2.094338} & \multirow{1}{*}{2.095235} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.377518} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.377367} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.377443} \\
& \multirow{1}{*}{6.283180} & \multirow{1}{*}{6.282346} & \multirow{1}{*}{2.094400} & \multirow{1}{*}{2.095235} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.377580} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.377581} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.377581} \\
\hline
\multirow{1}{*}{$10^{-8}$} & \multirow{1}{*}{6.283175} & \multirow{1}{*}{6.282743} & \multirow{1}{*}{2.094270} & \multirow{1}{*}{2.094397} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.377444} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.377140} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.377292} \\
& \multirow{1}{*}{6.283180} & \multirow{1}{*}{6.283184} & \multirow{1}{*}{2.094400} & \multirow{1}{*}{2.094397} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.377580} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.377581} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.377580} \\
\hline
\multirow{1}{*}{$10^{-16}$} & \multirow{1}{*}{6.283180} & \multirow{1}{*}{6.283258} & \multirow{1}{*}{2.094400} & \multirow{1}{*}{2.094397} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.377581} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.377655} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.377618} \\
& \multirow{1}{*}{6.283180} & \multirow{1}{*}{6.283184} & \multirow{1}{*}{2.094400} & \multirow{1}{*}{2.094397} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.377581} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.377581} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.377581} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Compton scattering cross sections $\widetilde{\sigma}_{\lambda\lambda'}$
for polarized modified photons, where $\lambda$ is the initial and
$\lambda'$ the final photon mode. The sixth and seventh columns give the combinations
defined by Eq. \eqref{eq:modified-compton-cross-sections-gauge-invariant-sums} and
the eighth column lists the sum of the four cross sections $\widetilde{\sigma}_{\lambda\lambda'}$,
which is averaged over the initial photon polarizations and corresponds to the cross
section of unpolarized modified Compton scattering from Eq. \eqref{eq:total-modified-cross-section}.
The electrons are assumed to be unpolarized. All results are given in units of $\alpha^2$
and $k_1=10^{-10}m$ is used. Moreover, we set the electron mass $m=1$. The
Lorentz-violating parameter $\widetilde{\kappa}$ can be found in the first column. For each
Lorentz-violating parameter we give both the results that follow from Eq.
\eqref{eq:matrix-element-square-x} (first row) and from Eq. \eqref{eq:matrix-element-square-hat-x}
(second row), respectively.}
\label{tab:Compton-scattering-results1}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\setlength{\extrarowheight}{4pt}
\newcolumntype{C}[1]{>{\centering\arraybackslash}m{#1}}
\begin{tabular}{C{0.95cm}||C{1.6cm}|C{1.6cm}|C{1.6cm}|C{1.6cm}|C{1.6cm}|C{1.6cm}|C{1.6cm}C{0.1cm}}
\hline
\multirow{1}{*}{$k_1/m$} & \multirow{1}{*}{$\widetilde{\sigma}_{11}$} & \multirow{1}{*}{$\widetilde{\sigma}_{22}$} & \multirow{1}{*}{$\widetilde{\sigma}_{12}$} & \multirow{1}{*}{$\widetilde{\sigma}_{21}$} &
\multirow{1}{*}{$\widetilde{\sigma}_{1X}$} & \multirow{1}{*}{$\widetilde{\sigma}_{2X}$} & \multirow{1}{*}{$\widetilde{\sigma}$} \\
\hline
\hline
\multirow{1}{*}{$10^{-1}$} & \multirow{1}{*}{5.278215} & \multirow{1}{*}{5.280137} & \multirow{1}{*}{1.770163} & \multirow{1}{*}{1.768241} & \multirow{1}{*}{7.048378} & \multirow{1}{*}{7.048378} & \multirow{1}{*}{7.048378} \\
& \multirow{1}{*}{5.278215} & \multirow{1}{*}{5.280137} & \multirow{1}{*}{1.770163} & \multirow{1}{*}{1.768241} & \multirow{1}{*}{7.048378} & \multirow{1}{*}{7.048378} & \multirow{1}{*}{7.048378} \\
\hline
\multirow{1}{*}{$10^{-2}$} & \multirow{1}{*}{6.160582} & \multirow{1}{*}{6.160613} & \multirow{1}{*}{2.053694} & \multirow{1}{*}{2.053664} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.214277} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.214277} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.214277} \\
& \multirow{1}{*}{6.160582} & \multirow{1}{*}{6.160613} & \multirow{1}{*}{2.053694} & \multirow{1}{*}{2.053664} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.214277} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.214277} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.214277} \\
\hline
\multirow{1}{*}{$10^{-3}$} & \multirow{1}{*}{6.270645} & \multirow{1}{*}{6.270649} & \multirow{1}{*}{2.090224} & \multirow{1}{*}{2.090220} &
\multirow{1}{*}{8.360869} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.360869} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.360869} \\
& \multirow{1}{*}{6.270645} & \multirow{1}{*}{6.270649} & \multirow{1}{*}{2.090224} & \multirow{1}{*}{2.090220} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.360869} &
\multirow{1}{*}{8.360869} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.360869} \\
\hline
\multirow{1}{*}{$10^{-4}$} & \multirow{1}{*}{6.281924} & \multirow{1}{*}{6.281927} & \multirow{1}{*}{2.093982} & \multirow{1}{*}{2.093978} &
\multirow{1}{*}{8.375905} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.375905} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.375905} \\
& \multirow{1}{*}{6.281924} & \multirow{1}{*}{6.281927} & \multirow{1}{*}{2.093982} & \multirow{1}{*}{2.093978} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.375905} &
\multirow{1}{*}{8.375905} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.375905} \\
\hline
\multirow{1}{*}{$10^{-5}$} & \multirow{1}{*}{6.283054} & \multirow{1}{*}{6.283058} & \multirow{1}{*}{2.094359} & \multirow{1}{*}{2.094355} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.377413} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.377413} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.377413} \\
& \multirow{1}{*}{6.283054} & \multirow{1}{*}{6.283058} & \multirow{1}{*}{2.094359} & \multirow{1}{*}{2.094355} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.377413} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.377413} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.377413} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Modified polarized Compton scattering cross sections
$\widetilde{\sigma}_{\lambda\lambda'}$ in units of $\alpha^2$
for fixed Lorentz-violating parameter $\widetilde{\kappa}=10^{-16}$,
where $\lambda$ is the initial
and $\lambda'$ the final photon polarization. The cross sections are
computed for different values of the initial photon momentum $k_1$.
As before, for each $k_1$ the first row gives the results that follow
by using $X_{\lambda\lambda'}$ from Eq. \eqref{eq:matrix-element-square-x}.
The second row delivers the corresponding result $\widehat{X}_{\lambda\lambda'}$
from Eq. \eqref{eq:matrix-element-square-hat-x}.
}
\label{tab:Compton-scattering-results2}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\setlength{\extrarowheight}{4pt}
\newcolumntype{C}[1]{>{\centering\arraybackslash}m{#1}}
\begin{tabular}{C{0.6cm}|C{0.6cm}|C{0.6cm}||C{1.5cm}|C{1.5cm}|C{1.5cm}|C{1.5cm}|C{1.5cm}|C{1.5cm}|C{1.5cm}C{0.1cm}}
\hline
\multirow{1}{*}{$\widetilde{\kappa}^{01}$} & \multirow{1}{*}{$\widetilde{\kappa}^{02}$} & \multirow{1}{*}{$\widetilde{\kappa}^{03}$} & \multirow{1}{*}{$\widetilde{\sigma}_{11}$} & \multirow{1}{*}{$\widetilde{\sigma}_{22}$} & \multirow{1}{*}{$\widetilde{\sigma}_{12}$} & \multirow{1}{*}{$\widetilde{\sigma}_{21}$} & \multirow{1}{*}{$\widetilde{\sigma}_{1X}$} & \multirow{1}{*}{$\widetilde{\sigma}_{2X}$} & \multirow{1}{*}{\!\!$\widetilde{\sigma}$} \\
\hline
\hline
\multirow{1}{*}{1} & \multirow{1}{*}{1} & \multirow{1}{*}{2} & \multirow{1}{*}{6.283177} & \multirow{1}{*}{4.188794} & \multirow{1}{*}{2.094403} & \multirow{1}{*}{4.188795} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.377581} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.377590} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.377585} \\
\hline
\multirow{1}{*}{1} & \multirow{1}{*}{2} & \multirow{1}{*}{1} & \multirow{1}{*}{6.281280} & \multirow{1}{*}{7.330112} & \multirow{1}{*}{2.096301} & \multirow{1}{*}{1.047515} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.377581} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.377627} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.377604} \\
& & & \multirow{1}{*}{6.281280} & \multirow{1}{*}{7.330065} & \multirow{1}{*}{2.096301} & \multirow{1}{*}{1.047515} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.377581} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.377581} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.377581} \\
\hline
\multirow{1}{*}{2} & \multirow{1}{*}{1} & \multirow{1}{*}{1} & \multirow{1}{*}{6.281280} & \multirow{1}{*}{7.330112} & \multirow{1}{*}{2.096301} & \multirow{1}{*}{1.047515} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.377581} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.377627} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.377604} \\
\hline
\multirow{1}{*}{1} & \multirow{1}{*}{1} & \multirow{1}{*}{3} & \multirow{1}{*}{6.282966} & \multirow{1}{*}{3.236618} & \multirow{1}{*}{2.094614} & \multirow{1}{*}{5.140967} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.377581} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.377585} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.377583} \\
\hline
\multirow{1}{*}{1} & \multirow{1}{*}{3} & \multirow{1}{*}{1} & \multirow{1}{*}{6.281874} & \multirow{1}{*}{7.806356} & \multirow{1}{*}{2.095706} & \multirow{1}{*}{0.571318} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.377581} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.377674} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.377627} \\
\hline
\multirow{1}{*}{3} & \multirow{1}{*}{1} & \multirow{1}{*}{1} & \multirow{1}{*}{6.281874} & \multirow{1}{*}{7.806356} & \multirow{1}{*}{2.095706} & \multirow{1}{*}{0.571318} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.377581} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.377674} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.377627} \\
\hline
\multirow{1}{*}{1} & \multirow{1}{*}{1} & \multirow{1}{*}{5} & \multirow{1}{*}{6.283181} & \multirow{1}{*}{2.559814} & \multirow{1}{*}{2.094399} & \multirow{1}{*}{5.817768} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.377581} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.377582} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.377581} \\
\hline
\multirow{1}{*}{1} & \multirow{1}{*}{5} & \multirow{1}{*}{1} & \multirow{1}{*}{6.280175} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.145009} & \multirow{1}{*}{2.097405} & \multirow{1}{*}{0.232822} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.377581} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.377831} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.377706} \\
\hline
\multirow{1}{*}{5} & \multirow{1}{*}{1} & \multirow{1}{*}{1} & \multirow{1}{*}{6.280175} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.145009} & \multirow{1}{*}{2.097405} &
\multirow{1}{*}{0.232822} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.377581} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.377831} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.377706} \\
\hline
\multirow{1}{*}{1} & \multirow{1}{*}{1} & \multirow{1}{*}{10} & \multirow{1}{*}{6.283322} & \multirow{1}{*}{2.217729} & \multirow{1}{*}{2.094258} & \multirow{1}{*}{6.159851} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.377581} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.377581} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.377581} \\
\hline
\multirow{1}{*}{1} & \multirow{1}{*}{10} & \multirow{1}{*}{1} & \multirow{1}{*}{6.285520} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.317100} & \multirow{1}{*}{2.092061} & \multirow{1}{*}{0.061577} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.377581} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.378677} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.378129} \\
\hline
\multirow{1}{*}{10} & \multirow{1}{*}{1} & \multirow{1}{*}{1} & \multirow{1}{*}{6.285520} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.317100} & \multirow{1}{*}{2.092061} & \multirow{1}{*}{0.061577} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.377581} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.378677} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.378129} \\
\hline
\multirow{1}{*}{10} & \multirow{1}{*}{1} & \multirow{1}{*}{10} & \multirow{1}{*}{6.281734} & \multirow{1}{*}{5.235428} & \multirow{1}{*}{2.095847} & \multirow{1}{*}{3.142161} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.377581} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.377590} & \multirow{1}{*}{8.377585} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Cross sections of modified polarized Compton scattering in units of $\alpha^2$
for different values of $\widetilde{\kappa}^{01}$, $\widetilde{\kappa}^{02}$, and
$\widetilde{\kappa}^{03}$, where the latter parameters are given in magnitudes of $10^{-16}$.
In the second row we also give the result that follows $\widehat{X}_{\lambda\lambda'}$.
The photon momentum is $k_1=10^{-10}m$.}
\label{tab:Compton-scattering-results3}
\end{table}
Values for the modified polarized Compton scattering cross sections $\widetilde{\sigma}_{11}$,
$\widetilde{\sigma}_{12}$, $\widetilde{\sigma}_{21}$, and $\widetilde{\sigma}_{22}$ are obtained.
These correspond to the processes $1\mapsto 1$, $1\mapsto 2$, $2\mapsto 1$, and $2\mapsto 2$,
where the numbers give the initial and final photon polarization, respectively.
To form gauge-invariant expressions, the sum over final photon polarizations
has to be performed:
\begin{subequations}
\label{eq:modified-compton-cross-sections-gauge-invariant-sums}
\begin{equation}
\widetilde{\sigma}_{1X}\equiv \sum_{\lambda'=1,2} \widetilde{\sigma}_{1\lambda'}\,,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\widetilde{\sigma}_{2X}\equiv \sum_{\lambda'=1,2} \widetilde{\sigma}_{2\lambda'}\,.
\end{equation}
\end{subequations}
Our calculation is based on the assumption that only the initial photon state
can be prepared, especially its polarization. However, the final photon
polarization can only be measured, if the photon is observed or scattered
at a second electron. Since we consider the final photon as an asymptotic
particle according to the Feynman diagrams in Fig. \ref{fig:compton-scattering},
it is not observed and one has to sum over final photon polarizations
\cite{PeskinSchroeder1995,ItzyksonZuber1980}. Hence, what can be measured in
this context are only the quantities $\widetilde{\sigma}_{1X}$ and $\widetilde{\sigma}_{2X}$, so we
also give them.
Finally, we list the sum of all cross sections, which is averaged over the
initial photon polarizations:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:total-modified-cross-section}
\widetilde{\sigma}\equiv \frac{1}{2}\sum_{\lambda,\lambda'} \widetilde{\sigma}_{\lambda\lambda'}=
\frac{1}{2}(\widetilde{\sigma}_{11}+\widetilde{\sigma}_{12}
+\widetilde{\sigma}_{21}+\widetilde{\sigma}_{22})=
\frac{1}{2}(\widetilde{\sigma}_{1X}+\widetilde{\sigma}_{2X})\,.
\end{equation}
For comparison with the modified Compton cross sections, the cross sections for
unpolarized and polarized Compton scattering in standard QED are presented in Table
\ref{tab:Compton-scattering-standard-qed-1} and Table \ref{tab:Compton-scattering-standard-qed-2},
respectively, for different initial photon momenta $k_1$.
An important issue has to be mentioned first: the calculation of the modified cross section
in the parity-odd theory can be performed in two different ways. The first possibility is to
calculate the matrix element squared \textit{\`{a} la} Sec.~(11.1) of Ref.~\cite{JauchRohrlich1976} by directly
using the modified polarization vectors from Eqs. \eqref{eq:polarization-mode1-parity-violating},
\eqref{eq:polarization-mode2-parity-violating}.
For completeness, we give this equation in a compact form:
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
\label{eq:matrix-element-square-x}
X_{\lambda\lambda'}&=\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{Tr}\left\{\left[\frac{1}{\upsilon_1}\cancel{\varepsilon}^{(\lambda')}(\cancel{p}_1+\cancel{k}_1+m)\cancel{\varepsilon}^{(\lambda)}
-\frac{1}{\upsilon_2}\cancel{\varepsilon}^{(\lambda)}(\cancel{p}_1-\cancel{k}_2+m)\cancel{\varepsilon}^{(\lambda')}\right](\cancel{p}_1+m)\right. \notag \\
&\phantom{{}={}\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{Tr}}\hspace{-0.125cm}\left.\times\left[\frac{1}{\upsilon_1}
\cancel{\varepsilon}^{(\lambda)}(\cancel{p}_1+\cancel{k}_1+m)\cancel{\varepsilon}^{(\lambda')}-\frac{1}{\upsilon_2}\cancel{\varepsilon}^{(\lambda')}(\cancel{p}_1
-\cancel{k}_2+m)\cancel{\varepsilon}^{(\lambda)}\right](\cancel{p}_2+m)\right\}\,,
\end{align}
where
\begin{equation}
\upsilon_1=2p_1\cdot k_1+k_1^2\,,\quad \upsilon_2=2p_1\cdot k_2-k_2^2\,,\quad p_2=p_1+k_1-k_2\,.
\end{equation}
\end{subequations}
Here, $\lambda$ denotes the initial and $\lambda'$ the final photon polarization.
For standard QED Eq.~\eqref{eq:matrix-element-square-x} results in Eq.~(11-13)
of Ref.~\cite{JauchRohrlich1976} (which we transform to fit our conventions):
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
\label{eq:matrix-element-square-x-stand-qed}
X_{\lambda\lambda'}^{\mathrm{QED}}&=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\upsilon}{\upsilon'}+\frac{\upsilon'}{\upsilon}\right)-1 \notag \\
&\phantom{{}=\frac{1}{2}{}}+2\left[\varepsilon^{(\lambda)}\cdot \varepsilon^{(\lambda')}-\frac{2(\varepsilon^{(\lambda)}\cdot p_1)(\varepsilon^{(\lambda')}\cdot p_2)}{\upsilon}+\frac{2(\varepsilon^{(\lambda)}\cdot p_2)(\varepsilon^{(\lambda')}\cdot p_1)}{\upsilon'}\right]^2\,,
\end{align}
\begin{equation}
\upsilon=2p_1\cdot k_1\,,\quad \upsilon'=2p_1\cdot k_2\,.
\end{equation}
\end{subequations}
Alternatively, the computation can be performed with the matrix element squared
that is obtained without the direct use of the polarization vectors, but with the
polarization tensors from Eqs. \eqref{eq:polarization-sum-parity-violating-1},
\eqref{eq:polarization-sum-parity-violating-2}. This expression is lengthy and
we will not give it in full detail. However, we will state it in a formal manner:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:matrix-element-square-hat-x}
\widehat{X}_{\lambda\lambda'}=\big(|\mathcal{M}(k_1,k_2)|^2\big)^{\mu\nu\varrho\sigma}\Pi_{\mu\varrho}(k_1)|_{\lambda}\Pi_{\nu\sigma}(k_2)|_{\lambda'}\Big|_{\substack{k_1^0=\omega_{\lambda}(\mathbf{k}_1) \\ k_2^0=\omega_{\lambda'}(\mathbf{k}_2)}}\,,
\end{equation}
where $\Pi_{\mu\nu}$ are photon polarization tensors and
$\big(|\mathcal{M}(k_1,k_2)|^2\big)^{\mu\nu\varrho\sigma}$ includes all parts
that do not directly involve the photon: traces of combinations of $\gamma$-matrices,
electron propagators etc. The structure of $\widehat{X}_{\lambda\lambda'}$ is
similar to Eq. (5.81) of Ref.~\cite{PeskinSchroeder1995}. However, the latter
equation gives the sum over all polarizations, whereas $\widehat{X}_{\lambda\lambda'}$
is the amplitude square for a distinct polarization.
For the configurations of Table \ref{tab:Compton-scattering-results1} and
\ref{tab:Compton-scattering-results2} the results are shown for different
Lorentz-violating parameters $\widetilde{\kappa}$, where $\widetilde{\kappa}$
is defined by $\widetilde{\kappa}\equiv \mathcal{E}/\sqrt{3}$ with $\mathcal{E}$
of Eq.~\eqref{eq:definition-parameter-calligraphic-e}. It suffices to give
$\widetilde{\kappa}$, since for both tables the three Lorentz-violating
parameters $\widetilde{\kappa}^{01}$, $\widetilde{\kappa}^{02}$, and
$\widetilde{\kappa}^{03}$ are chosen to be equal. Table
\ref{tab:Compton-scattering-results3} presents results, where
the latter parameters differ from each other.
Compare the obtained results to the classical Thomson cross section, which
follows from the standard QED result --- first obtained by Klein and Nishina ---
in the limit of vanishing initial photon momentum \cite{PeskinSchroeder1995}:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:result-thomson-scattering-total}
\sigma^{\mathrm{Th}}\equiv\lim_{\substack{|\mathbf{k}_1|\mapsto 0 \\ |\mathbf{p}_1|\mapsto 0}} \sigma\big(e^-(p_1)\gamma(k_1)\rightarrow e^-(p_2)\gamma(k_2)\big)=\frac{8\pi\alpha^2}{3m^2}\approx \frac{8.377580\alpha^2}{m^2}\,.
\end{equation}
From Table \ref{tab:Compton-scattering-results1} we see that for vanishing
Lorentz violation the gauge-invariant contributions from Eq.
\eqref{eq:modified-compton-cross-sections-gauge-invariant-sums} are equal:
\begin{equation}
\lim_{\widetilde{\kappa}\mapsto 0} \widetilde{\sigma}_{1X}=
\lim_{\widetilde{\kappa}\mapsto 0} \widetilde{\sigma}_{2X}\,.
\end{equation}
Furthermore, the sum of all cross sections then corresponds to the Thomson
limit given in Eq. \eqref{eq:result-thomson-scattering-total}. The
results for $\widetilde{\sigma}_{11}$, $\widetilde{\sigma}_{12}$, and
$\widetilde{\sigma}_{21}$ do not depend on whether Eq. \eqref{eq:matrix-element-square-x}
or Eq. \eqref{eq:matrix-element-square-hat-x} is used for the calculation.
From Table \ref{tab:Compton-scattering-results2} it also follows that, for vanishing
Lorentz violation, $\widetilde{\sigma}_{1X}=\widetilde{\sigma}_{2X}$ and,
furthermore, that the averaged sum over all cross sections corresponds to the standard
Klein--Nishina results. Besides, all results are independent of the fact of whether the
calculation is based on $X_{\lambda\lambda'}$ or $\widehat{X}_{\lambda\lambda'}$. This
is also the case for the first selection of parameters in Table
\ref{tab:Compton-scattering-results3}. Furthermore, this table shows that the individual
cross sections $\widetilde{\sigma}_{11}$, $\widetilde{\sigma}_{12}$, $\widetilde{\sigma}_{21}$,
and $\widetilde{\sigma}_{22}$ depend on the direction of $\boldsymbol{\zeta}$, which is
encoded in the choice of $\widetilde{\kappa}^{01}$, $\widetilde{\kappa}^{02}$, and
$\widetilde{\kappa}^{03}$. However, it is evident that the gauge-invariant expressions
defined in Eq. \eqref{eq:modified-compton-cross-sections-gauge-invariant-sums}
are independent of the direction of $\boldsymbol{\zeta}$.
\subsection{Plots of the amplitude squares $X_{\lambda\lambda'}$ and $\widehat{X}_{\lambda\lambda'}$}
\label{subsec:reason-discrepancy}
Plotting the matrix element squares $X_{\lambda\lambda'}$ from Eq. \eqref{eq:matrix-element-square-x}
and $\widehat{X}_{\lambda\lambda'}$ from Eq. \eqref{eq:matrix-element-square-hat-x}
for each process $1\mapsto 1$, $1\mapsto 2$, $2\mapsto 1$, and $2\mapsto 2$
leads to a surprise.
We first present graphs of both $X_{\lambda\lambda'}$ and $\widehat{X}_{\lambda\lambda'}$ for
different sets of Lorentz-violating parameters, where the azimuthal angle $\varphi$ is
set to zero.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\begin{minipage}{0.25\textwidth}
\includegraphics[scale=0.30]{consistency-modmax-parity-odd-matrix-element-row1_v1_fig1.pdf}
\end{minipage}\begin{minipage}{0.25\textwidth}
\includegraphics[scale=0.30]{consistency-modmax-parity-odd-matrix-element-row1_v1_fig2.pdf}
\end{minipage}\begin{minipage}{0.25\textwidth}
\includegraphics[scale=0.30]{consistency-modmax-parity-odd-matrix-element-row1_v1_fig3.pdf}
\end{minipage}\begin{minipage}{0.25\textwidth}
\includegraphics[scale=0.30]{consistency-modmax-parity-odd-matrix-element-row1_v1_fig4.pdf}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.25\textwidth}
\includegraphics[scale=0.30]{consistency-modmax-parity-odd-matrix-element-row2_v1_fig1.pdf}
\end{minipage}\begin{minipage}{0.25\textwidth}
\includegraphics[scale=0.30]{consistency-modmax-parity-odd-matrix-element-row2_v1_fig2.pdf}
\end{minipage}\begin{minipage}{0.25\textwidth}
\includegraphics[scale=0.30]{consistency-modmax-parity-odd-matrix-element-row2_v1_fig3.pdf}
\end{minipage}\begin{minipage}{0.25\textwidth}
\includegraphics[scale=0.30]{consistency-modmax-parity-odd-matrix-element-row2_v1_fig4.pdf}
\end{minipage}
\caption{Matrix element squared for Compton scattering of polarized photons
in the order $1\mapsto 1$, $1\mapsto 2$, $2\mapsto 1$, and $2\mapsto 2$ for
each row. The functions in the first row correspond to Eq.
\eqref{eq:matrix-element-square-x}, where the modified polarization vectors
were plugged in. The panels in the second row show the corresponding function
from Eq. \eqref{eq:matrix-element-square-hat-x} that is obtained by using
polarization tensors instead of the polarization vectors directly. The plots
were made for the special choice $\varphi=0$ and the horizontal axis gives
the polar angle $\vartheta$. The Lorentz-violating parameters are chosen
as $\widetilde{\kappa}^{01}=\widetilde{\kappa}^{02}=\widetilde{\kappa}^{03}=1/10$.
Furthermore, $k_1=10^{-10}m$ and $m=1$.}
\label{fig:plots-matrix-element-square-parameter-choice-1}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{minipage}{0.25\textwidth}
\includegraphics[scale=0.30]{consistency-modmax-parity-odd-matrix-element-row3_v1_fig1.pdf}
\end{minipage}\begin{minipage}{0.25\textwidth}
\includegraphics[scale=0.30]{consistency-modmax-parity-odd-matrix-element-row3_v1_fig2.pdf}
\end{minipage}\begin{minipage}{0.25\textwidth}
\includegraphics[scale=0.30]{consistency-modmax-parity-odd-matrix-element-row3_v1_fig3.pdf}
\end{minipage}\begin{minipage}{0.25\textwidth}
\includegraphics[scale=0.30]{consistency-modmax-parity-odd-matrix-element-row3_v1_fig4.pdf}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.25\textwidth}
\includegraphics[scale=0.30]{consistency-modmax-parity-odd-matrix-element-row4_v1_fig1.pdf}
\end{minipage}\begin{minipage}{0.25\textwidth}
\includegraphics[scale=0.30]{consistency-modmax-parity-odd-matrix-element-row4_v1_fig2.pdf}
\end{minipage}\begin{minipage}{0.25\textwidth}
\includegraphics[scale=0.30]{consistency-modmax-parity-odd-matrix-element-row4_v1_fig3.pdf}
\end{minipage}\begin{minipage}{0.25\textwidth}
\includegraphics[scale=0.30]{consistency-modmax-parity-odd-matrix-element-row4_v1_fig4.pdf}
\end{minipage}
\caption{Same as Fig. \ref{fig:plots-matrix-element-square-parameter-choice-1},
but now for the choice $\widetilde{\kappa}^{01}=\widetilde{\kappa}^{02}=
\widetilde{\kappa}^{03}=10^{-10}$.}
\label{fig:plots-matrix-element-square-parameter-choice-2}
\end{figure}
In Fig. \ref{fig:plots-matrix-element-square-parameter-choice-1}, for which
$\widetilde{\kappa}^{01}=\widetilde{\kappa}^{02}=\widetilde{\kappa}^{03}=1/10$
was inserted, we see that $X_{\lambda\lambda'}$ corresponds to
$\widehat{X}_{\lambda\lambda'}$ for the processes $1\mapsto 1$, $1\mapsto 2$,
$2\mapsto 1$, and $2\mapsto 2$.
The graphs in Fig. \ref{fig:plots-matrix-element-square-parameter-choice-2} for
Lorentz-violating parameters $\widetilde{\kappa}^{01}=\widetilde{\kappa}^{02}=
\widetilde{\kappa}^{03}=10^{-10}$ indicate that for the $2\mapsto 2$ process the
amplitude square $X_{\lambda\lambda'}$ approaches $\widehat{X}_{\lambda\lambda'}$,
but there remains a residue, which appears for $X_{\lambda\lambda'}$ as a narrow
peak at an angle $\vartheta_0\approx 2.35$ (given in arc measure). Finally, in Fig.
\ref{fig:plots-matrix-element-square-parameter-choice-3} we depict
$X_{\lambda\lambda'}$ and $\widehat{X}_{\lambda\lambda'}$ for the $1\mapsto 1$ and the
$2\mapsto 2$ modified Compton scattering as a function of both the polar angle
$\vartheta$ and the azimuthal angle $\varphi$. It is evident that $X_{\lambda\lambda'}$
and $\widehat{X}_{\lambda\lambda'}$ for $1\mapsto 1$ perfectly agree with each other.
This is also the case for the processes $1\mapsto 2$ and $2\mapsto 1$, but we will not
display the corresponding plots here. However, the $2\mapsto 2$ scattering behaves differently.
The matrix element $\widehat{X}_{\lambda\lambda'}$ looks smooth\footnote{Note that the two
small spikes at $(\vartheta,\varphi)\approx (2.45, 0.05)$ and $(\vartheta,\varphi)\approx (2.45,0.12)$,
respectively, probably originate from numerical errors}, whereas for $\widetilde{\kappa}^{01}=
\widetilde{\kappa}^{02}=\widetilde{\kappa}^{03}=1/10$, the amplitude square
$X_{\lambda\lambda'}$ is characterized by a set of sharp peaks. For small Lorentz violation
some of these peaks seem to remain. Whether or not the limit for vanishing Lorentz violation
is influenced by such structures cannot be investigated numerically, but requires analytical
computations.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\begin{minipage}{0.33\textwidth}
\includegraphics[scale=0.40]{consistency-modmax-parity-odd-matrix-element-3d11-vector.pdf}
\end{minipage}\begin{minipage}{0.33\textwidth}
\includegraphics[scale=0.40]{consistency-modmax-parity-odd-matrix-element-3d22-vector1.pdf}
\end{minipage}\begin{minipage}{0.33\textwidth}
\includegraphics[scale=0.40]{consistency-modmax-parity-odd-matrix-element-3d22-vector2.pdf}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.33\textwidth}
\includegraphics[scale=0.40]{consistency-modmax-parity-odd-matrix-element-3d11-tensor.pdf}
\end{minipage}\begin{minipage}{0.33\textwidth}
\includegraphics[scale=0.40]{consistency-modmax-parity-odd-matrix-element-3d22-tensor1.pdf}
\end{minipage}\begin{minipage}{0.33\textwidth}
\includegraphics[scale=0.40]{consistency-modmax-parity-odd-matrix-element-3d22-tensor2.pdf}
\end{minipage}
\caption{Matrix element squared dependent on the polar angle $\vartheta$
and the azimuthal angle $\varphi$ for Compton scattering of polarized photons.
The plots in the first row were made by using $X_{\lambda\lambda'}$ from
Eq. \eqref{eq:matrix-element-square-x}. The graphs in the second row illustrate
$\widehat{X}_{\lambda\lambda'}$ from Eq. \eqref{eq:matrix-element-square-hat-x}.
The first column illustrates the corresponding functions for the $1\mapsto 1$ process
with $\widetilde{\kappa}=1/10$. The second and the third demonstrate the $2\mapsto 2$
process, where $\widetilde{\kappa}=1/10$ and $\widetilde{\kappa}=10^{-10}$,
respectively. Here again holds $k_1=10^{-10}m$ and $m=1$.}
\label{fig:plots-matrix-element-square-parameter-choice-3}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Interpretation}
\label{subsec:interpretation-compton-results}
\subsubsection{Discrepancies between $X_{\lambda\lambda'}$ and $\widehat{X}_{\lambda\lambda'}$ for $2\mapsto 2$ scattering}
\label{subsubsec:discrepancies-x-hat-x-22-scattering}
We already know from Eq. \eqref{eq:polarization-mode2-parity-violating} that the
second polarization vector splits into two contributions: a transverse and a
longitudinal part. For vanishing Lorentz violation it is explicitly true that
\begin{subequations}
\label{eq:polarization-vector-2-transversal-longitudinal-part}
\begin{equation}
(\varepsilon^{(2)\,\mu})=(\varepsilon^0,\widehat{\boldsymbol{\varepsilon}}^{\,(2)}_{\mathrm{transv}}+\varepsilon^0\,\widehat{\mathbf{k}})=(0,\widehat{\boldsymbol{\varepsilon}}^{\,(2)}_{\mathrm{transv}})+\varepsilon^0\,(1,\widehat{\mathbf{k}})
=(0,\widehat{\boldsymbol{\varepsilon}}^{\,(2)}_{\mathrm{transv}})+\frac{\varepsilon^0}{|\mathbf{k}|}\,(k^{\mu})\,,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\widehat{\boldsymbol{\varepsilon}}^{\,(2)}_{\mathrm{transv}}=\widehat{\mathbf{k}}\times(\widehat{\mathbf{k}}\times \widehat{\boldsymbol{\zeta}})\,.
\end{equation}
\end{subequations}
If $\varepsilon^{(2)\,\mu}$ couples to a gauge-invariant quantity, its longitudinal
part will vanish because of the Ward identity, since it is directly proportional to
the four-momentum $k^{\mu}$.
The weird structures appearing in the matrix element squared $X_{22}$, which were
discussed in the last section, originate from the longitudinal part of
$\varepsilon^{(2)\,\mu}$.
As mentioned, from Eq.~\eqref{eq:polarization-vector-2-transversal-longitudinal-part}
it follows that in the limit of zero Lorentz violation the longitudinal part
vanishes by the Ward identity when contracted with physical quantities.
However, this only holds if the prefactor $\varepsilon^0$ is not zero.
Otherwise, we run into a ``$0/0$'' situation, which is mathematically
not defined. Now, the physical phase space of the process contains a sector, for
which $|k_{\parallel}|$ becomes arbitrarily small. This sector is characterized
by two angles $(\varphi_0,\vartheta_0)$, where for $\varphi_0=0$,
$\vartheta_0\approx 2.35$. This is depicted in Fig.
\ref{fig:zero-contour}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.30]{consistency-modmax-parity-odd_v1_fig6_contour-zeros.pdf}
\caption{Contour of angles $(\varphi_0,\vartheta_0)$, for which the normalization
factor $N''$ vanishes. The peaks in Fig. \ref{fig:plots-matrix-element-square-parameter-choice-3},
lie on this contour.}
\label{fig:zero-contour}
\end{figure}
For this special case the normalization factor $N''$ and, therefore, the prefactor
$\varepsilon^0$ can become arbitrarily small.
This destroys the applicability of the Ward identity and shows up as peaks in
$X_{22}$ of Figs. \ref{fig:plots-matrix-element-square-parameter-choice-2} and
\ref{fig:plots-matrix-element-square-parameter-choice-3}.
Now we would like to analytically investigate the limit $\mathcal{E}\mapsto 0$ of the
second polarization vector, with its transversal part subtracted. We distinguish
between two cases, $k_{\parallel}\sim \mathcal{E}k_{\bot}$ and $k_{\parallel}\gg \mathcal{E}k_{\bot}$.
The first represents the phase space sector for Compton scattering, for which $k_{\parallel}$
becomes arbitrarily small. We begin with the zeroth component of Eq.
\eqref{eq:polarization-mode2-parity-violating-explict}:
\begin{align}
\sqrt{N''}\,\varepsilon^{0}&=\frac{1}{4}\big(k^2-(k\cdot\xi)^2\big)\Big((k\cdot \zeta)^2-\zeta^2\big(k^2-(k\cdot\xi)^2\big)\Big) \notag \\
&\sim \left\{\begin{array}{lcl}
\mathcal{E}^2|\mathbf{k}|^2(k_{\parallel}^2+|\mathbf{k}|^2) & \text{for} & k_{\parallel}\gg \mathcal{E}k_{\bot}\,, \\
\mathcal{E}^2k_{\bot}^4 & \text{for} & k_{\parallel}\sim \mathcal{E}k_{\bot}\,. \\
\end{array}
\right.
\end{align}
The longitudinal part $\boldsymbol{\varepsilon}_{\mathrm{long}}$, which can be extracted from Eq.
\eqref{eq:polarization-mode2-parity-violating-explict} as well, results in:
\begin{align}
\sqrt{N''}\,\boldsymbol{\varepsilon}_{\mathrm{long}}|^{\mathcal{E}\mapsto 0}&\simeq \big(\sqrt{|\mathbf{k}|^2}+\mathbf{k}\cdot \boldsymbol{\zeta}\big)\big(\mathbf{k}\times (\mathbf{k}\times\boldsymbol{\zeta})\big)^2\frac{\mathbf{k}}{|\mathbf{k}|^2} \notag \displaybreak[0] \\
&=\mathcal{E}^2|\mathbf{k}|^4\big(1+\mathcal{E}\widehat{\mathbf{k}}\cdot\widehat{\boldsymbol{\zeta}}\big)\big(\widehat{\boldsymbol{\zeta}}-\widehat{\mathbf{k}}(\widehat{\mathbf{k}}\cdot\widehat{\boldsymbol{\zeta}})\big)^2\,\widehat{\mathbf{k}} \notag \displaybreak[0]\\
&=\mathcal{E}^2|\mathbf{k}|^4\big(1+\mathcal{E}\widehat{\mathbf{k}}\cdot \widehat{\boldsymbol{\zeta}}\big)\big(1-(\widehat{\mathbf{k}}\cdot\widehat{\boldsymbol{\zeta}})^2\big)\widehat{\mathbf{k}} \notag \displaybreak[0]\\
&=\mathcal{E}^2|\mathbf{k}|^4\left(1+\frac{\mathcal{E}k_{\parallel}}{|\mathbf{k}|}\right)\left(1-\frac{k_{\parallel}^2}{|\mathbf{k}|^2}\right)\widehat{\mathbf{k}} \notag \displaybreak[0]\\
&\sim\left\{\begin{array}{lcl}
\mathcal{E}^2|\mathbf{k}|^2\big(|\mathbf{k}|^2-k_{\parallel}^2\big)\widehat{\mathbf{k}} & \text{for} & k_{\parallel}\gg \mathcal{E}k_{\bot}\,, \displaybreak[0]\\
\mathcal{E}^2k_{\bot}^4\widehat{\mathbf{k}} & \text{for} & k_{\parallel}\sim \mathcal{E}k_{\bot}\,.
\end{array}\right.
\end{align}
The normalization factor from Eq. \eqref{eq:terms-explicit-polarization-sum-2-4} is
\begin{equation}
N''|^{\mathcal{E}\mapsto 0}\simeq \mathcal{E}^2k_{\bot}^2|\mathbf{k}|^2(4k_{\parallel}^4+4k_{\parallel}^2k_{\bot}^2+\mathcal{E}^2k_{\bot}^2)\sim \left\{\begin{array}{lcl}
4\mathcal{E}^2k_{\bot}^2k_{\parallel}^2|\mathbf{k}|^4 & \text{for} & k_{\parallel} \gg \mathcal{E}k_{\bot}\,, \\
\mathcal{E}^6k_{\bot}^8 & \text{for} & k_{\parallel} \sim \mathcal{E}k_{\bot}\,. \\
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation}
Respecting $k_{\parallel}\gg \mathcal{E}k_{\bot}$, we obtain for the second
polarization vector:
\begin{align}
(\varepsilon^{(2)\,\mu}-\varepsilon^{(2)\,\mu}_{\mathrm{transv}})|^{k_{\parallel}\gg\mathcal{E}k_{\bot}}&=\left.\frac{1}{\sqrt{N''}}\begin{pmatrix}
\varepsilon^0 \\
\boldsymbol{\varepsilon}_{\mathrm{long}} \\
\end{pmatrix}\right|^{k_{\parallel}\gg \mathcal{E}k_{\bot}} \sim \frac{\mathcal{E}^2|\mathbf{k}|^2}{\sqrt{4\mathcal{E}^2k_{\bot}^2k_{\parallel}^2|\mathbf{k}|^4}}\begin{pmatrix}
k_{\parallel}^2+|\mathbf{k}|^2 \\
\big(|\mathbf{k}|^2-k_{\parallel}^2\big)\widehat{\mathbf{k}} \\
\end{pmatrix} \notag \\
&=\frac{\mathcal{E}|\mathbf{k}|^2}{2k_{\bot}|k_{\parallel}||\mathbf{k}|^2}\begin{pmatrix}
|\mathbf{k}|^2+k_{\parallel}^2 \\
(|\mathbf{k}|^2-k_{\parallel}^2)\widehat{\mathbf{k}} \\
\end{pmatrix}\,,
\end{align}
which vanishes for $\mathcal{E}\mapsto 0$. In contrast to the latter case,
the result for $k_{\parallel}\sim \mathcal{E}k_{\bot}$ is as follows:
\begin{align}
(\varepsilon^{(2)\,\mu}-\varepsilon^{(2)\,\mu}_{\mathrm{transv}})|^{k_{\parallel}\sim\mathcal{E}k_{\bot}}&=\left.\frac{1}{\sqrt{N''}}\begin{pmatrix}
\varepsilon^0 \\
\boldsymbol{\varepsilon}_{\mathrm{long}} \\
\end{pmatrix}\right|^{k_{\parallel}\sim\mathcal{E}k_{\bot}} \notag \\
&\sim \frac{1}{\sqrt{\mathcal{E}^6k_{\bot}^8}}\begin{pmatrix}
\mathcal{E}^2k_{\bot}^4 \\
\mathcal{E}^2k_{\bot}^4\widehat{\mathbf{k}} \\
\end{pmatrix}=\frac{1}{\mathcal{E}}\begin{pmatrix}
1 \\
\widehat{\mathbf{k}} \\
\end{pmatrix}\,.
\end{align}
The latter diverges in the limit $\mathcal{E}\mapsto 0$.
Hence, it becomes evident that for vanishing Lorentz-violating parameter
$\mathcal{E}$, when $k_{\parallel}$ runs into the phase space sector
where it becomes of the order of $\mathcal{E}k_{\bot}$, a peak emerges.
Its width is then $\sim \mathcal{E}k_{\bot}$ and its height
is $\sim 1/\mathcal{E}$. This leads us undoubtedly to the following
representation of a $\delta$-function as the limit of a function sequence:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:delta-distribution-function-sequence}
\delta(x)=\lim_{n\mapsto 0} g_n(x)\,,\quad g_n(x)=\left\{\begin{array}{lcl}
2/n & \text{for} & |x|\leq n\,, \\
0 & \text{for} & |x|>n\,. \\
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
The role of the function sequence index $n$ in Eq. \eqref{eq:delta-distribution-function-sequence}
is taken by the Lorentz-violating parameter $\mathcal{E}$ in the polarization vector.
As a result, we finally obtain in the limit $\mathcal{E}\mapsto 0$:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:polarization-2-longitudinal-part-analytic}
(\varepsilon^{(2)\,\mu}-\varepsilon^{(2)\,\mu}_{\mathrm{transv}})|^{\mathcal{E}\mapsto 0}\sim k_{\bot}\delta(k_{\parallel})\begin{pmatrix}
1 \\
\widehat{\mathbf{k}} \\
\end{pmatrix}\,.
\end{equation}
This analytic result shows, besides the numerically obtained plots in Figs.
\ref{fig:plots-matrix-element-square-parameter-choice-2}
and \ref{fig:plots-matrix-element-square-parameter-choice-3}, that the
longitudinal part of the second polarization vector may still play a role
for vanishing Lorentz-violating parameter. Because of the $\delta$-function,
the Ward identity can perhaps not be applied any more.
Now we want to look at the third term of Eq. \eqref{eq:matrix-element-square-x-stand-qed},
which is enclosed by round brackets. It will be denoted as $X^{(3)}_{\lambda\lambda'}$
in what follows.
We consider the $2\mapsto 2$ scattering process, where for the polarization vector
in the final state we insert only its longitudinal part according to Eq.
\eqref{eq:polarization-2-longitudinal-part-analytic}. Note that the longitudinal
part of the initial state polarization vector vanishes, since $k_{1,\parallel}\neq 0$.
Then we obtain:
\begin{align}
X_{22}^{(3)}&=\varepsilon^{(2)}(k_1)\cdot \varepsilon^{(2)}(k_2)-\frac{(\varepsilon^{(2)}(k_1)\cdot p_1)(\varepsilon^{(2)}(k_2)\cdot p_2)}{p_1\cdot k_1}+\frac{(\varepsilon^{(2)}(k_1)\cdot p_2)(\varepsilon^{(2)}(k_2)\cdot p_1)}{p_1\cdot k_2} \notag \displaybreak[0]\\
&\sim k_{2,\bot}\delta(k_{2,\parallel})\begin{pmatrix}
0 \\
\widehat{\boldsymbol{\varepsilon}}^{(2)}(k_1) \\
\end{pmatrix}\cdot \begin{pmatrix}
1 \\
\widehat{\mathbf{k}}_2 \\
\end{pmatrix} \notag \displaybreak[0]\\
&\quad\,-\frac{k_{2,\bot}\delta(k_{2,\parallel})}{p_1\cdot k_1}\left[\begin{pmatrix}
0 \\
\widehat{\boldsymbol{\varepsilon}}^{(2)}(k_1) \\
\end{pmatrix}\cdot\begin{pmatrix}
p_1^0 \\
\mathbf{p}_1 \\
\end{pmatrix}\right]\left[\begin{pmatrix}
1 \\
\widehat{\mathbf{k}}_2 \\
\end{pmatrix}\cdot \begin{pmatrix}
p_2^0 \\
\mathbf{p}_2 \\
\end{pmatrix}\right] \notag \displaybreak[0]\\
&\quad\,+\frac{k_{2,\bot}\delta(k_{2,\parallel})}{p_1\cdot k_2}\left[\begin{pmatrix}
0 \\
\widehat{\boldsymbol{\varepsilon}}^{(2)}(k_1) \\
\end{pmatrix}\cdot \begin{pmatrix}
p_2^0 \\
\mathbf{p}_2 \\
\end{pmatrix}\right]\cdot \left[\begin{pmatrix}
1 \\
\widehat{\mathbf{k}}_2 \\
\end{pmatrix}\cdot \begin{pmatrix}
p_1^0 \\
\mathbf{p}_1 \\
\end{pmatrix}\right] \notag \displaybreak[0]\\
&=k_{2,\bot}\delta(k_{2,\parallel})\left[\widehat{\boldsymbol{\varepsilon}}^{(2)}(k_1)\cdot \widehat{k}_2-\frac{(\widehat{\boldsymbol{\varepsilon}}^{(2)}(k_1)\cdot \mathbf{p}_1)(p_2\cdot k_2)}{|\mathbf{k}_2|\,p_1\cdot k_1}+\frac{(\widehat{\boldsymbol{\varepsilon}}^{(2)}(k_1)\cdot \mathbf{p}_2)(p_1\cdot k_2)}{|\mathbf{k}_2|\,p_1\cdot k_2}\right] \notag \\
&=k_{2,\bot}\delta(k_{2,\parallel})\left[\widehat{\boldsymbol{\varepsilon}}^{(2)}(k_1)\cdot \widehat{\mathbf{k}}_2-\frac{\widehat{\varepsilon}^{(2)}(k_1)\cdot \mathbf{k}_2}{|\mathbf{k}_2|}\right]=0\,,
\end{align}
where we have used $\widehat{\boldsymbol{\varepsilon}}^{(2)}(k_1)\cdot \mathbf{p}_1=0$.
Hence, the Ward identity does not seem to care about the $\delta$-function.
The contribution from the longitudinal part vanishes anyway. The conclusion
is that the peaks in Fig. \ref{fig:plots-matrix-element-square-parameter-choice-3} are
--- most likely --- numerical artifacts. Besides that, we expect this to hold also for
the peaks in Fig. \ref{fig:plots-matrix-element-square-parameter-choice-2}, where the
Lorentz-violating parameter has the finite value $1/10$.\footnote{At the moment, a neat
analytical proof is not available for finite Lorentz-violating parameter.
However, if the peaks were not a numerical artifact but the cause of a inconsistency of
the theory, we would expect them to scale with increasing Lorentz-violation, which is
obviously not the case.}
\subsubsection{Limit of $\widehat{X}_{\lambda\lambda'}$ for vanishing Lorentz violation}
\label{subsubsec:limit-hat-x-zero-lorentz-violation}
In section \ref{sec:Limit-polarizations-vanishing-lorentz-violation} we have
seen that preferred spacetime directions $\xi^{\mu}$ and $\zeta^{\mu}$ appear
in the polarization tensors $\Pi_{\mu\nu}$ even for vanishing Lorentz violation.
However, since the limit of $\widehat{X}_{\lambda\lambda'}$ for vanishing
Lorentz-violating parameters seems to coincide with the standard QED result, they
obviously do not play a role for physical quantities. The question then arises as
to why this is the case.
We consider an amplitude $\mathcal{M}$, to which one external photon with four-momentum
$k^{\mu}$ and polarization $\lambda$ couples:
$\mathcal{M}=\varepsilon_{\mu}^{(\lambda)}(k)\mathcal{M}^{\mu}(k)$.
In what follows, the term ``matrix element squared'' is understood in the sense of
individual contributions $|\varepsilon_{\mu}^{(\lambda)}(k)\mathcal{M}^{\mu}(k)|^2$.
For a virtual state,\footnote{a state with off-shell external particles}
all polarization vectors, hence also the scalar and the longitudinal ones, contribute
to the polarization-summed matrix element squared --- denoted as $|\mathcal{M}|^2$:
\begin{equation}
|\mathcal{M}|^2\Big|^{\mathrm{unphys}}\equiv\sum_{\lambda=0}^3 |\varepsilon_{\mu}^{(\lambda)}(k)\mathcal{M}^{\mu}(k)|^2\,.
\end{equation}
Evaluating $|\mathcal{M}|^2$ for a real state means that the Ward identity is used.
For standard QED, if $(k^{\mu})=(k,0,0,k)$ is chosen, the Ward identity will result in
\begin{equation}
k^{\mu}\mathcal{M}_{\mu}=k_0\mathcal{M}_0-k_3\mathcal{M}_3=k(\mathcal{M}_0+\mathcal{M}_3)=0\,,
\end{equation}
from which it follows that $\mathcal{M}_0=-\mathcal{M}_3$ or $|\mathcal{M}_0|^2=|\mathcal{M}_3|^2$.
Because of this, the unphysical degrees of freedom cancel each other and what remains
are terms which involve the physical polarization vectors ($\lambda=1$, 2). Since the
latter can be chosen as $(\varepsilon_1^{\mu})=(0,1,0,0)$ and $(\varepsilon_2^{\mu})=(0,0,1,0)$,
we obtain
\begin{equation}
|\mathcal{M}|^2\Big|^{\mathrm{phys}}_{\mathrm{QED}}=\sum_{\lambda=1,2} |\varepsilon_{\mu}^{(\lambda)}(k)\mathcal{M}^{\mu}(k)|^2=|\mathcal{M}_1|^2+|\mathcal{M}_2|^2=\sum_{\lambda=1,2} |\mathcal{M}_{\lambda}|^2\,,
\end{equation}
where `phys' means that the Ward identity has been used.
In order to understand the limits of the polarization tensors from Eq.
\eqref{eq:polarization-tensors-physical-limit} we will perform a similar analysis in
the context of the modified theory. For $(k^{\mu})=(|\mathbf{k}|,\mathbf{k})$ with
$\mathbf{k}=(k_{\bot},0,k_{\parallel})$ the Ward identity reads
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Ward-identity}
k^{\mu}\mathcal{M}_{\mu}=k_0\mathcal{M}_0-k_1\mathcal{M}_1-k_3\mathcal{M}_3=|\mathbf{k}|\mathcal{M}_0+k_{\bot}\mathcal{M}_1+k_{\parallel}\mathcal{M}_3=0\,,
\end{equation}
and therefore, $\mathcal{M}_1$ can be expressed as follows:
\begin{subequations}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:matrix-element-m1}
\mathcal{M}_1=-\frac{|\mathbf{k}|}{k_{\bot}}\mathcal{M}_0-\frac{k_{\parallel}}{k_{\bot}}\mathcal{M}_3\,,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:matrix-element-m1-square}
|\mathcal{M}_1|^2=\frac{|\mathbf{k}|^2}{k_{\bot}^2}|\mathcal{M}_0|^2+\frac{k_{\scriptscriptstyle{\parallel}}^2}{k_{\bot}^2}|\mathcal{M}_3|^2+\frac{2|\mathbf{k}|k_{\parallel}}{k_{\bot}^2}\mathrm{Re}(\mathcal{M}_0\mathcal{M}_3^{*})\,.
\end{equation}
\end{subequations}
Using the result of Eq. \eqref{eq:matrix-element-m1-square}, the contribution of the
matrix element squared involving the first polarization mode results in:
\begin{align}
|\varepsilon_{\mu}^{(1)}\mathcal{M}^{\mu}|^2\Big|^{\mathrm{phys}}_{\substack{\mathrm{mod} \\ \mathcal{E}\mapsto 0}}&=|\mathcal{M}_1|^2+|\mathcal{M}_2|^2-\frac{1}{k_{\bot}^2}\left\{|\mathbf{k}|^2|\mathcal{M}_0|^2+k_{\scriptscriptstyle{\parallel}}^2|\mathcal{M}_3|^2+2|\mathbf{k}|k_{\parallel}\mathrm{Re}(\mathcal{M}_0\mathcal{M}_3^{*})\right\}\!\Big|^{\mathrm{phys}} \notag \\
&=\frac{1}{k_{\bot}^2}\left\{|\mathbf{k}|^2|\mathcal{M}_0|^2+k_{\scriptscriptstyle{\parallel}}^2|\mathcal{M}_3|^2+2|\mathbf{k}|k_{\parallel}\mathrm{Re}(\mathcal{M}_0\mathcal{M}_3^{*})\right\}+|\mathcal{M}_2|^2 \notag \\
&\hspace{1cm}\,-\frac{1}{k_{\bot}^2}\left\{|\mathbf{k}|^2|\mathcal{M}_0|^2+k_{\scriptscriptstyle{\parallel}}^2|\mathcal{M}_3|^2+2|\mathbf{k}|k_{\parallel}\mathrm{Re}(\mathcal{M}_0\mathcal{M}_3^{*})\right\} \notag \\
&=|\mathcal{M}_2|^2\,,
\end{align}
where the Ward identity has been used in the second step.
Hence, restricting the ``matrix element squared'' to the physical subspace with the
Ward identity guarantees that the additional parts, that depend on the preferred
directions $\xi^{\mu}$ and $\zeta^{\mu}$, cancel.
Now consider the $\lambda=2$ polarization mode. With Eq. \eqref{eq:matrix-element-m1-square}
we obtain:
\begin{align}
|\varepsilon_{\mu}^{(2)}\mathcal{M}^{\mu}|^2\Big|^{\mathrm{phys}}_{\substack{\mathrm{mod} \\ \mathcal{E}\mapsto 0}}&=\frac{k_{\scriptscriptstyle{\parallel}}^2}{k_{\bot}^2}|\mathcal{M}_0|^2+\frac{|\mathbf{k}|^2}{k_{\bot}^2}|\mathcal{M}_3|^2+\frac{2|\mathbf{k}|k_{\parallel}}{k_{\bot}^2}\mathrm{Re}(\mathcal{M}_0\mathcal{M}_3^{*})\Big|^{\mathrm{phys}} \notag \\
&=\frac{k_{\scriptscriptstyle{\parallel}}^2}{k_{\bot}^2}|\mathcal{M}_0|^2+\frac{|\mathbf{k}|^2}{k_{\bot}^2}|\mathcal{M}_3|^2+\Bigl\{|\mathcal{M}_1|^2-\frac{|\mathbf{k}|^2}{k_{\bot}^2}|\mathcal{M}_0|^2-\frac{k_{\scriptscriptstyle{\parallel}}^2}{k_{\bot}^2}|\mathcal{M}_3|^2\Bigr\} \notag \\
&=\frac{k_{\scriptscriptstyle{\parallel}}^2-|\mathbf{k}|^2}{k_{\bot}^2}|\mathcal{M}_0|^2+|\mathcal{M}_1|^2+\frac{|\mathbf{k}|^2-k_{\scriptscriptstyle{\parallel}}^2}{k_{\bot}^2}|\mathcal{M}_3|^2 \notag \\
&=-|\mathcal{M}_0|^2+|\mathcal{M}_1|^2+|\mathcal{M}_3|^2\,.
\end{align}
Setting $k_{\bot}=0$ in Eq. \eqref{eq:Ward-identity} results in
$\mathcal{M}_0=-\mathrm{sgn}(k_{\parallel})\mathcal{M}_3$ and therefore
$|\mathcal{M}_0|^2=|\mathcal{M}_3|^2$. This then leads to
\begin{equation}
|\varepsilon_{\mu}^{(2)}\mathcal{M}^{\mu}|^2\Big|^{\mathrm{phys}}_{\substack{\mathrm{mod} \\ \mathcal{E}\mapsto 0}}=|\mathcal{M}_1|^2\,.
\end{equation}
Hence, we see that by using the Ward identity all contributions depending
on $\xi^{\mu}$ and $\zeta^{\mu}$ also vanish for the second mode. Therefore,
for vanishing Lorentz violation the standard result
\begin{equation}
|\mathcal{M}|^2\Big|^{\mathrm{phys}}_{\substack{\mathrm{mod} \\ \mathcal{E}\mapsto 0}}=\sum_{\lambda=1,2} |\varepsilon_{\mu}^{(\lambda)}\mathcal{M}^{\mu}|^2\Big|^{\mathrm{phys}}_{\substack{\mathrm{mod} \\ \mathcal{E}\mapsto 0}}
=|\mathcal{M}_1|^2+|\mathcal{M}_2|^2\,,
\end{equation}
is recovered.
\section{Discussion and conclusion}
\label{sec:Discussion-parity-odd}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
In this article, a special sector of a \textit{CPT}-even Lorentz-violating modification of QED,
with the characteristics of being parity-odd and nonbirefringent, was examined with respect
to consistency. The deformation of QED is described by one fixed timelike ``four-vector'',
one fixed spacelike ``four-vector'', and three Lorentz-violating parameters.
The nonbirefringent \textit{Ansatz} combined with the parity-violating parameter
choice leads to two distinct physical photon polarization modes. These modes are
characterized by dispersion relations, that differ to quadratic order in the Lorentz-violating
parameters. Hence, the theory is only nonbirefringent to linear order. The dispersion relations
coincide with the formulas previously obtained in Ref.~\cite{Casana-etal2009}. The new most important
results of this article are summarized in the subsequent items:
\begin{itemize}
\item With the optical theorem, unitarity is verified for tree-level processes involving
conserved currents.
\item Microcausality is established for the full range of Lorentz-violating parameters.
Information only propagates along the modified null cones.
\item It has turned out that \textit{covariant} polarization tensors can be constructed
for each photon mode. This is not possible in standard QED, where only the polarization tensor
of the sum of both modes can be written covariantly.
\item The gauge-invariant\footnote{with all terms dropped that involve one or more external photon four-momenta}
polarization tensor of each mode depends on the background field directions. For vanishing Lorentz
violation this dependence remains. It only cancels when considering the sum of both modes, which
leads to the polarization sum of standard QED.
\item The fact that the polarization tensors depend on the background field directions even
for vanishing Lorentz violation, makes us think about the question of whether the limit
of zero Lorentz violation is continuous. In other words, \textit{a priori} it is not clear, whether
or not the modified theory approaches standard QED for vanishing Lorentz violation. This is
the motivation to test the theory via brute force by calculating one special process: Compton
scattering for unpolarized electrons scattered by polarized photons.
\item The cross sections can be computed either by using the modified polarization vectors or
the modified polarization tensors. The upshot is that the results for $1\mapsto 1$, $1\mapsto~2$,
and $2\mapsto 1$ coincide, but a numerical treatment reveals a discrepancy for $2\mapsto 2$ scattering.
\footnote{Here, the numbers indicate the photon polarizations.} The Ward identity is shown to cure
the polarization vectors and tensors from their bad behavior for vanishing Lorentz violation,
at least for the first three processes.
However, if the matrix element squared is computed for the fourth process by using the modified
polarization vectors, there exists a phase space sector, for which the longitudinal part of the
second polarization vector
is proportional to a $\delta$-function. This could be shown by an analytic investigation.
It could also be proven analytically that the Ward identity can cancel this contribution,
nevertheless.
\end{itemize}
To conclude, the parity-odd ``nonbirefringent'' sector of modified Maxwell theory seems --- with
regard to the performed investigations --- to be consistent. Further steps in the context of
consistency of Lorentz-violating quantum field theories may involve the analysis of unitarity
at one-loop level, where the Lorentz-violating structure is treated in an exact way. Especially
for this parity-odd theory it would be interesting to know if its consistency is inherited to
higher orders of perturbation theory. However, this is beyond the scope of this article.
In light of the consistency of this Lorentz-violating extension at tree level, nature decides on
the values of the Lorentz-violating parameters. Therefore, they have to be measured with experiments.
For a summary of the current experimental status we refer to Ref.~\cite{Exirifard:2010xm} and references
therein. The latter article also gives new experimental bounds on the parity-odd parameters.
\newpage
\begin{appendix}
\numberwithin{equation}{section}
\section{Technical details concerning the calculation of the Compton cross sections}
\label{subsec:technical-details-calculation}
We compute the cross section in two different manners. The first possibility is
to follow Sec.~11.1 of Ref.~\cite{JauchRohrlich1976}, which gives the matrix
element squared for Compton scattering of polarized photons off unpolarized
electrons. In order to derive this equation, the authors use polarization
vectors. This is clear since in standard QED covariant polarization tensors
cannot be constructed from the polarization vectors. Hence, we perform a similar
calculation in the modified theory, where we can directly test our polarization
vectors given by Eqs. \eqref{eq:polarization-mode1-parity-violating}
and \eqref{eq:polarization-mode2-parity-violating}.
The second possibility is to compute the cross sections according to Eq.
(5.81) of Ref.~\cite{PeskinSchroeder1995}, where polarization tensors are used.
Note that here Compton scattering of \textit{unpolarized} photons is
considered, hence it is averaged over initial and summed over final photon
polarizations. Only under this condition can polarization tensors be used
in standard QED. However, for parity-odd ``nonbirefringent'' modified Maxwell
theory an analogous computation is also possible for Compton scattering with
polarized photons. Hence, we have to calculate
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
\widetilde{\sigma}_{1X}&=\frac{1}{4m\omega_1(\mathbf{k}_1)|\mathbf{v}_{\mathrm{gr},\,1}|}\sum_{\lambda'=1,2}\int \frac{\mathrm{d}^3k_2}{(2\pi)^22\omega_{\lambda'}(\mathbf{k}_2)2E_2}\,\delta\big(\omega_1(\mathbf{k}_1)+m-\omega_{\lambda'}(\mathbf{k}_2)-E_2\big) \notag \\
&\hspace{2.5cm}\,\times\big(|\mathcal{M}(k_1,k_2)|^2\big)^{\mu\nu\varrho\sigma}\big(\Pi_{\mu\varrho}(k_1)|_{\lambda=1}\big)\big(\Pi_{\nu\sigma}(k_2)|_{\lambda'}\big)\Big|_{\substack{k_1^0=\omega_1(\mathbf{k}_1) \\ k_2^0=\omega_{\lambda'}(\mathbf{k}_2)}}\,,
\end{align}
\begin{align}
\widetilde{\sigma}_{2X}&=\frac{1}{4m\omega_2(\mathbf{k}_1)|\mathbf{v}_{\mathrm{gr},\,2}|}\sum_{\lambda'=1,2}\int \frac{\mathrm{d}^3k_2}{(2\pi)^22\omega_{\lambda'}(\mathbf{k}_2)2E_2}\,\delta\big(\omega_2(\mathbf{k}_1)+m-\omega_{\lambda'}(\mathbf{k}_2)-E_2\big) \notag \\
&\hspace{2.5cm}\,\times\big(|\mathcal{M}(k_1,k_2)|^2\big)^{\mu\nu\varrho\sigma}\big(\Pi_{\mu\varrho}(k_1)|_{\lambda=2}\big)\big(\Pi_{\nu\sigma}(k_2)|_{\lambda'}\big)\Big|_{\substack{k_1^0=\omega_2(\mathbf{k}_1) \\ k_2^0=\omega_{\lambda'}(\mathbf{k}_2)}}\,,
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
where the energy of the final electron is denoted as $E_2$.
Note the division by the group velocity of the first and second polarization state (see also Ref.~\cite{Colladay:2001wk}),
respectively, where in the standard theory
$|\mathbf{v}_{\mathrm{gr},\,1}|=|\mathbf{v}_{\mathrm{gr},\,2}|=1$.
The tensor $(|\mathcal{M}(k_1,k_2)|^2\big)^{\mu\nu\varrho\sigma}$ is
given by the trace term of Eq. (5.81) of Ref.~\cite{PeskinSchroeder1995} with
some modifications due to the Lorentz-violating kinematics.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics{consistency-modmax-parity-odd_v1_fig4_coordinates.pdf}
\caption{Chosen coordinate system for the phase space integration, where the initial
photon three-momentum $\mathbf{k}_1$ lies along the third axis of the coordinate
system. For the outgoing photon momentum $\mathbf{k}_2$, spherical coordinates
are chosen with the azimuthal angle $\vartheta$ corresponding to the angle between
$\mathbf{k}_2$ and the third axis. Cases are treated with the three-vector
$\boldsymbol{\zeta}$ having equal or unequal components.}
\label{fig:phase-space-integration}
\end{figure}
The purely algebraic part of the calculation, that includes computation of traces,
contraction of indices and inserting kinematical relations, is performed with
\verb|Form| \cite{Vermaseren:2000nd}.
The subsequent phase space calculation is done numerically with \verb|C++|, since
the resulting matrix element squared contains hundreds of terms. The limit of zero
Lorentz violation has to be taken with care and ``long double'' precision does not
suffice here. Therefore, the GNU Multiple Precision Arithmetic Library \verb|GMP|
\cite{GMP:2011} is used with its \verb|C++| interface described in Sec. 12 of the
reference previously mentioned.
The first idea was to choose the coordinate system such that $\boldsymbol{\zeta}$ lies
along the third axis. Then the phase space should have been integrated with cylindrical
coordinates $(k_{2,\bot},\varphi,k_{2,\parallel})$. To cover a general situation, where
the initial photon momentum $\mathbf{k}_1$ points in an arbitrary direction, the cylindrical
axes would have to point in that direction as well. As a result of this, the coordinate
frame must be rotated in order to compute the cross section. This treatment has turned out
to be unsuitable. Therefore, a better approach is the following, which is sketched in Fig.
\ref{fig:phase-space-integration}. The phase space
integration is performed with spherical coordinates $(|\mathbf{k}_2|,\vartheta,\varphi)$,
where the initial photon momentum points along the third axis of the coordinate system.
The general case is mimicked by $\boldsymbol{\zeta}$ pointing in an arbitrary direction.
As a special --- but nevertheless very generic --- case we can choose its components to
be equal (however, computations were also done for different
cases as shown in Table \ref{tab:Compton-scattering-results3}):
\begin{equation}
\boldsymbol{\zeta}=\widetilde{\kappa}\begin{pmatrix}
1 \\
1 \\
1 \\
\end{pmatrix}\,,\quad \mathcal{E}=\sqrt{3}\,|\widetilde{\kappa}|\,.
\end{equation}
The integration over $|\mathbf{k}_2|$ is eliminated at once with the energy conservation
equation in the $\delta$-function. Here, we have to keep in mind that
\begin{align}
\delta&\big(\omega_{\lambda}(k_1)+m-\omega_{\lambda'}(k_2)-E_2\big)= \notag \\
&\hspace{2cm}\left|\frac{\partial\big(\omega_{\lambda}(k_1)+m-\omega_{\lambda'}(k_2)-E_2\big)}{\partial k_2}\right|^{-1}\delta\big(k_2-(k_2)^0\big)\,,\quad \lambda,\,\lambda'\in \{1,2\}\,,
\end{align}
where $(k_2)^0$ is the corresponding zero. The analytic solution $(k_2)^0$ is a complicated
function of $\mathcal{E}$ and $m$, so we determine it numerically with Newton's method
inside the \verb|C++| program. The integrations over $\vartheta$ and $\varphi$ are
performed with the Simpson rule, which is sufficient for our purpose. The integration domain,
that includes all physical states, is determined automatically with $(k_2)^0$. If no zero
$(k_2)^0$ exists, then the corresponding angles $\vartheta$ and $\varphi$ lie outside the
domain.
\section{Compton scattering and Thomson limit in standard (quantum) electrodynamics}
\label{subsec:thomson-scattering}
The low-energy limit of the Compton scattering cross section (Thomson limit)
can be calculated classically via the following equation (see e.g. Ref.~\cite{Jackson:1975}):
\begin{equation}
\left(\frac{\mathrm{d}\sigma}{\mathrm{d}\Omega}\right)^{\mathrm{Th}}_{\lambda\lambda'}=\frac{\alpha^2}{m^2}|\overline{\boldsymbol{\varepsilon}_{f,\lambda'}}\cdot \boldsymbol{\varepsilon}_{i,\lambda}|^2\,,
\end{equation}
where $\boldsymbol{\varepsilon}_{i,\lambda}$ is the polarization three-vector of the
incoming and $\boldsymbol{\varepsilon}_{f,\lambda'}$ that of the outgoing electromagnetic
wave. For the initial wave traveling along the $z$-axis we can choose the transverse
polarization vectors as
\begin{equation}
\boldsymbol{\varepsilon}_{i,1}\equiv\begin{pmatrix}
1 \\
0 \\
0 \\
\end{pmatrix}\,,\quad \boldsymbol{\varepsilon}_{i,2}\equiv\begin{pmatrix}
0 \\
1 \\
0 \\
\end{pmatrix}\,.
\end{equation}
In general, the propagation direction of the final wave can be described in spherical
coordinates by the basis vector
$\widehat{\mathbf{e}}_r=(\sin\vartheta\cos\varphi,\sin\vartheta\sin\varphi,\cos\vartheta)$.
Then we can pick the physical polarization vectors to point along the other two basis
vectors $\widehat{\mathbf{e}}_{\vartheta}$ and $\widehat{\mathbf{e}}_{\varphi}$:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:polarization-vectors-standard-electrodynamics}
\boldsymbol{\varepsilon}_{f,1}\equiv\widehat{\mathbf{e}}_{\vartheta}=\begin{pmatrix}
\cos\vartheta\cos\varphi \\
\cos\vartheta\sin\varphi \\
-\sin\vartheta \\
\end{pmatrix}\,,\quad \boldsymbol{\varepsilon}_{f,2}\equiv\widehat{\mathbf{e}}_{\varphi}=\begin{pmatrix}
-\sin\varphi \\
\cos\varphi \\
0 \\
\end{pmatrix}\,.
\end{equation}
This leads to the polarized Thomson scattering cross sections in standard
electrodynamics:
\begin{equation}
\sigma_{11}^{\mathrm{Th}}=\sigma_{21}^{\mathrm{Th}}=\frac{2\pi\alpha^2}{3m^2}\,,\quad
\sigma_{12}^{\mathrm{Th}}=\sigma_{22}^{\mathrm{Th}}=\frac{2\pi\alpha^2}{m^2}\,.
\end{equation}
If we rotate, for example, the set of initial polarization vectors by angle $\alpha$
and the final ones by angle $\beta$ in their corresponding polarization planes, the
single contributions $\sigma_{\lambda\lambda'}^{\mathrm{Th}}$ will depend on $\beta$.
However, this dependence cancels in $\sigma_{1X}^{\mathrm{Th}}$ and $\sigma_{2X}^{\mathrm{Th}}$
that are defined as follows:
\begin{subequations}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:result-thomson-scattering-individual-1}
\sigma_{1X}^{\mathrm{Th}}\equiv\frac{1}{2}(\sigma_{11}^{\mathrm{Th}}+\sigma_{12}^{\mathrm{Th}})=\frac{4\pi\alpha^2}{3m^2}\,,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:result-thomson-scattering-individual-2}
\sigma_{2X}^{\mathrm{Th}}\equiv\frac{1}{2}(\sigma_{21}^{\mathrm{Th}}+\sigma_{22}^{\mathrm{Th}})=\frac{4\pi\alpha^2}{3m^2}\,,
\end{equation}
\end{subequations}
From $\sigma_{1X}^{\mathrm{Th}}=\sigma_{2X}^{\mathrm{Th}}$ is clear that both initial modes
deliver equal contributions to the total Thomson result of Eq. \eqref{eq:result-thomson-scattering-total}.
This is also the case for MCS-theory. The MCS polarization tensors of Eq.
\eqref{eq:polarization-tensors-mcs-theory-limit} even give equal results
for each individual polarized scattering process in the limit
$m_{\mathrm{\scriptscriptstyle{CS}}}\mapsto 0$:
\begin{equation}
\sigma_{11}^{\mathrm{MCS,Th}}=\sigma_{12}^{\mathrm{MCS,Th}}=\sigma_{21}^{\mathrm{MCS,Th}}=\sigma_{22}^{\mathrm{MCS,Th}}=\frac{4\pi\alpha^2}{3m^2}\,,
\end{equation}
For parity-odd modified
``nonbirefringent'' modified Maxwell theory the individual contributions are not equal
for $\mathcal{E}\mapsto 0$. However, the above expressions from Eqs.
\eqref{eq:result-thomson-scattering-individual-1} and
\eqref{eq:result-thomson-scattering-individual-2} correspond to each
other.
With Eq. (11-13) of Ref.~\cite{JauchRohrlich1976} and the standard polarization vectors
from Eq. \eqref{eq:polarization-vectors-standard-electrodynamics} we obtain the
polarized Compton scattering values given in Table. \ref{tab:Compton-scattering-standard-qed-2}.
\end{appendix}
\section*{Acknowledgments}
It is a pleasure to thank F.R.~Klinkhamer for most helpful discussions. The
author appreciates M.~R\"{u}ckauer's (KIT) help with \verb|GMP|. Furthermore, the
author is indebted to M. Schwarz (KIT) and S. Thambyahpillai (KIT) for proofreading the
article and useful suggestions.
The author also thanks the anonymous referee for useful comments on the manuscript.
This work was supported by the German Research Foundation (\textit{Deutsche
Forschungsgemeinschaft, DFG}) within the Grant No. KL 1103/2-1.
\newpag
|
\section{Supplementary Information}
\subsection{Relativistic Hamiltonian approximations}
Our work is based on the 4-component electronic Dirac-Coulomb Hamiltonian which in atomic units is given as
\begin{equation}
\hat{H} = \sum_{i=1}^N \left [c(\boldsymbol\alpha_i \cdot \mathbf{p}_i) + \beta^{\prime}_i m c^2 - \phi_{nuc} \right]
+ \sum_{i<j} \frac{1}{r_{ij}} +V_{NN}.
\end{equation}
\noindent
We work within the Born-Oppenheimer clamped nuclei approximation which allows to factorize out time-dependence of the one-electron
problem in the nuclear frame. The one-electron operator of the electronic Hamiltonian is accordingly given by the Dirac Hamiltonian
in the electrostatic potential $\phi_{nuc}$ of clamped nuclei. The relativistic energy scale has been aligned with the non-relativistic one by subtraction of the electron rest mass.
The full Lorentz-invariant two-electron interaction can not be written
in a simple closed form, so approximation and thus loss of strict Lorentz invariance is in practice unavoidable.
In Coulomb gauge the zeroth-order $\mathcal{O}(c^{0})$ operator is given by the Coulomb term employed here.
This resulting Hamiltonian covers the major part of the spin-orbit interaction, including two-electron spin-same orbit, as well as scalar relativistic effects. Experience
shows that the Coulomb term is enough for most chemical purposes \cite{visser:hyd4}, but for highly accurate molecular spectra the Breit (Gaunt) term, carrying
spin-other orbit interaction, is recommended.
A fundamental conceptual problem is that the Dirac-Coulomb(-Breit) Hamiltonian has no bound solutions
due to the one-electron negative-energy continuum solutions generated by the Dirac Hamiltonian \cite{brown:ravenhall}. We adopt the no-pair approximation (NPA),
widely used in relativistic quantum chemistry \cite{dyall}, in which the N-particle basis of Slater determinants is constructed from positive-energy bispinors only. This procedure in fact neglects all QED effects, but it is justifiable at the energy scale relevant to chemistry. In particular, the Born-Oppenheimer approximation is expected to have larger impact than the neglect of QED effects.
We finally note that the Fock space approach to include positronic states within the Dirac-Coulomb(-Breit) Hamiltonian approximation \cite{saue:wilson,Kutzelnigg_CP2011} should be tractable on a quantum computer as well, since the direct mapping (including qubits for positrons) covers the whole Fock space generated by a finite basis set.
For further discussion of the Dirac-Coulomb approximation and how to possibly go beyond it the reader may consult Refs.\cite{saue:wilson,saue:hamprimer,Kutzelnigg_CP2011,liu:PCCP2012,derezinski2012}.
\subsection{Size of 4c relativistic FCI eigenvalue problem}
In this section, we compare dimensions of non-relativistic and 4c relativistic Hamiltonian matrices. In the NR case, the Hamiltonian matrix is block diagonal according to $M_{S}$. Thus for a closed shell system with $n$ electrons in $m$ orbitals, the number of determinants is
\begin{equation}
N_{\rm{NR}} = \left( \begin{array}{c} m \\ n/2 \end{array} \right)^2 .
\end{equation}
\noindent
The relativistic Hamiltonian mixes determinants with different $M_{K}$ values and therefore
\begin{equation}
N_{\rm{R}} = \left( \begin{array}{c} 2m \\ n \end{array} \right).
\end{equation}
\noindent
Using Stirling's approximation in the form
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{ln}~m! \approx \frac{1}{2} \mathrm{ln}~(2\pi m) + m\mathrm{ln}~m - m \qquad \mathrm{for}~m\rightarrow \infty,
\end{equation}
\noindent
and setting $m = k \cdot n$, the ratio between the relativistic and non-relativistic number of determinants is given by the expression
\begin{equation}
k_{\rm{R}/\rm{NR}} = \frac{N_{\rm{R}}}{N_{\rm{NR}}} = \Bigg( \frac{\sqrt{\pi (2k - 1)}}{2k}\Bigg) \cdot m^{1/2}.
\end{equation}
\subsection{Controlled-U circuit design}
In this section, we construct a quantum circuit which corresponds to the controlled action of powers of $U=e^{i\tau\hat{H}}$ (see Figure 1 of the paper) for a CI space of dimension 3. For this case, we need two qubits to encode the quantum chemical wave function and $U$ has a block diagonal structure with $3 \times 3$ block of an exponential of a Hamiltonian and unity on a diagonal to complete the vector space of two qubits.
We use the \textit{Quantum Shannon Decomposition} technique of Shende et. al. \cite{shende_2006}. It turns out to be very useful to generalize the concept of controlled gates to quantum multiplexors. A quantum multiplexor is a quantum conditional which acts on target qubit(s) in a different way, according to the state of select qubit(s). If the select qubit is the most significant one, then it has the following matrix form
\hskip 1cm
\begin{minipage}{0.08\textwidth}
\begin{center}
\vskip 0.3cm
\mbox{
\xymatrix @*=<0em> @C=0.8em @R=0.8em {
& \ctrlm{1} & \qw \\
& \gate{U} & \qw
}
}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\hskip -1.2cm
\begin{minipage}{0.39\textwidth}
\begin{equation}
= \qquad \left( \begin{array}{cc} U_0 & ~ \\ ~ & U_1 \end{array} \right).
\end{equation}
\end{minipage}
\vskip 0.4cm
\noindent
It performs $U_0$ on the target qubit if the select qubit is $\ket{0}$ and $U_1$ if the select qubit is $\ket{1}$. A controlled gate is a special case where $U_0 = I$. More generally, if $U$ is a quantum multiplexor with $s$ select qubits and $t$ target qubits and the select qubits are most significant, the matrix of $U$ will be block diagonal, with $2^s$ blocks of size $2^{t} \times 2^{t}$.
A controlled 2-qubit $U$ (c-$U_{2q}$) is a special case of multiplexed $U$ and can be decomposed in the following way \cite{shende_2006}
\begin{minipage}{0.10\textwidth}
\begin{center}
\vskip 0.70cm
\mbox{
\xymatrix @*=<0em> @C=0.8em @R=0.8em {
& \ctrl{1} & \qw \\
& \multigate{1}{U} & \qw \\
& \ghost{U} & \qw
}
}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.08\textwidth}
\vskip 0.6cm
\begin{center} = \end{center}
\end{minipage}
\hskip -1.3cm
\begin{minipage}{0.35\textwidth}
\begin{equation}
\xymatrix @*=<0em> @C=0.8em @R=0.5em {
& \qw & \gate{R_z} & \qw & \qw \\
& \multigate{1}{W} & \ctrlm{-1} & \multigate{1}{V} & \qw \\
& \ghost{W} & \ctrlm{-1} & \ghost{V} & \qw
}
\label{cu}
\end{equation}
\end{minipage}
\vskip 0.4cm
\noindent
A multiplexed $z$-rotation in the middle of the circuit on the right-hand side (at this stage without angle specification) is in fact a diagonal matrix with second half of a diagonal equal to a Hermitian conjugate of the first one.
The circuit equation (\ref{cu}) corresponds to the matrix equation
\begin{equation}
\left( \begin{array}{cc} I & ~ \\ ~ & U \end{array} \right) = \left( \begin{array}{cc} V & ~ \\ ~ & V \end{array} \right) \left( \begin{array}{cc} D & ~ \\ ~ & D^{\dagger} \end{array} \right) \left( \begin{array}{cc} W & ~ \\ ~ & W \end{array} \right).
\end{equation}
\noindent
Note that right in the equation means left in the circuit as the time in a circuit flows from the left to the right.
We then have
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{w}
I & = & V D W, \\
U & = & V D^{\dagger} W, \\
\label{u_diag}
U^{\dagger} & = & V D^{2} V^{\dagger}.
\end{eqnarray}
A single-multiplexed $R_z$ gate (with angle $\phi_0$ for $\ket{0}$ state of a select qubit and $\phi_1$ for $\ket{1}$) can be implemented with the following circuit
\vskip 0.3cm
\hskip -0.5cm
\begin{minipage}{0.08\textwidth}
\mbox{
\xymatrix @*=<0em> @C=0.8em @R=0.8em {
& \ctrlm{1} & \qw \\
& \gate{R_z} & \qw
}
}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.03\textwidth}
=
\end{minipage}
\hskip -0.5cm
\begin{minipage}{0.40\textwidth}
\vskip -0.5cm
\begin{equation}
\xymatrix @*=<0em> @C=0.8em @R=0.5em {
& \qw & \ctrl{1} & \qw & \ctrl{1} & \qw \\
& \gate{R_{z}(\frac{\phi_{0} + \phi_{1}}{2})} & *+<.02em,.02em>{\xy ="i","i"-<.39em,0em>;"i"+<.39em,0em> **\dir{-}, "i"-<0em,.39em>;"i"+<0em,.39em> **\dir{-},"i"*\xycircle<.4em>{} \endxy} \qw & \gate{R_{z}(\frac{\phi_{0} - \phi_{1}}{2})} & *+<.02em,.02em>{\xy ="i","i"-<.39em,0em>;"i"+<.39em,0em> **\dir{-}, "i"-<0em,.39em>;"i"+<0em,.39em> **\dir{-},"i"*\xycircle<.4em>{} \endxy} \qw & \qw
}
\hskip 0.2cm ,
\end{equation}
\end{minipage}
\vskip 0.4cm
\noindent
since $\sigma_x$ gates on both sides of $R_z$ turn over the direction of the $R_z$ rotation. If we use this approach for demultiplexing the $R_{z}$ gate in (\ref{cu}), we end up (after some simple circuit manipulations) with the following circuit for c-$U_{2q}$
\begin{equation}
\label{circuit}
\begin{small}
\xymatrix @*=<0em> @C=0.3em @R=0.4em {
& \gate{R_z(\varphi_1)} & *+<.02em,.02em>{\xy ="i","i"-<.39em,0em>;"i"+<.39em,0em> **\dir{-}, "i"-<0em,.39em>;"i"+<0em,.39em> **\dir{-},"i"*\xycircle<.4em>{} \endxy} \qw & \gate{R_z(\varphi_2)} & *+<.02em,.02em>{\xy ="i","i"-<.39em,0em>;"i"+<.39em,0em> **\dir{-}, "i"-<0em,.39em>;"i"+<0em,.39em> **\dir{-},"i"*\xycircle<.4em>{} \endxy} \qw & \gate{R_z(\varphi_3)} & *+<.02em,.02em>{\xy ="i","i"-<.39em,0em>;"i"+<.39em,0em> **\dir{-}, "i"-<0em,.39em>;"i"+<0em,.39em> **\dir{-},"i"*\xycircle<.4em>{} \endxy} \qw & \gate{R_z(\varphi_4)} & *+<.02em,.02em>{\xy ="i","i"-<.39em,0em>;"i"+<.39em,0em> **\dir{-}, "i"-<0em,.39em>;"i"+<0em,.39em> **\dir{-},"i"*\xycircle<.4em>{} \endxy} \qw & \qw & \qw \\
& \multigate{1}{W} & \ctrl{-1} \qw & \qw & \qw & \qw & \ctrl{-1} & \qw & \qw & \multigate{1}{V} & \qw \\
& \ghost{W} & \qw & \qw & \ctrl{-2} & \qw & \qw & \qw & \ctrl{-2} & \ghost{V} & \qw
}
\end{small}
\end{equation}
\noindent
where
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{phi}
\varphi_1 & = & \frac{1}{4}(\phi_{00} + \phi_{01} + \phi_{10} + \phi_{11}), \\
\varphi_2 & = & \frac{1}{4}(\phi_{00} + \phi_{01} - \phi_{10} - \phi_{11}), \nonumber \\
\varphi_3 & = & \frac{1}{4}(\phi_{00} - \phi_{01} - \phi_{10} + \phi_{11}), \nonumber \\
\varphi_4 & = & \frac{1}{4}(\phi_{00} - \phi_{01} + \phi_{10} - \phi_{11}). \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
Individual $\phi$'s in (\ref{phi}) can be extracted from the diagonal of $D$, which has the form: diag($e^{-i\phi_{00}}$,$e^{-i\phi_{01}}$,$e^{-i\phi_{10}}$,$e^{-i\phi_{11}}$).
We would like to emphasize that this is not intended to be a decomposition technique for general $U$'s, as it itself requires classical diagonalization [of $U^{\dagger}$, see (\ref{u_diag})]. A general \textit{efficient} decomposition of an exponential of a Hamiltonian to elementary gates is known only for the direct mapping \cite{lanyon_2010, whitfield_2010}. But this mapping is not suitable for small scale experiments due to the relatively high number of required qubits and operations thereon. Our aim was in fact to prepare the ground for a first \textit{non-trivial} (more than one qubit in the quantum chemical part of the register) experimental realization of (relativistic) quantum chemical computation on a quantum computer.
Because $V$ belongs to the group \textbf{O}(4) (matrix of eigenvectors of a symmetric matrix), it can be decomposed using only two CNOT gates \cite{vatan_2004}:
\begin{equation}
\label{v_circuit}
\xymatrix @*=<0em> @C=0.8em @R=0.4em {
& \gate{S} & \qw & *+<.02em,.02em>{\xy ="i","i"-<.39em,0em>;"i"+<.39em,0em> **\dir{-}, "i"-<0em,.39em>;"i"+<0em,.39em> **\dir{-},"i"*\xycircle<.4em>{} \endxy} \qw & *=<0em>{\times} \qw & \gate{A} & *+<.02em,.02em>{\xy ="i","i"-<.39em,0em>;"i"+<.39em,0em> **\dir{-}, "i"-<0em,.39em>;"i"+<0em,.39em> **\dir{-},"i"*\xycircle<.4em>{} \endxy} \qw & \qw & \gate{S^{\dagger}} & \qw \\
& \gate{S} & \gate{H} & \ctrl{-1} & *=<0em>{\times} \qw \qwx & \gate{B} & \ctrl{-1} & \gate{H} & \gate{S^{\dagger}} & \qw \gategroup{1}{5}{2}{5}{.7em}{--}
}
\end{equation}
\vskip 0.1cm
\noindent
$H$ and $S$ are standard Hadamard and phase gates and $A$, $B$ are generic single-qubit gates that can be further decomposed e.g. by $Z$-$Y$ decomposition \cite{nielsen_chuang}
\begin{equation}
\label{zydec}
A = e^{i\alpha} R_{z}(\beta) R_{y}(\gamma) R_{z}(\delta).
\end{equation}
\noindent
There is a highlighted swap gate in (\ref{v_circuit}) which should be applied only if the determinant of $V$ is equal to $-1$ \cite{vatan_2004}.
The matrix $W$, on the other hand, is not real as it is equal to $D^{\dagger}V^{\dagger}$ (\ref{w}) and can be implemented using three CNOT gates (see e.g. \cite{vatan_2004,shende_2004}). The total count is thus 9 CNOTs.
The disadvantage of the aforementioned scheme is that $W$ must be decomposed for each power of $U$ individually. If we separate $W$ to $V^{\dagger}$ and $D^{\dagger}$, $V^{\dagger}$ is the same for all powers of $U$ (eigenvectors don't change) and $D^{\dagger}$ can be up to a non-measurable global phase implemented with the following circuit
\begin{equation}
\label{d_circuit}
\xymatrix @*=<0em> @C=0.8em @R=0.4em {
& \ctrl{1} & \qw & \ctrl{1} &\qw & \gate{R_{z}(\varphi_{6})} & \qw \\
& *+<.02em,.02em>{\xy ="i","i"-<.39em,0em>;"i"+<.39em,0em> **\dir{-}, "i"-<0em,.39em>;"i"+<0em,.39em> **\dir{-},"i"*\xycircle<.4em>{} \endxy} \qw & \gate{R_{z}(-\frac{\varphi_{5}}{2})} & *+<.02em,.02em>{\xy ="i","i"-<.39em,0em>;"i"+<.39em,0em> **\dir{-}, "i"-<0em,.39em>;"i"+<0em,.39em> **\dir{-},"i"*\xycircle<.4em>{} \endxy} \qw & \gate{R_{z}(\frac{\varphi_{5}}{2})} & \gate{R_{z}(\varphi_{7})} & \qw
}
\end{equation}
\noindent
where
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{phi2}
\varphi_{5} & = & \frac{1}{2}(\phi_{00} - \phi_{01} - \phi_{10} + \phi_{11}), \nonumber \\
\varphi_{6} & = & \frac{1}{4}(-\phi_{00} - \phi_{01} + \phi_{10} + \phi_{11}), \\
\varphi_{7} & = & \frac{1}{2}(-\phi_{00} + \phi_{01}). \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
The circuit for $V^{\dagger}$ is the same as for $V$ (\ref{v_circuit}), merely $A$ is replaced by $B^{\dagger}$ and $B$ by $A^{\dagger}$.
Presented 10-CNOT-circuit is universal for all powers of $U$. The only thing one has to do is to multiply the angles of $R_{z}$ rotations in (\ref{circuit}) and (\ref{d_circuit}) according to the power of $U$, e.g. by 2 for the second power.
Table \ref{par} summarizes the circuit parameters for ground as well as excited state calculations described in the preceding text. Notice that $\phi_{11}$ is zero in both cases by construction. To complete the vector space of two qubits, we in fact added one eigenvalue of the Hamiltonian equal to zero. Other simplification, which originates from the block diagonal structure of $U$, is that $A$ and $B$ matrices in the decomposition of $V$ (\ref{v_circuit}) differ only in a global phase. Because the global phase is not measurable, we present just the angles of rotations. Also only the parameters corresponding to $A$ and $B$ are shown. Going to their Hermitian conjugates means swapping of $\beta$ and $\delta$ and changing the sign of all of them.
\begin{table}[t]
\begin{tabular}{c c c}
\hline
\hline
& Ground state ($0^{+}$) & Excited state (1) \\
\hline
$\phi_{00}$ & -1.01642278 & -1.00656763 \\
$\phi_{01}$ & -0.68574813 & -0.18597924 \\
$\phi_{10}$ & 0.69657237 & -0.39129153 \\
$\phi_{11}$ & 0 & 0 \\
\hline
$\beta$ & 0.73125768 & -0.00680941 \\
$\gamma$ & -0.10311594 & 2.21832498 \\
$\delta$ & -0.12107336 & -3.13494247 \\
\hline
$\Delta E_{\rm{shift}}$ & -6477.89247780 & -6477.89247780 \\
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Circuit parameters: rotation angles $\phi_{ij}$, $i,j \in \{0,1\}$ (\ref{phi},\ref{phi2}), $Z$-$Y$ decomposition parameters of $A$, $B$ (\ref{v_circuit}) and energy shifts (core energy + nuclear repulsion) for CAS(4,3) calculations of $0^{+}$ and $1$ states. For the details see preceding text.}
\label{par}
\end{table}
For the excited state, the determinant of $V$ is equal to $-1$ and therefore the swap gate in (\ref{v_circuit}) should be applied. Because we took Hamiltonian matrices from the DIRAC program \cite{dirac}, the parameters in Table \ref{par} refer to the difference between the total energy and core energy + nuclear repulsion ($\Delta E_{\rm{shift}}$). The presented method with the parameters form Table \ref{par} implements the exponential $e^{i\tau\hat{H}}$, as was already mentioned. But in our version of the algorithm \cite{veis_2010}, we in fact need $e^{-i\tau\hat{H}}$. The obtained energy therefore corresponds to the negative of the energy. For the negative, the energy guesses $E_{\mathrm{max}} = 3.5$ and $E_{\mathrm{min}} = 2.0$ corresponding to the maximum and minimum expected energies were used.
We don't give any explicit proof that the \textit{Quantum Shannon decomposition} is optimal in the number of CNOT gates for the specific case of block diagonal c-$U_{2q}$. However, this conjecture is supported by the fact that we also implemented the Group Leaders Optimization Algorithm (GLOA) of Dashkin and Kais \cite{daskin_2011} and unsuccessfully tried to find a better circuit (in terms of number of controlled operations) with a fidelity error smaller than 0.01.
\bibliographystyle{h-physrev}
|
\section{Introduction}
The concept of a \textit{weak value }of a quantum mechanical system was
introduced in 1988 by Aharonov, Albert and Vaidman \cite{aharonov1988}. It was
built on a \textit{time symmetrical model }for quantum mechanics previously
introduced by Aharonov, Bergmann and Lebowitz in 1964 \cite{aharonov1964}. In
this model, non-local time boundary conditions are used, since the description
of the state of a physical system between two quantum mechanical measurements
is made by pre and post-selection of the states. The authors developed the so
called \textit{ABL Rule} for the transition probabilities within this
scenario, so this is why it is also known as the \textit{two state formalism}
for quantum mechanics \cite{aharonov2007}. The \textit{weak value} of an
observable can be considered as a generalization of the usual expectation
value of a quantum observable, but differently from this, it takes values in
the \textit{complex plane} in general \cite{jozsa2007,augusto2009}. The weak
value concept has shown a plethora of theoretical and experimental
applications. The issue of \textit{quantum counterfactuality}, for instance,
seems to be particularly less paradoxical when analyzed in terms of weak
values \cite{Aharonov2002hardy,Elitzur1993}. In \textit{quantum metrology},
the amplification of tiny effects in quantum mechanics has spawn some recent
impressive results as the observation of the spin Hall effect of light
\cite{Hosten2008}. For a recent review on weak values, see \cite{shikano2011}.
In our present work, we elaborate on a previous paper of Tamate \textit{et al
}where the authors introduce a very interesting geometric interpretation of
the von Neumann pre-measurement and weak values which are closely related
concepts. We conduct a review of their work, making the geometric structures
more mathematically precise and advancing further in this geometrization
programme. We also clarify some calculations and results from their original paper.
In the next section we review the von Neumann ideal pre-measurement formalism
mostly to introduce our notation. In section III, we review Tamate \textit{et
al's} geometric description of the interaction of a system with a discrete
measuring system in a deeper mathematical manner based on the geometry of
quantum mechanics developed by Berry and Aharonov-Anandan among many others
dating back to the eighties \cite{berry1984,aharonov1987}. In section IV, we
discuss their extension to infinite dimensional measuring systems with
continuous indexed basis. We clarify the geometric content of a derivation of
the intrinsic phase between two infinitesimally nearby states in the measured
subsystem induced by an ideal von Neumann pre-measurement. The shift in
position due to the instantaneous interaction with a measuring subsystem is
shown to be proportional to the expectation value of the arbitrary observable
$\hat{O}$ that is being measured in the first subsystem. We show how to
conduct this derivation through a simple but deeper analysis of the
geometrical structures involved. We also extend their calculation of the
position shift in the measuring apparatus for initial states that results
explicitly in a \textit{non-null} imaginary part of the weak value. For the
case of a single qubit this leads to a trivial geometric interpretation of
this complex weak value. Finally, in section V, we address some concluding
remarks and set stage for further work.
\section{The von Neumann pre-measurement model.}
We discuss von Neumann's model for a pre-measurement \cite{neumann1955} where
the measuring apparatus is also considered as a quantum system. Let
$W=W_{S}\otimes W_{M}$ be the state vector space of the system formed by the
subsystem $W_{S}$ and the \textit{measuring }subsystem $W_{M}$. We will also
assume that the measured system is a discrete quantum variable of $W_{S}$
defined by the observable $\hat{O}=|o_{i}\rangle o_{i}\langle o^{i}|$ (the sum
convention will be used hereinafter). The measuring subsystem will be
considered as a structureless (no spin or internal variables) quantum
mechanical particle in one dimension. (In the next section we will consider
discrete measuring systems.) Thus, we can choose as a basis for the vector
state space $W_{M}$ either one of the usual eigenstates of position or
momentum $\{|q(x)\rangle\}$ or $\{|p(x)\rangle\}$. It is important to note
here that we use a slightly different notation than usual (for reasons that
will soon become evident) in the sense that we distinguish between the
\textquotedblleft type\textquotedblright\ of the eigenvector ($q$ or $p$) from
the actual $x$ eigenvalue \cite{augusto2009}. For instance, we write:
\begin{equation}
\hat{Q}|q(x)\rangle=x|q(x)\rangle\qquad\text{and}\qquad\hat{P}|p(x)\rangle
=x|p(x)\rangle.
\end{equation}
(instead of $\hat{Q}|q\rangle=q|q\rangle$ and $\hat{P}|p\rangle=p|p\rangle$ as
commonly written) where $\hat{Q}$ and $\hat{P}$ are the position and momentum
observables subject to the well known Heisenberg relation: $[\hat{Q},\hat
{P}]=i\hat{I}$ (hereinafter, $\hbar=1$ units will be used). With this
non-standard notation, the completeness relation, normalization and the
overlapping between these bases can be written respectively as:
\[
\int\limits_{-\infty}^{+\infty}|q(x)\rangle\langle q(x)|dx=\int
\limits_{-\infty}^{+\infty}|p(x)\rangle\langle p(x)|dx=\hat{I},
\]
\begin{equation}
\langle q(x)|q(x\prime)\rangle=\langle p(x)|p(x\prime)\rangle=\delta
(x-x\prime)
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\langle q(x)|p(x\prime)\rangle=\dfrac{e^{ixx\prime}}{\sqrt{2\pi}}.
\end{equation}
An\textit{\ ideal} von-Neumann measurement can be defined as an
\textit{instantaneous} interaction between the two subsystems as modeled by
the following delta-like time-pulse hamiltonian operator at time $t_{0}$:
\begin{equation}
\hat{H}_{int}(t)=\lambda\delta(t-t_{0})\hat{O}\otimes\hat{P},
\end{equation}
where $\lambda$ is a parameter that represents the intensity of the
interaction. This ideal situation models a setup where we are supposing that
the time of interaction is very small compared to the time evolution given by
the free Hamiltonians of both subsystems.
Let the initial state of the total system be given by the following
unentangled product state: $|\psi_{i}\rangle=|\alpha\rangle\otimes|\varphi
_{i}\rangle$ and the final state given by $|\psi_{f}\rangle=\hat{U}%
(t_{A},t_{B})|\psi_{i}\rangle\quad(t_{A}<t_{0}<t_{B})$, where the total
unitary evolution operator is%
\begin{equation}
\hat{U}(t_{A},t_{B})=e^{-i\int_{t_{A}}^{t_{B}}\hat{H}_{int}(t)dt}%
=e^{-i\lambda\hat{O}\otimes\hat{P}},
\end{equation}
such that
\begin{equation}
(\hat{I}\otimes\langle q(x)|)|\psi_{f}\rangle=|o_{j}\rangle\otimes\langle
q(x)|\hat{V}_{o_{j}}^{\dagger}|\varphi_{i}\rangle\alpha^{j},
\end{equation}
where $|\alpha\rangle=|o_{j}\rangle\langle o^{j}|\alpha\rangle=|o_{j}%
\rangle\alpha^{j}$ and $\hat{V}_{\xi}$ is the one-parameter family of unitary
operators in $W_{M}$\ that implements the \textit{abelian group of
translations} in the position basis ($x,\xi\in%
\mathbb{R}
$) as $\hat{V}_{\xi}|q(x)\rangle=|q(x-\xi)\rangle$. A correlation in the final
state of the total system is then established between the variable to be
measured $o_{j}$ with the continuous position variable of the measuring
particle:
\begin{equation}
(\hat{I}\otimes\langle q(x)|)|\psi_{f}\rangle=|o_{j}\rangle\alpha^{j}%
\varphi_{i}(x-\lambda o_{j}),
\end{equation}
where $\varphi_{i}(x)=\langle q(x)|\varphi_{i}\rangle$ is the wave-function in
the position basis of the measuring system (the 1-D particle) in its initial
state. This step of the von Neumann measurement prescription is called the
\textit{pre-measurement} of the system.
\section{A discrete measuring system}
Let us consider now the measuring system as a \textit{finite dimensional}
quantum system $W_{M}^{(n)}$. In particular, if $n=2$, our measuring apparatus
consists of a \textit{single} qubit. We shall then start by initially treating
this two-level measuring system so that we may make explicit use of Bloch
sphere geometry and afterwards we shall extend this geometric treatment to
infinite dimensional spaces.
\subsection{Geometry of the space of rays.}
Let $W^{n+1}$ be a $(n+1)$-dimensional Hilbert space together with its dual
$\overline{W}^{n+1}$ and let also $\{|u_{\sigma}\rangle\}$ $(\sigma
=0,1,...,n)$ be an arbitrary basis for $W^{n+1}.$ An hermitean inner product
may be introduced by an \textit{ant-linear} mapping $\dag:W^{n+1}%
\longrightarrow\overline{W}^{n+1}$ (where $\dag$ is the familiar ``dagger"
operation). Indeed, the inner product between two arbitrary states
$|\psi\rangle$ and $|\varphi\rangle$ can now be defined as%
\[
(|\psi\rangle,|\varphi\rangle)=|\psi\rangle\left( ^{\dagger}|\varphi
\rangle\right) =\langle\psi|\varphi\rangle.
\]
Thus, an arbitrary normalized ket $|\psi\rangle$ expanded in such a basis can
be represented by a complex $(n+1)$-column matrix:
\begin{equation}
|\psi\rangle=|u_{\sigma}\rangle\psi^{\sigma}\equiv\left( \psi_{0}\psi
_{1}...\psi_{n}\right) ^{\intercal}, \quad\text{with\quad}\overline{\psi
}_{\sigma}\psi^{\sigma}=1. \label{column matrix expansion of normalized ket}%
\end{equation}
Writing the complex amplitudes as $\psi^{\sigma}=x^{\sigma}+iy^{\sigma}$ one
can easily see that the set of normalized states can be identified with a
$(2n+1)$-dimensional sphere $S^{2n+1}\subset\mathbb{C}^{n+1}$. Since two state
vectors that differ by a complex phase cannot be physically distinguished by
any means, it is convenient to define the true physical space of states as the
above defined set of normalized states \textit{modulo} the equivalence
relation in $S^{2n+1}$ defined as
\[
|\psi\rangle\sim|\varphi\rangle\iff\exists\quad\theta\in\mathbb{R}
\ /\ |\psi\rangle=e^{i\theta}|\varphi\rangle.
\]
The space of rays defined above is also known as the $n$-dimensional (complex)
projective space $\mathbb{CP}(n)$. A standard complex coordinate system for
$\mathbb{CP}(n)$ is provided by $n$ complex numbers $\xi^{i}=\psi^{i}%
\diagup\psi^{0}$ ($i=1,...,n$) for those points where $\psi^{0}\neq0$. In the
$n=1$ case we have a \textit{single} qubit described by a single complex
coordinate $\xi$. In this case, $\mathbb{CP}(1)$ is topologically equivalent
to a $2D$ sphere and the stereographic projection map $\xi=\tan(\theta
/2)e^{i\varphi}$ provides the Bloch sphere with standard coordinates. Thus,
any\ physical state can be expressed as a normalized state represented as a
point on the Bloch sphere in the following standard form
\begin{equation}
|\psi\rangle=|\theta,\varphi\rangle=\cos\left( \theta/2\right) |u_{0}%
\rangle+e^{i\varphi}\sin\left( \theta/2\right) |u_{1}\rangle,
\label{qubit on Bloch sphere}%
\end{equation}
where one can easily see that antipode points in the Bloch sphere represent
orthogonal state vectors. In the concluding chapter, we shall see that the
complex number $\xi=\tan(\theta/2)e^{i\varphi}$ can be directly physically
measured as a certain appropriate weak value for two level systems.
\subsection{The pre-measuring interaction}
Suppose now that the interaction happens in $W=W_{S}\otimes W_{M}^{(m)}$ where
the dimension of the measuring system is \textit{finite}:
\[
\dim W_{M}^{(m)}=m.
\]
The initial separable pure-state is $|\psi_{(i)}\rangle=|\alpha\rangle
\otimes|\varphi_{(i)}\rangle$ and $\{|v_{\sigma}\rangle\}$ $(\sigma
=0,1,...,m-1)$ is the finite momentum basis of $W_{M}^{(m)}$ so the momentum
observable can be expressed as $\hat{P}=|v_{\sigma}\rangle p_{\sigma}\langle
v^{\sigma}|$. As in the first section, we model our instantaneous interaction
with the hamiltonian $\hat{H}=\lambda\delta(t-t_{0})\hat{O}\otimes\hat{P}$, so
that for $t_{f}>t_{0}>t_{i}$ one has:
\begin{equation}
|\psi_{(f)}\rangle=\hat{U}(t_{i},t_{f})|\psi_{(i)}\rangle=e^{-i\lambda
p_{\sigma}\hat{O}}|\alpha\rangle\otimes|v_{\sigma}\rangle\varphi^{\sigma},
\end{equation}
where we have expanded $|\varphi_{(i)}\rangle\in W_{M}^{(m)}$ in the finite
momentum basis $\{|v_{\sigma}\rangle\}$. We can now define%
\begin{equation}
|A_{\sigma}\rangle=e^{-i\lambda p_{\sigma}\hat{O}}|\alpha\rangle.
\end{equation}
So that the final state of the overall system at $t_{f}$ will be:
\begin{equation}
|\psi_{(f)}\rangle=|A_{\sigma}\rangle\otimes|v_{\sigma}\rangle\varphi^{\sigma
}. \label{final indexed state}%
\end{equation}
The above entangled state clearly establishes a finite index correlation
between $|A_{\sigma}\rangle$ $\in$ $W_{S}$ and the finite momentum basis
$|v_{\sigma}\rangle$. The total system is in the pure state $|\psi
_{(f)}\rangle\langle\psi_{(f)}|$ and by tracing out the first subsystem, the
measuring system will be:%
\begin{equation}
\hat{\rho}_{|\psi_{(f)}\rangle}^{(m)}=|v_{\sigma}\rangle\varphi^{\sigma
}\langle A^{\tau}|A_{\sigma}\rangle\bar{\varphi}_{\tau}\langle v^{\tau}|.
\label{system density matrix 2}%
\end{equation}
Following Tamate \textit{et al}, we consider the second subsystem (the
measuring system) as a \textit{single qubit}. In this case one may define%
\[
|\varphi_{(i)}\rangle=\cos(\theta/2)|v_{0}\rangle+\sin(\theta/2)e^{i\varphi
}|v_{1}\rangle,
\]
with
\[
\langle A^{0}|A_{1}\rangle=|\langle A^{0}|A_{1}\rangle|e^{-i\beta},
\]
so that we can compute the probability $p(\beta)$ of finding the second
subsystem in a reference state $|\theta=\pi/2,\varphi=0\rangle$ as%
\begin{equation}%
\begin{split}
p(\beta) & =tr\left( \hat{\rho}_{|\psi_{(f)}\rangle}^{(m)}|\pi
/2,0\rangle\left\langle \pi/2,0\right\vert \right) \\
& =\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{4}|\langle A^{0}|A_{1}\rangle|\sin{\theta}%
\cos(\varphi-\beta).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
For a fixed angle $\theta$, this probability is \textit{maximized} when
$\varphi=\beta$. This fact can be used to measure the so called geometric
phase $\beta=\arg(\langle A^{1}|A_{0}\rangle)$ between the two indexed states
$|A_{0}\rangle$ and $|A_{1}\rangle$ $\in$ $W_{S}$. This definition of a
geometric phase was originally proposed in 1956 by Pancharatnam
\cite{Pancharatnam1956} for optical states and rediscovered by Berry in 1984
\cite{berry1984} in his study of the adiabatic cyclic evolution of quantum
states. In 1987, Anandan and Aharonov \cite{aharonov1987} gave a description
of this phase in terms of geometric structures of the $U(1)$ fiber-bundle
structure over the space of rays and of the symplectic and Riemannian
structures in the projective space $\mathbb{CP}(n)$ inherited from the
hermitean structure of $W_{S}$.
\subsection{Phase change due to post-selection}
Given $|\psi_{(f)}\rangle$ resulting from the interaction between both
subsystems we post-select a state $|\beta\rangle$ of $W_{S}$. This procedure
induces a phase change as we shall see. The resulting state after
post-selection is clearly
\begin{equation}
|\psi_{(f)}^{p}\rangle=C(|\beta\rangle\langle\beta|\otimes\hat{I})(|A_{\sigma
}\rangle\otimes|v_{\sigma}\rangle\varphi^{\sigma}),
\end{equation}
where $C$ is an unimportant normalization constant. Because of the
post-selection, the system is in a non-entangled state so that the partial
trace of $\hat{\rho}_{|\psi_{(f)}^{p}\rangle}=|\psi_{(f)}^{p}\rangle
\langle\psi_{(f)}^{p}|$ over the first subsystem gives us%
\begin{equation}
\label{final state after post-selection}|\varphi_{(f)}\rangle=C\langle
\beta|A_{\sigma}\rangle\varphi^{\sigma}|v_{\sigma}\rangle.
\end{equation}
Making the following phase choices $\langle\beta|A_{0}\rangle=|\langle
\beta|A_{0}\rangle|e^{i\beta_{0}}$ and $\langle\beta|A_{1}\rangle
=|\langle\beta|A_{1}\rangle|e^{-i\beta_{1}}$, we can again compute the
probability of finding the second subsystem in state $|\pi/2,0\rangle$:
\[%
\begin{split}
p & =\frac{C^{2}}{2}[|\langle\beta|A_{0}\rangle|^{2}\cos^{2}(\theta
/2)+|\langle\beta|A_{1}\rangle|^{2}\sin^{2}(\theta/2)+\\
& + \sin\theta|\langle\beta|A_{0}\rangle\langle\beta|A_{1}\rangle
|\cos(\varphi_{p}-\beta_{0}-\beta_{1})]
\end{split}
\]
For a fixed angle $\theta$, the maximum probability occurs for $\varphi
_{p}=\beta_{0}+\beta_{1}=\arg(\langle\beta|A_{0}\rangle\langle A^{1}%
|\beta\rangle)$. This implies that there is an overall phase change $\Theta$
given by
\begin{equation}
\label{geometric invariant}\Theta=\varphi_{p}-\varphi=\arg(\langle A^{1}%
|\beta\rangle\langle\beta|A_{0}\rangle\langle A^{0}|A_{1}\rangle) .
\end{equation}
The quantity given by (\ref{geometric invariant}) is a geometric invariant in
the sense that it depends only on the projection of the state vectors
$|A_{0}\rangle$, $|A_{1}\rangle$ and $|\beta\rangle$ on $\mathbb{CP}(n)$. In
fact, this quantity is the intrinsic geometric phase picked by a state vector
that is parallel transported through the closed geodesic triangle defined by
the projection of the three states on ray space.
For a single qubit, the geometric invariant is proportional to the area of the
geodesic triangle formed by the projection of the kets ($|A_{0}\rangle$,
$|A_{1}\rangle$ and $|\beta\rangle$) on Bloch sphere and it is well known to
be given by
\begin{equation}
\Theta=\arg(\langle A^{0}|\beta\rangle\langle\beta|A_{1}\rangle\langle
A^{1}|A_{0}\rangle)=-\frac{\Omega}{2}, \label{geometric invariant2}%
\end{equation}
where $\Omega$ is the oriented solid angle formed by the geodesic triangle.
\begin{figure}[ptb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=2.5in,width=2.5in]{fig/esfera_bloch10.png}
\end{center}
\caption{Solid angle determined by 3 points: the north pole and 2 points on
the equator of the Bloch sphere.}%
\end{figure}
\section{The measuring system with a continuous base.}
Suppose a physical system $W$ is composed by two subsystems $W_{S}\otimes
W_{M}^{(\infty)}$ as before, but the measuring system $W_{M}^{(\infty)}$ is
spanned \ by complete sets of position kets $\{|q(x)\rangle\}$ (momentum kets
$\{|p(y)\rangle\}$), with $-\infty<x,y<+\infty$. Let us consider $|\psi
_{(i)}\rangle=|\alpha\rangle\otimes|\varphi_{(i)}\rangle$ as the initial
product state and $\hat{H}=\lambda\delta(t-t_{0})\hat{O}\otimes\hat{P}$, with
$\hat{P}=\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}y|p(y)\rangle\langle p(y)|dy$, the
hamiltonian that models the instantaneous measuring interaction so that the
system evolves to%
\begin{equation}
|\psi_{(f)}\rangle=\hat{U}(t_{i},t_{f})|\psi_{(i)}\rangle=\int_{-\infty
}^{+\infty}dye^{-i\lambda y\hat{O}}|\alpha\rangle\otimes|p(y)\rangle
\varphi_{p}(y),
\end{equation}
where $\varphi_{p}(y)=\langle p(y)|\varphi_{(i)}\rangle$ is the momentum wave
function associated to state $|\varphi_{(i)}\rangle$. We may define the state
\begin{equation}
|A(y)\rangle=e^{-i\lambda y\hat{O}}|\alpha\rangle,
\label{continuous indexed state os the measured system}%
\end{equation}
so that we can rewrite the ket $|\psi_{(f)}\rangle$ as
\begin{equation}
\label{final continously indexed state}|\psi_{(f)}\rangle=\int_{-\infty
}^{+\infty}dy|A(y)\rangle\otimes|p(y)\rangle\varphi_{p}(y),
\end{equation}
where the states $|A(y)\rangle$ are indexed by the continuous parameter $y\in%
\mathbb{R}
$. We may now compute (to first order in $dy$) the intrinsic phase shift
between $|A(y)\rangle$ and $|A(y+dy)\rangle$ in a similar way that was carried
out in the previous section with the discretely parametrized states:%
\begin{equation}
\arg(\langle A(y)|A(y+dy)\rangle)\approx-\lambda dy\langle\hat{O}\rangle_{|
\alpha\rangle}, \label{phase shift for the continuum}%
\end{equation}
where $\langle\hat{O}\rangle_{|\alpha\rangle}=\langle\alpha|\hat{O}%
|\alpha\rangle$ is the expectation value of observable $\hat{O}$ in state
$|\alpha\rangle$.
We can also compute the shift of the expectation value of the position
observable $\hat{Q}$ of the particle of the measuring system between the
initial and final states. Let $\{|o_{j}\rangle\},$ ($j=0,...,N-1$) be a
complete set of eigenkets of observable $\hat{O}$. The final state of the
composite system can be described by the following pure density matrix:%
\begin{equation}
\hat{\rho}_{|\psi_{(f)}\rangle}=|\psi_{(f)}\rangle\langle\psi_{(f)}%
|=|o_{j}\rangle\langle o^{k}|\otimes\alpha^{j}\hat{V}_{\lambda o_{j}}%
^{\dagger}|\varphi_{(i)}\rangle\langle\varphi_{(i)}|\hat{V}_{\lambda o_{k}%
}\bar{\alpha}_{k}.
\end{equation}
Taking the partial trace of the $W_{S}$ system, we arrive at the following
mixed state that describes the measuring system at instant $t_{f}$:
\begin{equation}
\hat{\rho}_{|\psi_{(f)}\rangle}^{(M)}=\sum_{j}|\alpha^{j}|^{2}\hat{V}_{\lambda
o_{j}}^{\dagger}|\varphi_{(i)}\rangle\langle\varphi_{(i)}|\hat{V}_{\lambda
o_{j}}.
\end{equation}
The ensemble expectation value $[\hat{Q}]_{\hat{\rho}_{|\psi_{(f)\rangle}%
}^{(M)}}$ of position is then given by:
\begin{equation}
\lbrack\hat{Q}]_{\hat{\rho}_{|\psi_{(f)}\rangle}^{(M)}}=tr(\hat{\rho}%
_{|\psi_{(f)}\rangle}^{(M)}\hat{Q})=\langle\hat{Q}\rangle_{|\varphi
_{(i)}\rangle}+\lambda\langle\hat{O}\rangle_{|\alpha\rangle}.
\label{shift in position}%
\end{equation}
The above result is similar to the one obtained by Tamate \textit{et al}, yet
we believe that the procedure we have adopted is mathematical more precise as
we will discuss in the final concluding section of this paper. One may ask at
this point if a similar procedure may be carried out in the case of weak
values, since these can be thought of as a generalization of expectation
values. The answer is affirmative, but before we demonstrate this, we shall
discuss in the next section, a geometrical interpretation also inspired by
Tamate \textit{et al's} description of the interaction between the system
$W_{S}$ and the measuring system.
\subsection{Geometric interpretation of von Neumann's pre-measurement}
Let $W^{n+1}$ be a $(n+1)$-dimensional Hilbert space with basis $\{|u_{\sigma
}\rangle\}$ so that an arbitrary (not necessarily normalized) vector of this
space is described as $|\psi\rangle=|u_{\sigma}\rangle\psi^{\sigma}$, where
greek indices take values in $\sigma=0,...,n$. One can map this state to a
sphere $S^{2n+1}$ with radius given by
\begin{equation}
\bar{\psi}_{\sigma}\psi^{\sigma}=r^{2}. \label{unnormalized vector}%
\end{equation}
We introduce \textit{projective coordinates} $\xi^{i}$ on $\mathbb{CP}(n)$ so
that
\begin{equation}
\psi^{0}=\frac{re^{i\varphi}}{(1+\bar{\xi}_{i}\xi^{i})^{1/2}},\quad
\text{with}\quad i=1,...,n, \label{psi 0}%
\end{equation}
where $\varphi$ is an arbitrary phase factor. The \textit{euclidean metric} in
$W^{n+1}$, seen here as a $(2n+2)$-dimensional \textit{real} vector space, can
be written as \cite{page1987}
\begin{equation}
ds^{2}(W^{n+1})=d\psi^{\sigma}d\bar{\psi}_{\sigma}=dr^{2}+r^{2}ds^{2}%
(S^{2n+1}), \label{metric on W(n+1)}%
\end{equation}
where%
\begin{equation}
ds^{2}(S^{2n+1})=(d\varphi-A)^{2}+ds^{2}(\mathbb{CP}(n))
\label{metric on the sphere of normalized states}%
\end{equation}
is the squared distance element over the space of normalized vectors, the
$(2n+1)$-sphere, in $W^{n+1}$ and
\begin{equation}
A=\frac{i}{2}\left( \frac{\xi^{i}d\bar{\xi}_{i}-\bar{\xi}_{i}d{\xi}^{i}%
}{1+\bar{\xi}_{i}{\xi}^{i}}\right) \label{abelian conection 1-form}%
\end{equation}
is the well known abelian 1-form connection of the $U(1)$ bundle over
$\mathbb{CP}(n)$ and $ds^{2}$ is the metric over $\mathbb{CP}(n)$ in
projective coordinates given explicitly by: \cite{page1987,chruscinski2004}
\begin{equation}
ds^{2}(\mathbb{CP}(n))=\left[ \frac{(1+\bar{\xi}_{i}{\xi}^{i})\delta_{j}%
^{k}-\bar{\xi}_{k}\xi^{j}}{(1+\bar{\xi}_{i}{\xi}^{i})^{2}}\right] d\xi
^{k}d\bar{\xi}_{j}. \label{metric on CP(n)}%
\end{equation}
A natural and intuitive picture of these structures can be seen easily in FIG.
\ref{figura_espaco}. \begin{figure}[th]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[
height=2.5284in,
width=2.507in]{fig/espaco_estados.png}
\end{center}
\caption{Pictorial representation of the quantum space of states}%
\label{figura_espaco}%
\end{figure}The points $P_{1}$ and $P_{2}$ $\in$ $\mathbb{CP}(n)$ are the
projections respectively from two infinitesimally nearby normalized state
vectors $|\psi\rangle$ and $|\psi+d\psi\rangle$. It is natural to define then,
the squared distance between $P_{1}$ and $P_{2}$ as the projection of
$|d\psi\rangle$ in the\ ``orthogonal direction" of $|\psi\rangle$, that is,
the projection given by the projection operator $\hat{\pi}_{|\psi\rangle
}^{\perp}=\hat{I}-|\psi\rangle\langle\psi|$ as shown in \ref{figura_espaco}.
It is then easy to see that
\begin{equation}
ds^{2}(\mathbb{CP}(n))=\langle d\psi|d\psi\rangle-\langle d\psi|\psi
\rangle\langle\psi|d\psi\rangle. \label{metric 2}%
\end{equation}
The above equation is an elegant manner to express (\ref{metric on CP(n)}). By
inspecting both (\ref{metric on the sphere of normalized states}) and
(\ref{metric 2}), it is not difficult to conclude that
\begin{equation}
(d\varphi-A)^{2}=\langle d\psi|\psi\rangle\langle\psi|d\psi\rangle.
\end{equation}
Let $|\psi(t)\rangle$ be the curve of normalized state vectors in $W^{n+1}$
given by the unitary evolution generated by an hamiltonian $\hat{H}$. The
Schr\"{o}dinger equation implies a relation between $|\psi(t)\rangle$ and
$|\psi(t+dt)\rangle$ given by:
\begin{equation}
|d\psi\rangle=|\psi(t+dt)\rangle-|\psi(t)\rangle=-i\hat{H}|\psi(t)\rangle dt.
\label{infinitesimal unitary displacement}%
\end{equation}
The above equation together with (\ref{metric 2}) lead to a very elegant
relation for the squared distance between two infinitesimally nearby
projection of state vectors connected by the unitary evolution over
$\mathbb{CP}(n)$ \cite{Anandan1990}:
\begin{equation}%
\begin{split}
ds^{2}(\mathbb{CP}(n)) & =\left[ \langle\psi(t)|\hat{H}^{2}|\psi
(t)\rangle-(\langle\psi(t)|\hat{H}|\psi(t)\rangle)^{2}\right] dt^{2}\\
& =\left( \delta_{|\psi(t)\rangle}^{2}E\right) dt^{2}.\label{metric 3}%
\end{split}
\end{equation}
One may say that the equation above means that the speed of the projection
over $\mathbb{CP}(n)$ equals the instantaneous energy uncertainty
\begin{equation}
\frac{ds}{dt}=\delta E(t). \label{speed over CP(n)}%
\end{equation}
A beautiful geometric derivation of the \textit{time-energy uncertainty
relation} that follows directly from (\ref{speed over CP(n)}) can be found in
\cite{Anandan1990}. Back to our discussion of the interaction between the
systems $W_{S}$ and $W_{M}^{(\infty)}$, note that equation
(\ref{continuous indexed state os the measured system}) is formally equivalent
to the unitary time evolution equation $|\psi(t)\rangle=e^{-i\hat{H}t}%
|\psi(0)\rangle$ which is clearly a solution of a Schr\"{o}dinger equation
with \textit{time-independent} hamiltonian. A formal analogy between the two
distinct physical processes is exemplified by the association below:
\[
\begin{array}
[c]{ll}%
|\psi(t)\rangle & \mapsto|A(y)\rangle\\
|\psi(0)\rangle & \mapsto|\alpha\rangle=|A(0)\rangle\\
t & \mapsto y\\
\hat{H} & \mapsto\lambda\hat{O}.
\end{array}
\]
Looking at subsystem $W_{S}$ and regarding $y$ as an external parameter (just
like the time variable for the unitary time evolution) we may write the analog
of (\ref{metric 3}) in $\mathbb{CP}(n)\subset W_{S}$:
\begin{equation}
\label{line element over CP(n) with parameter y}%
\begin{split}
ds^{2} & =\left[ \langle A(y)|\hat{O}^{2}|A(y)\rangle-\langle A(y)|\hat
{O}|A(y)\rangle^{2}\right] \lambda^{2}dy^{2}\\
& =\left[ \langle\alpha|\hat{O}^{2}|\alpha\rangle-\langle\alpha|\hat
{O}|\alpha\rangle^{2}\right] \lambda^{2}dy^{2}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Comparing this result with (\ref{phase shift for the continuum}) and
(\ref{metric 2}), we advance one step further than Tamate \textit{et al} in
their geometrization programme as we present a geometric interpretation for
the expectation value $\langle\alpha|\hat{O}|\alpha\rangle$ in terms of the
$U(1)$ fiber bundle structure as one can easily infer from the pictorial
representation in FIG. \ref{figura_espaco2}. \begin{figure}[ptb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=2.5in,width=2.5in]{fig/espaco_estados1.png}
\end{center}
\caption{Pictorial representation of the phase difference between
$|A(y)\rangle$ and $|A(y+dy)\rangle$.}%
\label{figura_espaco2}%
\end{figure}
\subsection{Post-selection and weak values}
For the case of a \textit{weak measurement}, the hamiltonian can be modeled as
$\hat{H}^{(w)}=\epsilon\delta(t-t_{0})\hat{O}\otimes\hat{P}$, with
$\epsilon\rightarrow0$ \cite{aharonov1988}. Given the initial unentangled
state $|\psi_{(i)}\rangle=|\alpha\rangle\otimes|\varphi_{(i)}\rangle$ at
$t_{0}$, such that $t_{i}<t_{0}<t_{f}$, the system is described as%
\begin{align*}
|\psi_{(f)}\rangle & =\hat{U}(t_{i},t_{f})|\psi_{(i)}\rangle=e^{-i\epsilon
\hat{O}\otimes\hat{P}}|\alpha\rangle\otimes|\varphi_{(i)}\rangle\\
& =\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}dy|A(y)\rangle\otimes|p(y)\rangle\varphi_{p}(y),
\end{align*}
with $|A(y)\rangle=e^{-i\epsilon y\hat{O}}|\alpha\rangle$. The global
geometric phase related to the infinitesimal geodesic triangle formed by the
projections of $|A(y)\rangle$, $|A(y+dy)\rangle$ and the post-selected state
$|\beta\rangle$ on $\mathbb{CP}(n)$ (see FIG. \ref{areavarrida}) is given by:%
\[
\Theta=\arg\left[ \langle A(y)|\beta\rangle\langle\beta|A(y+dy)\rangle\langle
A(y+dy)|A(y)\rangle\right] .
\]
\begin{figure}[ptb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[
height=2.5284in,
width=2.507in]{fig/areavarrida.png}
\end{center}
\caption{Pictorial representation of the global geometric phase.}%
\label{areavarrida}%
\end{figure}Expanding to first order in $\epsilon$, we finally obtain%
\begin{equation}
\Theta\approx-\epsilon\left[ \operatorname{Re}({O}_{w})-\langle\hat{O}%
\rangle_{|\alpha\rangle}\right] dy,
\end{equation}
where $O_{w}=\langle\beta|\hat{O}|\alpha\rangle/\langle\beta|\alpha\rangle$ is
the weak value of $\hat{O}$ and $\langle\hat{O}\rangle_{|\alpha\rangle}$ is
the expectation value of $\hat{O}$ in state $|\alpha\rangle$. Following the
same approach of section III, we can compute the expectation value of the
position observable $\hat{Q}$ of the measuring system $W_{M}^{(\infty)}$
between the initial and final states. The final state after post-selection of
a state $|\beta\rangle$ of system $W_{S}$ is given by%
\begin{align*}
|\psi_{(f)}\rangle & =C(|\beta\rangle\langle\beta|\otimes\hat{I}%
)(e^{-i\epsilon\hat{O}\otimes\hat{P}}|\alpha\rangle\otimes|\varphi
_{(i)}\rangle)\\
& \approx C(|\beta\rangle\langle\beta|\otimes\hat{I})(\hat{I}-i\epsilon
\hat{O}\otimes\hat{P})|\alpha\rangle\otimes|\varphi_{\left( i\right)
}\rangle,
\end{align*}
where $C\approx(1+\epsilon\langle\hat{P}\rangle_{|\alpha\rangle}%
\operatorname{Im}({O}_{w})) \diagup\langle\beta|\alpha\rangle$ is the
normalization constant because, in general, the state after post-selection is
\textit{not} normalized. By partial tracing out the first subsystem we arrive
at:%
\[%
\begin{split}
\hat{\rho}_{|\psi_{(f)}\rangle}^{(2)} & =tr_{1}(|\psi_{(f)}\rangle
\langle\psi_{(f)}|)\\
& =\left[ 1-i\epsilon\langle\hat{P}\rangle|\varphi_{\left( i\right)
}\rangle({O}_{w}-\bar{O}_{w})\right] |\varphi_{\left( i\right) }%
\rangle\langle\varphi_{\left( i\right) }| -\\
& -i\epsilon({O}_{w}\hat{P}|\varphi_{\left( i\right) }\rangle\langle
\varphi_{\left( i\right) }|-\bar{O}_{w}|\varphi_{\left( i\right) }%
\rangle\langle\varphi_{\left( i\right) }|\hat{P}),
\end{split}
\]
where $\langle\hat{P}\rangle_{|\varphi_{(i)}\rangle}$ is the expectation value
of momentum $\hat{P}$ of the measuring system in state $|\varphi_{(i)}\rangle$
and $\bar{{O}}_{w}$ is the complex conjugate of the weak value ${O}_{w}$. The
shift in the ensemble average $[\hat{Q}]_{\hat{\rho}_{|\psi_{(f)}\rangle
}^{(2)}}=tr(\hat{\rho}_{|\psi_{(f)}\rangle}^{(2)}\hat{Q})$ can then be easily
computed as $\Delta\hat{Q}=[\hat{Q}]_{\hat{\rho}_{|\psi_{(f)}\rangle}^{(2)}%
}-[\hat{Q}]_{\hat{\rho}_{|\psi_{(i)}\rangle}^{(2)}}$, giving us
\begin{equation}%
\begin{split}
\Delta\hat{Q} & =\epsilon\Big{[}(\operatorname{Im}(O_{w}))(\langle
\varphi_{(i)}|\{\hat{Q},\hat{P}\}|\varphi_{(i)}\rangle-\\
& -2\langle\hat{P}\rangle_{|\varphi_{(i)}\rangle}\langle\hat{Q}%
\rangle_{|\varphi_{(i)}\rangle}) +\operatorname{Re}(O_{w}%
)\Big{]}.\label{shift in position ensemble average}%
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\section{Concluding Remarks}
In \cite{tamate2009}, the authors introduced a very interesting geometric
interpretation for von Neumann's ideal pre-measurement concept as well as for
the weak value. In this paper we have carried out a review of their paper,
advancing a step further the geometric concepts they introduced in their paper
and clarifying some of their results and calculations. For instance, the
equation (\ref{phase shift for the continuum}) below
\[
\arg(\langle A(y)|A(y+dy)\rangle)\approx-\lambda dy\langle\hat{O}%
\rangle_{|\alpha\rangle}%
\]
is essentially the same result of equation 16 in \cite{tamate2009}:
\begin{equation}
\Theta(y)=\arg(\langle A(0)|A(y)\rangle)\approx-\lambda y\langle\hat{O}%
\rangle_{|\alpha\rangle}.
\end{equation}
Yet, our approach seems to be more mathematically precise as it firmly
grounded on the geometrical structures involved. The authors express a
infinitesimal phase shift by differentiating a \textquotedblleft function"
$\Theta(y)$, but no such function exists because the geometric phase is
obtained from the 1-form $A=i\left( \xi^{i}d\bar{\xi}_{i}-\bar{\xi}_{i}d{\xi
}^{i}\right) \diagup2\left( 1+\bar{\xi}_{i}{\xi}^{i}\right) $. The exterior
derivative $F=dA$ measures the local curvature of the connection form which
measures the local lack of holonomy of the process of comparing intrinsic
phases between normalized state vectors. This means that the 1-form $A$ is
\textit{not} the exterior derivative of any scalar function (a 0-form). The
authors introduced this \textquotedblleft function" $\Theta(y)$ and by
formally taking its derivative, they managed to arrive at the correct
equation
\[
\Delta\hat{Q}=\lambda\langle\hat{O}\rangle.
\]
This result is the same we obtained in (\ref{shift in position}), but, from
the discussion above, it is quite clear that our approach seems to be
mathematically more sound. The authors also approach a geometric
interpretation of weak values, where they found the following equation for the
shift in the expectation value of the position observable (equation 21 of
\cite{tamate2009}):%
\[
\Delta\hat{Q}=\epsilon\operatorname{Re}(O_{w}).
\]
Yet it is well known that this result can be extended to a full complex-valued
weak value (see \cite{jozsa2007} and \cite{lobo2009weak}). The above equation
lacks a term proportional to the\textit{ imaginary part} of the weak value
$O_{w}$ as one can see from equation (\ref{shift in position ensemble average}%
). In fact, in their paper, they calculated an example for a qubit as the
measuring system where they have chosen a very particular set of pre and
post-selected states and observable that assures a weak value with null
imaginary part. Indeed, if we choose the following: $\left\vert \alpha
\right\rangle =\left\vert u_{0}\right\rangle $ (the \textquotedblleft north
pole" of the Bloch sphere), $\left\vert \beta\right\rangle =|\theta
,\varphi\rangle=\cos\left( \theta/2\right) |u_{0}\rangle+e^{i\varphi}%
\sin\left( \theta/2\right) |u_{1}\rangle$ as respectively the pre and
post-selected states and $\hat{O}=\hat{\sigma}_{1}=|u_{0}\rangle\left\langle
u^{1}\right\vert +|u_{1}\rangle\left\langle u^{0}\right\vert $ as the
observable, then it is straightforward to compute the weak value as
$O_{w}=\tan\left( \theta/2\right) e^{i\varphi}$ which is clearly
complex-valued in general. Yet, the post-selected $\left\vert \beta
\right\rangle $ state chosen in \cite{tamate2009} is equivalent to our choice
with the phase $\varphi=0$. This is an \textit{arbitrary restriction} over all
possible choices of states in the Bloch sphere and only for $\varphi=0$ and
$\varphi=\pi$ one arrives at a purely \textit{real} weak value. What is
curious about this result (for a single qubit) is that the weak value gives a
direct physical meaning to the complex projective coordinate $\xi=\tan\left(
\theta/2\right) e^{i\varphi}$. Indeed, when the experimentalist measures the
(complete complex) weak value of a two level system in his lab, he actually is
directly measuring the point on the $\mathbb{CP}(1)$ (complex plane + a point
in infinity) of $\left\vert \beta\right\rangle $ related to the Bloch sphere
by the stereographic projection. If the post-selected state is somewhere near
the south pole, it is expected that there should be large measured distortions
because of the nature of the projection. To remedy this, it is enough to
rotate $\left\vert \alpha\right\rangle $ and $\hat{O}$ appropriately so that
one can cover all states in $\mathbb{CP}(1)$ with good precision. It would be
interesting to pursue further this kind of investigation of the geometrical
meaning of weak values for higher dimensional systems. For instance, for
higher spin systems, the geometry of spin coherent states could be useful for
this purpose \cite{perelomov1986generalized}. In a preliminary version of our
manuscript we have had the chance to see a reply of Tamate and collaborators
to our paper. In their short reply they manage to explain further why they
have restricted their attention only to the \textit{real part} of the weak
value. It became clear to us that the term
\[
C(\hat{Q},\hat{P})=\langle\varphi_{(i)}|\{\hat{Q},\hat{P}\}|\varphi
_{(i)}\rangle-2\langle\hat{P}\rangle_{|\varphi_{(i)}\rangle}\langle\hat
{Q}\rangle_{|\varphi_{(i)}\rangle}%
\]
in equation (\ref{shift in position ensemble average}) is expected to vanish
for most experimental implementations. This is because for the usual initial
states of the measuring apparatus, the position and momentum observables are
uncorrelated. This is very unfortunate as our example shows that both
imaginary and real parts of the weak value are true elements of reality that
should be treated with the same ontological status. Maybe an experimental
approach that focus on the geometric structures of the phase space of the
measuring apparatus (the pointer) could furnish experimental methods to
accomplish this as we have suggested in \cite{augusto2009}.
The concept of weak values has lately become increasingly important both for
theoretical and experimental reasons \cite{popescu2009}. A deeper
understanding of the physical and the mathematical structures behind weak
values is of urgent need. One possible approach is to look at the phase space
of the measuring system as was carried out in \cite{augusto2009}. Another
promising approach is the one initiated by Tamate\textit{ et al} in
\cite{tamate2009} where they look at the natural geometric structures of the
\textit{measured} system to characterize the weak value concept. We have tried
to continue such geometrization programme by clarifying some conceptions in
their original paper and advancing a step further in this approach. We
introduced a geometric interpretation for the expectation value $\langle
\hat{O}\rangle_{|\alpha\rangle}$ of an arbitrary observable $\hat{O}$ in terms
of the $U(1)$ fiber bundle structure over the projective space of the measured
subspace. We hope that this will lead to further fruitful theoretical and
experimental applications. One possible research path is to consider the
projective space structures of \textit{both} subsystems and try to relate the
exchange of information (in some kind of measure) between them in the (weak or
strong) pre-measurement process in terms of these very same geometric structures.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
A. C. Lobo wishes to acknowledge financial support from
\textit{NUPEC-Funda\c{c}\~{a}o Gorceix} and both authors wish to acknowledge
financial support from \textit{Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento
Cient\'{\i}fico e Tecnol\'{o}gico} (CNPq). The authors also thank Tamate and
collaborators for their reply and also thank the assistance with the English
language from Fernanda Lobo Bellehumeur.
{\normalsize
\bibliographystyle{plain}
|
\section{Efficient analog BPDN solutions}
\label{sec:bpdnsol}
In this section, we demonstrate the performance of the analog LCA in simulated CS recovery problems to show the potential benefits of analog optimization architectures. In the first set of simulations (Sections~\ref{sub:phase_plots} and~\ref{sub:convergence_time}), we use synthetic stylized data to thoroughly explore the solution quality and solution times with (simulated) analog and digital approaches. In the second set of simulations (Section~\ref{sub:MRI}), we use MRI data to show performance on a large scale problem of practical importance.
\subsection{LCA solution quality}
\label{sub:phase_plots}
To begin, we investigate the quality of simulated LCA solutions on CS recovery problems with synthetic data to verify that they are comparable to standard digital algorithms. While the LCA system is proven to converge asymptotically to the unique BPDN solution, the approximate solution achieved by any algorithm in finite time can have different characteristics depending on the particular solution path.
In the general problem setup, the unknown signal $a_0 \in \reals^\coefdim$ is $\sparsity$-sparse and is observed through $\sigdim < \coefdim$ Gaussian random projections, $\insig = \fvecmat \coefvec_0 + \nu$, where $\nu$ is additive Gaussian noise.
Following typical approaches in the CS community, we recover an estimate of $a_0$ by solving BPDN. We compare the simulated performance of the LCA with the interior-point method l1-ls~\cite{BOY:2007} and the gradient projection method GPSR~\cite{NOW:2007}. This investigation will address two main questions. First, are the solutions produced by the simulated LCA as accurate as the digital comparison cases? Second, what solution times are possible in the simulated LCA? While there may also be significant advantages in power consumption, this issue is implementation specific and beyond the scope of this work.
The test CS problems can be parameterized by the number of observations $\sigdim$, the size of the original sparse signal $\coefdim$ and the sparsity level $\sparsity$.
We draw the nonzero coefficients of $\coefvec_0$ using a Gaussian distribution with variance $1$ and we draw the locations from a uniform distribution. The choice of regularization parameter $\thresh$ depends on the variance of the additive noise $\nu$ which is not necessarily known a priori. We have empirically observed that $\thresh = .01 \| \fvecmat^T \insig \|_{\infty}$ gives good performance in this task when the noise variance is $10^{-4}$.
Additionally, we observe that as with many other algorithms, implementing a continuation method by gradually decreasing \thresh (similar to that used in FPC~\cite{WOT:2007}) also improves convergence time in the LCA. Specifically, we initialize $\thresh = \| \fvecmat^T \insig \|_{\infty}$ and allow a multiplicative decay of 0.9 at each iteration of the simulation until \thresh reaches the desired value given above.
To ensure that the comparison among the algorithms is fair, we use the same stopping criterion for convergence based on the duality gap upper bound proposed in~\cite{BOY:2007}.
To explore solution quality we display the results of solving the CS recovery optimizations using plots inspired by the phase plots described by Donoho \& Tanner~\cite{DON:2005}. We parameterize the plots using the indeterminacy of the system indexed by $\delta = \sigdim/\coefdim$, and the sparsity of the system with respect to the number of measurements indexed by $\rho = \sparsity / \sigdim$. We vary $\delta$ and $\rho$ in the range $[.1, .9]$ using a $50$ by $50$ grid. For a given value $(\delta, \rho)$ on the grid, we sample $10$ different signals using the corresponding $(M, N, S)$ and recover the signal using BPDN. We compare the results of the simulations by displaying in the top row of Figure~\ref{fig:EnergyPhase} a phase plot for each algorithm, where the color code depicts the average relative MSE of the CS recovery for each algorithm (calculated by $\norm{\hat{\coefvec} - \coefvec_0}_2^2/\norm{\coefvec_0}_2^2$). In a similar vein, the middle row of Figure~\ref{fig:EnergyPhase} shows the energy function (i.e., the BPDN objective function) evaluated at the solution, $0.5\norm{\insig - \fvecmat\hat{\coefvec}}_2^2 + \thresh\norm{\hat{\coefvec}}_1$.
The near identical plots for the two metrics above demonstrate that the LCA is indeed finding solutions of essentially the same quality as the comparison digital algorithms, both in terms of signal recovery of the compressively sensed signal, and in terms of the optimization objective function. When the LCA and digital solutions are compared directly, we find that the average difference in the solutions differs only by a relative mean-squared distance (calculated by $\norm{\hat{\coefvec}_{LCA} - \hat{\coefvec}_{DIG}}_2^2/\norm{\hat{\coefvec}_{DIG}}_2^2$) of $1.97\cdot 10^{-4}$ when compared to l1ls and $6.64\cdot 10^{-4}$ when compared to GPSR. For comparison, the rMSE of the difference between the l1-ls solutions and the GPSR solutions is $9.71\cdot 10^{-4}$, meaning that the LCA solutions have variability comparable to what the pair of comparison digital algorithms has between their solutions. We note that the solution differences are significantly larger between all of the algorithms in the regimes where CS recovery is difficult and poor solutions are found by all solvers, as demonstrated by the bottom row of plots in Figure~\ref{fig:EnergyPhase}.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=6in]{figs/20111102_3by3Phases.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{The solution quality of the LCA on a compressed sensing recovery task is comparable to the standard digital solvers GPSR and l1-ls. The top row plots the relative MSE of the estimated signal for synthetic data, with indeterminacy of the system indexed by $\delta = \sigdim/\coefdim$, and the sparsity of the system with respect to the number of measurements indexed by $\rho = \sparsity / \sigdim$. The middle row plots the value of the BPDN objective function at the solutions. The bottom row plots the relative MSE in the solutions between the solvers, indicating the the differences in the LCA solutions are within the normal range of differences between the digital algorithms themselves. Note that all solvers demonstrate more variability in regions where the problems are more difficult and signal recovery cannot be performed well.
}
\label{fig:EnergyPhase}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{LCA convergence time}
\label{sub:convergence_time}
To observe the potential solution times for the LCA, we compare the convergence of the LCA and GPSR on three specific signals in easy, medium and hard CS recovery problems with the same synthetic data as above (corresponding to different values of $\delta$, $\rho$). Figure \ref{fig:GPSRandLCAtimes} shows the convergence of the relative MSE as a function of time for GPSR and the simulated LCA for three example signals.
GPSR times are reported using measured CPU\footnote{Time is measured on a Dell Precision Desktop with dual Intel Xeon E5420 Processors and 14GB of DDR3 RAM.} time, and LCA times are reported using the number of simulated system time constants $\tau$. The simulation parameters used are identical to the previous simulations. While the solution paths have generally similar characteristics, the time scales are dramatically different. Focusing on the easy and medium CS problems that produce good recovery using \lo minimization, GPSR is converging in times on the order of 0.3 seconds, whereas the LCA is converging in times on the order of ten time constants ($10\tau$). We also note that while the results in Figure \ref{fig:GPSRandLCAtimes} are for individual signals for direct comparison with GPSR, the analysis of average case convergence for the LCA shown in Figure~\ref{fig:evolution_rmse} and discussed below also support the same basic conclusions about the LCA convergence time.
Though the time constant of an analog circuit depends on many factors (including the power consumption of the circuit), time constants on the order of 10$^{-6}$ to 10$^{-8}$ are reasonable first-order estimates~\cite{SCH:2011}. Even with the slowest of these time constants ($\tau \approx 10^{-6}$) the analog solver is converging in approximately 10$\mu$s of simulated time. This type of solution speed from the LCA
is several orders of magnitude faster than GPSR and could support solvers running in real time at rates of 100 kHz. We note that these times are on a similar order as the recent reports of small-scale implementations (especially when accounting for the interface between the analog circuit and the microcontroller hosting the circuit)~\cite{SHA:2011c}.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=5in]{2011_09_14_time2.pdf}
\caption{Temporal convergence of the LCA compared to GPSR. The plot shows the relative MSE of the signal recovery as a function of time for sample trials ($N$=1000) from the results in Figure~\ref{fig:evolution_rmse} using GPSR (left) the simulated LCA (right). The convergence behavior is approximately the same, with harder problems taking both algorithms longer and decreasing the fidelity of the recovery. For the easy and medium difficulty problems where BPDN recovers the signal with good fidelity, GPSR takes 0.1-1 seconds to converge and the simulated LCA takes $10^1 \tau$-$10^3 \tau$ seconds to converge. For conservative values of $\tau$, the LCA solution times can still be as low as 10$\mu$s, supporting datarates of up to 100 kHz}
\label{fig:GPSRandLCAtimes}
\end{figure*}
Finally, we also investigate the effect of problem size $\coefdim$ and problem difficulty ($\delta$, $\rho$) on the convergence speed of the LCA. For the same parameters corresponding to easy, medium and difficult CS recovery problems as used above, we sample $10$ signals at three different problems sizes ($N$ = 200, $N$ = 500 and $N$ = 1000) to perform CS recovery. Figure~\ref{fig:evolution_rmse} displays the relative distance of the signal estimate $\coefvec^{(t)}$ from the true solution $\coefvec$ as a function of simulated time, $\norm{\coefvec^{(t)} - \coefvec}_2/\norm{\coefvec}_2$. The plots are again shown as a function of the simulated time in terms of the number of system time constants $\tau$. As expected, convergence is faster and more reliable (i.e., less variance) for easier recovery problems (i.e., lower sparsity or more measurements). Interestingly, we note that increasing the signal size \coefdim does \emph{not} appear to increase the solution time for the LCA. In a digital algorithm such as GPSR, while the number of iterations may not increase substantially, the solution time scales with \coefdim because the cost of each iteration (e.g., a matrix multiplication) increases significantly. In an analog system like the LCA, increasing the size of a matrix multiply requires increasing the circuit size and complexity. While this may increase the system time constant in some implementations~\cite{SHA:2011}, it does not appear to require any more time constants for the system to settle on a solution.\footnote{Note that increasing the problem sizes does increase the time required to simulate the LCA, but not the amount of time being simulated. Also note that as we will discuss in the conclusions, there may be practical reasons that the system time constant $\tau$ may increase with increasing problem sizes.}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=6in]{figs/20111103_TimeConvN.pdf}
\caption{Convergence behavior for the LCA for a number of different problem sizes ($N$,$\delta$,$\rho$). Each plot demonstrates the change in convergence based on easy, medium and hard CS recovery problems (i.e., 3 combinations of ($\delta$, $\rho$)) for $N$ = 200 (left), $N$ = 500 (middle) and $N$ = 1000 (right). While there is no appreciable increase in convergence time with increased problem size (larger $N$), similar to standard behavior with other optimization algorithms the LCA convergence time does increase with problem difficulty (smaller $\delta$ and larger $\rho$).}
\label{fig:evolution_rmse}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{MRI Reconstruction}
\label{sub:MRI}
The previous subsection demonstrated that for stylized problems with synthetic data the LCA can achieve BPDN solutions and signal recoveries comparable to standard digital solvers. Furthermore the LCA appears to converge to solutions at speeds that would represent an improvement of several orders of magnitude over digital algorithms if implemented in an analog circuit. In this section we demonstrate the potential value of this system on a medical imaging application that could be significantly impacted by having real-time CS recovery techniques. Specifically, in this section we simulate the LCA recovery of undersampled MR images to evaluate the solution quality and speed. Compressive MRI is of particular interest because it allows shorter scan times, which improves both patient throughput and lowers risk (e.g., shorter scan times mean that pediatric MRIs may be taken more often without general anesthesia~\cite{LUS:2010}). Furthermore, compressive MR imaging combined with real-time image reconstruction would potentially allow new medical procedures to be performed using real-time, high-resolution 3-D imaging without using ionizing radiation.
We simulate CS data acquisition on 21 frames of a dynamic cardiac MRI sequence\footnote{The MRI data used was acquired using a GE 1.5T TwinSpeed scanner (R12M4) using an 8 element cardiac coil.} by subsampling the Fourier transform of each image (i.e., taking random columns of $k$-space). Each image is 256x192 pixels, and we recover the images by solving BPDN to find sparse coefficients in a wavelet transform. Specifically, we solve the BPDN optimization program where the sensing matrix $\bm{\Phi} = \bm{F}\bm{W}^H$ is an inverse wavelet transform followed by a subsampled Fourier matrix, and recover the image by taking the wavelet transform of the solution to the BPDN problem. The choice of wavelet transforms in this case is very important, as transforms which are coherent with the Fourier subsampling scheme can result in poor results. We follow the work of~\cite{LUS:2010} and use a 4 level 2-dimensional Daubechies wavelet transform as the sparsifying basis. The resulting optimization is more difficult than the synthetic data in the previous two sections because the signals are larger and the images are sparse in a wavelet basis instead of the canonical basis.
We compare results of recovery using the simulated LCA and another standard digital solver YALL1~\cite{WOT:2007}. Figure~\ref{fig:MRI_recon} shows an example MRI image and its reconstruction using both the LCA and YALL1. The average relative MSE (using $\lambda$ = 0.001) over all 21 recovered images was 0.0109 for YALL1 and 0.0106 for the simulated LCA. The relative differences between the LCA and YALL1 solutions was
0.0042, indicating that the solution quality is essentially the same for both approaches. YALL1 took approximately 10 second of computation time to reach this solution (on the same computer platform used in the previous simulations), while the LCA took approximately $20\tau$ simulated seconds. Again using time constant estimates of $t=10^{-6}$, this translates to solution times of $20 \mu$s and datarates of approximately 50 kHz.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=6in]{MRI_recon.pdf}
\caption{Reconstruction of 256x192 pixel MRI images from simulated CS acquisition. The simulated LCA and the comparison digital algorithm (YALL1) find solutions of approximately the same quality in terms of relative MSE and image quality. YALL1 finds the solution in approximately 10s, while the LCA finds the solution in approximately 20 time constants ($20 \mu s$ with conservative estimates of the time constant).}
\label{fig:MRI_recon}
\end{figure*}
\section{Background and related work}
\label{sec:back}
\subsection{Dynamical systems for \lo minimization}
\label{sub:dynsys}
As mentioned above, recent work in computational neuroscience has shown that dynamical systems can be constructed that provably solve the optimization programs in~\eqref{eqn:basicopt} and are efficient for solving the non-smooth problems of interest in sparse approximation. These systems, known as locally competitive algorithms (LCAs)~\cite{ROZ:2008}, are comprised of a network of analog nodes being driven by the signal to be approximated. Each node competes with neighboring nodes for a chance to represent the signal, and the steady-state response represents the solution to the optimization problem. The LCA is a specific type of Hopfield neural network, which have a long history of being used to solve optimization problems~\cite{HOP:1982}. We note here that other types of network structures have also been proposed recently to approximately solve sparse approximation problems in other ways~\cite{REH:2007,PER:2004}.
Specifically, the $\nodec^{\mathrm{th}}$ node of the LCA is associated with \fvec{\nodec}, the $\nodec^{th}$ column of \fvecmat. Without loss of generality, we assume each column has unit norm. This node is described at a given time \tim by an internal state variable \statet{\nodec}{\tim}. The coefficients \coefvec are related to the internal states \statevec via an activation function \coefvect{\tim} = \tfuncj{\thresh}{\statevect{\tim}} that is parametrized by \thresh. These activation functions are often taken to be a type of thresholding function.
In the important special case when the cost function is separable, the output of each node \nodec can be calculated independently of all other nodes by a pointwise activation function $\coefst{\nodec}{\tim} = \tfunc{\thresh}{\statet{\nodec}{\tim}}$.
Individual nodes are leaky integrators driven by an input proportional to $\langle \fvec{\nodec}, \insig \rangle$, and competition between nodes occurs via lateral connections that allow highly active nodes to suppress nodes with less activity. The dynamics for node \nodec are given by:
\begin{equation}
\statetder{\nodec}{\tim} = \frac{1}{\timc}\left[ \langle \insig, \fvec{\nodec} \rangle - \statet{\nodec}{\tim} - \mathop{\sum_{\nodecb=1}^{\coefdim}}_{\nodecb\neq\nodec} \langle \fvec{\nodec}, \fvec{\nodecb}\rangle \coefst{\nodecb}{\tim} \right],
\end{equation}
where \timc is the system time constant. In vector form, the dynamics for the whole network are given by:
\begin{equation}
\statevectder{\tim} = \frac{1}{\timc}\left[\fvecmat^t \insig - \statevect{\tim} - \left(\fvecmat^t \fvecmat- I\right)\coefvect{\tim}
\right].
\label{eqn:LCAvec}
\end{equation}
In~\cite{ROZ:2008} it was shown that for the energy surface \energy given in~\eqref{eqn:basicopt} with a separable cost function, the path induced by the LCA (using the outputs $\coefst{\nodec}{\tim}$ as the optimization variable) ensures $\frac{d\energyt{t}}{dt}\leq 0$ when the cost function satisfies:
\begin{equation}
\lambda \frac{d\costf{\coefs{\nodec}}}{d\coefs{\nodec}} = \states{\nodec} - \coefs{\nodec} = \states{\nodec} -\tfunc{\thresh}{\states{\nodec}} = \tfuncinv{\thresh}{\coefs{\nodec}} - \coefs{\nodec}.
\label{eqn:costthresh}
\end{equation}
The same arguments also extend to the more general case of non-separable cost functions, ensuring $\frac{d\energyt{t}}{dt}\leq 0$ when
\begin{equation}
\thresh \gradcoef{\coefvec}{\costfj{\coefvec}} = \statevec -\coefvec = \statevec - \tfuncj{\thresh}{\statevec} = \tfuncjinv{\thresh}{\coefvec} - \coefvec \label{eq:CoefRelb}.
\end{equation}
Recent followup work~\cite{AUR:2011} establishes stronger guarantees on the LCA, specifically showing that this system is globally convergent to the minimum of $\energy$ (which may be a local minima if \costf{\cdot} is not convex) and proving that the system converges exponentially fast with an analytically bounded convergence rate.
The relationship in~\eqref{eqn:costthresh} requires cost functions that are differentiable and activation functions that are invertible. However, the cost function for BPDN (the \lo norm) is non-smooth at the origin and the most effective sparsity-promoting activation functions will likely have non-invertible thresholding properties. In these cases, one can start with a smooth cost function that is a relaxed version of the desired cost and calculate the corresponding activation function. Taking the limit of the relaxation parameter in the activation function yields a formula for \tfunc{\thresh}{\cdot} that can be used to solve the desired problem. Specifically, in the appendix we use the log-barrier relaxation~\cite{Boy1} to show that the LCA solves BPDN when the activation function is the well-known soft thresholding function:
\[ \costf{\coefs{\nodec}}=|\coefs{\nodec}| \quad\Longleftrightarrow\quad \coefs{\nodec} = \tfunc{\thresh}{\states{\nodec}} =
\begin{cases}
0&|\states{\nodec}|\leq\thresh\\
\states{\nodec}-\thresh\mbox{sign}(\states{\nodec})&|\states{\nodec}|>\thresh
\end{cases}.
\]
Similarly, the LCA can find a local minima to the non-convex optimization program that minimizes the \lz ``norm'' of the coefficients (i.e., number of non-zeros) by using the hard thresholding activation function~\cite{ROZ:2008}:
\[
\costf{\coefs{\nodec}}= I\left(\coefs{\nodec}\neq0\right) \quad\Longleftrightarrow\quad
\coefs{\nodec} = \tfunc{\thresh}{\states{\nodec}} =
\begin{cases}
0&|\states{\nodec}|\leq\thresh\\
\states{\nodec} &|\states{\nodec}|>\thresh
\end{cases},
\]
where $I(\cdot)$ is the standard indicator function.
\subsection{Digital algorithms for sparse approximation}
\label{sub:digalgs}
Recent work has focused significant efforts on developing specialized algorithms for solving BPDN on digital platforms. Several interior point methods have been proposed in this area, including \lo-magic \cite{CAN:2005} and l1-ls \cite{BOY:2007}. Alternatively, the GPSR algorithm~\cite{NOW:2007} employs a gradient projection approach to solving the BPDN problem. Homotopy (or continuation) methods~\cite{MAL:2005,SAL:2010,GAR:2008a} take an entirely different approach, solving a series of optimization problems for a decreasing sequence of tradeoff parameters \tradeoff and utilizing efficient updates to find these sequential solutions. To speed up the recovery process for very large signals, additional work has sought to leverage parallel hardware configurations such as multicore~\cite{BRA:2011} and GPU architectures~\cite{LEE:2008}. Multicore processing makes use of the parallelalizable aspects of the algorithm to divide the total computational burden between the available processing units, incurring larger communication overhead for more processors. GPU-based algorithms mainly utilize the ability to perform matrix calculations substantially faster than standard processors. However, while achieving improvements in solution times, neither of these architectures provide favorable scaling properties and it is unclear if they would be able to provide real-time solutions for significantly sized problems. Also, neither architecture is appropriate for low-power embedded computing applications.
Among digital algorithms, the family of iterative thresholding methods \cite{BLU:2007,DIA:2007,DAU:2004,WOT:2007,FIG:2003a} is most similar to the LCA. These methods iteratively take gradient-type steps to minimize the cost function \eqref{eqn:basicopt} and apply a thresholding function to enforce the sparsity constraints. A first-order discrete Euler approximation to the continuous-time LCA dynamics illustrates that the fundamental update of this analog system is basically the same as these digital algorithms, with the principal difference being that each step of the LCA has an incremental effect on the current solution (rather than taking a large step as in each iteration of the digital algorithm)~\cite{ROZ:2008}. Recently, approaches based on linearized Bregman iterations have also been shown to have update steps that have a similar form~\cite{OSH:2008}.
\section{Conclusions and future work}
\label{sec:conc}
Sparsity-based signal models have played a central role in many state-of-the-art signal processing algorithms. The resulting shift toward optimization as a fundamental computational tool in the signal processing toolbox has made it difficult to implement many of these algorithms in applications with significant power constraints or real-time processing requirements. The main contributions of this paper have been to illustrate the potential advantages of using an analog dynamical system to perform sparse approximation in an analog integrated circuit. Specifically, our simulations have demonstrated that the idealized LCA could solve problems of significant size on time scales of approximately 10-20$\mu$s, corresponding to real-time solvers at rates approaching 50-100 kHz. Interestingly, and in stark contrast to using digital algorithms on the same problems, the solution times in the idealized LCA do not appear to scale significantly with the problem size. Beyond the \lo minimization problem that is most commonly referenced in the literature, we have also demonstrated that the same network structure can implement a wide variety of other cost functions from the signal processing and statistics literature that are related to sparse approximation.
From these results we conclude that solving sparse approximation problems via analog dynamical systems could have a significant impact on a wide range of applications and certainly warrants further investigation. In the case of CS, the typical mantra has been that CS techniques can help when measurements are expensive and the user is willing to trade reduced measurement burdens for increased computational complexity during signal recovery. The potential performance of an implementation of the LCA could remove the current bottleneck of CS recovery, making CS techniques applicable in an even wider variety of applications. With the increased interest in using signal models that incorporate more information than simple signal sparsity (e.g., `structured sparsity' models) for improved CS performance~\cite{BAR:2010}, an interesting avenue for future study would be to develop efficient dynamical systems for performing inference in models with more complex structure than the group \lo norm already established in this paper.
The design and implementation of analog circuits has traditionally been difficult, and it is not immediately clear that the potential benefits of the idealized LCA illustrated in this paper could be achieved in an actual implementation. As mentioned earlier, the development of reconfigurable analog chips~\cite{TWI:2009} have improved many of the issues related to barriers in the design phase of analog integrated circuits. In fact, the reconfigurable platform described in~\cite{TWI:2009} has been used to implement a small version of the LCA for solving BPDN~\cite{SHA:2011}. The preliminary tests of this LCA implementation are on the same order as the simulated solution speeds shown in the present work.
Implementing a system such as the LCA at a scale large enough to be useful in applications will present additional issues that must be addressed in future work. In particular, the mismatch between elements inherent in the fabrication process and the scaling of the time constant due to factors such as increased load capacitance present challenges that could reduce the effectiveness of the idealized system. In addition to large scale implementations, interesting future work would include establishing bounds on the solution errors in terms of fabrication mismatch, exploring system designs that exhibit the least potential for time constant increases as the system scales and determining the viability of hybrid analog-digital systems that achieve the benefits of both modalities. We note here that the initial prototype implementation in~\cite{SHA:2011} reported a system with solutions achieving relative MSE of less than 5\%.
\section{Efficient digital sparse approximation}
\label{sec:digsim}
Trust region methods for fast simulation
Look at alternate paper for fast sim of dynamical systems
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
\IEEEPARstart{M}{any} classical approaches to signal and image processing rely on applying linear filters to incoming data. This type of processing can be done so efficiently (especially with specialized DSP integrated circuits) that it is possible to build ``real-time'' systems for many applications. However, recent research has shown that performance can often be significantly improved by using nonlinear processing
strategies. For example, when presented with imperfect data measurements (e.g., due to noise, blur, missing data, undersampling, etc.), a common approach is to formulate the problem as a regularized inverse problem. This strategy can be thought of in a Bayesian framework, where the algorithm searches for a signal that was the most likely cause for the measurements, taking into account a prior probability distribution (i.e., a model) on the signal.
While such Bayesian approaches can improve performance in many signal and image processing tasks, these methods rely on solving non-linear optimization problems that are much more computationally expensive than classical linear filtering. For example, a common family of optimization programs used in this setting minimizes energy functions of the form
\begin{equation}
\min_{\coefvec} \; \energy = \frac{1}{2}\norm{\insig - \fvecmat \coefvec}^2_2 + \tradeoff\costfj{\coefvec},
\label{eqn:basicopt}
\end{equation}
where $\insig\in\reals^\sigdim$ is the observed measurement vector, $\coefvec\in\reals^\coefdim$ is a vector representing an estimate of the signal (possibly through coefficients in a transform domain such as Fourier or wavelets), $\fvecmat$ is a $\sigdim\times\coefdim$ matrix representing a linear measurement and corruption process, $\costfj{\cdot}$ is a cost function penalizing $\coefvec$ based on its fit with the signal model, and \tradeoff is a parameter denoting the relative tradeoff between the data fidelity term and the cost function. Solving this optimization program is equivalent to finding the maximum \emph{a posteriori} (MAP) estimate of the original signal under a Gaussian noise model, with the cost function corresponding to the log prior distribution on the signal. Basic signal models frequently assume independence among the elements of $\coefvec$, resulting in a cost function that separates into a sum of individual costs $\left(\mbox{i.e., } \costfj{\coefvec} = \sum_\nodec \costf{\coefs{\nodec}}\right)$. One common example is the $\ell^p$ norm, defined as $\costfj{\coefvec} = \|\coefvec \|_p^p = \left(\sum_i{a_i^p}\right)$.
Significant research activity over the last two decades has focused on signal models based on sparse representations. In these models, the cost function \costfj{\cdot} is chosen to penalize signals depending on the number of non-zero elements (i.e., the size of the support set of \coefvec). Sparse representations have drawn significant interest because many natural and man-made signals can be approximated by just a few elements from an appropriately selected basis set~\cite{OLS:1996}. Because the program in~\eqref{eqn:basicopt} is actually a NP-hard problem when the cost function simply counts the number of non-zero coefficients~\cite{NAT:1995}, much of the recent research has focused either on developing heuristic (often greedy) approximate solutions~\cite{TRO:2004a}, or providing performance guarantees for relaxed versions of the problem~\cite{TRO:2006}. To date, the strongest theoretical guarantees involve solving the optimization problem in equation~\eqref{eqn:basicopt} when the cost function is the \lo norm
\begin{equation}
\min_{\coefvec} \;\frac{1}{2}\norm{\insig - \fvecmat \coefvec}^2_2 + \tradeoff\norm{\coefvec}_1,
\label{eqn:bpdn}
\end{equation}
where $\norm{\coefvec}_1 = \sum_{i=1}^{\coefdim} |\coefs{i}|$.
This optimization program goes by many different names, including Basis Pursuit De-Noising (BPDN) in the signal processing community~\cite{CHE:1999}. Surprisingly, in many cases of interest it can be shown that solving BPDN recovers the sparsest solution even through~\eqref{eqn:bpdn} is a tractable convex program~\cite{DON:2005}.
One example of the utility of BPDN is the recent work in compressed/compressive sensing (CS)~\cite{TAO:2006, BAR:2007, CAN:2008b}. In brief, the CS results give performance guarantees for inverse problems when the signals are highly undersampled $(\sigdim \ll \coefdim)$ and the signal \coefvec is assumed to be sparse (having only $\sparsity<\sigdim$ non-zeros). The main CS results essentially show that for certain matrices \fvecmat (generally taken to be random), $\sparsity$-sparse signals can be recovered (up to the noise level) by solving BPDN as long as $\sigdim \sim O\left(\sparsity \log ( \coefdim/\sparsity )\right)$. These results mean that in situations where measurements are costly, a signal can be undersampled during acquisition in exchange for using more computational resources to recover the signal at a later time.
Despite the long history of optimization in the field of signal processing (see Mattingley \& Boyd~\cite{BOY:2010} for a detailed discussion), the recent advent of applications that utilize optimization directly to perform signal processing tasks (e.g., CS) highlights a specific need for online optimization solvers that can operate in real time or under power constraints. To mention two example applications that may specifically benefit from real-time or low-power BPDN solutions (respectively), CS techniques have been proposed for both medical imaging~\cite{LUS:2010} and channel estimation for wireless communications~\cite{HAU:2010}. While we will focus on CS as an example application, sparsity-based models (and the corresponding optimization problems) arise in state-of-the-art solutions to problems in a variety of disciplines, including machine learning and computer vision~\cite{WRI:2010a}, as well as signal restoration (e.g., denoising, deblurring, superresolution, inpainting)~\cite{ELA:2010a}.
Given the importance of solving problems such as BPDN in state-of-the-art algorithms, recent research has focused on dramatically reducing the time it takes to solve this optimization program. Sparse approximation is particularly challenging because the cost function in~\eqref{eqn:bpdn}, as well as many other cases of interest, is not a smooth function. Despite much recent progress in developing both fast general purpose convex optimization algorithms~\cite{BOY:2010} and specialized solvers for~\eqref{eqn:bpdn}, these algorithms are unable to solve moderately-sized BPDN problems fast enough to operate in many real-time applications. In particular, most algorithms for solving BPDN have storage, time and power requirements that scale unfavorably with the signal size.
Recent work in computational neuroscience has demonstrated a continuous-time dynamical system where the steady-state response is the solution to the program in~\eqref{eqn:basicopt}, and the architecture of the system is designed to efficiently deal with sparsity-inducing cost functions. Because the dynamics of this system correspond to basic circuit primitives (e.g., leaky integration, simple thresholding, lateral inhibition, etc.), an analog VLSI implementation has the potential to be significantly faster and more power efficient than digital approaches~\cite{MEA1}.
For example, such an implementation could enable applications where CS techniques are used to acquire signals very quickly \emph{and} the signal is recovered virtually instantaneously and with minimal power, thereby eliminating the typical processing bottlenecks of optimization-based signal processing methods (e.g., signal recovery in CS).
The main goal of this paper is to highlight the potential benefits and wide applicability of analog architectures for efficiently solving sparsity-based optimization programs. Specifically, this paper makes two main contributions. First, we provide extensive simulation comparisons of analog systems and digital algorithms for solving BPDN in the context of CS recovery for synthetic and MRI data. These examples demonstrate that idealized analog architectures could potentially solve individual optimizations at time scales of of 10-20$\mu$s, supporting datarates of 50-100 kHz (orders of magnitude faster that digital algorithms). Second, we show that a number of other optimization problems arising in the signal processing and statistics communities can be solved using the same basic architecture, including approximate $\ell^p$ norms for $0 \leq p\leq 1$, modified \lo norms, re-weighted \lo and $\ell^2$, the block \lo norm and classic Tikhonov regularization.
\section{Alternate inference problems in the LCA architecture}
\label{sec:othercosts}
While Section~\ref{sec:bpdnsol} concentrated on exploring the performance of the LCA in solving the commonly used BPDN program, many other cost functions (i.e., signal models) fitting into the general form of~\eqref{eqn:basicopt} have been proposed in the signal processing and statistics literature to exploit sparsity in different ways. Using the basic relationships described in~\eqref{eqn:costthresh} and~\eqref{eq:CoefRelb}, this section will present a variety of cost functions that can be optimized in the same basic LCA structure by analytically determining the corresponding activation function.\footnote{We also note that a cost function might be easily implementable even in the absence of an analytic formula for the activation function simply by using numerical integration to find a solution and fitting the resulting curve.} These optimization programs include approximate $\ell^p$ norms, modified $\ell^p$ norms that attempt to achieve better statistical properties than BPDN, the group/block \lo norm that induces co-activation structure on the non-zero coefficients, re-weighted \lo and $\ell^2$ algorithms that represent hierarchical statistical models on the coefficients, and classic Tikhonov regularization.
Before exploring specific cost functions, it is worthwhile to make a technical note regarding the optimization programs that are possible to implement in the LCA architecture. The strong theoretical convergence guarantees established for the LCA~\cite{AUR:2011} apply to a wide variety of possible systems, but do impose some conditions on the permissible activation functions. We will rely on these same conditions to analytically determine the relationship between the cost and activation functions for the examples we consider in this section. Translated to conditions on the cost functions, the convergence results for the LCA~\cite{AUR:2011} require that the cost functions be positive $\left(\costfj{\coefvec} \geq 0\right)$, symmetric $\left(\costfj{-\coefvec} = \costfj{\coefvec}\right)$, and satisfy the condition that the matrix $\left(\thresh \gradcoef{\coefvec}^2{\costfj{\coefvec}} + \bm{I}\right)$ is positive definite (i.e., $\thresh \partial^2\costf{\coefs{\nodec}} / \partial\coefs{\nodec}^2 + 1 > 0$ for separable cost functions). This last condition can intuitively be viewed as requiring that the activation function resulting from~\eqref{eq:CoefRelb} has only a single output for a given input. In most cases we will only consider the behavior of the activation function for $\states{\nodec} \geq 0$ because the behavior for $\states{\nodec} < 0$ is implied by the symmetry condition.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=6in]{figs/20110914_Costs1.pdf}
\caption{Cost functions and their corresponding thresholding functions. Left: The cost functions are compared for the (top) \lo with \thresh = 0.5, scale invariant Bayes with \thresh = 0.5, the Huber cost with \thresh = 0.5 and $\epsilon$ = 0.3 and (bottom) \lz with \thresh = 0.5, SCAD with \thresh = 0.5 and $\kappa$ = 3.7 and transformed \lo with
thresh = 0.5 and $\beta$ = 2. Right: The corresponding nonlinear activation function which can be used in the LCA to solve the regularized optimization program for each cost function.}
\label{fig:costs}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Approximate $\ell^p$ norms $(0\leq p \leq 2)$}
\label{sub:approximate_ell_p_norms_0leq_p_leq_2_}
When considering regularized least-squares problems of the form in~\eqref{eqn:basicopt}, perhaps the most widely used family of cost functions are the $\ell^p$ norms $\costfj{\coefvec} = \|\coefvec \|_p^p$. These separable cost functions include ideal sparse approximation (i.e., counting non-zeros), BPDN, and Tikhonov Regularization~\cite{TIK:1963} as special cases ($p=0,1 \mbox{ and } 2$, respectively), and are convex for $p\geq 1$. Furthermore, recent research has shown some benefits of using non-convex $\ell^p$ norms ($p<1$) for tasks such as CS recovery~\cite{SAA:2008,ZIB:2007}. While the ideal activation functions can be determined exactly for the three special cases mentioned above ($p=0,1 \mbox{ and } 2$), it is not possible to analytically determine the activation function for arbitrary values of $0\leq p\leq 2$. Elad et al.~\cite{ZIB:2007} recently introduced several parameterized approximations to the $\ell^p$ cost functions that are more amenable to analysis. In this section, we use these same approximations to determine activation functions for minimizing approximate $\ell^p$ norms for $0\leq p\leq 2$.
\subsubsection{Approximate $\ell^p$ for $1\leq p \leq 2$}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[height=2.5in]{figs/20110914_Costs2.pdf}
\caption{Approximate $\ell^p$ cost functions and their corresponding thresholding functions. Left: The cost functions are approximated over the parameters $c$, $s$ for values of $p$ ranging from 0 to 1 (top) and 1 to 2 (bottom). The true $\ell^p$ costs are shown as dotted lines in the same colors. Using these values of $c$ and $s$, a nonlinear activation function that can be used in the LCA to solve the optimization is plotted (right) using the thresholding equations for $0<p<1$ (top) and $1<p<2$ (bottom). The thresholding functions clearly span the ranges between soft and hard thresholding for the lower range of $p$ and between soft thresholding and linear amplification for the upper range of $p$.}
\label{fig:costs_lp}
\end{figure*}
For $1 \leq p \leq 2$, Elad et al.~\cite{ZIB:2007} propose the following approximate cost function as a good match for the true $\ell^p$ norm for some value of parameters $s$ and $c$:
\[ \costf{\coefvec} = \sum_{\nodec}{\left[c|\coefs{\nodec}| - cs\log{\left( 1 + \frac{|\coefs{\nodec}|}{s} \right)}\right]}. \]
In the limiting cases, $c = 1$ with $s \rightarrow 0$ yields the $\lo$ norm and $c = 2s$ with $s \rightarrow \infty$ yields the $\ell^2$ norm. Three intermediate examples for $p$ = 1.25, 1.5 and 1.75 are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:costs_lp}. For any specific value of $p$, we find the best values of $c$ and $s$ by using standard numerical optimization techniques to minimize the squared error to the true cost function over the interval [0,2]. From this cost function, we can differentiate to obtain the relationship between each \states{\nodec} and \coefs{\nodec} as
\[\states{\nodec} = \coefs{\nodec} + \thresh\frac{c\coefs{\nodec}}{s + \coefs{\nodec}}. \]
We see from this relationship that with $c = 1$ and $s \rightarrow 0$, we obtain
$\coefs{\nodec} = \states{\nodec} - \thresh$
for \states{\nodec} $>$ \thresh (i.e., the soft-thresholding function for BPDN), while with $c = 2s$ and $s \rightarrow \infty$ we obtain
$\coefs{\nodec} = \frac{\states{\nodec}}{1 + 2\thresh}$
(i.e., a linear amplifier for Tikhonov Regularization). Solving for $\coefs{\nodec}$ in terms of $\states{\nodec}$ (restricting the solution to be positive and increasing) yields a general relationship for the activation function
\[ \tfunc{\thresh}{\states{\nodec}} = \frac{1}{2}\left[\states{\nodec} -s -c\thresh + \sqrt{\left(\states{\nodec} - s - c\thresh \right) + 4\states{\nodec}s}\right]. \]
This solution is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:costs_lp} for $p$ = 1.25, 1.5 and 1.75 for \thresh = 0.5.
\subsubsection{Approximate $\ell^p$ for $0\leq p \leq 1$}
For $0 \leq p \leq 1$, Elad et al.~\cite{ZIB:2007} also propose the following approximate cost function as a good match for the true $\ell^p$ norm for some value of parameters $s$ and $c$:
\[\costf{\coefs{\nodec}} = cs\log\left(1 + \frac{|\coefs{\nodec}|}{s}\right), \]
where the parameters $c > 0$ and $s > 0$ can be optimized as above to approximate different values of $p$. Three approximations for $p$ = 0.5, 0.75 and 0.9 are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:costs_lp}.
To determine the activation function, we again differentiate and find the appropriate relationship to be
\[\coefs{\nodec} + \frac{\thresh cs}{s+\coefs{\nodec}} = \states{\nodec}. \]
Solving for \coefs{\nodec} reduces to solving a quadratic equation, which leads to two possible solutions. As above, we restrict the activation function to only include the solution that is positive and increasing, resulting in the activation function
\[\tfunc{\thresh}{\states{\nodec}} = \frac{1}{2}\left(\states{\nodec} - s + \sqrt{\left( \states{\nodec} + s\right)^2 - 4\thresh cs } \right). \]
This activation function is only valid over the range where the output is a positive real number. If $c\thresh\leq s$, this condition reduces to $\states{\nodec}\geq c\thresh$. More generally, this condition reduces to $\states{\nodec}\geq 2\sqrt{2cs\thresh} - s$.
\subsection{Modified $\ell^p$ norms}
\label{sub:hybrid_ell_p_norms}
While the general $\ell^p$ norms have historically been very popular cost functions, many people have noted that this approach can have undesirable statistical properties in some instances (e.g., BPDN can result in biased estimates of large coefficients~\cite{ZOU:2006a}). To address these issues, many researchers in signal processing and statistics have proposed modified cost functions that attempt to alleviate these statistical concerns. For example,
hybrid $\ell^p$ norms smoothly morph between different norms to capture
the most desirable characteristics over different regions. In this section we will demonstrate that many of these modified $\ell^p$ norms can also be implemented in the basic LCA architecture.
\subsubsection{Smoothly Clipped Absolute Deviations}
\label{sub:smoothly_clipped_absolute_deviations}
A common goal for modified $\ell^p$ norms is to retain the continuity of the cost function near the origin demonstrated by the \lo norm, while using a constant cost function for larger coefficients (similar to the \lz norm) to avoid statistical biases. One approach to achieving these competing goals is the smoothly clipped absolute deviations (SCAD) penalty~\cite{FAN:1997,FAN:2001}. The SCAD approach directly concatenates the \lo and \lz norms with a quadratic transition region, resulting in the cost function given by
\[\costf{\coefs{\nodec}} =
\begin{cases}
\coefs{\nodec} & 0<\coefs{\nodec}\leq\thresh\\
\frac{1}{(\kappa-1)\thresh}(\coefs{\nodec}\kappa\thresh-\frac{\coefs{\nodec}^2}{2} - \frac{\thresh^2}{2})& \thresh<\coefs{\nodec}\leq\kappa\thresh\\
\frac{\thresh}{2} (1+\kappa) & \kappa \thresh < \coefs{\nodec}
\end{cases},
\]
for $\kappa \geq 1$ ($\kappa$ defines the width of the transition region). An example of this cost function with $\thresh = 0.5$ and $\kappa = 3.7$ is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:costs}.
To obtain the activation function we again solve $\thresh \frac{d\costf{\coefs{\nodec}}}{d\coefs{\nodec}} + \coefs{\nodec} = \states{\nodec}$ for \coefs{\nodec} as a function of \states{\nodec}. For SCAD (and all of the piecewise cost functions we consider), the activation function can be determined individually for each region, paying careful attention to the ranges of the inputs \states{\nodec} and outputs \coefs{\nodec} to ensure consistency.
For $0<\coefs{\nodec}\leq\thresh$, we have $\thresh + \coefs{\nodec} = \states{\nodec}$, implying that $\coefs{\nodec}=0$ for $\states{\nodec}<\thresh$ and $\coefs{\nodec}= \states{\nodec}-\thresh$ over the interval $ \thresh<\states{\nodec}<2\thresh$. For $\thresh<\coefs{\nodec}\leq\kappa\thresh$, we have
\[\thresh\frac{(\kappa\thresh-\coefs{\nodec})}{(\kappa-1)\thresh} + \coefs{\nodec} = \states{\nodec} \implies \coefs{\nodec} = \frac{(\kappa-1) \states{\nodec} - \kappa\thresh }{\kappa-2} \]
over the interval $2\thresh<\states{\nodec}<\kappa\thresh$. Finally, for $\kappa \thresh < \coefs{\nodec}$ we have $ \coefs{\nodec} = \states{\nodec}$, giving the full activation function
\[ \coefs{\nodec} = \tfunc{\thresh}{\states{\nodec}} =
\begin{cases}
0 & \states{\nodec}\leq \thresh\\
\states{\nodec}-\thresh & \thresh \leq \states{\nodec}\leq 2\thresh\\
\frac{\kappa - 1}{\kappa - 2}\states{\nodec} - \frac{\kappa\thresh}{\kappa - 2} & 2\thresh \leq \states{\nodec} \leq \kappa\thresh\\
\states{\nodec} & \kappa\thresh \leq \states{\nodec}
\end{cases},
\]
which is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:costs} for \thresh = 0.5 and $\kappa = 3.7$. Note that this activation function requires $\kappa \geq 2$ (Antoniadis and Fan recommend a value of $\kappa = 3.7$~\cite{FAN:2001}). While this is apparent from consistency arguments once the thresholding function has been derived, this restriction on $\kappa$ can also be deduced from the condition $\thresh\partial^2\costf{\coefs{\nodec}}/\partial\coefs{\nodec}^2 + 1 > 0$.
\subsubsection{Transformed \lo}
\label{sub:transformed_lo}
Similar to the SCAD cost function, the transformed \lo cost~\cite{FAN:2001,NIK:2000} attempts to capture something close to the \lo norm for small coefficients while reducing the penalty on larger coefficients. Specifically, transformed \lo uses the fractional cost function given by
\[\costf{\coefs{\nodec}} = \frac{\beta|\coefs{\nodec}|}{1+\beta|\coefs{\nodec}|}, \]
for some $\beta > 0$. An example of this cost with $\beta = 2$ and \thresh = 0.5 is shown in Figure \ref{fig:costs}. After calculating the derivative of the cost function, the activation function can be found by solving
\[ \frac{\thresh\beta}{(1+\beta\coefs{\nodec})^2} + \coefs{\nodec} = \states{\nodec}\]
for \coefs{\nodec}. Inverting this equation reduces to solving a cubic equation in \coefs{\nodec}. The three roots can be calculated analytically, but only one root generates a viable thresholding function by being both positive and increasing for positive \states{\nodec}. That root is given by
\[ \begin{matrix} \coefs{\nodec} = \frac{\beta\, \states{\nodec} - 2}{3\, \beta} + \frac{2^{\frac{2}{3}}}{6\beta} {\left(6\, \beta\, \states{\nodec} - 27\, \beta^2\, \lambda + 6\, \beta^2\, \states{\nodec}^2 + 2\, \beta^3\, \states{\nodec}^3 + 3\, \sqrt{3}\, \beta^3\, \sqrt{-\frac{\lambda\, \left(4\, \beta^3\, \states{\nodec}^3 + 12\, \beta^2\, \states{\nodec}^2 - 27\, \lambda\, \beta^2 + 12\, \beta\, \states{\nodec} + 4\right)}{\beta^4}} + 2\right)}^{\frac{1}{3}} \\
+ \frac{\beta2^{\frac{1}{3}}\, {\left(\beta\, \states{\nodec} + 1\right)}^2}{3\, {\left(6\, \beta\, \states{\nodec} - 27\, \beta^2\, \lambda + 6\, \beta^2\, \states{\nodec}^2 + 2\, \beta^3\, \states{\nodec}^3 + 3\, \sqrt{3}\, \beta^3\, \sqrt{-\frac{\lambda\, \left(4\, \beta^3\, \states{\nodec}^3 + 12\, \beta^2\, \states{\nodec}^2 - 27\, \lambda\, \beta^2 + 12\, \beta\, \states{\nodec} + 4\right)}{\beta^4}} + 2\right)}^{\frac{1}{3}}} \end{matrix}.\]
This solution is viable only when \coefs{\nodec} is real valued, which corresponds to the range
$\states{\nodec} \geq \left(3\left(\frac{\thresh}{4\beta}\right)^{1/3} - \frac{1}{\beta}\right).$
Outside of this range, no viable non-zero solution exists and so \coefs{\nodec} = 0. The full thresholding function is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:costs} for \thresh = 0.5 and $\beta$ = 2. While it is interesting that an analytic form can be determined for this activation function, the expression is obviously very complex and would likely have to be approximated by curve fitting in any circuit implementation.
\subsubsection{Huber Function}
\label{sec:hubercost}
The Huber cost function~\cite{HUB:1973} aims to modify standard $\ell^2$ optimization to improve the robustness to outliers. This cost function consists of a quadratic cost function on smaller values and a smooth transition to an \lo cost on larger values, given by
\[\costf{\coefs{\nodec}} =
\begin{cases}
\frac{\coefs{\nodec}^2}{2\epsilon} & 0 \leq |\coefs{\nodec}| \leq \epsilon \\
|\coefs{\nodec}| - \frac{\epsilon}{2} & \epsilon < |\coefs{\nodec}| \\
\end{cases}.
\]
An example of the Huber cost is shown in Figure \ref{fig:costs} for \thresh = 0.5 and $\epsilon$ = 0.3.
As in the case of other piecewise cost functions, we calculate the activation function separately over each interval of interest by calculating the derivative of the cost function in each region. For the first interval, the relationship is given by
$\frac{\thresh\coefs{\nodec}}{\epsilon} = \states{\nodec} - \coefs{\nodec}$, which obviously gives the activation function
$\tfunc{\thresh}{\states{\nodec}} = \frac{\epsilon\states{\nodec}}{\epsilon + \thresh}$ for $|\states{\nodec}| \leq \epsilon + \thresh$.
For the second interval, we have
$\thresh\frac{\coefs{\nodec}}{|\coefs{\nodec}|} = \states{\nodec} - \coefs{\nodec}$,
which yields the activation function
$\tfunc{\thresh}{\states{\nodec}} = \states{\nodec}\left(1 - \frac{\thresh}{|\states{\nodec}|}\right)$ for $|\states{\nodec}| > \epsilon + \thresh$. Putting the pieces together, the full activation function (as expected) is a mixture of the Tikhonov regularization and the soft thresholding used for \lo optimization given by
\[\coefs{\nodec} = \tfunc{\thresh}{\states{\nodec}} =
\begin{cases}
\frac{\epsilon\states{\nodec}}{\epsilon + \thresh} & |\states{\nodec}| \leq \epsilon + \thresh\\
\states{\nodec}\left(1 - \frac{\thresh}{|\states{\nodec}|}\right) & |\states{\nodec}| > \epsilon + \thresh\\
\end{cases},
\]
which is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:costs} for \thresh = 0.5 and $\epsilon$ = 0.3. We can see that as $\epsilon \rightarrow 0$, the cost function converges to the \lo norm and the thresholding function correctly converges back to the soft-threshold function derived earlier using the log-barrier method.
\subsubsection{Amplitude Scale Invariant Bayes Estimation}
\label{sub:ABE}
A known problem with using the \lo norm as a cost function is that it is not scale invariant, meaning that the results can be poor if the amplitude of the input signals changes significantly (assuming a constant value of \thresh). Many cost functions (including the ones presented above) are heuristically motivated, drawing on intuition and tradeoffs between the behavior of various $\ell^p$ norms. In contrast, Figueiredo and Nowak~\cite{NOW:2001} approach the problem from the perspective of Bayesian inference with a Jeffreys' prior to determine a cost function with more invariance to amplitude scaling, similar to the non-negative Garrote~\cite{GAO:1998}. We consider here the cost function
\[\costf{\coefvec} = \sum_{\nodec} -\frac{\coefs{\nodec}^2}{4\thresh} + \frac{\coefs{\nodec}\sqrt{\coefs{\nodec}^2 + 4\thresh^2}}{4\thresh} + \thresh\log\left( \coefs{\nodec} + \sqrt{\coefs{\nodec}^2 + 4\thresh^2} \right), \]
which is proportional to the one given by Figueiredo and Nowak~\cite{NOW:2001} and is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:costs} for \thresh = 0.5.
Taking the derivative of this cost function, we end up with the relationship between \states{\nodec} and \coefs{\nodec}
\[\states{\nodec} - \coefs{\nodec} = -2\thresh\frac{\coefs{\nodec}}{4\thresh} + \frac{2\thresh}{4\thresh}\sqrt{\coefs{\nodec}^2 + 4\thresh^2}. \] Solving for \coefs{\nodec} as a function of \states{\nodec} yields the following activation function,
\[\coefs{\nodec} = \tfunc{\thresh}{\states{\nodec}} =
\begin{cases}
0 & \states{\nodec}\leq \thresh\\
(\states{\nodec}^2-\thresh^2)/\states{\nodec} & \states{\nodec}> \thresh\\
\end{cases}, \]
matching the results from Figueiredo and Nowak~\cite{NOW:2001}. This activation function is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:costs} for \thresh = 0.5.
\subsection{Block \lo}
\label{sub:blockL1}
While all cost functions discussed earlier in this section have been separable, there is increasing interest in the signal processing community in non-separable cost functions that capture structure (i.e., statistical dependencies) between the non-zero coefficients. Perhaps the most widely cited cost function discussed in this regard is the block \lo norm (also called the group \lo norm), which assumes that the coefficients representing \insig are active in known groups. In this framework, the coefficients are divided into blocks, $\coefsub{\subind} \subset \left\{ \coefs{\nodec} \right\}$ and each block of coefficients \coefsub{\subind} is represented as a vector \coefgrp{\subind}. For our purposes, we assume the blocks are non-overlapping but may have different cardinalities. The block \lo norm~\cite{ELD:2010} is defined as the \lo norm over the $\ell^2$ norms of the groups,
\[ \costfj{\coefvec} = \sum_{\subind}{\left\|\coefgrp{\subind}\right\|_2}, \label{eqn:Cblock} \]
essentially encouraging sparsity between the blocks (i.e., requiring only a few groups to be active) with no individual penalty on the coefficient values within a block. Because this cost is not separable, the activation function will no longer be a pointwise nonlinearity and will instead have multiple inputs and multiple outputs.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[height=2.5in]{figs/20111031_glasso_plot.pdf}
\caption{The nonlinear activation function used in the LCA to optimize the non-overlapping group LASSO cost function has multiple inputs and multiple outputs. The plot shows an example thresholding function for both elements in a group of size two (\thresh = 0.5), with each line illustrating the nonlinear effect on \coefs{1} while \states{2} is held constant.}
\label{fig:GLASSO}
\end{figure}
Following the same general approach as above, we calculate the gradient of the cost function for each block,
\[ \gradcoef{\coefgrp{\subind}}\costfj{\coefvec} = \frac{\coefgrp{\subind}}{\left\|\coefgrp{\subind}\right\|_2}, \]
yielding the following relationship between the activation function inputs and outputs
\begin{equation}
\stategrp{\subind} = \coefgrp{\subind} + \thresh \frac{\coefgrp{\subind}}{\left\|\coefgrp{\subind}\right\|_2}.
\label{eqn:group_norms}
\end{equation}
While directly solving this relationship for $\coefgrp{\subind}$ appears difficult, we note that we can simplify the equation by expressing $\left\|\coefgrp{\subind}\right\|_2$ in terms of $\left\|\stategrp{\subind}\right\|_2$. To see this, take the norm of both sides of~\eqref{eqn:group_norms} to get $\left\|\stategrp{\subind}\right\|_2 = \left\|\coefgrp{\subind}\right\|_2 + \thresh$. Substituting back into~\eqref{eqn:group_norms}, the relationship simplifies to
\[ \tfuncj{\thresh}{\stategrp{\subind}} = \coefgrp{\subind} = \stategrp{\subind}\left(1 - \frac{\thresh}{\left\|\stategrp{\subind}\right\|_2}\right) \]
over the range $0 \leq \left\|\coefgrp{\subind}\right\|_2 = \left\|\stategrp{\subind}\right\|_2 - \thresh$, implying $\thresh \leq \left\|\stategrp{\subind}\right\|_2$.
This relationship yields the block-wise thresholding function
\[\coefgrp{\subind} = \tfuncj{\thresh}{\stategrp{\subind}} =
\begin{cases}
0 & \left\|\stategrp{\subind}\right\|_2 \leq \thresh\\
\stategrp{\subind}\left(1 - \frac{\thresh}{\left\|\stategrp{\subind}\right\|_2}\right) & \left\|\stategrp{\subind}\right\|_2 > \thresh\\
\end{cases}.
\]
This activation function can be thought of as a type of shrinkage operation applied to an entire group of coefficients, with a threshold that depends on the norm of the group inputs. For the case of groups of two elements (with $\thresh=0.5$), Figure~\ref{fig:GLASSO} shows the nonlinearities for each of the two states as a function of the value of the other state.
\subsection{Re-weighted \lo and $\ell^2$}
\label{sub:reweightedL1}
Recent work has also demonstrated that re-weighted $\ell^p$ norms can achieve better sparsity by iteratively solving a series of tractable convex programs~\cite{WIP:2010,YIN:2008,CAN:2008,GAR:2010}. For example, re-weighted \lo~\cite{CAN:2008} is an iterative algorithm where a single iteration consists of solving a weighted \lo minimization $\left(\costfj{\coefvec} = \sum_\nodec \thresh_{\nodec} |\coefs{\nodec}|\right)$, followed by a weight update according to the rule
\begin{gather}
\thresh_\nodec \propto \frac{1}{|\coefs{\nodec}| + \gamma}, \label{eq:rwL1_lambdaupdate}
\end{gather}
where $\gamma$ is a small parameter. By having $\thresh_\nodec$ approximately equal to the inverse of the \lo norm of the coefficient from the previous iteration, this algorithm is more aggressive than BPDN at driving small coefficients to zero and increasing sparsity in the solutions.
Similarly, re-weighted $\ell^2$ algorithms~\cite{WIP:2010} have also been used to approximate different $p$-norms with weights updated as
\[ \thresh_\nodec \propto \frac{1}{\left(\coefs{\nodec}^2 + \gamma\right)^{(\frac{p}{2}-1)}}. \]
Such schemes have shown many empirical benefits over $\ell^p$ norm minimization, and recent work on re-weighted \lo has established theoretical performance guarantees~\cite{KHA:2010} and interpretations as Bayesian inference in a probabilistic model~\cite{GAR:2010}.
One of the main drawbacks to re-weighted algorithms is the time required for solving the weighted $\ell^p$ program multiple times.
Because we have established earlier that the LCA architecture can solve the $\ell^p$ norm optimizations (and weighted norms are a straightforward extension to those results), it would immediately follow that a dynamical system could be used to perform the optimization necessary for each iteration of the algorithm. While this would be a viable strategy (and would save significant time compared to digital solvers, as evidenced by the results in Section~\ref{sub:convergence_time}), we show here that even more advantages can be gained by performing the entire re-weighted \lo algorithm in the context of a dynamical system. Specifically, we consider here a modified version of the LCA where an additional set of dynamics are placed on \thresh in order to simultaneously optimize the coefficients and coefficient weights in an analog system. While the ideas here are expandable to the general re-weighted case, we focus on results involving the re-weighted \lo as presented in~\cite{GAR:2010}.
The modified LCA is given by the system equations:
\[ \begin{matrix} \timc_{\statesym}\dot{\statevec}(t) = \fvecmat^T\insig - \statevec(t) - \left(\fvecmat^T\fvecmat - \bm{I}\right)\coefvec(t) \\ \coefvec(t) = \tfunc{\threshvec}{\statevec(t)} \\ \timc_{\thresh}\dot{\threshs{\nodec}}(t) = \threshs{\nodec}^{-1}(t) - \nu^{-1}\left(|\coefs{\nodec}(t)| + \gamma\right) \end{matrix}. \]
At steady state, $\dot{\threshvec}$ = 0 which shows that \threshs{\nodec}($\infty$) abides by~\eqref{eq:rwL1_lambdaupdate} with $\nu$ representing the proportionality constant. While the complete analysis of this expanded analog system is beyond the scope of this paper, we show in Figure~\ref{fig:rwl1mix}a simulations which demonstrate that this system reaches a solution of comparable quality to digital iterative methods. Figure~\ref{fig:rwl1mix}a plots the relative MSE from a CS recovery problem with length-1000 vectors from 500 noisy measurements with varying levels of sparsity. We sweep the parameter $\rho = S/M$ from zero to one and set the noise variance to $10^{-4}$, with each plot representing the relative MSE averaged over 15 randomly chosen signals. Figure~\ref{fig:rwl1mix}(a) plots the recovery quality for three systems: iterative re-weighted \lo (using GPSR to solve the \lo iterations), iterative re-weighted \lo (using the LCA to solve the \lo iterations), and dynamic re-weighted \lo which uses the modified LCA described above. It is clear that the three systems are achieving nearly the same quality in their signal recovery. Figure~\ref{fig:rwl1mix}b plots the convergence of the recovery as a function of time (in terms of system time constants $\tau$) for the iterative and dynamic re-weighted approaches using the LCA. The dynamically re-weighted system clearly converges more quickly, achieving its final solution in approximately the time it takes to perform two iterations of the traditional re-weighting scheme using the standard LCA.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=6in]{figs/20110816_RWl1_ConvMix2.pdf}
\caption{Re-weighted \lo optimization in digital algorithms and in a modified LCA. (a) Re-weighted \lo optimization for a signal with
$N = 1000$ and $\delta$ = 0.5, with $\rho$ swept from 0 to 1. The traditional iterative re-weighting scheme is performed with both a standard digital algorithm (GPSR) and the LCA. For comparison, a dynamic re-weighting scheme where the LCA is modified to have continuous dynamics on the regularization parameter (rather than discrete iterations) is also shown. Each method is clearly achieving similar solutions. (b) The temporal evolution of the recovery relative MSE for a problem with $N = 1000$, $\delta$ = 0.6 and $\rho$ = 0.45. Solutions are shown for the amount of simulated time (in terms of number of time constants). The dynamically re-weighted system converges in approximately the time it takes to use the LCA to solve two iterations of the traditional re-weighted \lo algorithm.}
\label{fig:rwl1mix}
\end{figure}
|
\section*{Methods and materials}
\paragraph*{Sample preparation and characterization\\}
High-quality superlattices (SLs) composed of $N$ u.c. thick consecutive layers of $\rm LaNiO_3$ and $\rm LaAlO_3$ were grown by pulsed-laser deposition from stoichiometric targets using a KrF excimer laser with 2\,Hz pulse rate and 1.6\,J/cm$^2$ energy density. Both compounds were deposited in 0.5 mbar oxygen atmosphere at 730$^{\circ}$C and subsequently annealed in 1 bar oxygen atmosphere at 690$^{\circ}$C for 30 min. We have grown SLs on two kinds of single-crystalline
substrates: $\rm SrTiO_3$, which induces tensile strain in the overlayer, and $\rm LaSrAlO_4$, which induces compressive strain (see Table SI).
All substrates were 10\,mm$\times$10\,mm$\times$0.5\,mm or 5\,mm$\times$5\,mm$\times$0.5\,mm (001)-oriented plates with a miscut angle $<$ 0.1$^{\circ}$.
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\renewcommand{\thetable}{SI}
\caption{Average lattice constants of 100 nm thick $N = 2$ SLs grown
on (001)-oriented $\rm SrTiO_3$ and $\rm LaSrAlO_4$ substrates (determined from the main (103) layer Bragg peak positions in Figs. 1B and 1C) in comparison with the lattice constants of strain-free pseudo-cubic $\rm LaNiO_3$ and $\rm LaAlO_3$ and the same substrates.}
\begin{tabular}{ccccccc}
\hline\hline
& SL on LaSrAlO$_4$ & SL on SrTiO$_3$ & $\rm LaNiO_3$& $\rm LaAlO_3$& $\rm LaSrAlO_4$ & $\rm SrTiO_3$\\
\hline
$a,b$ (\AA)& 3.769& 3.845& 3.837&3.789&3.756&3.905 \\
$c$ (\AA)&3.853&3.790& 3.837& 3.789&12.636&3.905\\
\hline\hline
\end{tabular
\end{table}
We chose to work on 100 nm thick SLs in order to enhance the dielectric response and to confine the muon stopping distribution within the SL. The chosen thickness range also allows us to avoid complications arising from initial growth of TMO layers on a substrate \cite{Jak}.
The growth rates for the individual layers were controlled
by counting laser pulses in combination with feedback from high-resolution x-ray diffraction measurements. The crystallinity, superlattice structure, and sharpness of the interfaces (with roughness $<$ 1 u.c.) were verified by momentum-dependent x-ray reflectivity and high-resolution hard x-ray diffraction
\begin{figure}[h]
\includegraphics*[width=\columnwidth]{XRD.jpg}
\caption{
High-resolution x-ray diffraction measured with 10\,keV synchrotron radiation at the MPI-MF beamline of the ANKA facility at the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology for the (A, B) 30 nm ($N=4$) and (C, D) 100 nm ($N=2$) thick superlattices on (A,C) $\rm SrTiO_3$ and (B, D) $\rm LaSrAlO_4$. The thickness of the SL in (D) is determined from the hard x-ray reflectivity measurements in Fig. 2D. The 100 nm thick samples were used for low-energy muon spin rotation and ellipsometry experiments.
\label{XRD}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\includegraphics*[width=1.00\columnwidth]{Refl.jpg}
\caption{
Hard x-ray reflectivity measured with Cu $K\alpha $ radiation and fits for the (A) 23 nm and (B) 100 nm thick $N=2$ superlattices on $\rm SrTiO_3$ and 100 nm thick (C) $N=2$ and (D) $N=4$ superlattices on $\rm LaSrAlO_4$. The samples in (C-D) were used for low-energy muon spin rotation and ellipsometry experiments. \label{Refl}}
\end{figure}
\begin{SCfigure}[][htb]
\includegraphics*[width=0.56\columnwidth]{TEM1.jpg}
\caption{High-angle annular dark field image of the $\rm LaNiO_3\ ( 2\ u.c.)| LaAlO_3\ (1\ u.c.)$ superlattice. Subsequent dark (marked by arrows) and bright layers show the chemical variation of the layer system.
\label{TEM1}}
\end{SCfigure}
scans which revealed, besides the perovskite Bragg reflections, satellite peaks due to the long-range multilayer superstructure and Kiessig fringes caused by total-thickness interference.
Representative scans along the specular truncation rod are shown in Fig.~\ref{XRD} for samples grown on the different substrates with different individual layer thicknesses $N$ (u.c.), and total thicknesses $D$ (\AA). Symmetrically around the (001) layer Bragg peak one can see superlattice satellites and $M-2$ thickness fringe maxima, where $M$ is the number of bilayer repetitions. The position of the satellites corresponds to a $\rm LaNiO_3\ ( $$N$$\rm \ u.c.)| LaAlO_3\ ($$N$$\rm \ u.c.)$ \ bilayer thickness of 30\,$\pm$\,1\,\AA\, and 15.5\,$\pm$\,0.5\,\AA\, for the $N=4$ (Figs. S1A and S1B) and $N=2$ (Figs. 1C and 1D), respectively, that is in a good agreement with the $2 N c$ value, where $c$ is the average epilayer lattice constant in Table SI. Accordingly, the Kiessig fringes in Figs. S1 and S2 correspond to the total thickness $M\times 2 N c$. The thickness fringes for the 100 nm thick $N = 2$ SL on $\rm LaSAlO_4$ are damped at higher $l$ values in Fig. S1D, but well resolved in Fig. S2D. The x-ray reflectivity shown in Fig. S2 was also used to characterize the superlattice structure and sharpness of the interfaces. From fits to the reflectivity, using the Parratt algorithm and tabulated values for the optical constants
\renewcommand{\cite}[1]{S\citenum{#1}} (\cite{ReMagX},\cite{Parratt1954},
\cite{Chantler})\renewcommand{\cite}[1]{(S\citenum{#1})}, we obtained the thickness ($d_{LAO},\ d_{LNO}$) and roughness ($\sigma_{LAO},\ \sigma_{LNO}$) of the individual layers. Using a minimal set of fitting parameters (assuming $M$ identical $\rm LaNiO_3$ and $\rm LaAlO_3$ layers), we show in Fig. S2 a good description of the data. The roughness parameters are all around 1\,u.c or less and represent values averaged over a large area of $\sim$(10$\times$1)\,mm which corresponds to the x-ray spot size and inevitably contains planar defects such as stacking faults. This indicates the presence of atomically flat and abrupt interfaces. Some of the samples were also checked by high-resolution transmission electron microscopy (TEM), providing a local picture of the atomic stacking sequence. In Fig. S3 a high-angle annular dark-field image of a $\rm LaNiO_3\ ( 2\ u.c.)| LaAlO_3\ (1\ u.c.)$ SL is shown.
In this imaging mode, also known as $Z$-contrast, the contrast is proportional to $Z^n$, where $Z$ is the atomic number and $n$ is about 1.7. Subsequent dark (marked by arrows) and bright layers show a chemical variation of the layer system. In this example a sequence of two $\rm LaNiO_3$ layers and one $\rm LaAlO_3$ layer is visible which shows that even single layers can be deposited without distinct intermixing.
The superior quality of our samples is also supported by resonant reflectivity measurements performed on a sample grown under the same conditions. The analysis of those data allowed some of us to determine the atomic-layer resolved orbital polarization in these superlattices \cite{Benckiser}.
\paragraph*{Substrate-induced strain and relaxation effects\\}
In general, the physical properties of thin films are strongly influenced by substrate-induced strain and relaxation effects. It has thus far proven difficult to separate the influence of the dimensionality from that of other parameters such as the strain-induced local structural distortions and interfacial defects. In order to discriminate between these effects we chose to work on SLs grown on both $\rm SrTiO_3$, which induces tensile strain in the overlayer, and $\rm LaSrAlO_4$, which induces compressive strain. Our comprehensive reciprocal-space mapping (RSM) measurements \cite{Frano} supplemented by high-resolution TEM micrographs verified that strain and relaxation effects are strongly affected by inversion of the type of substrate-induced strain, but remain essentially unchanged by varying the individual layer thicknesses. In our study, we show that, on the contrary, the transport and magnetic properties of the SLs are almost unaffected by inversion of the type of substrate-induced strain, but qualitatively transformed by varying the number of consecutive unit cells within the LaNiO$_3$ layers. Since the metal-insulator and spin-ordering transitions occur in the $N = 2$ SLs irrespective of whether the substrate-induced strain is compressive or tensile, strain-induced local structural distortions and interfacial defects are ruled out as primary driving forces.
\begin{figure}[h]
\includegraphics*[width=1.0\columnwidth]{RSM.jpg}
\caption{Reciprocal-space maps in the vicinity of the symmetric (004) peak of the 100 nm thick $N=2$ superlattices on (A) $\rm SrTiO_3$ and (B) $\rm LaSrAlO_4$ substrates. The relaxation triangle is highlighted with a red line in (A). The angle $\beta \approx 2^{\circ}$ quantifies the amount
of gradual relaxation the SL has. (C) Horizontal cuts along the indicated in (B) $q_z$ values. The separation of the two twin peaks reveal the formation of twin domains.
\label{RSM}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\includegraphics*[width=1.0\columnwidth]{TEM2.jpg}
\caption{High-resolution TEM micrographs of $\rm LaAlO_3| LaNiO_3$ SLs on (A) $\rm LaSrAlO_4$ and (B) $\rm SrTiO_3$ substrates. Defects are marked by arrows. The inset in (A) shows a magnified area close to a planar defect. \label{TEM2}}
\end{figure}
Figure 1 of the main text shows contour maps of the diffracted X-ray intensity distribution in the vicinity of the $103$ perovskite Bragg peak for three representative samples: $N = 4$ and $N = 2$ SLs grown on $\rm LaSrAlO_4\ (001)$, and an $N = 2$ SL on $\rm SrTiO_3\ (001)$.
The analysis of the averaged in-plane and out-of-plane lattice constants (Table SI) indicates that compressive strain reduces the in-plane lattice parameter by $\Delta a/a \approx 1.8\ \%$ relative to the bulk $\rm LaNiO_3$ lattice, whereas tensile strain results in a reduction of the out-of-plane lattice constant by $\Delta c/c \approx 1.2\ \%$. These two types of local distortions in the perovskite structure are accommodated by rotations of the $\rm NiO_6$ octahedra about different Cartesian axes \cite{May}, which, in turn, exert an inequivalent influence on the $\rm LaNiO_3$ electronic structure. A distribution of the diffracted intensity near the epilayer reflection for SLs grown on $\rm LaSrAlO_4$ has a characteristic triangular shape, with dispersion along the in-plane ($Q_x$) direction towards the $103$ Bragg reflection of strain-free bulk $\rm LaNiO_3$. This is in contrast to the tensile-strained SLs grown on $\rm SrTiO_3$, where the strain relaxation is characterized by nearly elliptical contour lines close to the $103$ Bragg reflection of cubic $\rm LaAlO_3$. The tensile strain of $\rm SrTiO_3$ is $(67\pm3)\%$ relaxed, and by comparing with SLs of less total thickness, we identified a faint gradient-profile-relaxation effect as function of overlayer thickness, similar to the behavior observed in semiconductor heterostructures \renewcommand{\cite}[1]{S\citenum{#1}} (\cite{Heinke1}, \cite{Heinke2}).\renewcommand{\cite}[1]{(S\citenum{#1})} In addition to Fig. 1 of the main text, Fig. S4 shows RSMs of the symmetric 004 perovskite Bragg peak measured with synchrotron radiation at the MPI-MF beamline of the ANKA facility at the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology. The diffracted x-ray intensity distribution for the $N=2$ SL on $\rm SrTiO_3$ (Fig. S4A) exhibits the triangular shape described in Refs.\renewcommand{\cite}[1]{S\citenum{#1}} \cite{Heinke1} and \cite{Heinke2}.\renewcommand{\cite}[1]{(S\citenum{#1})}
The effect of triangular relaxation was not observed in the
thinner SL (not shown). Because the lattice constants of the thin SL are almost equal to the ones of the thick sample, the SLs grown on $\rm SrTiO_3$ seem to relax abruptly at the beginning of the growth. Further, from the peak shape evolution, the SL gradually relaxes the tensile strain. The subtle thickness evolution of the layer's relaxation indicates that it is the substrate surface where abrupt strain-adapting mechanisms take place. The effect of tensile strain on TMO heterostructures may produce oxygen vacancies \cite{Conchon},
which give rise to a different valence state of the Ni ion at the substrate interface \cite{Jak}. Figures S4B and S4C show that the distribution of the diffracted intensity near the epilayer reflection for SLs grown on $\rm LaSrAlO_4$ has a double-peak splitting along the in-plane ($Q_x$) direction. This intensity pattern (only seen in thicker SLs grown on $\rm LaSrAlO_4$) suggests the formation of twinning domains, as described in Refs.\renewcommand{\cite}[1]{S\citenum{#1}} \cite{Gebhardt1}, \cite{Gebhardt2}.\renewcommand{\cite}[1]{(S\citenum{#1})}
The two different relaxation mechanisms in the perovskite structure are confirmed by TEM measurements performed on samples grown under the same conditions as in our study. Figure S5 shows high-resolution TEM micrographs (recorded by a JEOL JEM4000FX microscope) of the $\rm LaNiO_3 - LaAlO_3$ layer systems. In the case of the $\rm LaSrAlO_4$ substrate (Fig. S5A) planar defects are visible (marked by arrows) which are oriented perpendicular to the substrate plane and extend through the entire SL. As shown in the magnified inset image, the stacking sequence changes at these faults (yellow broken line). The size of the defect-free blocks varies between 15 and 50 nm. The microstructure of the layer system on the $\rm SrTiO_3$ substrate (Fig. S5B) only very occasionally shows planar defects. Instead, localized defects are found close to the substrate (marked by arrows). These defects can be associated with the creation of oxygen vacancies and changes in the oxygen coordination of Ni ions at the substrate interface. Recent photon energy-dependent hard x-ray photoelectron spectroscopy measurements on some of our samples have confirmed that the initial growth on the $\rm SrTiO_3$ surface leads to the $\rm Ni^{2+}$ valence state \cite{Claessen}.
The oxygen vacancy formation energy gradually decreases with increasing the in-plane perovskite lattice spacing \cite{Kotomin}, which can explain the marked difference in the oxygen vacancy concentration in thin films grown under tensile or compressive strain \cite{Conchon}. Nevertheless, in our study, the temperature-induced phase transitions occur in the $N = 2$ (but not in $N = 4$) SLs irrespective of whether the substrate-induced strain is compressive or tensile, which clearly distinguishes these transitions from those in highly oxygen deficient $\rm LaNiO_{3-\delta}$ ($\delta \geq0.25$)
\renewcommand{\cite}[1]{S\citenum{#1}} (\cite{Sanchez}, \cite{Kawai}).\renewcommand{\cite}[1]{(S\citenum{#1})} Moreover, the reduced insulating phases require more than 1/3 of divalent $\rm Ni^{2+}$ in square planar (vs. perovskite octahedral) sites. Based on the detailed characterization of our samples by means of XRD, XAS, RSM, HAXPES, and TEM we can definitively rule out such a scenario.
In conclusion, our analysis confirms the excellent quality of the synthesized SLs, which exhibit abrupt interfaces and excellent crystallinity. Defect-free, atomically precise 15-50 nm blocks are separated by $\sim $ 1 u.c. stacking faults. These planar defects are inevitably caused by strain relaxation effects, and can block the current flow through the atomically thin layers. We have therefore used advanced local probes, such as spectroscopic ellipsometry and low-energy muons, to study the intrinsic electronic transport and magnetic properties of the heterostructures.
\paragraph*{Spectroscopic ellipsometry measurements and data analysis\\}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\includegraphics*[width=1.0\columnwidth]{ElliS1.jpg}
\caption{Experimental (open circles) and best-fit calculated (solid lines)
ellipsometry spectra of the N = 2 and N = 4 SLs on (A,B) $\rm LaSrAlO_4$ at $T=175$ K and (C,D) $\rm SrTiO_3$ at $T=100$ K. The angle of incidence of the polarized light was $\Phi_i=82.5^{\circ}$. Ellypsometry
spectra of the bare substrates measured at $\Phi_i=77.5^{\circ}$ are shown for comparison (black solid lines). The gray shaded area in (C,D) indicates the region where the data analysis is affected by dielectric microwave dispersion of the ferroelectric soft mode of $\rm SrTiO_3$.
\label{ElliS1}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\includegraphics*[width=1.0\columnwidth]{ElliS2.jpg}
\caption{Best-fit model functions $\varepsilon_1 (\omega)$ and $\varepsilon_2(\omega)$
for the N = 2 and N = 4 SLs on (A) $\rm LaSrAlO_4$ at $T=175$ K and (B) $\rm SrTiO_3$ at $T=100$ K, as obtained by inversion of the ellipsometric parameters in Fig. S6. The shaded lines represent the Drude model simultaneous fit to both $\varepsilon_1(\omega)$ and $\varepsilon_2(\omega )$ with parameters $\omega_{pl}$ and $\gamma $
described in the legends. The gray shaded area in (B) indicates the region where the model fitting curves deviate significantly from the data.
\label{ElliS2}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\includegraphics*[width=1.0\columnwidth]{dcS1.jpg}
\caption{Temperature dependence of the $dc$ (A) resistivity and (B) conductivity of the N = 2 (green) and N = 4 (blue) SLs on $\rm LaSrAlO_4$. Solid squares represent the conductivity obtained from the Drude model parameters in the legend of Fig. S7A, which exceeds the corresponding $\sigma^{dc}$ ($T=$ 175 K) values by less than 20 \%.
\label{dcS1}}
\end{figure}
We have used wide-band spectroscopic ellipsometry to accurately determine the dynamical electrical conductivity and permittivity of the SLs.
The distinct advantages of ellipsometry are as follows.
(i) In contrast to dc transport experiments, this method exposes the intrinsic electrodynamic response of the SLs, which is not influenced by the substrate, contacts, and extended defects. (ii) As a low-energy spectroscopic tool, it serves to determine critical parameters of the metal-insulator transition such as the energy gap and the density of carriers localized below $T_{MI}$. (iii) In comparison with other spectroscopic techniques, ellipsometry yields the frequency-dependent complex dielectric function without the need for reference measurements and Kramers-Kronig transformations. (iv) Variable angle ellipsometry is very sensitive to thin-film properties due to the oblique incidence of light, and it is generally used to derive optical constants of thin films and complex heterostructures \cite{Elli}.
The experimental setup comprises three ellipsometers to cover the spectral range of 12 meV to 6.5 eV. For the range 12 meV to 1 eV, we used a home-built ellipsometer attached to a standard Fast-Fourier-Transform Bruker 66v/S FTIR interferometer. The far-infrared measurements were performed at the infrared beamline IR1 of the Angström Quelle Karlsruhe ANKA synchrotron light source at the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology. For the mid-infrared measurements, we used the conventional glow-bar light source from a Bruker 66v/S FTIR. Finally, temperature dependencies of the pseudo-dielectric permittivity $\varepsilon^*_1$ at $\hbar \omega = 0.8$ eV were measured with a Woollam variable angle spectroscopic ellipsometer (VASE) equipped with an ultra high-vacuum cold-finger cryostat operated at $<5\times10^{-9}$ mbar chamber pressure.
The inherent capacity of Woollam VASE ellipsometers to measure relative changes of the dielectric function on the order of $10^{-2}$ was boosted to an unprecedented level of $10^{-4}$ using temperature-modulation measurements of the dielectric constant at particular photon energies.
The ellipsometric angles $\Psi$ and $\Delta$ are defined through the complex Fresnel reflection coefficients for light polarized parallel ($r_p$) and perpendicular ($r_s$) to the plane of incidence, $\tan \Psi \ e^{i\Delta}=r_p/r_s$.
Figure S6 shows representative infrared spectra of $\Psi(\omega)$ and $\Delta(\omega)$ for the $N = 4$ and $2$ SLs and for the bare $\rm LaSrAlO_4$ and $\rm SrTiO_3$ substrates. The details of the data analysis have been discussed elsewhere \cite{CROCMO}. The SLs were treated as single-layer films according to an effective-medium approximation with a mixture of the nickelate and aluminate layers. A wavelength-by-wavelength regression procedure has been employed to extract the real and imaginary parts of the dielectric function \cite{VASE}. Figure S7 shows the best-fit model functions $\varepsilon_1(\omega)$ and $\varepsilon_2(\omega )$ obtained by inversion of the ellipsometric parameters in Fig. S6. The infrared spectra are well described by a broad Drude response $\varepsilon(\omega)= \varepsilon_\infty - \omega_{pl}^2/(\omega^2+i\omega\gamma)$ with a ratio of scattering rate and plasma frequency $\gamma / \omega_{pl} \approx 0.1-0.2$ that is typical for bulk complex oxides.
The parameters in the Drude fit are well constrained, because both $\varepsilon_1(\omega)$ and $\varepsilon_2(\omega)$ are available. The deviation of the Drude fit from the measured $\varepsilon_1(\omega)$ and $\varepsilon_2(\omega )$ below 30 meV in Fig. S7B (gray shadow area) can reflect the uncertainty in the inversion procedure for SLs on $\rm SrTiO_3$ due to the microwave dispersion of the ferroelectric soft mode of $\rm SrTiO_3$ \cite{Sirenko} and/or due to the presence of a dead layer with reduced conductivity at the substrate interface (Fig. S5B). This low-energy uncertainty does not, however, affect the relative spectral weight reduction, $\Delta SW \approx 0.03\ (\pm 10 \%)$ per Ni atom within the gap energy range below $\Omega_G\approx 0.43$ eV, at the metal insulator transition in the $N = 2$ SL on $\rm SrTiO_3$.
The effective mass enhancement $m^{*}/m $ is estimated from the
plasma frequency as
\begin{equation}
m^{*}/m = \frac{4 \pi e^2 n}{m \omega_{pl}^2}\approx \frac{11.7}{(\omega_{pl},[eV])^2},
\end{equation}
where $n=\frac{1}{2}\times 1.7\times 10^{22}$ cm$^{-3}$, by assuming one electron per Ni atom.
We note that $\omega_{pl}$ is almost independent of $N$, implying the volume fraction of the metallic $\rm LaNiO_3$ layers remains the same in all SLs. With $\omega_{pl} \approx 1.1$ eV, as derived from the Drude model fit in Fig. 2A, we obtain $m^{*}/m \approx 10$ which is in good agreement with the value for bulk $\rm LaNiO_3$ from the specific heat measurements \cite{Xu}. Using the Fermi energy $E_F=0.5$ eV derived from the thermopower of $\rm LaNiO_3$ \cite{Xu}, we estimate the Fermi velocity as
\begin{equation}
v_F = c \sqrt{\frac{2E_F}{m c ^2}\frac{m}{m^*}}\approx 1.33\times 10^{7} {\rm cm/s} .
\end{equation}
The mean free path, $l$, can be estimated from
\begin{equation}
l\ {\rm [\AA]} = v_F\tau=\frac{v_F}{2\pi c\gamma}= 6.57\times 10^{-5}\frac{v_F \ {\rm [cm/s]}}{\gamma \ {\rm [meV]}}\approx \frac{874}{\gamma \ {\rm [meV]}}.
\end{equation}
With $\gamma\approx $200 meV (90 meV), as derived from the Drude model fit in Fig. 2A and Fig. S7A, we obtain $l =$ 4.4 \AA \ (9.7 \AA) for the $N=2$ ($N=4$) SL on $\rm LaSrAlO_4$. For the $N=2$ ($N=4$) SL on $\rm SrTiO_3$ we estimate $l =$ 6.4 \AA \ (12 \AA), respectively. Remarkably, the mean free path correlates with the individual $\rm LaNiO_3$ layer thickness, testifying, along with the constant volume fraction of the metallic layers, to the atomic quality of the interfaces .
Our results indicate that, even in the $N=2$ samples at $T \gtrsim T_{MI}$, the conductivity of the $\rm LaNiO_3$ layers exhibits a clearly metallic temperature and frequency dependence. We define $T_{MI}$ as the temperature at which the temperature derivatives of both $\varepsilon_2(T)$ (Figs. 2A and 2B) and $\varepsilon_1(T)$ (Figs. 2C and 2D) change sign. The consistent temperature evolution of $\varepsilon_1$ and $\varepsilon_2$ over a broad range of photon energies
demonstrates the intrinsic nature of the charge-localization transition observed in SLs with $N =2$. In the $\omega \rightarrow 0$ limit this criterion is analogous to a sign change of the temperature derivative of the $dc$ resistivity, $d\rho/dT$, observed at $T_{MI}$ in bulk $R$NiO$_3$. This is in contrast to results of recent $dc$ electrical resistivity measurements where the insulating behavior of 2 u.c. thick $\rm LaNiO_3$ is attributed to variable range hopping transport \cite{May2} or film-substrate interface effects \renewcommand{\cite}[1]{S\citenum{#1}} (\cite{Scherwitzl}, \cite{Son}).\renewcommand{\cite}[1]{(S\citenum{#1})}
For a thickness of $N=2 $ u.c. the behavior of $\rm (LaNiO_3)_N/(SrMnO_3)_2$ SLs is insulating over the entire temperature range, whereas the $N=4 $ u.c. SL is metallic with an upturn in resistivity below 50 K. Even in the $N=4$ u.c. metallic sample, the mean free path $\l$ is estimated to be less than a single unit cell \cite{May2}. This suggests that Anderson localization induced by disorder is responsible for the insulating behavior in these systems, in contrast to the sharp temperature dependence observed in our SLs that indicates a metal-insulator transition driven by collective interactions. Ultrathin single films of $\rm LaNiO_3$ show a crossover from metallic to insulating behavior at a larger thickness
\renewcommand{\cite}[1]{S\citenum{#1}} (\cite{Scherwitzl}, \cite{Son}),\renewcommand{\cite}[1]{(S\citenum{#1})} which varies from 6 u.c. to 13 u.c. depending on the substrate. We argue that the presence of planar stacking fault defects and a dead layer with reduced conductivity at the substrate interface, as discussed above (Fig. S5), makes the analysis of the temperature-dependent resistivity measurements challenging and inconclusive about the conduction mechanism of ultrathin $\rm LaNiO_3$ films. Nevertheless, in order to directly compare our results with those reported in Refs.
\renewcommand{\cite}[1]{S\citenum{#1}} \cite{May2}, \cite{Scherwitzl}, and \cite{Son},\renewcommand{\cite}[1]{(S\citenum{#1})}
we have also performed $dc$ resistivity measurements on the $N=2$ and $N=4$ SLs on $\rm LaSrAlO_4$. Figure S8 shows that the $dc$ resistivity of the $N=2$ SL exhibits a crossover from metallic to insulating phase behavior below $T_{MI}\approx $ 150 K . The sharp temperature dependence in the insulating state does not fit to the stretched exponential function \cite{May2} and can not be attributed to variable range hopping transport. Figure S8 also shows that our $dc$ and optical conductivity data (Figs. 2A and S7A) are in close agreement. This resemblance once more indicates a low density of stacking faults in our samples.
\paragraph*{Low-energy $\mu$SR instrumentation and data analysis\\}
Low energy muon spin rotation/relaxation (LE-$\mu $SR) uses $\sim 100 \%$ spin polarized positive muons of tunable keV-scale energy to study local magnetic properties of thin films or heterostructures as a function of the muon implantation depth. The details of the data acquisition and analysis have been described elsewhere \renewcommand{\cite}[1]{S\citenum{#1}} (\cite{Thomas}, \cite{muSR})
\renewcommand{\cite}[1]{(S\citenum{#1})}. More details of the LE-$\mu $SR methods and apparatus can be found on the website of the LEM group at Paul Scherrer Institute \cite{LEMweb}. This technique has been recently successfully applied to the case of magnetic ultra-thin films \cite{LEMmuSR1} and wires \cite{LEMmuSR2}.
\begin{SCfigure}[][htb]
\includegraphics*[width=0.56\columnwidth]{LEM1.jpg}
\caption{Muon stopping profile in the $N=2$ SL showing the calculated probability that $\mu^+$ with an implantation energy of 5 keV (black), 11 keV (blue), and 15 keV (red) comes to rest at a certain depth near the surface.
\label{LEM1}}
\end{SCfigure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\includegraphics*[width=\columnwidth]{LEM2.jpg}
\caption{Zero-field $\mu$SR function observed in the $N=2$ SL on $\rm LaSrAlO_4$ at 5 K. The solid lines represent the best-fit curves for (A) the two-component model function described in the manuscript and (B) Eq.(4), respectively.
\label{LEM2}}
\end{figure}
Figure S9 shows the muon stopping profile calculated for $\rm LaAlO_3| LaNiO_3$ SLs using the Monte Carlo algorithm TRIM.SP
\renewcommand{\cite}[1]{S\citenum{#1}} (\cite{Morenzoni}, \cite{Eckstein})
\renewcommand{\cite}[1]{(S\citenum{#1})}.
In our study we found that varying the stopping distribution of $\mu^+$ on the scale of about 50-800 $\AA$ through the control of the implantation energy between 5-15 keV had no effect on the $\mu $SR spectra. The experimental LE-$\mu $SR curves in Figs. 3A to 3D were measured with muons of energy 10 keV, which are implanted at a mean depth of 45 nm. The initial asymmetry, $A(0)\approx 0.18$, is smaller than the asymmetry of the LE-$\mu $SR setup of $\approx 0.27$, because only 2/3 of the muon beam with a diameter of about 2 cm hit the sample with an area of $1 \times 2$ cm$^2$. The sample was surrounded by a Ni-coated sample holder, which causes a very fast depolarization ($< 0.06$ $\mu$s) of muons missing the sample.
The obtained spectra $\mu $SR spectra yield the probability distribution of the local magnetic field at the muon sites. As a local probe, $\mu$SR does not allow definite conclusions about the magnetic ordering pattern in the $N=2$ SLs. However, we rule out ferromagnetism based on an estimate of the ordered moment on the Ni sites from the $\mu $SR lineshape, $\mu_{Ni}\gtrsim 0.5\mu_B$ (see the main text of the manuscript). If these moment were co-aligned in the ordered state, the corresponding total moment $M=\mu_{Ni}n_{\rm Ni}V_{SL} \gtrsim 7.7\times 10^{-4}$ emu would have been readily detected in magnetization measurements. The absence of such an effect, which we confirmed in magnetometric measurements with sensitivity $\sim 10^{-7}$ emu.
We can also rule out a spin-glass state as the ground state of $N=2$ SLs, bearing in mind that oxygen deficient $\rm LaNiO_{2.75}$ exhibits spin-glass like behavior at low temperatures \cite{Sanchez}. A spin-glass state develops gradually due to randomly fluctuating local moments. In this case, the spin relaxation function should be exponential with a unique rate already at temperatures above about four times the actual glass transition temperature, $\sim $ 80 - 100 K \cite{Campbell}, which is at variance with the sharp temperature onset of the local moment observed in our data (Fig. 3A and solid squares in Fig. 4 of the manuscript). A similarly sharp transition was very recently observed by x-ray magnetic circular dichroism (XMCD) measurements in a magnetic field of 5T on a sample with $N=2$ grown under the same conditions \cite{XMCD}.
Additional evidence against a spin glass state can be derived from an analysis of the muon relaxation function. At low temperature, the spin-glass relaxation function in zero field can be described by \cite{Uemura}
\begin{equation}
A(t) = A_0[\frac{1}{3}\exp(-\sqrt{\lambda_dt})+\frac{2}{3}(1-\frac{\sigma^2t^2}{\sqrt{\lambda_dt+\sigma^2t^2}})\exp(-\sqrt{\lambda_dt+\sigma^2t^2}]
\end{equation}
with $\sigma\equiv\sqrt{q}\sigma_s$ and $\lambda_d\equiv 4\sigma_s^2(1-q)/\nu$, where $q$ is the Edwards-Anderson order parameter with the purely static and dynamic limits, $q =$ 1 and $q =$ 0, respectively, $\sigma_s$ is the static width of local fields at the muon site, and $\nu $ is the rate of the randomly fluctuating moments. This form of the relaxation function is expected for $\mu^+$ in coexisting static and dynamic random local fields.
The fit of Eq. (4) to the time evolution of the zero-field muon spin polarization for the $N=2$ SL on $\rm LaSrAlO_4$ at 5 K (Fig. S10) gives reasonable parameters, i.e. close to the static limit with $q \approx$ 0.993, $\sigma_s = 11 - 15\ \mu $s$^{-1}$, and $\nu \approx 2\ \mu $s$^{-1}$. Nevertheless,
the simpler two-component model function, as described in the manuscript, provides a better fit to the data below 0.2 $\mu$s than the spin-glass function of Eq. (2). The analysis is consistent with long-range static antiferromagnetic order and confirms the conclusion of our manuscript.
|
\section{\label{Intro}Introduction}
The success of Quantum Mechanics (QM) as a physical theory is obviously
beyond any doubt;
the issue of whether all quantum states have a physical counterpart,
or it is just a subset of them (depending on conditions of space-like
separation for instance), seems still open, though.
So far,
the so-called Bell inequalities \cite{Bell64,CHSH69,CH74} have been
the main tools available to investigate the question,
providing a remarkably simple critieria to discriminate between QM and
what is usually known as local-realism or local causality.
In principle, Bell inequalities are derived solely on the hypothesis of
space-like separation and the axioms of probability,
and therefore, their violation implies accepting some sort of intantaneous
action-at-a-distance (which, quite strinkinlgy, does not decay with increasing
distance) or, even more strikingly, a departure of realism itself.
This last point is not superfluous, as a recent experimental test
\cite{Kot_et_al12}, where no locality element is involved, would
point precisely to that.
However, once on experimental grounds things are not so straightforward.
In tests with massive particles, space-like isolation between the parties
is difficult to guarantee, what many refer to as the ``locality loophole''.
In experiments with photons, Pearle and Wigner \cite{Pearle70,Wigner70} already
noticed early on that caution was needed when not all measurements expected
to produce a detection actually did such,
a subtlety that left room, in most practical cases, for the existence
of a model making use of local hidden variables (LHV) and able to
reproduce the results of the test.
This is usually referred to as the ``detection loophole'';
I have reasons to believe that in \cite{Kot_et_al12}, in spite of the
use of techniques that guarantee a proper result for all measurements,
another ``detection loophole'' is still operating (based on the time
stamps where these measurements or detections take place),
something on which we will briefly comment here, too (Sec.\ref{OT}).
Despite their somehow peculiar status as ``particles'' in nature,
hence perhaps not the ideal candidate to test such fundamental
questions,
Bell tests with photons seem to present clear technnical advantages,
as well as very promising applications.
It is then understandable that most of the experimental effort has been
focused on them.
Bell inequalities usually tested in this context (photons) shall be
classified in \textit{homogeneous} and \textit{inhomogeneous},
attending to whether they contain terms (either correlations or simple
frequencies) of the same order (double coincidences, for instance)
or not;
see not \cite{hom}, or for instance \cite{Zela09} for recent reference
to these concepts.
Archetypes of these two classes are the Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt
\cite{CHSH69} and Clauser-Horne \cite{CH74} inequalities, respectively:
see App.\ref{CH_and_CHSH} for quick reference.
In a real experiment and as already advanced, each type presents its
own weaknesess.
Homogeneoeus inequalities, while making possible the observation
of substantial violations, rely on a fair sampling of the
physical state being tested,
something that, as widely recognized, can be challenged at least below
a certain threshold of the (relative) detection rate ($\eta$),
usually known as "critical detection efficiency" ($\eta_{\rm crit}$).
On the other hand,
inhomogeneous inequalities would theoretically seem to by-pass the possibility
of unfair sampling, a property derived from the involvement of probabilities of
different order (marginal and coincidence);
however, low detection rates also pose a problem due to their direct
quantitative effect on the observable frequencies, giving rise to yet another
critical value $\eta_{\rm crit}$ below which no violation is obtainable
(on the contrary, high violations of homogeneous inequalities can be obtained
even for very low $\eta$'s, see App.\ref{App_2} for more details).
Yet, in spite of the detection loophole (i.e., the way in which low detection
rates burden the inequality) being, as already hinted, not entirely equivalent
in one and other case,
we can still generalize the term ``critical detection efficiency'' by giving
a definition convergent in both cases:
$\eta_{\rm crit}$ is simply the value of $\eta$ such that no LHV model can reproduce
the observed violation.
The problem of determining $\eta_{\rm crit}$, and that of finding scenarios with
the minimum possible $\eta_{\rm crit}$, have, as one could naturally expect,
consistently attracted a lot of attention,
\cite{Eb93,GM87,Larsson98,LS01,CL07,CRV08,BG08,BGSS07,CLR09,Garbarino2010,PBS2011}.
A recent and particularly exhaustive effort, as well as close to ours here,
can be found in \cite{Joao}.
However, these works usually assume, at least in what regards inhomogeneous
inequalities and with few exceptions \cite{Joao},
additional restrictions on the LHV models model they aim to disprove, conditions
that may not be justified as we will later see.
Quite symptomatic is perhaps the fact that the converse question,
i.e., what physics the structure of the LHV models able to account for quantum
predictions may have been giving us hints about, has on the contrary enjoyed
almost no attention, little more than \cite{Risco_PHD}, actually.
In any case,
critical detection efficiencies pose a severe problem in every single
Bell test making use of photons:
they are usually beyond what it has been achieved so far.
Whether this is caused just by our technological limitations or it is the
expression of the fact that local-realism may be setting a constraint on the
results that are physically realizable is a matter of opinion.
What it is not is that alternative models have been proposed \cite{WPDC}
that describe the standard technique of Parametric Down Conversion (PDC),
which is of generalized use in (at least all the recent) developments,
and that can potentially explain such low detection rates, as a natural
consequence of their structure and regardless of additional inefficiency
factors one may wish to introduce;
i.e., taking to practice proposals such as \cite{BDDM05} may guarantee
a high detection efficiency, but this does not necessarily mean a
similar increase of the observed rate.
Such models have, too, received little or no attention at all.
At this point, there was no way forward but to modify the inequalities by
including some supplementary assumption that made them more suitable to be
tested experimentally;
this would motivate the distinction between genuine and non-genuine
inequalities, initially proposed by Santos \cite{genuine}:
genuine inequalities would not include supplementary assumptions,
non-genuine would.
The most usual supplementary assumption is probably Clauser and Horne's
\textit{no-enhancement} hypothesis \cite{no_enhancement}, on which we
will concentrate here;
based on \textit{no-enhancement}, several substantial violations of a
non-genuine version of the CH inequality have been accepted as incontestable
evidence of the gap between QM and local realism.
Nevertheless, such validation clearly hinges
on the validity of the supplementary assumption.
The first
contribution of this paper is to show clearly and directly how a breach of
\textit{no-enhancement}
can produce a strong violation of the corresponding non-genuine inequality.
The second contribution is to explore the converse question to that posed by
the Bell inequality literature:
what kinds of LHV models are able to account for the actually-observed quantum
predictions? This question has enjoyed
almost no attention, little more than \cite{Risco_PHD} actually.
For example, alternative models have been proposed \cite{WPDC}
that describe the standard technique of Parametric Down Conversion (PDC),
which is used in at least all the recent developments.
Those alternative models can potentially explain the observed low detection
rates, as a natural consequence of their structure and regardless of additional
inefficiency factors one may wish to introduce;
i.e., taking to practice proposals such as \cite{BDDM05} may guarantee
a high detection efficiency, but this does not necessarily mean a
similar increase of the observed rate.
Such models also predict \textit{enhancement} (ENH), a breach of no-enhancement,
but yet they have, too, received little or no attention at all.
Actually,
\textit{fair-sampling} has been invoked as a necessary supplementary assumption,
with no other argument than its apparent ``reasonableness'';
however, fair sampling does not stand from the point of view of \cite{WPDC}
either, in particular once the correlation between the intensities originated
in the source of the PDC is taken into account.
The weakness of no-enhancement as a supplementary assumption
is even more compelling than that of fair-sampling, as it hardly requires
the sophistication of models like \cite{WPDC};
as we will argue later, just the presence of a random background, that
recent works in the field now acknowledge as well \cite{Steering12}.
For a quick overview on the main tests related to our work here
see \cite{Aspect02};
of course since then there had been many more experiments, many of
them addressing not a Bell inequality but other alleged properties of
quantum states that are nevertheless related.
It is symptomatic, however, that even those as recent as
\cite{Peruzzo12, Kaiser12} explicitly acknowledge a detection loophole
(which does not necessarily render useless their results);
on the other hand, the series of papers in \cite{WPDC} has explored
in detail, from a local-realistic perspective or at least one somehow
close to us here,
a considerable number of experimental results, though perhaps
failing to address some fundamental questions in a sufficiently direct
way (a local-realistic interpretation of the detection model, for
instance).
Finally,
there are Bell inequalities which require neither fair sampling nor
no-enhancement as an additional assumption;
one is the so-called Eberhard's inequality which has been used in a
recent test \cite{G13}.
In this inequality, each non-detection is treated as just another proper
result, which deactivates the action of the detection loophole;
however,
(i) the conclusiveness of a test based on this inequality is still
conditioned to the validity of the hypothesis its derivation is based
upon: in this case space-like separation between the observers;
(ii) the test says nothing on whether the properties of the underlying
state would lead or not to unfair sampling, had we performed a different
test, but just on the existence (or not) of a model based on LHVs.
Neither (i) nor (ii) seem to have been addressed with the necessary
caution in the corresponding report, as we will argue later (Sec.\ref{OT}).
An exhaustive examination of supplementary assumptions for all
possible inequalities and scenarios being out of the scope
of this paper,
we hope the loss of generality may be somehow compensated by the
gain of credibility from a straightforward, merely algebraic
treatment,
one that does not require to depart from sophisticated models
or preconceptions.
With this in mind,
it will be convenient to
start from a well known model ${\cal M}$
simulating the quantum prediction for the CHSH \cite{CHSH69} inequality
(and hence exhibiting unfair sampling).
From here, our program will include:
\vspace{0.2cm}\noindent
(i)
showing that a new model ${\cal M}^{\prime}$ can be obtained from ${\cal M}$,
so as to contradict no-enhancement;
\vspace{0.2cm}\noindent
(ii)
demonstrating with some examples how this model can also lead to a violation
of the Clauser and Horne inequality \cite{CH74} (and presumably of any other
non-genuine inhomogeneous inequality based on no-enhancement);
\vspace{0.2cm}\noindent
(iii)
and finally considering what it would require for these models to go further
than (ii) and adapt, simultaneously, to all quantum predictions for a chosen
state and set of observables:
here we will give some necessary and sufficient conditions for the existence
of such models in some scenarios.
\vspace{0.1cm}\noindent
This program is supplemented with other additional material, which I
consider necessary to place everything into proper context;
such material includes an analysis of some recent experimental tests
\cite{G13,Kot_et_al12} which,
though may only have an indirect relation to the main line of this paper,
carry however important implications for the general background issues,
and that from our point of view here should not be left unchallenged.
The paper is structured as follows:
Sec.\ref{Basic} is aimed at providing all the basic concepts, tools and
definitions for our work here.
Departing from the initial LHV model given in Sec.\ref{LHV},
we supplement it with new instructions predetermining detection probabilities
when polarizers are removed, so that the validity no-enhancement assumption
can be challenged.
Then,
Sec.\ref{ENH} provides a particular example an LHV of model leading to a
violation of the non-genuine version of the CH inequality;
Sec.\ref{Full_M} addresses the feasibility of the full compliance with quantum
predictions departing from the former model, and
Sec.\ref{Disc} presents a discussion on the origin of ``enhancement''
as a physical phenomenon, and possible tests that may be performed in
this regard.
Sec.\ref{OT} addresses additional questions, and
Sec.\ref{RT} addresses recent reports of experimental evidence not
directly related to ENH.
Sec.\ref{UF_test} proposes a very basic test of unfair sampling, which
is not a necessary condition but may help clarify things.
Finally, some further discussion is included in Sec.\ref{FD},
and conclusions and last comments are provided in Sec.\ref{Conc}.
The Appendix provides auxiliary proofs and some other supplemental
material which may be of use.
\begin{figure}[ht!]
\includegraphics[width=0.95 \columnwidth,clip]{Figure_Bell_1.eps}
\caption{
At least so far,
experimental tests of Bell inequalities always include, implicitly
or explicitly, additional assumptions: (at least for our models here)
those assumptions are the ones that are violated, instead of local-realism.
The diagram does not intend to be exhaustive.
} \label{Scheme_Bell} \end{figure}
\section{\label{Basic}Basic concepts}
\subsection{\label{LHV}
An LHV model for the CHSH (optimal) correlations}
In an LHV description, the results of two pairs $A_1,A_2$ and $B_1,B_2$ of
space-like separated measurements can be expressed as a function of a vector of
hidden variables $\lambda$, and the respective orientations $\phi_i,\phi_j$
of the measuring apparatuses:
\begin{eqnarray}
A_i = A ( \phi_i, \lambda), \quad
B_j = B ( \phi_j, \lambda),
\label{obs}
\end{eqnarray}
assuming a deterministic description that will suffice for our purposes here
(any indeterminism can be modelled by adding new random variables to $\lambda$,
whether this are defined at the source or at each detector, see \cite{note_det}).
We now need to introduce an LHV model that reproduces, for the former two
pairs of observables, the quantum correlations giving rise to a maximal
violation of the CHSH (\ref{CHSH}) inequality.
This model can be obtained as a particular case of the family of models
given in \cite{CLR09}, for the case $N=2$ (two observers, two observables
per observer).
In this model, every pair of particles is in a ``state'' $(A_1,A_2;B_1,B_2)$ that
determines the response of particle 1 when $A_1$ or $A_2$ is measured, and the
response of particle 2 when $B_1$ or $B_2$ is measured.
Each particle has 3 possible responses to the local measurements: being detected by the
detector $-1$, being detected by the detector $+1$, or being undetected.
We denote them as $-1$, $+1$, and $0$, respectively.
For instance, $(+1,-1;+1,0)$ denotes the state in which if $A_1$ ($A_2$) is measured,
then particle $A$ will give the result $+1$ ($-1$), and if $B_1$ ($B_2$) is measured,
particle $B$ will give $+1$ (will not be detected).
Let us also make use of the following conventions:
$P(A_i)$ is the probability that particle $A$ is detected (giving either $1$ or $-1$)
when $A_i$ is measured, $P(A_i|B_j)$ is the probability that particle $A$ is detected
when $A_i$ is measured conditioned to the fact that particle $B$ has been detected
when $B_j$ has been measured, $P(A_i,B_j)$ is the probability that particle $A$ is
detected when $A_i$ is measured and particle $B$ is detected when $B_j$ is measured.
Later we will use $P(A)=P(A=1)$, $P(B)=P(B=1)$ to denote that particle $A$,$B$,
respectively, is detected when the polarizer is removed, with $A=0$, $B=0$, denoting
absence of detection.
Now, assuming that all the detectors have identical detection efficiency $\eta$, and
that this efficiency is independent of the observable measured, any LHV model must
satisfy the following restrictions:
\begin{eqnarray}
P(A_i)=P(B_j) & = & \eta, \label{marginal} \\
P(A_i|B_j)=P(B_i|A_j) & = & \eta, \label{conditional}
\end{eqnarray}
and, redundantly, $P(A_i, B_j) = \eta^2$ too, for all $i,j \in \{1,2\}$.
Besides, if the LHV model must reproduce the results of the Bell experiments on a
maximally entangled state, the following additional restrictions must be satisfied:
\begin{equation}
\langle A_i \rangle = \langle B_j \rangle = 0, \label{max_ent}
\end{equation}
for all $i,j \in \{1,2\}$, and, if the LHV model must reproduce the
maximum violation,
\begin{equation}
\langle A_1 B_1 \rangle = \langle A_1 B_2 \rangle = \langle A_2 B_1 \rangle = -\langle A_2 B_2 \rangle.
\label{maximalviolation}
\end{equation}
Defining now the following subsets of states:
\begin{eqnarray}
&&{\cal M}_P \equiv \{
(\pm 1,\pm 1;\pm 1,\pm 1),
(\pm 1,\pm 1;\pm 1,\mp 1), \nonumber\\
&&\quad\quad\quad\quad
(\pm 1,\mp 1;\pm 1,\pm 1),
(\pm 1,\mp 1;\mp 1,\pm 1)\}, \\ \nonumber\\
&&{\cal M}_Q \equiv \{
(\pm 1,\pm 1;\pm 1,0),
(\pm 1,\mp 1;0,\pm 1), \nonumber\\
&&\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad
(\pm 1,0;\pm 1,\pm 1),
(0,\pm 1;\pm 1,\mp 1)\}, \\ \nonumber\\
&&{\cal M}_R \equiv \{(\ 0,\ 0;\ 0,\ 0)\},
\end{eqnarray}
where for instance
$(\pm 1,\pm 1;\pm 1,0)$ actually means two states, $(+1,+1;+1,0)$ and
$(-1,-1;-1,0)$,
and letting
$\beta = \langle A_1 B_1 + A_1 B_2 + A_2 B_1 - A_2 B_2 \rangle$
correspond to the value obtained in an experimental test of the CHSH
inequality (\ref{CHSH}), then, for
\begin{eqnarray}
\eta_{\rm crit}(\beta) = 2 / \left(1 + \tfrac{\beta}{2} \right), \label{eta_beta}
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
p = \eta_{\rm crit}(\beta) \ [\ 3 \eta_{\rm crit}(\beta)-2 \ ], \label{p} \\
q = 4 \eta_{\rm crit}(\beta)\ [\ 1-\eta_{\rm crit}(\beta) \ ], \label{q}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
the LHV model in which each of the states in ${\cal M}_P$ appears with frequency $p/8$,
each of the states in ${\cal M}_Q$ appears with frequency $q/8$, and the state in
${\cal M}_R$ appears with frequency $1-p-q$,
satisfies (\ref{marginal})--(\ref{maximalviolation}), and gives a $\beta$ consistent
with (\ref{eta_beta}) (all for $\eta = \eta_{\rm crit}$, see \cite{note_LHV_CHSH}).
Specifically, the maximal violation allowed by QM ($\beta = 2\sqrt{2}$) is obtained
when $p \approx 0.40$ and $q \approx 0.57$.
On the other hand, for the same $\beta$, other models (they are not unique) can be
obtained for $\eta < \eta_{\rm crit}(\beta)$ \cite{models_lower_heta}.
The sets ${\cal M}_P,{\cal M}_Q,{\cal M}_R$
cannot be experimentally discriminated, as this would require performing
the four measurements on a single pair or particles (photons);
nonetheless, they are a valid hypothetical construction once assumed the
existence of some vector of hidden variables $\lambda$, to which the occurrence
of one or other result is conditioned.
This point is important as from here on we may play with quantities such as
$P(A_1|A_2)$ which are clearly inaccessible from the physical point of view,
but yet perfectly defined from the purely mathematical.
Finally, we note that ${\cal M}$ violates ``fair-sampling'', as defined for
instance by Clauser \textit{et al} themselves \cite{fs}: it is enough to
see that even with the model satisfying (\ref{marginal})--(\ref{conditional}),
we come across with that, in general,
$P(A_i|B_j=b) \neq \eta$, $P(B_j|A_i=a) \neq \eta$.
Indeed, from the model, for instance
\begin{eqnarray}
P(A_1|B_2=+1) = \tfrac{1}{3} \eta^2 + \tfrac{2}{3} \eta \neq \eta.
\label{UF_LHV}
\end{eqnarray}
In other words: restricted to the subset of pairs for which one of the particles has
a particular polarization ($B_j=b$ for particle $B$ or $A_i=a$ for particle $A$), the
probability of detection of the other particle is variable on the choice of observable,
clearly contradicting \cite{fs}.
\subsection{\label{Ext_LHV}
Detection probabilities without polarizers and the no-enhancement hypothesis}
We will now simply add two last instructions to each ``state'' of ${\cal M}$ (see
Sec.\ref{LHV}), obtaining a new model ${\cal M^{\prime}}$;
each state $s\in{\cal M^{\prime}}$ is now defined by a list of six (and not only four)
values:
\begin{eqnarray}
s \equiv (A_1,A_2;B_1,B_2;A,B).
\end{eqnarray}
The last two instructions $A,B\in \{0,1\}$ simply tell if the corresponding particle
would be detected ('$1$') or not ('$0$') if no polarizer was placed on its way.
The LHV so defined should now also abide to the following set of (experimentally
testable) restrictions:
\begin{eqnarray}
P(A)=P(B) & = & \eta, \label{marginal_2} \\
P(A|B)=P(B|A) & = & \eta, \label{cond_2} \\
P(A_i|B)=P(B|A_i) & = & \eta, \label{cond_2_mix_1} \\
P(B_j|A)=P(A|B_j) & = & \eta, \label{cond_2_mix}
\end{eqnarray}
and of course we would also have, this time redundantly,
$P(A, B) = \eta^2$ and $P(A_i,B) = P(A,B_j) = \eta^2$, all $\forall i,j$;
all (\ref{marginal_2})--(\ref{cond_2_mix}) are conditions on the whole ensemble
of states $s \in {\cal M}^{\prime}$.
Indeed, let us consider, amongst them, $P(A_i|B)= \eta$, which, let $P_s(\cdot)$ be
a probability conditioned to a state $s$, really means
\begin{eqnarray}
\int_{\Lambda} P_s(A_i|B) \cdot P(s|\lambda) \cdot \rho(\lambda) \ d\lambda; \label{av_cond}
\end{eqnarray}
i.e., we do not need to satisfy $P_s(A_i|B) = \eta$, $\forall s \in {\cal M}^{\prime}$,
but simply do it ``on average''.
On the other hand,
the room for variability in $P_s(A_i|B),P_s(B_j|A)$ is obviously also there for $P_{s}(A_i|A),
P_{s}(B_j|B)$ (these last are of course not experimentally accessible, but are indeed
perfectly defined from the mathematical point of view), which in addition are not
even constrained by an ``average condition'' such as (\ref{av_cond}).
Therefore, in general we will have
$P_{s_1}(A_i|A) \neq P_{s_2}(A_i|A)$
and
$P_{s_1}(B_j|B) \neq P_{s_2}(B_j|B)$,
for $s_1 \neq s_2$ and $s_1,s_2 \in {\cal M}^{\prime}$.
Following \cite{Risco_PHD}, we will call this a ``variable detection probability'' (VDP).
Now, the \textit{no-enhancement} assumption in \cite{CH74} stands for a
restriction on that VDP; in particular it stands simply for
\begin{eqnarray}
P_{s}(A_i) \leq P_{s}(A), \ P_{s}(B_j) \leq P_{s}(B), \ \forall s\in {\cal M}^{\prime}.
\label{n_enh}
\end{eqnarray}
The requirement on every state is already present in Clauser and Horne's
original formulation \cite{no_enhancement}: ``for \emph{every emission $\lambda$}...'';
here each state $s$ corresponds to a particular $\lambda$.
Whenever a breach of (\ref{n_enh}) takes place, we will refer to it as
``enhancement'' (ENH).
\section{\label{ENH}ENH in experimental tests}
From here on, $P_{{\cal M}}(\cdot)$ will stand for a probability defined on
(any) LHV model (or subset of states) ${\cal M}$,
and we will also assume that ${\cal M}$ defines all required probabilities, with
and without polarizers;
in absence of subscript, we will assume that by defect probabilities are defined
over the full model.
The following two quantities correspond to what one would be able to observe
in the respective tests of the CH inequality and its operational (non-genuine)
expression, on any model ${\cal M}$,
what we will respectively call, following Santos' classification \cite{genuine},
the ``genuine'' (GEN) and ``non-genuine'' (NG) tests:
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\beta_{gen}^{CH}({\cal M}) = \nonumber\\
&&\quad\quad
P_{{\cal M}}(A_1=B_1=1) + P_{{\cal M}}(A_1=B_2=1) \nonumber\\
&&\quad\quad\quad
+ P_{{\cal M}}(A_2=B_1=1) - P_{{\cal M}}(A_2=B_2=1) \nonumber\\
&&\quad\quad\quad\quad
- P_{{\cal M}}(A_1=1)
- P_{{\cal M}}(B_1=1),
\label{gen_beta}
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\beta_{ng}^{CH}({\cal M}) =
\tfrac{1}{\eta^2} \times [\ \nonumber\\
&&\quad\quad\quad
P_{{\cal M}}(A_1=B_1=1) + P_{{\cal M}}(A_1=B_2=1) \nonumber\\
&&\quad\quad\quad\quad
+ P_{{\cal M}}(A_2=B_1=1) - P_{{\cal M}}(A_2=B_2=1) \nonumber\\
&&\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad
- P_{{\cal M}}(A_1=1,B) - P_{{\cal M}}(A, B_1=1) \ ].
\nonumber\\ \label{ng_beta}
\end{eqnarray}
Further details on the derivation of these two expressions, can be found in
App.\ref{App_2};
in particular we refer to expressions (\ref{CH}) and (\ref{CH_op}),
respectively.
Right now we will see how ENH, while unable to alter the behavior
of the first of them, $\beta_{gen}^{CH}({\cal M})$, it definitely conditions
that of $\beta_{ng}^{CH}({\cal M})$.
\subsection{\label{Ex}An example of ``enhancement''}
There are many different models ${\cal M^{\prime}}$ consistent with restrictions
(\ref{marginal_2})--(\ref{cond_2_mix}); a particularly simple one is obtained from the
following assignations:\\
(i) $A=B=1$ for states in ${\cal M}_P$, obtaining an extended subset ${\cal M^{\prime}}_P$,\\
(ii) $A=0$ where some $A_i=0$ (for instance, when $A_2=0$, but not when $A_1=0$), and
$B=0$ where some $B_j=0$ (for instance, when $B_2=0$, but not when $B_1=0$), for states
in ${\cal M}_Q$, obtaining ${\cal M^{\prime}}_Q$,\\
(iii) $A=B=0$ for states in ${\cal M}_R$, obtaining ${\cal M^{\prime}}_R$.
\vspace{0.2cm}\noindent
With (i)--(iii),
${\cal M}^{\prime}$ already satisfies (\ref{marginal_2})--(\ref{cond_2_mix}),
from the fact that ${\cal M}$ already did the same with
(\ref{marginal})--(\ref{conditional}),
and all provided that
$P({\cal M^{\prime}}_P) = p$ and $P({\cal M^{\prime}}_Q) = q$, with $p$ and $q$
retaining, for a given $\eta$, their former values in (\ref{p})--(\ref{q}).
Actually we have:
\begin{eqnarray}
&&{\cal M^{\prime}}_Q \equiv \{
(\pm 1,\pm 1;\pm 1,0; 1, 0),
(\pm 1,\mp 1;0,\pm 1; 1, 1), \nonumber\\
&&\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad
(\pm 1,0;\pm 1,\pm 1; 0, 1),
(0,\pm 1;\pm 1,\mp 1; 1, 1)\}, \nonumber\\
\label{M_Q_prime}
\end{eqnarray}
where we note that some of the states now clearly defy (\ref{n_enh});
that is indeed the case of, for instance, the third pair (fith and sixth
states) in ${\cal M^{\prime}}_Q$, where $A = 0$ but $A_1 = \pm 1$.
These quantities will be of interest in a moment:
\begin{eqnarray}
A \equiv P_{{\cal M^{\prime}}}(A_1=+1,B_1=+1) &=& \tfrac{3}{8}p + \tfrac{1}{4}q, \\
B \equiv P_{{\cal M^{\prime}}}(A_1=+1,B_2=+1) &=& \tfrac{3}{8}p + \tfrac{1}{4}q, \\
C \equiv P_{{\cal M^{\prime}}}(A_2=+1,B_1=+1) &=& \tfrac{3}{8}p + \tfrac{1}{4}q, \\
D \equiv P_{{\cal M^{\prime}}}(A_2=+1,B_2=+1) &=& \tfrac{1}{8}p,
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
E \equiv P_{{\cal M^{\prime}}}(A_1=+1) &=& \tfrac{1}{2}p + \tfrac{3}{8}q, \\
F \equiv P_{{\cal M^{\prime}}}(B_1=+1) &=& \tfrac{1}{2}p + \tfrac{3}{8}q, \\
E^{\prime} \equiv P_{{\cal M^{\prime}}}(A_1=+1,B) &=& \tfrac{1}{2}p + \tfrac{1}{4}q, \\
F^{\prime} \equiv P_{{\cal M^{\prime}}}(A,B_1=+1) &=& \tfrac{1}{2}p + \tfrac{1}{4}q.
\end{eqnarray}
Once here we can rewrite (\ref{gen_beta})--(\ref{ng_beta}) as
\begin{eqnarray}
\beta_{gen}^{CH} ({\cal M^{\prime}}) = A + B + C - D - E - F,
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
\beta_{ng}^{CH} ({\cal M^{\prime}}) =
\frac{1}{\eta^2}\left[ A + B + C - D - E^{\prime} - F^{\prime} \right].
\end{eqnarray}
As seen in Fig.\ref{CH_comp},
the introduction of ENH in ${\cal M}$ (obtaining
${\cal M}^{\prime}$) has been enough to qualify it to violate
the non-genuine version of the CH inequality.
\begin{figure}[ht!]
\includegraphics[width=0.85 \columnwidth,clip]{CH_comp2.eps}
\caption{
Results in the genuine ($\beta_{gen}^{CH}$) and non-genuine ($\beta_{ng}^{CH}$)
experiments for the Clauser-Horne inequality, upon the LHV model
${\cal M}^{\prime},{\cal M}^{\prime\prime}$, for a ``detection efficiency'' $\eta$.
As advanced, $\beta_{gen}^{CH}({\cal M}^{\prime},{\cal M}^{\prime\prime}) \leq 0$ (i.e,
below local bound) for all values of $\eta$,
while $\beta_{ng}^{CH}({\cal M}^{\prime},{\cal M}^{\prime\prime}) > 0$ for $\eta < 1$;
for $\eta = 1$ no VDP can take place (and therefore no ENH either) so we have,
necessarily, $\beta_{ng}^{CH}({\cal M}^{\prime},{\cal M}^{\prime\prime}) = 0$.
} \label{CH_comp} \end{figure}
\subsection{\label{Ex_2}A second example}
It has been very convenient, for simplicity, to ``lock'', in each particular
state $s \in {\cal M}_Q$,
the fate of a detection with the polarizer removed, $P_s(A)$ and $P_s(B)$,
to that of a detection when one of the observables is measured, in this case
$A_2$ and $B_2$, respectively.
Aside from looking rather unnatural, this feature is easy to disprove
experimentally \cite{Joao_2};
however, we will show now that such a choice is not at all necessary.
We do not need much sophistication, just a slight redefinition of our
states, now given by
\begin{eqnarray}
s \equiv (A_1,A_2;B_1,B_2; p_A, p_B), \label{redef_s}
\end{eqnarray}
with $p_A = P_s(A=1)$ and $p_B = P_s(B=1)$ (i.e., $s$ is in general
indeterministic in $A$ and $B$; a fully deterministic description can always
be recovered by re-expressing $s$ as a union of sub-states $s_i$ with
$p_A,p_B \in \{0,1\}$ and such that $\sum_i P(s_i) = P(s)$).
We also redefine our former subset ${\cal M^{\prime}}_Q$, in a way
also consistent with (\ref{marginal_2})--(\ref{cond_2_mix}), as
\begin{eqnarray}
&&{\cal M^{\prime\prime}}_Q \equiv \{
(\pm 1,\pm 1;\pm 1,0; 1, \tfrac{1}{2}),
(\pm 1,\mp 1;0,\pm 1; 1, \tfrac{1}{2}), \nonumber\\
&&\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad
(\pm 1,0;\pm 1,\pm 1; \tfrac{1}{2}, 1),
(0,\pm 1;\pm 1,\mp 1; \tfrac{1}{2}, 1)\}, \nonumber\\
\label{M_Q_primeprime}
\end{eqnarray}
and, finally,
consider a new model ${\cal M^{\prime\prime}}$ containing subsets
${\cal M^{\prime\prime}}_P \equiv {\cal M^{\prime}}_P$, ${\cal M^{\prime\prime}}_Q$
and ${\cal M^{\prime\prime}}_R \equiv {\cal M^{\prime}}_R$
with exactly the same frequencies $p,q,r$ as in ${\cal M^{\prime}}$.
It is easy to see that
$\beta({\cal M^{\prime\prime}}) = \beta({\cal M^{\prime}})$ for all $\eta$'s
in Fig.\ref{CH_comp}, both for the genuine and non-genuine version,
but now we also have what looks as a more reasonable behavior,
\begin{eqnarray}
P_{\cal M^{\prime\prime}}(A_1|A) = P_{\cal M^{\prime\prime}}(A_2|A), \label{J_r_1}\\
P_{\cal M^{\prime\prime}}(B_1|B) = P_{\cal M^{\prime\prime}}(B_2|B). \label{J_r_2}
\label{reasonable}
\end{eqnarray}
Anyway, from our point of view and as a difference with \cite{Joao}
(which we will discuss in Sec.\ref{Disc}),
(\ref{J_r_1})--(\ref{J_r_2}), or similar,
are demands that shall be introduced exclusively as \textit{a property of the state
under probe}, an element that we have not even considered yet at this stage of our
treatment: all we wanted to show is that they are compatible with ENH.
Besides, we note (\ref{J_r_1})--(\ref{J_r_2}) are, again, not experimentally
accessible but as an average estimation; they are ``average'' conditions, of
the type we have already seen in (\ref{av_cond}):
particular states (in this case particular sub-states $s_i$ within each
$s \in {\cal M^{\prime\prime}}_Q$) will in general defy it.
\subsection{\label{S_int}A mathematical interpretation}
Any LHV ${\cal M}$ defines a probabilistic space
$(\Lambda,\rho)$ where $\rho(\lambda):\lambda \in \Lambda \rightarrow [0,1]$;
let us now consider the subsets of events (or in LHV terminology, states)
$\Lambda_A, \Lambda_B \subset \Lambda$ as the ones where always $A=1$ and $B=1$,
respectively.
Then, (\ref{ng_beta}) can be rewritten as
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\beta_{ng}^{CH}({\cal M}) =
\tfrac{1}{\eta^2} \times [\ \nonumber\\
&&\quad
P_{{\cal M}}(A_1=B_1=1|\Lambda) + P_{{\cal M}}(A_1=B_2=1|\Lambda) \nonumber\\
&&\quad\quad
+ P_{{\cal M}}(A_2=B_1=1|\Lambda) - P_{{\cal M}}(A_2=B_2=1|\Lambda) \nonumber\\
&&\quad\quad\quad
- \eta P_{{\cal M}}(A_1=1|\Lambda_B) - \eta P_{{\cal M}}(B_1=1|\Lambda_A) \ ],
\nonumber\\
\label{ng_beta_2}
\end{eqnarray}
which clearly shows that
$\beta_{ng}^{CH}({\cal M}) \leq 0$,
is not in general a legitimate Bell inequality (which means the bound can be
violated),
because in general $\Lambda_A \neq \Lambda_B \neq \Lambda$, i.e., in general
the corresponding estimates are done on different subsamples, which means that
in general they do not keep statistical significance with respect to $\Lambda$.
It is important to advance that ENH (basically, as we will later see in
Sec.\ref{Disc}, a process that is statistically independent between the
two arms)
cannot produce, by itself, the sort of correlations leading to unfair sampling
(at least as needed for a violation of a Bell inequality);
however, expression (\ref{ng_beta_2}) clearly shows how ENH can act as an
``enabler'' of an unfair sampling that should be ultimately occasioned, as
we will also argue later, by the correlation between intensities arriving
from the source.
In other words, unfair sampling is a direct manifestation of the properties
of the state under probe, while ENH arises as a consequence of new vacuum
noise inserted at the polarizers.
This said,
the no-enhancement assumption \cite{no_enhancement} does not assure the
statistical significance of the ``marginal'' terms either, but only that
$\beta_{ng}^{CH} \leq 0$ remains a legitimate inequality:
see either \cite{CH74} or our App.\ref{NEN_conseq}.
Finally, the divergence of the (non-genuine) curves in the region of low
$\eta$ (Fig.\ref{CH_comp}) shall not cause concern:
indeed, the divergence would disappear if the models were forced
to satisfy restrictions on all probabilities involved,
such as (\ref{cond_joint}) in App.\ref{Full_M}: see \cite{div}.
Anyway, divergent or not, ${\cal M}^{\prime}, {\cal M}^{\prime\prime}$
are well defined LHV models and violate an inhomogeneous inequality;
this was so far thought impossible, as genuine and non-genuine expressions
were wrongly regarded, resting on the alleged validity of \textit{no-enhancement},
as equivalent at all effects.
Also symptomatic is the fact that a violation $\beta > 0$ can still be attained
for values of $\eta$ very close to unity.
\section{\label{Full_M}LHV models in full compliance with QM}
Once seen the role of ENH in inequalities, the natural question to ask is
if it has so much effect when the full set of quantum predictions are considered.
The models
${\cal M}^{\prime},{\cal M}^{\prime\prime}$ simulated just the CHSH correlations
as well as marginal probabilities of detection (with and without polarizers),
in consistency with all experimentally testable restrictions;
however, they do not necessarily correspond to any legitimate quantum state
and set of observables.
For any model ${\cal M}$ to do so, we would have to demand:
\begin{eqnarray}
&&P_{{\cal M}}(A_i=a,B_j=b) = \nonumber\\
&&\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad
\eta^2 P_{QM}(A_i=a,B_j=b), \label{cond_joint}
\end{eqnarray}
as well as, depending on the test,
either
\begin{eqnarray}
P_{{\cal M}}(A_i=a) &=& \eta P_{QM}(A_i=a), \label{cond_g_A}\\
P_{{\cal M}}(B_j=b) &=& \eta P_{QM}(B_j=b), \label{cond_g_B}
\end{eqnarray}
or, instead,
\begin{eqnarray}
P_{{\cal M}}(A_i=a\ |\ B) &=& \eta P_{QM}(A_i=a), \label{cond_ng_A}\\
P_{{\cal M}}(B_j=b\ |\ A) &=& \eta P_{QM}(B_j=b), \label{cond_ng_B}
\end{eqnarray}
all of them $\forall i,j$ and for all $\forall a,b \in \{\pm 1\}$,
and where $P_{QM}$'s refer to a particular quantum mechanical state.
We will call (\ref{cond_g_A})--(\ref{cond_g_B}) the ``genuine'' (GEN)
conditions, and (\ref{cond_ng_A})--(\ref{cond_ng_B}) the ``non-genuine''
(NG) ones;
we will also define, in consistency, two different critical parameters
\begin{eqnarray}
\eta_{\rm crit}(all;gen), \quad \eta_{\rm crit}(all;ng),
\end{eqnarray}
as higher bounds on the values of $\eta$ for which a proper model
can be obtained in the GEN and NG problems, respectively.
Actually, our former models ${\cal M^{\prime}},{\cal M^{\prime\prime}}$
already satisfy
\begin{eqnarray}
P_{{\cal M}}(A_i=a)
=
P_{{\cal M}}(B_j=b)
= \tfrac{1}{2} \eta,
\label{g_max_ent}
\end{eqnarray}
something not surprising because ${\cal M}$ in Sec.\ref{LHV} already
did, and
\begin{eqnarray}
P_{{\cal M}}(A_i=a\ |\ B)
=
P_{{\cal M}}(B_j=b\ |\ A)
= \tfrac{1}{2} \eta,
\label{ng_max_ent}
\end{eqnarray}
which would coincide with (\ref{cond_g_A})--(\ref{cond_ng_B}) for the case
of maximal entanglement (in that case, QM predicts an equiprobable mix of
$\pm 1$'s): see (\ref{max_ent}).
\begin{figure}[ht!]
\includegraphics[width=1.0 \columnwidth,clip]{s_y_t_exact.eps}
\caption{
Estimation of the critical values of $\eta$ guaranteeing the existence of ENH-based
LHV models \textit{for all quantum predictions} for the states $|\psi_1\rangle$ (left)
and $|\psi_2\rangle$ (right), defined in (\ref{q_state}),
and the four observables given in (\ref{A1})--(\ref{B2}).
Numerical calculation according to our layout in App.\ref{App_4}, see also
Supplemental material.
Genuine and non-genuine conditions (or combination of both) produce the same
curves: however, this should not be presumed for a single inequality alone
(see Fig\ref{CH_comp}), neither for other choices of state and observables.
Clearly, critical values for any test on $|\psi_{1,2}\rangle$ involving just
a subset of the quantum predictions considered here (for instance the test
of a particular CH or CHSH inequality) would necessarily be higher than
these ones.
} \label{s_y_t} \end{figure}
Beyond particular cases,
in App.\ref{Model_1by2} a proof is given that such an LHV exists for
any state and set of observables, under the hypothesis of balanced
(symmetrical) detection rates,
for $0 \leq \eta \leq \tfrac{1}{2}$.
The condition there is sufficient, as it does not exclude other
possible models for $\eta > \tfrac{1}{2}$.
Moreover, App.\ref{App_4} provides a recipe for calculating
models for higher (in many cases optimal) $\eta$'s,
therefore at least a lower bound on the critical value.
I have applied it to the (maximally entangled) states
\begin{eqnarray}
|\psi_{1,2}\rangle = \tfrac{1}{\sqrt{2}}
\left(\
|\uparrow_{A,z} \downarrow_{B,z} \ \rangle \mp |\downarrow_{A,z} \uparrow_{B,z}\ \rangle
\ \right),
\label{q_state}
\end{eqnarray}
and the set of four observables
\begin{eqnarray}
A_1 &=& \sigma_z, \label{A1}\\
A_2 &=& \sin(2\theta)\cdot\sigma_x + \cos(2\theta)\cdot\sigma_z, \label{A2}\\
B_1 &=& \sin(\theta)\cdot\sigma_x + \cos(\theta)\cdot\sigma_z, \label{B1}\\
B_2 &=& \sin(3\theta)\cdot\sigma_x + \cos(3\theta)\cdot\sigma_z, \label{B2}
\end{eqnarray}
each one defined of course so as to act on the degrees of freedom of the
appropriate particle $A$ or $B$
(as rotations of the corresponding polarizer or PBS in ordinary space,
the former angles should be halved).
This choice of observables produces, for some values of $\theta$, maximal
violations of both the CHSH and CH inequalities,
though we would need to write them with a different convention: see
Figs.\ref{CH_and_CHSH_vs_theta_A} and \ref{CH_and_CHSH_vs_theta_B} below.
Up to our numerical resolution (which is not much, see the outliers),
the curves in Fig.\ref{s_y_t} seem to be exactly the same whether we choose to
impose NG or GEN conditions, i.e.,
(\ref{cond_ng_A})--(\ref{cond_ng_B}) or (\ref{cond_g_A})--(\ref{cond_g_B}),
or both sets of restrictions at the same time.
Anyway, we cannot presume such an equivalence for models on just the subset
of the quantum predictions involved in a particular inequality
(see Fig.\ref{CH_comp}).
Besides,
both $|\psi_1\rangle$ and $|\psi_2\rangle$ are maximally entangled, with
a symmetric distribution of $\pm 1$ that may play a role in relation
to this behavior.
Of particular interest is the case of the quasi-product states used in
\cite{LS01}; this seems to present some numerical difficulties
and will be examined elsewhere.
\begin{figure}[ht!]
\includegraphics[width=1.0 \columnwidth,clip]{CH_and_CHSH_vs_theta_01a.eps}
\caption{
Ideal ($\eta = 1$) quantum mechanical predictions for the CHSH and CH
inequalities, as written in (\ref{CHSH}) and (\ref{CH}), respectively
for the states $\psi_{1}$ (x) $\psi_{2}$ (o) and the set of observables
defined in (\ref{A1})--(\ref{B2});
solid lines are the upper and lower local bounds for each inequality.
Our convention in this paper is not the optimal in terms of maximazing violations
for this set of observables (see next figure);
angles must be halved to obtain rotations in ordinary space.
} \label{CH_and_CHSH_vs_theta_A} \end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht!]
\includegraphics[width=1.0 \columnwidth,clip]{CH_and_CHSH_vs_theta_01b.eps}
\caption{
Same as in Fig.\ref{CH_and_CHSH_vs_theta_A},
but now we adopt the alternative conventions in (\ref{CHSH_alt}) and (\ref{CH_alt}),
consistent with those of \cite{Aspect02}.
While for this case the ``singlet'' state $|\psi_1\rangle$ produces the maximum
violations for the inequalities,
$\beta_{CHSH} = 2\sqrt{2}$ and $\beta_{CH} = (\sqrt{2}-1)/2$ respectively,
the state $|\psi_2\rangle$), which is also maximally entangled,
does not even violate the inequalities (the same happened for $|\psi_1\rangle$
in the former figure);
angles must be halved to obtain rotations in ordinary space.
What these figure suggests is:
Bell inequalities are useful but just partial tools to investigate the
incompatibility of QM and LR;
the full set of quantum predictions clearly provides a more accurate
characterization of such incompatibility.
} \label{CH_and_CHSH_vs_theta_B} \end{figure}
\section{\label{Disc}Discussion: plausibility of ENH}
In this section we provide physical support for what we have so far
just sketched mathematically;
we explore as well the possibility of an experimental test, and also
analyze in some detail the relation with other alternative theoretical
frameworks.
\subsection{ENH as a background effect}
A phenomenon such as ENH arises as a rather natural consequence of a wave-like
description of light, for instance of the kind of the one developed in \cite{WPDC}.
The same is also true for any other alternative one acknowledging the presence
of a background of random fluctuations of the electromagnetic field, either with
or without the properties of that predicted by Quantum ElectroDynamics (QED).
Let us consider a Bell experiment based on the technique of (Spontaneous)
Parametric Down Conversion:
as modeled in \cite{WPDC}, the intensities arriving at detector $x$ ($x = o,e$:
``ordinary'' and ``extraordinary'', or alternatively simply $+1$ and $-1$)
placed after the corresponding polarizer or polarizing beam splitter (PBS)
can be expressed as
\begin{eqnarray}
I^{(det)}_{A,x} = I^{(sc)}_A - I^{(ref)}_{A,x} + I^{(pol)}_{A,x}, \label{Idet_A}\\
I^{(det)}_{B,x} = I^{(sc)}_B - I^{(ref)}_{B,x} + I^{(pol)}_{B,x}, \label{Idet_B}
\end{eqnarray}
where $I^{(sc)}$, $I^{(ref)}$ and $I^{(pol)}$ are the intensities emitted
by the source, reflected by the polarizer (or diverted by the PBS) and, finally,
inserted (as a result of the existence of a background) at the exit channel
of the polarizer/PBS, respectively.
Now, the crucial point to grasp is that $I^{(pol)}_{A,x}$, $I^{(pol)}_{B,x}$
depend on a particular realization of the background amplitudes, and such
a realization will in general have components at both polarizations (whatever
the choice of basis):
as a result and as opposed to what it is generally assumed, \textit{each of
the detectors will receive intensity at both polarizations}.
Then, the overall intensities arriving at the detectors determine \cite{Glauber}
the corresponding probabilities of detection,
\begin{eqnarray}
P_{A,x} \propto I^{(det)}_{A,x} + C, \quad
P_{B,x} \propto I^{(det)}_{B,x} + C, \label{Pdet}
\end{eqnarray}
where $C$ is a constant arising from the normal order of field operators
in Glauber's expression \cite{WPDC};
indeed, $C = - I_0$ with $I_0$ the expectation value of the background
intensity for each particular frequency mode $\omega$
(realistic detection expressions involve an integral over the bandwidth of
the incoming wavepacket, as well as spatial and temporal integration).
Actually, that subtraction introduces an apparent problem due to a possible
negativity of the former expressions, which we will not address here and
on which we have already argued anyway \cite{DR_detec};
in any case, all we really need to support the phenomenom of
ENH as described in former sections is an expression for the probability
of detection that shows some dependence on the incoming intensity.
Leaving details aside, expressions (\ref{Idet_A})--(\ref{Idet_B})
clearly show two sources of variability:\\
(i)
the terms $I^{(ref)}_{A,B}$, clearly dependent on the polarization state
of the incoming wave (the analogue of the quantum mechanical state);\\
(ii)
the terms $I^{(pol)}_{A,B}$, introducing additional random components,
which can now compensate the loss in (i), and even increase the overall
intensity producing ENH.\\
The usual models, where photons are regarded at all effects as particles whose
polarization state is governed by the algebra of half-integer spin (though
carrying integer units of angular momentum),
can accommodate (in a certain way) the variability in (i), but ignore that
of (ii).
Though not indispensable for our purposes here, it may be interesting to
comment just some more details in (\ref{Pdet}).
On one side, $C \equiv - I_0$ does not compensate with $I^{(pol)}$ in
(\ref{Idet_A})--(\ref{Idet_B}), as these last refers to a particular realization
of the random background;
on the other, $I_0$ allows for the vacuum contribution to the energy to be
``subtracted'' on average.
To see this last we must consider that, according to \cite{WPDC} at
least,\\
(a)
oversimplifying again for the case of a perfect monochromatic signal of frequency
$\omega$,
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle I^{(pol)}_{A,x}(\omega) \rangle = \langle I^{(pol)}_{B,x}(\omega) \rangle = I_0(\omega);
\end{eqnarray}
(b)
the intensities $I^{(sc)}_{A,B}$ (which also contain other background
components inserted at the crystal \cite{WPDC})
are already satisfying energy conservation with respect to the intensity of
the ``pump'' (laser).
According to (a)--(b),
from the point of view of the experimenter the net effect of the
background should be to add a zero-mean variability to the observable rates.
On the other hand, the components in (ii) depend only on the properties of
the background, not on the angle of the polarizer or the PBS;
therefore and as we had already advanced, (ii) cannot introduce
unfair sampling, in the sense of a variability of the following rates
\begin{eqnarray}
P(A_i|B_j = b), \quad P(B_j|A_i = a), \label{cond_fs}
\end{eqnarray}
where $a,b \in \{\pm 1\}$, and in respect to a range of angles in
setups $A$ and $B$.
However, the variability of (\ref{cond_fs}) is a necessary condition for
LHV models able to reproduce the observed violations of homogeneous inequalities
(such as the CHSH inequality), and their associate set of quantum mechanical
correlations: see (\ref{UF_LHV}).
Such variability must therefore be due to (i) alone: rather than being
a source of unfair sampling, the role of ENH is that of ``creating room''
for it to manifest (in the non-genuine version of the inequality, under
the no-enhancement assumption);
in a model such as that of \cite{WPDC}, that unfairness of the sampling
is generated as result of source-induced correlations of the field
intensities arriving at the detectors
(i.e., correlation between the fluctuations of the intensities that each
detector ``sees'').
An experimental test of the variability of (\ref{cond_fs}) does not
seem so difficult and could settle a lot of questions.
Additionally,
in what regards our treatment of LHV models in previous sections,
a formal analogy can be established between my approach here and that of
\cite{Joao}, and in consistency part of our results and interpretations
are also convergent.
The analogy is not complete, though:
in Sec.III, \cite{Joao}, all restrictions involving powers of $\eta$
higher than two go beyond the mere ``average'' independence of errors
(see App.\ref{App_2}) that we are demanding here.
However, according to \cite{WPDC} and as just mentioned,
detection probabilities are not just determined by some efficiency parameter,
but also depend (through Glauber's expression) on the intensities arriving
at the detectors, intensities which are correlated between ``signal'' and
``idler'' arms.
More specifically, in \cite{WPDC}
part of the vector of hidden variables $\lambda$ can be indentified with
the set of vacuum amplitudes $\{\alpha\}$
entering in the crystal,
as well as an additional set of (uncorrelated) amplitudes per polarizer
or PBS, in this case $\{\alpha_{A,B}\}$, respectively.
This allows to rewrite (\ref{Idet_A})--(\ref{Idet_B}) as
\begin{eqnarray}
I^{(det)}_{A,x} = I^{(sc)}_{A}(\{\alpha\}) - I^{(ref)}_{A,x}(\{\alpha\}) + I^{(pol)}_{A,x}(\{\alpha_{A}\}),
\label{Idet_Ax_alpha}\\
I^{(det)}_{B,x} = I^{(sc)}_{B}(\{\alpha\}) - I^{(ref)}_{B,x}(\{\alpha\}) + I^{(pol)}_{B,x}(\{\alpha_{B}\}),
\label{Idet_Bx_alpha}
\end{eqnarray}
for $x = o,e$
(again, subindexes refer exclusively to how the label of the associated
detector, not to a determined polarization of the signal received at the
detector $x$),
and taking now into account also (\ref{Pdet}),
\begin{eqnarray}
P_{det}(A) = P_A (\{\alpha\}), \quad
P_{det}(B) = P_B (\{\alpha\}),
\end{eqnarray}
but, however,
\begin{eqnarray}
P_{det}(A_i = a) &=& P_{A_i}(a, \{\alpha\}, \{\alpha_A\}), \\
P_{det}(B_j = b) &=& P_{B_j}(b, \{\alpha\}, \{\alpha_B\}),
\end{eqnarray}
where now $a,b$ ($\pm 1$ or $o,e$) play the role of the former label $x$.
Those expressions clearly show that, in the most general case,
none of the probabilities
(of course some of them unobservable, but well defined mathematically)
\begin{eqnarray}
P(A_i \neq 0,A), \quad P(B_j \neq 0,B), \quad P(A,B),
\end{eqnarray}
needs be factorizable,
neither for a particular event nor as an average over the whole model, or any
sub-ensemble of it.
Therefore, from \cite{WPDC} full error independence is not only unjustified
(because of its unobservability) but an implausible condition.
Anyway,
the insertion of $\{\alpha_A\}$ and $\{\alpha_B\}$ at the polarizers is, due to
its statistical independence between polarizers (between $\{\alpha_A\}$ and $\{\alpha_B\}$),
still captured by the attack in \cite{Joao}.
In lack of an exhaustive study, my view is that results in \cite{Joao}
should be considered as a restricted case of ours here;
further examination will be desirable, too.
I must add that so far to my knowledge all experimental refutations
of the work in \cite{WPDC} are confined to former attempts to
interpret the detection probability expressions in consistency with
local-realism (LR).
For instance I am aware of \cite{Brida_et_al02} disproving the model of
detection proposed in \cite{W_LHV_02}.
Neither such attempts, nor other extensions of the formalism, such as
the one proposed in \cite{pdc10b} (apparently disproved by \cite{BG03},
too, only to regain credit again following some recent reports from two
different experimental groups \cite{SPUC})
have any implication on the core of the model (the interaction of
the vacuum amplitudes with a quadratic Hamiltonian, hence one that
preserves the positivity of the Wigner function);
neither on the fact that QED itself predicts ENH.
Finally and as an advance of Sec.\ref{Kot}, neither
Kot {\it et al}'s result \cite{Kot_et_al12} can be considered conclusive
evidence of the existence of physical states with a negative Wigner
function, in a direct conflict with the principle of realism.
Yet, of course, the framework developed in \cite{WPDC} is no less
in need of experimental validation than are those quantum mechanical
predictions out of the LR frontier, conclusive evidence of
which has proven so elusive.
Neither is \cite{WPDC} something that cannot be refined or
modified at all, for instance by including new ``inputs'' of vacuum
modes.
Actually, it is my understanding that the properties of the QED-background,
some of them as puzzling as an isotropic, homogeneous and also divergent
density of energy, are not an indispensable element either:
such background can be perhaps substituted by a more realistic source
of noise.
\subsection{\label{Other_E_sources}Other possible sources of ENH}
A recent model \cite{Graft} for the famous experiment by Weihs \textit{et al}
\cite{Weihs98} also makes use of a field-like formulation but
does not require the intervention of any background.
Interestingly, it can also easily be extended so as to exhibit
``enhancement'',
choosing an intermediate value for the corresponding detector threshold
(see \cite{Graft}) when the polarizer/PBS is removed.
Assuming we could somehow extrapolate results (Weihs \textit{et al}
address a CHSH-type inequality, which does not require measurements
without polarizers),
such threshold-induced ENH could potentially explain violations of the
non-genuine expression of the Clauser-Horne inequality,
this time without the need to resort to background effects beyond a mere
second order correction.
It is obviously a point well deserving of attention; besides,
threshold calibration for the detectors has already been considered
in \cite{K11} as well.
\section{\label{OT}Complementary questions}
\subsection{\label{LC}Local coincidence counts}
So far, all our previous models assume that a measurement $A_i$ or $B_j$
produces either a count on one of the detectors after the polarizing
beam splitter (PBS) or no detection at all;
however, it is a well known experimental fact that some events produce
counts at both the $\pm 1$ detectors (alternatively, both the $o$ - ordinary -
and $e$ - extraordinary - exit channels of the PBS).
The usual approach is to regard such events as mere ``accidental
coincidences'' due to the presence of a noisy background \cite{Eb93}
(a ``conventional'' one, mere noise that does not need any of the
properties of the QED vacuum state);
this again ignores that models such as \cite{WPDC} do predict
those counts as the result of the PDC-generated states not being the alleged
``2-photon'' states, but a mixture of multiphoton states produced by
overlap of the emission times
(this overlap becomes particularly relevant if we consider wave-packets
with a certain time duration).
Such prediction has been found to be consistent with the observed statistics
of PDC-pairs, characterizing the corresponding states as
a Poissonian mixture of $2$-photon states: see \cite{Teich95}.
Moreover and in more simple terms, any quantum electrodynamical model
making use of the Glauber expression \cite{Glauber}
predicts a non-negligible local coincidence rate as the result of a
non-negligible intensity arriving at the detectors from both exit channels
of the PBS.
Now,
for the purpose of analysis let us suppose such ``local coincidences''
are included in our former models by means of a new hidden instruction
that we will denote $\gamma$.
Clearly, there are two basic types of events we have to be aware of:
(i) a local coincidence in one of the arms:
$\{ A = \gamma; B = \pm 1,0 \}$ or $\{ A = \pm 1,0; B = \gamma \}$;
(ii) double local coincidences: $\{ A = \gamma; B = \gamma \}$.
A double channel setup (monitoring both channels at the exit of the PBS,
with their respective detector) would easily allow to discard events
of the type (i) and (ii);
this is however very difficult in a single channel test such as the
recent ones in \cite{G13,Chr13}.
Let us first abbreviate
\begin{eqnarray}
P_{i,j}(a,b) &\equiv& P(A_i=a,B_j=b), \\
P_{i,B}(a) &\equiv& P(A_i=a,B), \\
P_{A,j}(b) &\equiv& P(A,B_j=b),
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
P^{A}_{i}(a) &\equiv& P(A_i=a), \\
P^{B}_{j}(b) &\equiv& P(B_j=b), \\
P_{A,B} &\equiv& P(A,B),
\end{eqnarray}
as well as
\begin{eqnarray}
Q_{i,j}(a,b) &\equiv& P_{QM}(A_i=a,B_j=b), \\
Q^{A}_i(a) &\equiv& P_{QM}(A_i=a), \\
Q^{B}_j(b) &\equiv& P_{QM}(B_j=b),
\end{eqnarray}
these last denoting quantum predictions.
Now, in order to keep the legimacy of (\ref{gen_beta}) the following
substitutions are in order,
\begin{eqnarray}
P_{i,j}(a,b) &\rightarrow & \eta^2 \cdot Q_{i,j}(a,b) - \Delta_{i,j}(a,b),
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
P_{i}(a) &\rightarrow & \eta \cdot Q^{A}_{i}(a) - \Delta^{A}_{i}(a), \\
P_{j}(b) &\rightarrow & \eta \cdot Q^{B}_{j}(b) - \Delta^{B}_{j}(b),
\end{eqnarray}
all defined for $a,b \in \{\pm 1\}$ (i.e., $a,b \neq 0,\gamma$), with
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta_{i,j}(a,b) &\equiv& P_{i,j}(\gamma,b) + P_{i,j}(a,\gamma) + P_{i,j}(\gamma,\gamma), \\
\Delta^{A}_{i}(a) &\equiv& \Delta_{i,j}(a,b) + P_{i,j}(\gamma,\bar{b}) + P_{i,j}(\gamma,0), \\
\Delta^{B}_{j}(b) &\equiv& \Delta_{i,j}(a,b) + P_{i,j}(\bar{a},\gamma) + P_{i,j}(0, \gamma),
\end{eqnarray}
defining $\bar{x} = \pm 1$ for $x = \mp 1$.
In the former expressions, none of the $\gamma$ events are accomodable by
the usual ($\tfrac{1}{2}$ spin algebra)-based quantum description of the
state, i.e., the $Q$'s
(as already said, this would not at all be the case if we adopted a quantum
electrodynamical one).
Defining now the quantity
\begin{eqnarray}
&&M \equiv
+ \Delta_{1,1}(1,1) + \Delta_{1,2}(1,1) + \Delta_{2,1}(1,1) \nonumber\\
&&\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad
- \Delta_{2,2}(1,1) - \Delta^{A}_{1}(1) - \Delta^{B}_{1}(1),
\nonumber\\\label{M_CH_def}
\end{eqnarray}
the ``selection'' ($\equiv SEL$, $NS \equiv$ ``no-selection'') of events
leads, for $\beta^{CH}_{gen}$ as in (\ref{gen_beta}),
to an expression such as
\begin{eqnarray}
\beta^{CH}_{gen}(NS) = \beta^{CH}_{gen}(SEL) + M \leq M,
\label{M_CH_def_2}
\end{eqnarray}
by using, at the last step, $\beta^{CH}_{gen}(SEL) \leq 0$ (which was
the true legitimate inequality).
Though each term in (\ref{M_CH_def}) depends on the state under probe
and the choice of observables,
from some general considerations (for instance imagine the angular
dependence is equal for all terms, so similar ones can annihilate each
other)
the likelihood of $M < 0$ becomes more or less clear;
in particular in view that
$\Delta^{A}_{i}(a), \Delta^{B}_{j}(b) \geq \Delta_{i,j}(a,b)$.
Therefore, the positive bound of the inequality ($\beta \leq 0$) is very
unlikely to be compromised as a consequence of the $\gamma$-events alone;
a different thing may occur for the negative ($\beta \geq -1$).
On the other hand,
for the non-genuine expression (\ref{ng_beta}) similar substitutions
are due:
\begin{eqnarray}
P_{i,B}(a) &\rightarrow & \eta^2 \cdot Q^{A}_{i}(a) - \Delta_{i,B}(a), \\
P_{A,j}(b) &\rightarrow & \eta^2 \cdot Q^{B}_{j}(b) - \Delta_{A,j}(b).
\end{eqnarray}
Assuming again
$\Delta_{i,B}(a), \Delta_{A,j}(b) \geq \Delta_{i,j}(a,b)$,
we arrive to results analogous to those of the genuine case.
In any case,
\textit{local coincidences should not be ignored in a test of either
the genuine or non-genuine Clauser-Horne inequality},
something particularly sensitive when such test is focused on the
lower bound (i.e., when we evaluate if $\beta \geq -1$).
Usually this issue is (allegedly) taken care of by correcting $\eta_{\rm crit}$
(critical detection rate) based on some ``background'' estimation;
again, not enough as argued at the beginning of the section.
\subsection{\label{RT}On recent related tests (\textbf{UPDATED})}
Recently, efforts \cite{G13,Chr13} seem to have been focused on inequalities
that would in principle not suffer the detection loophole:
this is the Eberhard inequality \cite{Eb93}, or equivalently, a genuine Clauser-Horne
inequality which can be obtained directly from the former and allows to evaluate
it on a single channel setup.
None of these two inequalities can be violated by the occurrence of unfair
sampling alone
(which does not mean that their violation excludes unfair sampling, this is
another issue as we will comment now in detail).
However, they are still conditioned to other loopholes, in particular the
locality one.
Besides, both \cite{G13,Chr13} both show similar hints of inconsistency.
In the case of \cite{G13}, such inconsistency was first pointed out
by E.Santos in \cite{Santos_arxiv},
whose calculations I presume convergent with mine.
A recent post in \cite{Zeil_last} offers a possible explanation for
the anomalies of \cite{G13}, based on an alleged corruption of the prepared
state which must be hence described by a mixed state (which means
more degrees of freedom to adjust the results).
A similar model can be apparently built for the results of \cite{Chr13}
(private communication from \textit{nightlight}).
Such models \cite{Zeil_last} prove the capacity of QM to fit (approximately)
the observations,
but in terms of the non-locality issue they are not, at least in my view,
necessarily convincing,
mainly because the violations obtained are of a very small magnitude
in regard to what QM could in principle achieve, even in the absence
of loopholes
(significant violations of Bell inequalities have indeed
been achieved upon homogeneous inequalities, but these admit a
local-realistic interpretation through the detection loophole).
The usual \emph{number of standard deviations} is irrelevant a criteria,
as it refers to mere random errors, not to possible
systematic effects such as the aforementioned ``local coincidences'' in
Sec.\ref{LC}, a possible loophole that has not been yet properly
explored.
The fact that both the observed violations and the so-called detection
efficiencies (which I would call detection rates) remain in the critical
region cannot be considered,
in particular after several decades of attempts, just mere coincidence.
There have been other recent tests aimed at proving non-classicality not in
terms of a Bell inequality but through perhaps (this is also
my opinion) more direct criteria:
for instance negativity of the Wigner function has been probed upon a photonic
state \cite{Kot_et_al12},
and some related ``quadrature quasiprobability'' upon the state of an ensemble
of massive particles \cite{Kiesel_et_al12},
in this last case by means of allegedly ``non-destructive'' measurements.
In absence of more detailed examination, such criteria use, as usual, a
non-commuting set of observables,
and in both cases a measurement procedure that I believe could open room
for a ``detection-loophole'', in the particular form that I will just
sketch here for the first;
attending at the indirect nature of the measurements in the second (which
includes some alleged ``inefficiency'' of detection), I would also presume
it might be possible to approach a local-realistic interpretation in
a similar fashion.
\subsection{\label{Giustina1}
Test of Giustina \textit{et al} (I):
locality loophole}
Recently, the recent report in \cite{G13}
claims that
\vspace{0.2cm}\noindent
(i)
\textit{``we statistically verify a
violation of Eberhard’s inequality by nearly 70 standard deviations
and thus clearly demonstrate the necessity of abandoning all local
realistic theories that take advantage of unfair sampling to explain
the observed values''}
\vspace{0.2cm}\noindent
but that
\vspace{0.2cm}\noindent
(ii)
\textit{``to achieve a loophole-
free Bell test as described above, it will be necessary to introduce
space-like separation sufficient to prohibit unwanted communication
between Alice, Bob, the measurement decisions, and the photon emis-
sion event.''}
\vspace{0.2cm}\noindent
and finally that
\vspace{0.2cm}\noindent
(iii)
\textit{``This will require fast random-number generators, precise
timing, and efficiency gains to offset the propagation losses introduced
by the increased distance. We do not find this unreasonable.''}
\vspace{0.2cm}\noindent
The first aspect to comment about this experiment is that, while it is true that
Eberhard's inequality \cite{Eb93} is impervious to unfair sampling,
it can also be seen clearly from \cite{Eb93} that Eberhard's inequality is
legitimate provided that no cross-talk or causal communication
takes place between the two measurement setups.
From (ii), this is clearly not guaranteed. I.e., space-like
isolation is the supplementary assumption in \cite{G13}.
The authors are clearly and explictly acknowledging this themselves;
but they seem to overestimate results in their pretension that they
``clearly demonstrate the necessity of abandoning all local
realistic theories that take advantage of unfair sampling to explain
the observed values'':
in absence of such space-like isolation, such theories are \textit{simply
not bound by the inequality}.
Besides, neither in such conditions would local-realism
limit the set of quantum states that may be physically realizable.
Let us give tanglible examples. For one of our LHV models, with
$o \equiv +1$,
$e \equiv -1$,
and abbreviating by denoting now
$P(A_i=a,B_j=b) \equiv P_{i,j}(a,b)$, the Eberhard's inequality
$\beta_{Eb.} \geq 0$ can be written with
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \beta_{Eb.} \propto
-
P_{1,1}(+1, +1) +
P_{1,2}(+1, -1) +
P_{1,2}(+1, 0) + \nonumber\\
&&\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad
P_{2,1}(-1, +1) +
P_{2,1}( 0, +1) +
P_{2,2}(+1, +1); \nonumber\\
\label{Eb}
\end{eqnarray}
if we now evaluate this inequality on our model ${\cal M}$ from
Sec.\ref{LHV}, a model exhibiting unfair sampling but not causal
influence between the parties, indeed it can be checked that
$\beta_{Eb.}({\cal M}) \geq 0 \ \forall \eta \in [0,1]$.
Now we consider measurement cross-talk;
for instance, we can define the following model, where each state is
as usual given as $(A_1,A_2,B_1,B_2)$
and where we consider causal influence from the setup $A$ to the
setup $B$; for $\eta = 1$:
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal M}^{\prime\prime\prime} = \{ (+1, x; +1, +1), (x, \pm 1; +1, -1) \}.
\end{eqnarray}
The new instruction $x$ serves to indicate that the first state
only occurs when $A_1$ is measured, while the other two correspond to
a choice $A_2$;
both observables are measured an equal noumber of times, i.e., with the
same frequency.
It is not difficult to see that now
\begin{eqnarray}
\beta_{Eb.}({\cal M}^{\prime\prime\prime})
\propto
- 1 + 0 + 0 + \tfrac{1}{2} + 0 + 0 = -\tfrac{1}{2},
\end{eqnarray}
clearly illustrating how cross talk can violate the inequality.
It is also not difficult to see that any LHV model ${\cal M}$, however
allowing for cross-talk or not, can be expressed as a set of states of the
former type;
from here, we can now consider a combination where each of
the models ${\cal M}$ of Sec.\ref{LHV} and ${\cal M}^{\prime\prime\prime}$
(we just defined)
occur with some frequency each:
clearly, the resultant model may now exhibit both unfair sampling and at
the same time would violate Eberhard's inequality.
\subsection{\label{Giustina2}
Giustina \textit{et al} (II): local coincidences}
\begin{center}
\textit{(in former versions, an argument pointing at this as the likely
source of the violation contained a crucial flaw;
it cannot be discarded anyway)}
\end{center}
Similar considerations to Sec.\ref{LC} can also be applied here.
In \cite{Eb93} and \cite{G13} the Eberhard inequality is written as:
\begin{eqnarray}
&& J =
- n_{oo}(\alpha_1,\beta_1)
+ n_{oe}(\alpha_1,\beta_2)
+ n_{ou}(\alpha_1,\beta_2)
\nonumber\\
&&\quad\quad\quad
+ n_{eo}(\alpha_2,\beta_1)
+ n_{uo}(\alpha_2,\beta_1)
+ n_{oo}(\alpha_2,\beta_2)
\geq 0,
\nonumber\\
\label{Eb_NS_prev}
\end{eqnarray}
with $n_{ab}(\alpha_i,\beta_j)$ the number of counts registered as
corresponds to results $a,b \in \{o,e,\emptyset\}$ in the associated
side and detector ($o,e$ are labels at all effects equivalent to $\pm 1$);
to substract the double coincidences, we would have to perform, on
the former expression, the substitutions:
\begin{eqnarray}
n_{ab}(\alpha_i,\beta_j) \rightarrow n_{ab}(\alpha_i,\beta_j) - \bar{n}_{ab}(\alpha_i,\beta_j),
\end{eqnarray}
which leads to an expression of the kind of (\ref{M_def}), in this case
\begin{eqnarray}
\beta_{Eb.}(NS) = \beta_{Eb.}(SEL) + M \geq M,
\label{M_def}
\end{eqnarray}
and where
\begin{eqnarray}
&&M =
- \bar{n}_{oo}(\alpha_1,\beta_1)
+ \bar{n}_{oe}(\alpha_1,\beta_2)
+ \bar{n}_{ou}(\alpha_1,\beta_2)
\nonumber\\
&&\quad\quad\quad
+ \bar{n}_{eo}(\alpha_2,\beta_1)
+ \bar{n}_{uo}(\alpha_2,\beta_1)
+ \bar{n}_{oo}(\alpha_2,\beta_2),
\nonumber\\
\end{eqnarray}
is with great probability positive this time.
Therefore, in principle \textit{local coincidences} are unlikely to produce
a violation in (\ref{Eb_NS_prev}), though it cannot be discarded (once
more, we note that all terms in the former expression depend on the choice
of state and observables) either.
On the other hand,
the operational expression used in \cite{G13} (eq.4) is actually equivalent
to a (sign-reversed) genuine Clauser-Horne inequality (\ref{gen_beta}),
which reduces to the case already examined in Sec.\ref{LC}:
the likelihood of local coincidences compromising the $0$-bound is
dependent on the choice of state and observables, however low it may be
we cannot discard this possibility either.
\subsection{\label{Giustina3}
Giustina \textit{et al} (III): analysis}
Let us shift to back to expression (\ref{Eb}), this time written as
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \beta_{Eb.} \propto
-
P_{1,1}( o, o) +
P_{1,2}( o, e) +
P_{1,2}( o, \emptyset) + \nonumber\\
&&\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad
P_{2,1}(e, o) +
P_{2,1}(\emptyset, o) +
P_{2,2}(o, o)
\geq 0, \nonumber\\
\label{Eb_equiv}
\end{eqnarray}
where $o,e$ (ordinary and extraordinary polarizations) play the role of the
usual labels $+1$ and $-1$ (in what order is yet to be assigned), and
$\emptyset$'s denotes now the absence of detection.
In order to estimate a quantum mechanical prediction for the results of
a test upon the inequality,
imperfect detection (or what I would merely call ``realistic detection rates'')
is now usually introduced through the hypothesis of \textit{independent errors},
as:
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\beta_{Eb.} \equiv
\frac{N}{4} \cdot \bigg(
-
\eta^2 \cdot Q_{1,1}( o, o) +
\eta^2 \cdot Q_{1,2}( o, e) \nonumber\\
&&\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad
+ \
\eta (1-\eta) \cdot Q_{1,2}( o, \emptyset) +
\eta^2 \cdot Q_{2,1}(e, o) \nonumber\\
&&\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad
+ \
\eta (1-\eta) \cdot Q_{2,1}( \emptyset, o) +
\eta^2 \cdot Q_{2,2}( o, o) \bigg),
\nonumber\\
\label{Eb_eta}
\end{eqnarray}
where for convenience we have again abbreviated this time with
$P_{QM}(\cdot) \equiv Q(\cdot)$ and
where we also assume that each pair of measurements $A_i,B_j$ (on angles
$\alpha_i,\beta_j$) is performed an equal number of times (a fourth of the
time); $N$ is the overall number of emitted pairs, a quantity we cannot in
principle have access to.
Now we associate, as usual, horizontal and vertical polarizations to the
eingenvectors of $\sigma_z$ with eigenvalue $+1$ and $-1$, respectively,
and define
\begin{eqnarray}
A_i &\equiv& \sin(2\alpha_i)\cdot\sigma^{A}_x + \cos(2\alpha_i)\cdot\sigma^{A}_z, \label{Ai}\\
B_j &\equiv& \sin(2\beta_j)\cdot\sigma^{B}_x + \cos(2\beta_j)\cdot\sigma^{B}_z, \label{Bj}
\end{eqnarray}
where the $2$ factor is included to consider the angles directly as
rotations of the polarizer in real space;
the report provides the values
$\alpha_1 = + 85.6^{\circ}$,
$\alpha_2 = + 118.0^{\circ}$,
$\beta_1 = - 5.4^{\circ},$
and
$\beta_2 = + 25.9^{\circ}$,
so as to produce measures upon the (family of) states \cite{G13}:
\begin{eqnarray}
|\psi_r\rangle = C \cdot \bigg( |HV\rangle + r |VH\rangle \bigg). \label{psi_r}
\end{eqnarray}
Besides and in absence of more direct access to the experiment, caution suggests
we keep track of possible ambiguities like:
(i) eigenvalue (``label'') permutation: $o \leftrightarrow e$;
(ii) direction permutation: $H \leftrightarrow V$.
As a sign of consistency, we will find indeed that exchanges (i) and (ii) are
equivalent.
Numerical simulation confirm that quantum mechanical violations of (\ref{Eb_eta})
upon the states (\ref{psi_r})
can be obtained for $\eta > 0.7$, though unless we assure $\eta > 0.8$ or superior
their value is certainly short of what QM could theoretically achieve.
In Figs. \ref{Fig_1} and \ref{Fig_1_det},
the ``critical value'' $\eta_{\rm crit}$ can be defined as that where $\beta$
crosses the local bound;
with the present choice of conventions, lower values of $r$ yield lower violations
(less negative $\beta$'s), but, very conveniently, such violations are reachable at
lower $\eta_{\rm crit}$'s.
This last property is what makes the family of states $\{|\psi_r\rangle\}$
particularly appropriate for a Bell test;
however, in Fig. \ref{Fig_1_alt} lowering $r$ does not decreases $\eta_{\rm crit}$,
unappropriate therefore for a Bell test.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\subfigure[$ $QM pred. convention 1]{
\includegraphics[width=1.0 \columnwidth,clip]{Eberhard_vs_eta_A.eps}
\label{Fig_1}
}
\centering
\subfigure[$ $Detail of (a)]{
\includegraphics[width=0.9 \columnwidth,clip]{Eberhard_vs_eta_A_DETAIL.eps}
\label{Fig_1_det}
}
\centering
\subfigure[$ $QM pred. convention 2]{
\includegraphics[width=0.9 \columnwidth,clip]{Eberhard_vs_eta_B.eps}
\label{Fig_1_alt}
}
\caption{
Quantum prediction, under the hypothesis of independent errors, of the value of
the inequality (\ref{Eb_eta}) for $|\psi_r\rangle$ in (\ref{psi_r}),
with the two complementary choices of conventions.
Subfigure \ref{Fig_1_alt} can be obtained from (a) by:
(i) eigenvalue (``label'') permutation: $o \leftrightarrow e$;
(ii) direction permutation: $H \leftrightarrow V$;
both (i)--(ii) at the same time leave (a) invariant.
} \label{Fig_all} \end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\subfigure[ Confidence interval $\Gamma_{2,2}$ vs. bounds for $\Gamma_{A}$, $\Gamma_{B}$]{
\includegraphics[width=1.0 \columnwidth,clip]{Beta_vs_r_bounds_singles.eps}
\label{Fig_bound_S}
}
\centering
\subfigure[ Bounds $\Gamma_{2,2}$ vs. bounds for $\Gamma_{1,1}$, $\Gamma_{1,2}$, $\Gamma_{2,1}$]{
\includegraphics[width=1.0 \columnwidth,clip]{Beta_vs_r_bounds_doubles.eps}
\label{Fig_bound_D}
}
\caption{
Analysis of Gisutina \textit{et al} \cite{G13}:
lower (red) and upper (blue) bounds on $\beta_{Eb}$ as defined below.
All $\Gamma$-confidence intervals seem to agree (though there is some
minor discrepancy) with the proposed value of $r \approx 0.3$ \cite{G13},
except, curiously, the more determining $\Gamma_{2,2}$:
QM and context-independent (symmetric or asymmetric) efficiency factors
are not enough to explain the inconsistency.
} \label{Fig_beta_vs_eta} \end{figure}
Now,
given the data available the only direct estimations of the detection
rates at both arms, $\eta_A,\eta_B$, would come from the expressions
\begin{eqnarray}
\eta_A \approx \frac{C_{oo}(\alpha_2,\beta_1)}{S^B_o(\beta_1)} \cdot (1/P_{QM}(A_2 = o \ | B_1 = o)), \label{eta_A_1st}\\
\eta_B \approx \frac{C_{oo}(\alpha_1,\beta_1)}{S^A_o(\alpha_1)} \cdot (1/P_{QM}(B_1 = o \ | A_1 = o)), \label{eta_B_1st}
\end{eqnarray}
expressions that let us establish a ``confidence interval'',
for instance $0.68 \leq \eta_A,\eta_B \leq 0.73$, at least for $r \leq 4$
($r = 3$ according to the original report);
the lower bound bound is actually artificially decreased to consider
possible accidental counts produced by a noisy background.
For now, for higher values of $r$ we could still reconcile the
estimations of $\eta_1,\eta_2$ by considering unbalance of losses
between the two arms.
These two preliminary values can be now used to perform a further analysis.
Now, their $N$ corresponding to $N/4$ in our framework: we use the total number
of events in (\ref{Eb_eta}), which already contains the factor $4$ as well, i.e.,
$N_{ours} < 4 \times 25 \times 10^6 = 10^8$.
Adding that $J \approx - 127 \times 10^3$ \cite{G13} we can then write
\begin{eqnarray}
\Gamma_{report} \equiv |(\beta_{Eb.}/N)|_{(report)} = J/N_{ours} < 0.0013.
\end{eqnarray}
Now we can also write expressions like, for instance,
\begin{eqnarray}
N_{ours} \approx 4 S^{A}_{o}(\alpha_1) / (\eta_A P_{QM}(A_1 = o)),
\end{eqnarray}
which together with $\beta_{Eb.} = J/N_{ours}$ allow us to define
\begin{eqnarray}
\Gamma_{A} \equiv
\frac{\eta_A \cdot Q^{A}_{1}(o) }{4 S^{A}_{o}(\alpha_1)} \cdot J,
\\
\Gamma_{B} \equiv
\frac{\eta_B \cdot Q^{B}_{1}(o) }{4 S^{B}_{o}(\beta_1)} \cdot J,
\end{eqnarray}
where $Q^{\Lambda}_{i}(o) \equiv P_{QM}(\Lambda_i = o)$,
and similarly,
\begin{eqnarray}
\Gamma_{i,j} &\equiv&
\frac{\eta_A \eta_B \cdot Q_{i,j}(o,o) }{4 C_{o,o}(\alpha_i,\beta_j)} \cdot J,
\end{eqnarray}
with $Q_{i,j}(o,o) \equiv P_{QM}(A_i=B_j=o)$.
Using the former $0.68 < \eta_A, \eta_B < 0.73$, the $\Gamma$'s provide
bounds on the violation that we would theoretically expect, by means of
$\Gamma(\eta_A = \eta_B = 0.68) \leq \beta_{Eb} \leq \Gamma(\eta_A = \eta_B = 0.73)$.
The inconsistency in Fig.\ref{Fig_beta_vs_eta} cannot be bypassed by introducing
any additional ``efficiency'' factor, unless such factors are allowed to show a
dependence on the choice of settings. There are two possibilities,
(i): assuming
$\eta_A \equiv \eta_A(\alpha_i)$ and $\eta_B \equiv \eta_B(\beta_j)$, or
(ii): a ``full contextuality''
$\eta_A \equiv \eta_A(\alpha_i,\beta_j)$, $\eta_B \equiv \eta_B(\alpha_i,\beta_j)$.
While (i) does not invalidate the basic assumption in
Eberhard's derivation (the fate of one photon is independent of the
choice of angle in the remote setup), expressions (ii) would do it.
Attending to the fact that a major discrepancy between QM and the observations is
only present for one of the four coincidence rates, specifically for
$n_{oo}(\alpha_2,\beta_2)$, we have to give preferential credit to (ii).
On the other hand,
an analysis convergent with ours here can be found in \cite{Santos_arxiv}.
\subsection{\label{Chr}
Test by Christensen \textit{et al} \cite{Chr13}}
Christensen \textit{et al} \cite{Chr13} attempt to improve the quality of the
test by using the technique of observable switching
(though not with a frequency enough to exclude the locality loophole, it
neutralizes the effect of drifts in the laser intensity, which can also
produce apparent violations as \cite{Chr13} explain themselves),
as well as the use of laser ``bursts'' in order to improve the temporal resolution
of the detection events.
Symptomatically somehow,
data from \cite{Chr13} leads now to a much more ``modest'' violation than \cite{G13}
upon the same inequality
(of course wide violations of some Bell inequalities have been obtained
\cite{Weihs98}, even with observable post-selection, but there the possibility
of UF producing this violation was not excluded as here).
Yet, the reported data still shows the context-dependence of the rates
already present in the test of Giustina \textit{et al} \cite{G13},
as we will show now.
This very recent test also gives hints of a similar context-dependence
upon the detection rates, as seen in the following simple calculation
(notation consistent with that of \cite{Chr13}):
\begin{eqnarray}
p_{2}(b)|_1 &\equiv& \frac{S_2(b)}{C(a,b)} = 0.001696, \\
p_{2}(b)|_2 &\equiv& \frac{S_2(b)}{C(a^\prime,b)} = 0.005157,
\end{eqnarray}
two alternative possible estimations of the same quantity that give rise,
respectively, to a violation ($p_{2}(b)|_1$, by very little margin) or
no violation ($p_{2}(b)|_2$, very far from the bound) of the tested inequality.
Once more we seem to encounter a context-dependence of the detection rates,
one that cannot be reduced to a mere dependence on the local observable;
more details are provided at the end of this document.
\subsection{\label{Kot}
Kot \textit{et al}: time-biased sampling?}
The recent test in \cite{Kot_et_al12}, apparently disproving the existence
of a well defined probability density function for a set of local observables,
could be perhaps interpreted under a formal equivalence with an homogeneous
Bell inequality: only one observable is measured at each ``run'' of the
test (a measurement upon one pair of emitted photons).
However:
(i) it does not require remote observers;
(ii) it makes use of analogical measurements in one of the arms of the PDC
scheme, in a way that would seem to exclude the detection loophole,
at least as we think of it regarding the usual tests.
Basically,
Kot {\it et al}'s proposal in \cite{Kot_et_al12} rests on the probing
of some ``test function''
\begin{eqnarray}
F \equiv F(Q_{1},Q_{2},\ldots Q_{N}),
\end{eqnarray}
where $Q_{m}$ is an outcome obtained when an observable $\hat{Q}_{m}$ is
measured, and where $\{\hat{Q}_{m}\}$ is a set of mutually exclusive
observables
(more precisely, according to eq.8 in \cite{Kot_et_al12}, $F$ involves
a set of powers $\{ (Q_{m})^{2n}, \quad m,n = 1,\ldots N\}$),
as well as the test of an inequality
\begin{eqnarray}
\beta = \langle F \rangle \geq 0,
\end{eqnarray}
that local realism (LR) could not in principle violate.
However, each $\hat{Q}_{m}$ may be then sampled on a different subset
$\Lambda_m \subset \Lambda$... which would be no problem as long as
all $\{\Lambda_m\}$ are statistically faithful to $\Lambda$.
To show that such a thing may happen even in view of (ii), we must go
to Glauber's expression \cite{Glauber}.
The key is that, for a given time-stamp, in general $P(t) < 1$:
the hypothetical $0$-instructions in a hypothetical LHV model
would no longer have anything to do with some ``detection
inefficiency'', but simply express the fact that for some given time-stamp
and observable, $P(t) \neq 1$.
Once here, the physical connection with the test in \cite{Kot_et_al12} can be
established by assigning to each time stamp $t$ a different set ${\cal M}(t)$
of hidden instructions,
\begin{eqnarray}
t_1 \rightarrow {\cal M}_1 = {\cal M}(t_1), \quad
t_2 \rightarrow {\cal M}_2 = {\cal M}(t_2), \quad
\ldots
\end{eqnarray}
i.e., a different LHV model for each $t$.
In particular, following \cite{prev07}, a detection on the ``signal'' arm, at a
time-stamp $t$, prompts the analysis of the signal (coming from the homodyne setup
and entering a high frequency oscilloscope) at the ``idler'' one, over a fixed
time window.
Yet, a correlation between the detection time-stamp at the
signal arm and the choice of observable at the idler would seem to require
communication or ``signaling'' between the two measurement setups:
the conditions of the test do not exclude such cross-talk.
Anyway, there are reasons to presume that such signaling is not
necessary either:
again in consistency with \cite{WPDC},
the set of relevant vacuum electromagnetic modes inserted at the source are
still contained in the fields arriving at each detector, and may make such
correlation possible.
As the simplest possible mathematical example,
let us again consider an observable $\hat{Q}$ that (always) produces
two possible results $Q = \{q_1,q_2\}$, and let us denote $P_{Q}(q|\lambda)$
the probability of an outcome $q$ when $Q$ is measured on the state $\lambda$
(according to \cite{WPDC}, $\lambda$ includes the vaccum amplitudes
inserted at the source).
Then,
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle Q \rangle_{\Lambda} = \frac{
q_1 \cdot P_{Q}(q_1|\Lambda) + q_2 \cdot P_{Q}(q_2|\Lambda)}
{P_{Q}(det|\Lambda)};
\end{eqnarray}
however, if each result is associated to a detection at a different set of
time-stamps $\{t_{i,1}\},\{t_{i,2}\}$
(realistically, this correspondence would be only in terms of unbalanced
probability),
then the experimentally accessible quantity is
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle Q \rangle_{ob} = \frac{
q_1 \cdot P_{Q}(q_1|\Lambda^{(Q)}_1) + q_2 \cdot P_{Q}(q_2|\Lambda^{(Q)}_2)}
{P_{Q}(det|\Lambda)}.
\end{eqnarray}
In this last expression,
$\Lambda^{(Q)}_1,\Lambda^{(Q)}_2 \subset \Lambda$ are again two
different sets selected by the correlation between the time-stamp at
one arm and the result of the measurement at the other when $\hat{Q}$
is measured.
The normalization factor $P_{Q}(det|\Lambda)$ simply generalizes to
the case where some attempts to measure an observable may fail,
which may or may not be the case: my argument works anyway
(of course as a mere formal device, further examination is needed to see
whether it can really be applied to the results of \cite{Kot_et_al12}).
\section{\label{UF_test}
A basic test of unfair sampling}
As already said,
the problem of finding scenarios with the minimum possible $\eta_{\rm crit}$,
has attracted a lot of attention,
but the converse question,
i.e., what physics the structure of the LHV models able to account for quantum
predictions may have been giving us hints about, has on the contrary enjoyed
almost none.
Let us once more look at the family of LHV models given in Sec.\ref{LHV};
for the case $N = 2$ (two observers) and the set of observables that
maximizes the value of the Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt inequality,
we come across with the fact that in general
\begin{eqnarray}
P(A_i|B_j = b) &=& f(b), \\
P(B_j|A_i = a) &=& f(a), \label{uf_condition}
\end{eqnarray}
for some particular choice of $a,b \in \{-1,+1\}$,
an instance of which we can find in
\begin{eqnarray}
P(A_1|B_2 = +1) = \tfrac{1}{3} \eta^2 + \tfrac{2}{3} \eta \neq \eta,
\end{eqnarray}
and where $\eta$ is a function of the overall value of the inequality
$\beta$ (i.e., $\eta = f(\beta)$) as indicated in \cite{CLR09}.
In other words: restricted to the subset of pairs for which one of the particles has
a particular polarization ($B_j=b$ for particle $B$ or $A_i=a$ for particle $A$), the
probability of detection of the other particle is variable on the choice of
observable, something that contradicts Clauser and Horne's own definition of
unfair sampling \cite{CHSH69}:
``given a pair of photons emerges from the polarizers, the probability of their
joint detection is independent of the polarizer orientations''.
In view of the former, it might be a good idea to dispose a double channel
setup (instead of mere polarizers, we use polarizing beam splitters or PBSs
and we monitor both their output $o \equiv +1$ and $e \equiv -1$ channels) and
quantify (\ref{uf_condition}),
for a battery of different angles (additionally, a full set of
angles could be probed for each instance of the prepared quantum state).
Adopting the notation in \cite{G13},
with $n_{ab}(\alpha_i,\beta_j)$ is the number of counts registered for the
angles $\alpha_i,\beta_j$ and where the sub-indexes admit the values $o,e$
but also $u \equiv$ undetected, we would write
\begin{eqnarray}
P(A_i|B_j = b) = \frac{
\mathlarger{\mathlarger{\sum}}_{a = o,e} n_{ab}(\alpha_i,\beta_j) }
{ \mathlarger{\mathlarger{\sum}}_{a = o,e,u} n_{ab}(\alpha_i,\beta_j) },
\label{A_a_B
\end{eqnarray}
as well as the analogous expression for $P(B_j|A_i = a)$, for $a,b \in \{o,e\}$
and $i,j \in \{1,2\}$.
Unfair sampling would then manifest as a non-negligible, statistically significant
variability of (\ref{A_a_B}) and other similar expressions, as we rotate
one of the PBSs.
Notice that this variability cannot be explained with an ``external'' efficiency
factor $\eta$ due to the dependence on the polarization state manifested at
the other side:
this dependence shall not be attributed to some signaling between the parties
(or even some ``non-locality'') but merely to the fact that detection rates
are at least partially determined by the set of hidden variables $\lambda$ that
characterizes the state generated at the PDC-source.
Of course, additional factors may cause variability of (\ref{A_a_B}), for
instance non-stationarity of the prepared state.
Besides, our condition is not even necessary: the absence of variability
in (\ref{A_a_B}) does not exclude unfair sampling either.
But nevertheless, it seems a necessary step: \textit{how are we suppose to believe
a sophisticated criteria such as a Bell inequality has been fairly evaluated
without knowing for clear what is happening at more basic levels?}
The question retains interest even if a conclusive test of non-locality
is achieved:
contrary to what it seems to be taken for granted in \cite{G13},
even in the event of a ``loophole-free'' violation of local-realism,
unfair sampling may still remain an important feature of the behavior
of PDC-generated states.
\section{\label{FD}
Further discussion: considerations on the nature of the background}
So far we have been invoking the
(statistically) homogeneous, isotropic, Lorentz invariant background predicted
by QED as the ``input'' to a hypothetical local-realistic theory that could
provide a more detailed, credible account of the optical tests based on PDC,
a theory that would share its basic features witht that of \cite{WPDC};
anyway,
we must admit the idea of a background with such ``supernatural'' properties
(and the problems it carries, one of them an infinite energy density, which
is not to be ignored) looks at least as unrealistic as quantum entanglement
between space-like isolated parties
(nothing to object on entanglement as an expression of local correlation
or ``cross-talk'', as I would assume is taking place in Bell experiments
with massive particles).
A possible solution is to regard the QED-background as a mere ``intermediate
step'', nothing but an abstraction resultant from the mathematical structure of
the quantum formalism, structure that may be a consequence of some very simple
hypothesis.
A discussion on this is nothing more than mere speculation,
but anyway I will say that it is my view that QM is simply the simplest
mathematical formalism imposing angular momentum
quantization (AMQ) over all its states.
Of course here I am depriving quantum states of any ontological
implications but for its suitability to represent, at least approximately,
information about the observable properties of the physical systems.
Since the beginning of what is known as Stochastic ElectroDynamics (SED),
it has been recognized that any stable dynamics of a system of charger
implies an equilibrium between radiated and absorbed power which,
as a consequence, quantizes the value of the average angular momentum
(QM must imply, then, some sort of spatio-temporal average).
Out of bound states this AMQ is of course not justified, but is my
conjecture that then, there, such assumption is quantitatively irrelevant
at least at the observational level.
So far, enthusiasts of Stochastic Electrodynamics (SED) seem to accept
the properties of the QED-background as the necessary element making
possible (the stability of) that equilibrium;
for the reasons above, my view is that it might not be a false step at all
to try to look for such element somewhere else: the most obvious case,
the dynamical properties of elementary particles as complex, sub-structured
entities, capable of storing and releasing, therefore exchanging energy
with a ``realistic'' background, and doing this in a way that it induces
such stability.
Such micro-dynamics would have been completely ``traced out'' by QM
as a mere effective theory expressing the probability distribution of
observables that are nothing but time-averages (therefore abiding to
the former equilibrium);
only the average features caused by the dynamics of such substructure
remain in the theory, for instance the appearance of ``spin''.
This last route does not need more than a much more ``modest'' background,
without a divergent or even considerable energy density, and perhaps
also highly inhomogeneous and dependent on the distribution of matter,
this last a particularly plausible conjecture if the ultimate origin
of this vacuum noise is to be tracked down (as suggested by some authors,
Puthoff for instance) to the very same micro-dynamics of the substructure
of charges that QM may be averaging.
Yet again, a pure field ontology for the photon also carries many
other difficulties,
as is how and in which conditions a wave-packet is able to travel long
distances with almost no spread, and why observable energy exchanges
between matter and the electromagnetic field are constrained to a ``quanta''
$h\omega$.
None of those problems seem, however, unsolvable from a the framework of
classical electromagnetism:
for instance we know that systems with a rich spatial structure can give
rise both to highly directional radiation patterns and, again, the appearance of
``dynamical attractors'' in their phase space, with an associated discrete
spectrum of observable energies as well as of apparent state transitions.
The geometrical symmetry of quantum energy eigenstate wave-functions
would appear to render impossible that directionality; however, neither a
particular realization of those densities, nor some hypothetical
underlying substructure micro-dynamics (averaged both in time and space by QM)
would be bound to that symmetry.
There is plenty of work on the local-realist, stochastic electrodynamical side
which is extraordinary (Casado and co-workers, previously that
of Marshall and Santos on their own, related works by Boyer, Puthoff or D.C.Cole,
just to name a few), ignored over decades now and to which we may eventually
have to go back to.
More recently, \cite{FH} proposes a unified view departing from a
background, too, though this time its nature is not necessarily known:
in particular and amongst many other results, an explanation of those
striking ``double slit'' phenomena which looks rather satisfying.
\section{\label{Conc}Conclusions, and last comments}
The results of this paper suggest that the role of additional assumptions
in Bell tests, however implicit or explicit these were, has been grossly
overlooked.
For instance, so far tests of inhomogeneous inequalities making use of the
no-enhancement hypothesis were perceived as solid evidence of quantum
non-locality; here we have shown that this can be challenged.
First at the purely mathematical level, by providing models allowing for what we
have called ``enhancement'' (ENH), a breach of the no-enhancement assumption;
these show a compelling consistency with other existing models of local hidden
variables (LHV) for the case of homogeneous inequalities, where
the need for fair-sampling as an additional assumption is, in contrast with
what happens for no-enhancement, widely acknowledged.
Second, by providing basic physical arguments to support such models: basically,
the existence of a random background, whether we choose to take the QED-predicted
Zero Point Field of vacuum fluctuations \cite{WPDC} or some other of even an
uncertain origin \cite{FH}.
Remarkably, in a model such as \cite{WPDC} (and other possible ones based on
Glauber's expression) the expectation value of the vacuum field intensity is
subtracted at the detector,
which gives rise to a variability of the detection probability but does not
require a net average energy contribution from the background (clearly a
desirable property).
Anyway, ENH can be generated from other sources, too: for instance
and following recent developments, from a (quantum electrodynamical) model
based on choices of the detectors' thresholds, either involving also the background
\cite{K11} or not \cite{Graft}.
Threshold variability is a refinement that could also be applied to
\cite{WPDC}.
Conveniently,
there is a unifying property of all LHV-based models for Bell tests,
and also related ones such as that of \cite{Kot_et_al12}:
whatever the situation, their existence is only possible for values of the
detection rates below a threshold known as ``critical detection efficiency''.
This tern is in my opinion misleading: it implies a loss of generality by
implicitly assuming that the values of the rates have nothing to do with the
physical state under probe,
something that can be challenged again from \cite{WPDC}, but possibly also
from a careful examination of exhaustive sets of data.
I therefore propose a substitution in favor or ``critical detection rate''.
Actually, in a bipartite test (two observers $A,B$) only the following rates
can be defined without normalization factors or additional hypothesis (such
as fair sampling),
\begin{eqnarray}
&\eta_{(A_i|B_j)} = P(A_i \neq 0 |B_j \neq 0), \label{cond_rate_A}\\
&\eta_{(B_j|A_i)} = P(B_j \neq 0 |A_i \neq 0), \label{cond_rate_B}
\end{eqnarray}
as well as, when non-genuine expressions are considered, $P(A_i|B)$, $P(B_j|A)$
and $P(A|B)$ too.
Whenever $\eta_{(A_i|B_j)},\eta_{(B_j|A_i)} < 1$,
fair-sampling is not guaranteed and any expression other than the genuine
inequality requires a cautious interpretation.
Of course, in absence of space-like
separation local models may exist for whatever the detection rates based purely
on causal communication between the parties, a possibility to which the
recent test in \cite{G13} is for instance bound.
In any case, according to our work here such critical values should be revised to
account for the possibility of ENH, whenever the corresponding test has made use
of the no-enhancement hypothesis.
The phenomenon of ENH provides additional room for the LHV models to adapt to
the quantum predictions, so we would expect those critical ``detection efficiencies''
to be increased.
In particular, in App.\ref{Model_1by2} we provide proof that such
$\eta_{\rm crit} \geq \tfrac{1}{2}$ always, for any bipartite test based on
observer-symmetric efficiencies.
However,
our simulations also seem to suggest that experimental tests could perhaps
be further validated, without the need to assume any other hypothesis (i.e., with
or without ENH, with or without fair sampling, etc), by demanding not only the
violation of a particular inequality,
but also compliance with the full set of quantum predictions for the
choice of state and observables involved in it,
plus the condition $\eta > \eta_{\rm crit}(all;ng)$ (see Sec.\ref{Full_M}).
Actually, our simulations suggest the equivalence (see Sec.\ref{Full_M}):
\begin{eqnarray}
\eta_{\rm crit}(all;ng) \equiv \eta_{\rm crit}(all;gen), \label{equiv}
\end{eqnarray}
which could seem promising in order to eliminate the need for additional assumptions:
the consequences of ENH can be therefore bypassed by the demand of all quantum
predictions at once.
I have not yet explored, though, if (\ref{equiv}) is a feature of just
maximally-entangled states and our particular choice of observables,
or some more general property.
In view of these last considerations, this paper is also suggesting that the usual
framework where these questions are studied (mainly that of Bell inequalities,
in their different shapes and with their different assumptions) is by now
clearly dated,
and should give
way to a more exhaustive approach, taking into account, as possible, full
sets of quantum predictions and not just some index whose actual significance,
as shown here, can be challenged in every occasion, or at least in
most of them.
Complementarily,
Sec.\ref{OT} aimed to sketch some other points of relevance regarding quantum
electrodynamical models of PDC optics,
points that could be relevant for an interpretation in local-realist
terms of recent related tests: Kot \textit{et al} \cite{Kot_et_al12},
Giustina \textit{et al} \cite{G13}.
Amongst others,
the issue of ``local coincidences''(Sec.\ref{LC}, \ref{Giustina2}) cannot be
ignored, in particular in tests exhibiting a low violation,
and in particular in those using pre-amplification techniques \cite{nl_private}
that may boost the rate of these double counts.
Perhaps the urge to prove that ``non-locality'' is real must give pass to a more
serene formulation of the problem, for instance as something like
\begin{center}
\textit{does local-realism (LR)
establish a bound on the quantum mechanical states with a real physical counterpart,
or does it not?}
\end{center}
On one side, we need to refine experimental techniques; on the other, we need
to open room for theoretical models that may exhibit some of the properties that
our algebra here seems to be giving hints about.
The alternative is to persist in the current uncertain state of affairs,
where so much seems to depend on the positive or negative result of some
ultra-sophisticated experiment plagued with loopholes and all sorts of obscure
points.
Of course, this work can also be understood just as yet another
``loophole'' (as is the absence of strict space-like separation in experiments
with massive particles, for instance).
However,
such a perspective seems to favor the vision of loopholes as disconnected,
erratic fabrications to keep LR alive;
on the contrary,
my view is that they might simply be different expressions, for each different
experimental situation, of the boundary that LR establishes:
this boundary is certainly no more hypothetical than its absence, which for
one or other reason seems to be usually taken for granted.
Let me insist once more on the hints that a framework such as \cite{WPDC} provides
about the possible relation between the observed low detection rates and the real
properties of the state under probe,
as well as on the fact that evidence of ENH would clearly point toward the need
to depart from the usual particle-like models of the photon,
merely based on the correspondence between the $\tfrac{1}{2}$-spin
algebra for massive particles and the polarization states of a plane wave,
in favor perhaps of a fully quantum-electrodynamical description \cite{WPDC}.
To conclude,
the promise of a future technological improvement that will make things easier
\cite{G13} has already been on the table for long;
actually, the suggestion that failure to make progress has to do with
some fundamental principle of nature is actually a compliment to
the skills of those involved in the enterprise.
Whether eventually successful or not, the quest for non-locality
has anyway a lot to offer, both at the theoretical and technological
level,
and tests like those recent ones in \cite{G13} and
\cite{Kot_et_al12} are in fact necessary, and an effort worth
all our admiration and praise.
Regarding the first, our preliminary examination seems to suggest
that a further test making use of detectors at both polarization
channels would contribute a great deal to clarify things;
in the second case, I would suggest the convenience of making the
raw data available in all detail.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
First let me acknowledge the ground-breaking work done in the past by
R. Risco-Delgado \cite{Risco_PHD},
whom I also thank, along with A. Casado and R. O'Reilly, for valuable
comments and encouragement.
I thank, too, PRA referees for suggestions on the content and structure
of the paper.
I thank Jo\~{a}o N.C. Especial \cite{Joao} for very useful discussions;
though both our works were independently derived and motivate from
different directions, they share important points of convergence and
it is my opinion they should be regarded as complementary, see
Sec.\ref{Disc}).
Finally, I thank ``nightlight'' for drawing my attention to the issue
commented in Secs.\ref{LC} and \ref{Giustina2}.
|
\part*{Introduction}
Algebraic $K$-theory provides a high-level invariant of the homotopy
theory of categories with a notion of extension and equivalence. The
component group, $K_{0}$, is the universal target for Euler
characteristics, and higher algebraic $K$-theory captures subtle
information intricately tied to number theory and geometry. For the
algebraic $K$-theory of rings, trace methods using topological
Hochschild homology ($THH$) and topological cyclic homology ($TC$)
have proved remarkably successful at making $K$-theory computations
tractable via the methods of equivariant stable homotopy theory.
At first glance $K$-theory and $THH$ take very different inputs and
have very different formal properties. For algebraic $K$-theory, the
input is typically a Waldhausen category: a category with
subcategories of cofibrations and weak equivalences. For $THH$, the
basic input is a spectral category: a category enriched in spectra.
While $THH$ shares $K$-theory's additivity properties, $THH$ seems to
lack $K$-theory's approximation and localization
properties \cite{Dundas}. A specific example of this failure was
studied at great length in the paper \cite{HM3}. From the perspective
of the algebraic $K$-theory of rings and connective ring spectra,
where $THH$ is the stabilization of $K$-theory, this discrepancy is in
some ways surprising, as one might expect $THH$ to inherit the
fundamental properties of $K$-theory.
In this paper, we construct $THH$ for a general class of Waldhausen
categories, and show that much of the apparent mismatch of formal
properties is a consequence of the former mismatch of input data. We
obtain an analogue of Waldhausen's Approximation Theorem
\cite{WaldhausenKT} for $THH$. On the other hand, we observe that
$THH$ has two different analogues of the localization sequence in
Waldhausen $K$-theory (the ``Fibration Theorem'' \cite{WaldhausenKT}).
One of the localization sequences for $THH$ was developed in our
companion paper on localization in $THH$ of spectral categories
\cite{BlumbergMandellTHHLoc}; when applied to the $K$-theory of
schemes, this sequence produces an analogue of the localization
sequence of Thomason-Trobaugh \cite{ThomasonTrobaugh}. The other
localization sequence generalizes the localization sequence of
Hesselholt-Madsen \cite{HM3}. One of the principal contributions
of this paper is to provide a conceptual explanation of the
two localization sequences of $THH$ in relation to the localization
sequence of $K$-theory.
As we explain in Sections~\ref{secspec} and~\ref{futuresec}, a
Waldhausen category that admits factorizations has two spectral
categories associated to it, a connective and a non-connective
variant. The non-connective theory is ``correct'', from the
perspective of abstract homotopy theory and satisfies localization for
cofiber sequences of spectral categories \cite{BlumbergMandellTHHLoc},
but the connective theory is more closely related to $K$-theory. We
show that the two theories agree under connectivity hypotheses that we
make explicit in Section~\ref{secspheretheorem}; in particular, for rings
and connective ring spectra both spectral categories produce the
expected $THH$. For exact categories, the connective version agrees
with the $THH$ of exact categories defined by Dundas-McCarthy
\cite{DundasMcCarthy}. For categories of complexes, the
non-connective version agrees
with the $THH$ of the spectral derived category studied in
\cite{BlumbergMandellTHHLoc}. Working with the non-connective theory
gives the Thomason-Trobaugh style localization sequences, and working
with the connective theory gives the Hesselholt-Madsen style
localization sequences.
As a main application of this theory, we prove the localization
sequence associated to the transfer map from $H{\mathbb{Z}}$ to $ku$ that was
conjectured by Hesselholt and Ausoni-Rognes \cite{AusoniTHH,
AusoniK,AusoniRognes}. Specifically, we construct
naturally out of the category of $ku$-modules a simplicial spectral
category $W^{\Gamma}(ku|KU)$ and cofiber sequences in the stable
category
\begin{gather*}
THH(\mathbb{Z})\to THH(ku)\to THH(ku|KU) \to \Sigma THH(\mathbb{Z})\\
\intertext{and}
TC(\mathbb{Z})\to TC(ku)\to TC(ku|KU) \to \Sigma TC(\mathbb{Z}),
\end{gather*}
compatible via a trace map with the localization cofiber sequence in
$K$-theory established in \cite{BlumbergMandell}. Corresponding
results hold for the Adams summand in the $p$-local and $p$-complete
cases; see Theorem~\ref{thmkuloc} below for details. These
localization sequences were conjectured by Hesselholt and
Ausoni-Rognes to explain the
relationship of the computations of $K(\ell)$ and $K(ku)$; they
support the perspective that $\ell \to ku$ should be an example of a
``tamely ramified'' extension of ring spectra. Furthermore, using
these localization sequences, one can dramatically
simplify Ausoni's computation of $K(ku)$ \cite[8.4]{AusoniK} by
mimicking the de Rham-Witt
arguments in Hesselholt-Madsen \cite{HM3}. These localization
sequences
provide the chromatic level $1$ analogues of the chromatic level $0$
sequence of Hesselholt and Madsen \cite{HM3}.
Another application of these localization sequences is to compute
$K(KU)$. One would like to use Ausoni's computations of $K(ku)$ along
with the localization cofiber sequence
\[
K(\mathbb{Z}) \to K(ku) \to K(KU) \to \Sigma K(\mathbb{Z})
\]
to evaluate $K(KU)$. The transfer map in this sequence is controlled
by the behavior of the transfer map in the associated sequences in
$THH$ and $TC$, where it is easier to understand. Following
Hesselholt, Ausoni \cite[8.3]{AusoniK} observes that in light of his calculations, the
existence of the localization cofiber sequence in $THH$ along with an
algebraic fact would permit the complete identification of
$V(1)_*K(KU)$.
One of the interesting aspects in the construction of the localization
sequences is the construction of the relative terms $THH(ku|KU)$ and
$TC(ku|KU)$: these relative terms ``mix'' the weak equivalences in the
category of $ku$-modules with the weak equivalences in the category of
$KU$-modules, in a way which does not arise in algebraic $K$-theory.
This mixing is the reason why there are two different localization
sequences. In order to explain these sorts of relative terms,
Rognes~\cite{RognesLog} has developed a theory of log ring spectra
motivated by the appearance of log rings in the work of Hesselholt and
Madsen \cite{HM3}. We expect that our relative terms agree with the
log $THH$ and $TC$ defined by Rognes.
Because our primary interest is the construction and explanation of
the localization sequences above, we have taken a technical shortcut that
drastically simplifies the theory. In Section~\ref{secdefwald}, we
introduce the concept of a simplicially enriched Waldhausen category in
which the Waldhausen structure and the simplicial mapping spaces
satisfy strong consistency hypotheses. The motivating example of such
a category is a subcategory of the cofibrant objects in a simplicial
model category with all objects fibrant; the model structure on the
module categories of \cite{EKMM} satisfy this condition. For the
majority of the paper we work only with simplicially enriched
Waldhausen categories. In Section~\ref{futuresec}, we argue that
simplicially enriched Waldhausen categories are not unduly restrictive
by showing that a closed Waldhausen subcategory of a Waldhausen
category that admits factorization is equivalent to a simplicially
enriched Waldhausen category (in fact, a simplicial model category
where every object is fibrant). This equivalence is functorial up to
a zigzag of natural weak equivalences.
Although we have taken Waldhausen categories for the basic input to $THH$ and
$K$-theory in this paper, alternatively, one could take
quasi-categories as the basic input. At this stage, the
quasi-category approach would require serious background treatment of
the $K$-theory and $THH$ of quasi-categories, which is not yet
formalized in the literature. On the other hand, since our first step
is to replace a general Waldhausen category with a stable simplicial
model category, such a background treatment would be essentially
independent of the main work in this paper.
In this paper, whenever we work with topological spaces, the reader
should understand that we are working in the category of compactly
generated weak Hausdorff spaces. We use the words ``topological'' or
``topological space'' to highlight when we are using
topological spaces rather than simplicial sets; these words should not be
construed to imply the use of general topological spaces rather than
compactly generated weak Hausdorff spaces.
\part{$THH$ and $TC$ of simplicially enriched {W}aldhausen categories}
\section{Simplicially enriched {W}aldhausen categories}\label{secdefwald}
In this section we introduce the structure of a simplicially enriched
Waldhausen category. This structure compatibly combines a simplicial
enrichment with a Waldhausen structure in a way that we make precise
in Definition~\ref{defsimpwaldcat}. Although this structure suffices
for us to define an associated spectral category in the next section,
more conditions are necessary to ensure that the homotopy theory of
the enrichment matches up with the intrinsic homotopy theory of the
Waldhausen category; we make these conditions precise in the
definition of DK-compatible enrichment in
Definition~\ref{defdkcompat}. In practice,
and as we explain in Section~\ref{futuresec}, without much loss of
generality, we typically have the stronger structures that we describe
in Definitions~\ref{deftenswaldcat} and~\ref{defusuwaldcat}. We
begin with the most basic structure in the following definition.
\begin{defn}\label{defsimpwaldcat}
A \term{simplicially enriched Waldhausen category} consists of a
category ${\catsymbfont{C}}={\catsymbfont{C}}_\ssdot$ enriched in simplicial sets together with a
Waldhausen category structure on ${\catsymbfont{C}}_{0}$ such that:
\begin{enumerate}
\item The zero object $*$ in ${\catsymbfont{C}}_{0}$ is a zero object for ${\catsymbfont{C}}$,
\item Pushouts over cofibrations in ${\catsymbfont{C}}_{0}$ are pushouts in ${\catsymbfont{C}}$,
\item Cofibrations $x\to y$ induce Kan fibrations
${\catsymbfont{C}}(y,z)\to{\catsymbfont{C}}(x,z)$ for all objects $z$, and
\item A map $x\to y$ is a weak equivalence if and only if ${\catsymbfont{C}}(y,z)\to
{\catsymbfont{C}}(x,z)$ is a weak equivalence for all objects $z$ if and only if
${\catsymbfont{C}}(z,x)\to {\catsymbfont{C}}(z,y)$ is a weak equivalence for all objects $z$.
\end{enumerate}
An \term{enriched exact functor} between such categories is a simplicial
functor $\phi \colon {\catsymbfont{C}}\to {\catsymbfont{D}}$ that
restricts to an exact functor of Waldhausen categories ${\catsymbfont{C}}_{0}\to
{\catsymbfont{D}}_{0}$.
\end{defn}
Since the initial map $* \to x$ is always a cofibration in a
Waldhausen category, Definition~\ref{defsimpwaldcat} implies that all
the mapping spaces ${\catsymbfont{C}}(x,y)$ are Kan complexes. The fact that weak
equivalences are detected on the simplicial mapping spaces implies
that weak equivalences in ${\catsymbfont{C}}_{0}$ are closed under retracts and
satisfy the two out of three property.
As explained by Dwyer and Kan, any category with a
subcategory of weak equivalences has an intrinsic homotopy theory
in terms of a functorial simplicially enriched category called the
Dwyer-Kan simplicial localization \cite{DKSimpLoc}. Technically, we
will use exclusively the variant called the hammock localization
\cite{DKHammock}, which we will denote by $L$. Then for a simplicial
Waldhausen category ${\catsymbfont{C}}$, the Dwyer-Kan simplicial localization of
the underlying category with weak equivalences $L{\catsymbfont{C}}_{0}$ provides a
second simplicially enriched category expanding ${\catsymbfont{C}}_{0}$. In
general, we see no reason why these two simplicial enrichments should
be equivalent; we therefore introduce the following
terminology.
\begin{defn}\label{defdkcompat}
Let ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ be a simplicially enriched Waldhausen category. We say
that ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ is \term{DK-compatible} if for all objects $x,y$ in ${\catsymbfont{C}}$,
the maps
\[
{\catsymbfont{C}}(x,y)\to \diag L{\catsymbfont{C}}_\ssdot(x,y)\mathchoice{\longleftarrow}{\leftarrow}{\leftarrow}{\leftarrow} L{\catsymbfont{C}}_{0}(x,y)
\]
are weak equivalences of simplicial sets. Here we regard ${\catsymbfont{C}}_{n}$ as
a category with weak equivalences by declaring a map in
${\catsymbfont{C}}_{n}$ to be a weak equivalence if and only if some (or,
equivalently, every) iterated face map takes it to a weak equivalence
in ${\catsymbfont{C}}_{0}$.
\end{defn}
For categories enriched in simplicial sets, spaces, or spectra, an
enriched functor $\phi \colon {\catsymbfont{C}}\to {\catsymbfont{D}}$ is called a
\term{DK-embedding} when it induces a weak equivalence ${\catsymbfont{C}}(x,y)\to
{\catsymbfont{D}}(\phi(x),\phi(y))$ for all objects $x$, $y$. A DK-embedding is a
\term{DK-equivalence} when it induces an equivalence $\pi_{0}{\catsymbfont{C}}\to
\pi_{0}{\catsymbfont{D}}$ on categories of components. On the other hand, for
discrete categories ${\catsymbfont{C}}_{0}$ and ${\catsymbfont{D}}_{0}$ with subcategories of weak
equivalences, a functor ${\catsymbfont{C}}_{0}\to{\catsymbfont{D}}_{0}$ that preserves weak
equivalences is called a \term{DK-embedding} or \term{DK-equivalence}
when it induces one on the Dwyer-Kan simplicial localizations.
The main purpose of the previous definition is the following easy
observation.
\begin{prop}\label{propequiv}
Let ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ and ${\catsymbfont{D}}$ be simplicially enriched Waldhausen categories and
$\phi \colon {\catsymbfont{C}}\to {\catsymbfont{D}}$ a simplicial functor (not necessarily
exact). Then:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\phi_{0}\colon {\catsymbfont{C}}_{0}\to {\catsymbfont{D}}_{0}$ preserves weak equivalences.
\item Assume furthermore that ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ and ${\catsymbfont{D}}$ are both DK-compatible.
Then $\phi$ is a DK-embedding or DK-equivalence of simplicially
enriched categories if and only if
$\phi_{0}$ is a DK-embedding or DK-equivalence (respectively) of
categories with weak equivalences.
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}
The following is an easy but important class of examples of
DK-compatible simplicially enriched Waldhausen categories.
\begin{example}\label{exexact}
An exact category, or more generally, a Waldhausen category whose weak
equivalences are the isomorphisms
becomes a DK-compatible simplicially enriched Waldhausen category by
regarding its mapping sets as discrete simplicial sets.
\end{example}
We also have the following less trivial examples.
\begin{example}\label{exofinterest}
Let ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ be a Waldhausen subcategory of cofibrant objects in
simplicial closed model category ${\catsymbfont{M}}$ in which all objects are
fibrant. Then ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ is a simplicially enriched Waldhausen category
with its natural simplicial mapping spaces and Waldhausen structure
inherited from ${\catsymbfont{M}}$. If ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ is closed under tensors with finite
simplicial sets, then ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ is a DK-compatible (see
Theorem~\ref{thmdkdiag} below). Examples of this type include:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Finite cell $R$-modules for an EKMM $S$-algebra $R$,
or (for $R$ connective with $\pi_{0}$ noetherian) cell $R$-modules
that have finite stage finitely generated Postnikov towers as in
\cite{BlumbergMandell}.
\item The category of finite cell modules over a
simplicial ring $A$, or the category of finite cell modules built out
of finitely generated projective $A$-modules.
\item The category of simplicial objects on an abelian category with
the ``split-exact'' model structure (where the
cofibrations are the levelwise split
mono\-morph\-isms and the weak equivalences are the simplicial homotopy
equivalences).
\item The category of levelwise projectives in the category
of simplicial objects on an abelian category with enough projectives
(with the standard projective model structure). Likewise, the
opposite category of the levelwise injectives in the category of
cosimplicial objects on an abelian category with enough injectives
(with the standard injective model structure).
\end{enumerate}
\end{example}
In addition to being DK-compatible, the previous class of examples
has an additional structure that we employ to construct non-connective
spectral enrichments in the next section. We abstract this structure
in the following definition.
\begin{defn}\label{deftenswaldcat}
A simplicially tensored Waldhausen category is a simplicially enriched
Waldhausen category in which tensors with finite simplicial sets exist
and satisfy the pushout-product axiom. A tensored exact functor
between simplicially tensored Waldhausen categories is a enriched
exact functor that preserves tensors with finite simplicial sets.
\end{defn}
In the previous definition, the pushout-product axiom
\cite[2.1]{SSAlgMod} asserts that given a cofibration $x \to y$ in
${\catsymbfont{C}}_{0}$ and a cofibration $A \to B$ of finite simplicial sets, the map
\[
(x \otimes B) \cup_{x \otimes A} (y \otimes A) \to y \otimes B
\]
is a cofibration in ${\catsymbfont{C}}_{0}$. This axiom implies that the
usual mapping cylinder construction endows ${\catsymbfont{C}}_{0}$ with a cylinder
functor satisfying the cylinder axiom (in the sense of
\cite[\S1.6]{WaldhausenKT}). The Kan condition on the mapping spaces
combined with the tensor adjunction implies the following proposition.
\begin{prop}\label{propcswprop}
Let ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ be a simplicially tensored Waldhausen category.
\begin{enumerate}
\item For any object $x$ in ${\catsymbfont{C}}$, the tensor $x\otimes(-)$ preserves weak
equivalences in simplicial sets.
\item For any finite simplicial set $X$, the tensor $(-)\otimes
X$ preserves weak equivalences in ${\catsymbfont{C}}$.
\item For objects $x$ and $y$ in ${\catsymbfont{C}}$, the simplicial set ${\catsymbfont{C}}(x,y)$
is canonically isomorphic to ${\catsymbfont{C}}_{0}(x\otimes \Delta[\cdot],y)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}
Definition~\ref{deftenswaldcat} provides the strongest background structure that
we use; in Section~\ref{futuresec}, we see that Waldhausen categories
quite generally admit equivalent models of this type. In our study of
the localization sequence, however, we require slightly more
flexibility. Using a simplicially tensored Waldhausen category as
an ambient category, we will sometimes need to restrict to a subcategory.
\begin{defn}\label{defusuwaldcat}
A \term{enhanced simplicially enriched Waldhausen category} is a pair
${\catsymbfont{A}}\subset {\catsymbfont{C}}$ where ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ is a simplicially tensored Waldhausen category
and ${\catsymbfont{A}}$ is a full subcategory such that ${\catsymbfont{A}}_{0}$ is a closed
Waldhausen subcategory. For ${\catsymbfont{A}}\subset {\catsymbfont{C}}$ and ${\catsymbfont{B}}\subset {\catsymbfont{D}}$
enhanced simplicially enriched
Waldhausen categories, an \term{enhanced exact} functor
${\catsymbfont{A}}\to {\catsymbfont{B}}$ is a tensored exact functor of simplicially tensored Waldhausen
categories ${\catsymbfont{C}}\to {\catsymbfont{D}}$ that restricts to a functor ${\catsymbfont{A}}\to {\catsymbfont{B}}$.
\end{defn}
As in \cite[\S 1.2]{WaldhausenKT}, a \term{Waldhausen subcategory}
${\catsymbfont{A}}$ is a full subcategory of a Waldhausen category ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ that itself
becomes a Waldhausen category by taking a weak equivalence to be a
weak equivalence in ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ between objects of ${\catsymbfont{A}}$ and a cofibration
to be a cofibration in ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ between objects of ${\catsymbfont{A}}$ for which the
cofiber is in ${\catsymbfont{A}}$ (up to isomorphism). A \term{closed} Waldhausen
subcategory is a Waldhausen subcategory ${\catsymbfont{A}}\subset {\catsymbfont{C}}$ that contains
every object of ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ that is weakly equivalent to an object of ${\catsymbfont{A}}$.
An enhanced simplicially enriched Waldhausen category inherits tensors with
homotopically trivial finite simplicial sets (but not necessarily
arbitrary finite simplicial sets) as well as properties~(i) and~(iii)
of Proposition~\ref{propcswprop}. We also have the following
compatibility result.
\begin{thm}\label{thmdkdiag}
An enhanced simplicially enriched Waldhausen category ${\catsymbfont{A}}\subset {\catsymbfont{C}}$
is DK-compatible.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
Fix objects $a,b$. Regarding ${\catsymbfont{A}}_{n}(a,b)$ as ${\catsymbfont{A}}_{0}(a\otimes
\Delta[n],b)$, each category ${\catsymbfont{A}}_{n}$ admits a homotopy calculus of
left fractions \cite[6.1]{DKHammock} (see, for example, the argument
for \cite[5.5]{BlumbergMandellUW}) and so we can replace
$L{\catsymbfont{A}}_{n}(a,b)$ with the nerve of the
category of words of the form $\mathbf{W^{-1}}\mathbf{C}$, which we will temporarily
denote as $L_{n}(a,b)$. An object of this category consists of a zigzag
\[
a\to x\mathchoice{\longleftarrow}{\leftarrow}{\leftarrow}{\leftarrow} b
\]
of maps in ${\catsymbfont{A}}_{n}$, where the map $x\mathchoice{\longleftarrow}{\leftarrow}{\leftarrow}{\leftarrow} b$ is a weak equivalence; a
map in this category is a map in ${\catsymbfont{A}}_{n}$ of $x$ that is under $a$
and $b$. We check that both maps
\[
L_{0}(a,b)\to \diag L_\ssdot(a,b)\mathchoice{\longleftarrow}{\leftarrow}{\leftarrow}{\leftarrow} {\catsymbfont{A}}(a,b)
\]
are weak equivalences.
For the map $L_{0}(a,b)\to \diag L_\ssdot(a,b)$, we show that each
iterated degeneracy $L_{0}(a,b)\to L_{n}(a,b)$ is a weak equivalence.
An iterated face map gives a functor $L_{n}(a,b)\to L_{0}(a,b)$ such
that the composite is the identity on $L_{0}(a,b)$. To see that the
composite on $L_{n}(a,b)$ is a weak equivalence, note that both
inclusions of $a$ and $b$ in $a\otimes \Delta[1]$ and $b\otimes
\Delta[1]$ induce weak equivalences
\[
L_{n}(a\otimes \Delta[1],b\otimes \Delta[1])\to L_{n}(a,b).
\]
Choosing a contracting homotopy $\Delta[1]\times
\Delta[n]\to \Delta[n]$, we get a map from $L_{n}(a,b)$ to
$L_{n}(a\otimes \Delta[1],b\otimes \Delta[1])$
\[
(a\rightarrow x\leftarrow b) \quad \longmapsto \quad
(a\otimes \Delta[1]\rightarrow x\otimes \Delta[1]\leftarrow b\otimes \Delta[1])
\]
such that one composite
on $L_{n}(a,b)$ is simplicially homotopic to the identity and the
other is simplicially homotopic to the composite map
$L_{n}\to L_{0}\to L_{n}$ we are interested in.
It remains to see that the map
${\catsymbfont{A}}(a,b)\to \diag L_\ssdot(a,b)$ is a weak equivalence.
We can identify $\diag
L_\ssdot(a,b)$ as the diagonal of the bisimplicial set whose
simplicial set of $q$-simplices is
\[
{\catsymbfont{A}}(a,x_{0})\times w{\catsymbfont{A}}(b,x_{0}) \times
w{\catsymbfont{A}}(x_{0},x_{1})\times \dotsb \times w{\catsymbfont{A}}(x_{q-1},x_{q}),
\]
where $w{\catsymbfont{A}}$ denotes the components with (any, or equivalently, all)
vertices in $w{\catsymbfont{A}}_{0}$, the subcategory of weak equivalences of the
Waldhausen category ${\catsymbfont{A}}_{0}$. The map ${\catsymbfont{A}}(a,b)\to\diag
L_\ssdot(a,b)$
factors through a bisimplicial map from
the bisimplicial set $X_{\ssdot\ssdot}$ whose simplicial set of $q$-simplices
$X_{q\bullet}%{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}$ is
\[
{\catsymbfont{A}}(a,b)\times w{\catsymbfont{A}}(b,x_{0}) \times
w{\catsymbfont{A}}(x_{0},x_{1})\times \dotsb \times w{\catsymbfont{A}}(x_{q-1},x_{q}).
\]
The inclusion ${\catsymbfont{A}}(a,b)\to \diag X_{\ssdot\ssdot}$ is clearly a simplicial
homotopy equivalence, and the bisimplicial map $X_{\ssdot\ssdot} \to
L_\ssdot(a,b)$ is a degreewise weak equivalence.
\end{proof}
\section[Spectral categories of {W}aldhausen categories]%
{Spectral categories associated to simplicially enriched {W}aldhausen categories}
\label{secspec}
As we explain, a simplicially enriched Waldhausen
category has an associated spectral category, which is natural in
enriched exact functors. The mapping spectra in this category are
prolongations of $\Gamma$-spaces, and as such, are always connective.
For an enhanced simplicially enriched Waldhausen category, we can
associate another spectral category, typically non-connective, using
the suspensions in the ambient simplicially tensored Waldhausen
category; it is natural in enhanced exact functors. In this section,
we explore the basic properties of these categories. We begin with
the construction.
\begin{defn}\label{defgammaenrich}
Let ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ be a simplicially enriched Waldhausen category.
Define ${\catsymbfont{C}}^{\Gamma}$, the $\Gamma$-category associated to ${\catsymbfont{C}}$, to
have objects the objects of ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ and mapping $\Gamma$-spaces
\[
{\catsymbfont{C}}^{\Gamma}_{q}(x,y)={\catsymbfont{C}}(x,\myop\bigvee_{q}y).
\]
By abuse, we will also write ${\catsymbfont{C}}^{\Gamma}$ for the enrichment in
symmetric spectra obtained by prolongation.
We will refer to ${\catsymbfont{C}}^{\Gamma}$ as the \term{connective spectral
enrichment} of ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ or the connective spectral
category associated to ${\catsymbfont{C}}$.
\end{defn}
Here the composition
\[
{\catsymbfont{C}}^{\Gamma}_{r}(y,z) \sma {\catsymbfont{C}}^{\Gamma}_{q}(x,y) \to {\catsymbfont{C}}^{\Gamma}_{qr}(x,z).
\]
comes from the $\Sigma_{q}\wr\Sigma_{r}$-equivariant map
\[
{\catsymbfont{C}}(y,\myop\bigvee_{r}z) \to \prod_{q}{\catsymbfont{C}}(y,\myop\bigvee_{r} z) \to {\catsymbfont{C}}(\myop\bigvee_{q}y,\myop\bigvee_{rq}z)
\]
and composition
\[
{\catsymbfont{C}}(\myop\bigvee_{q}y,\myop\bigvee_{rq}z)\sma {\catsymbfont{C}}(x,\myop\bigvee_{q}y) \to {\catsymbfont{C}}(x,\myop\bigvee_{rq}z).
\]
This composition of $\Gamma$-spaces then induces the composition
on the associated symmetric spectra. The following proposition is
immediate from the construction.
\begin{prop}\label{propfunctG}
For simplicially enriched Waldhausen
categories ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ and ${\catsymbfont{D}}$, an enriched exact functor $\phi \colon
{\catsymbfont{C}}\to {\catsymbfont{D}}$ induces a spectral functor $\phi^{\Gamma}\colon
{\catsymbfont{C}}^{\Gamma} \to {\catsymbfont{D}}^{\Gamma}$. If ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ and ${\catsymbfont{D}}$ are DK-compatible
and $\phi$ is a DK-embedding or DK-equivalence, then so is
$\phi^{\Gamma}$.
\end{prop}
In general, we can not expect the $\Gamma$-spaces
${\catsymbfont{C}}^{\Gamma}(x,y)$ to be special or very special. On the other hand,
as a prolongation of a $\Gamma$-space, the associated symmetric
spectrum is \term{semistable}: it represents the same object in the
stable category as its underlying prespectrum.
\begin{prop}\label{propsemistableG}
The mapping symmetric spectra in ${\catsymbfont{C}}^{\Gamma}$ are semistable.
\end{prop}
\begin{example}\label{remexact}
For $\mathfrak{E}$ be an exact category, simplicially enriched as in Example~\ref{exexact},
\[
\mathfrak{E}^{\Gamma}_{q}(x,y) = \mathfrak{E}(x, \bigoplus_{i=1}^{q} y)\iso \prod_{i=1}^{q}\mathfrak{E}(x,y).
\]
Prolonging to symmetric spectra, we get
\[
\mathfrak{E}^{\Gamma}(x,y)(n) = \mathfrak{E}(x,y) \otimes \tilde{{\mathbb{Z}}}[S^n],
\]
where $\tilde{{\mathbb{Z}}}[X] = {\mathbb{Z}}[X] / {\mathbb{Z}}[*]$. This is
precisely the spectral category associated to an exact category
studied by Dundas-McCarthy~\cite{DundasMcCarthy} and Hesselholt-Madsen~\cite{HM3}.
\end{example}
When ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ is a simplicially tensored Waldhausen category, we can
construct another enrichment in symmetric spectra using suspensions:
for an object $x$ in ${\catsymbfont{C}}$, let
$\Sigma x$ be the cofiber of the map
\[
x\otimes \partial \Delta[1]\to x\otimes \Delta[1].
\]
Suspension defines a tensored
exact functor from ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ to itself.
Commuting colimits and tensors, and applying the associativity
isomorphism for tensors, we can describe the iterated
suspension $\Sigma^{n}x$ as the cofiber of the map
\[
x \otimes \partial(\Delta[1]^{n})\to x\otimes \Delta[1]^{n},
\]
where $\Delta[1]^{n}=\Delta[1]\times \dotsb \times \Delta[1]$. The $n$-th
suspension inherits from $\Delta[1]^{n}$ an action of the symmetric group
$\Sigma_{n}$.
\begin{defn}\label{defenrich}
Let ${\catsymbfont{A}}\subset {\catsymbfont{C}}$ be an enhanced simplicially enriched Waldhausen
category. Define ${\catsymbfont{A}}^{S}$ be the spectral category with objects the
objects of ${\catsymbfont{A}}$ and mapping symmetric spectra
\[
{\catsymbfont{A}}^{S}(x,y)(n)={\catsymbfont{C}}(x,\Sigma^{n}y).
\]
We will refer to this as the \term{non-connective spectral enrichment} of ${\catsymbfont{A}}$
or the non-connective spectral category associated to ${\catsymbfont{A}}$.
\end{defn}
In the previous definition, we obtain the composition on ${\catsymbfont{A}}^{S}$,
\[
{\catsymbfont{A}}^{S}(y,z) \sma {\catsymbfont{A}}^{S}(x,y) \to {\catsymbfont{A}}^{S}(x,z)
\]
from the $\Sigma_{n}\times \Sigma_{m}$-equivariant maps
\[
{\catsymbfont{C}}(y,\Sigma^{m}z) \sma {\catsymbfont{C}}(x, \Sigma^{n}y)
\to
{\catsymbfont{C}}(\Sigma^{n}y,\Sigma^{m+n}z) \sma {\catsymbfont{C}}(x, \Sigma^{n} y)
\to
{\catsymbfont{C}}(x,\Sigma^{m+n}z).
\]
Note that for a enhanced simplicially enriched Waldhausen category
${\catsymbfont{A}}\subset {\catsymbfont{C}}$, the suspension of an object of ${\catsymbfont{A}}$ is an object of
${\catsymbfont{C}}$ but need not be an
object in ${\catsymbfont{A}}$. As a
consequence, the non-connective enrichment ${\catsymbfont{A}}^{S}$ depends strongly
on the ambient simplicially tensored Waldhausen category ${\catsymbfont{C}}$.
Recall that an enhanced exact functor has as part of its structure a
tensored exact functor on the ambient simplicially tensored Waldhausen
categories; the following functoriality is immediate from the
construction.
\begin{prop}\label{propfunctS}
An enhanced exact functor $\phi \colon {\catsymbfont{A}}\to {\catsymbfont{B}}$ between enhanced
simplicially enriched Waldhausen categories induces a spectral functor
$\phi^{S}\colon {\catsymbfont{A}}^{S}\to {\catsymbfont{B}}^{S}$. If $\phi$ is a
DK-equivalence and a DK-embedding on the ambient simplicially tensored
category, then $\phi^{S}$ is a DK-equivalence.
\end{prop}
Using Proposition~\ref{propcswprop}.(i) and the Kan condition, we see
that the action of any even permutation on
${\catsymbfont{A}}^{S}(x,y)(n)={\catsymbfont{C}}(x,\Sigma^{n}y)$ is homotopic to the identity.
Then \cite[3.2]{SchwedeSymmHom} gives us the following proposition.
\begin{prop}\label{propsemistableS}
The mapping symmetric spectra in ${\catsymbfont{A}}^{S}$ are semistable.
\end{prop}
\begin{example}\label{exexactnoncon}
Let $\mathfrak{A}$ be an abelian category with enough projectives (e.g., the
opposite category of an abelian category with enough injectives), and
let $\mathfrak{E}\subset \mathfrak{A}$ be an exact category (with exact sequences the
exact sequences of $\mathfrak{A}$ in $\mathfrak{E}$). Let ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ be the simplicially
tensored Waldhausen category of levelwise projectives in the category
of simplicial objects of $\mathfrak{A}$, as in
Example~\ref{exofinterest}.(iv). Let ${\catsymbfont{A}}\subset {\catsymbfont{C}}$ be the full
subcategory of ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ consisting of those objects $x$ such that
$\pi_{0}x$ is in $\mathfrak{E}$ and $\pi_{n}x=0$ for $n>0$.
Then ${\catsymbfont{A}}\subset {\catsymbfont{C}}$ is an enhanced simplicially enriched Waldhausen
category and $\pi_{0}$ gives a enriched exact functor ${\catsymbfont{A}}\to
\mathfrak{E}$. This functor induces a DK-equivalence of the connective
spectral enrichments ${\catsymbfont{A}}^{\Gamma}\to \mathfrak{E}^{\Gamma}$. On the other
hand ${\catsymbfont{A}}$ has a non-connective spectral enrichment ${\catsymbfont{A}}^{S}$, where
$\pi_{n}{\catsymbfont{A}}^{S}(x,y)$ is $0$ for $n>0$ and
$\Ext^{-n}(\pi_{0}x,\pi_{0}y)$ for $n\leq0$.
\end{example}
\begin{example}
As an example to demonstrate the significance of the ambient
simplicially tensored Waldhausen category,
let ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ be the Waldhausen category of countable cell EKMM $S$-modules
and let ${\catsymbfont{C}}'$ the Waldhausen category of countable cell EKMM
$H{\mathbb{Z}}$-modules (for some countable cell $S$-algebra model of $H{\mathbb{Z}}$).
Let ${\catsymbfont{A}}$
and ${\catsymbfont{A}}'$ be the Waldhausen subcategories of Eilenberg-Mac Lane
spectra with homotopy groups concentrated in degree zero in
${\catsymbfont{C}}$ and ${\catsymbfont{C}}'$ respectively. The forgetful functor ${\catsymbfont{C}}'\to
{\catsymbfont{C}}$ is exact and sends ${\catsymbfont{A}}'$ into ${\catsymbfont{A}}$, inducing a DK-equivalence
and hence a DK-equivalence ${\catsymbfont{A}}^{\prime\Gamma}\to {\catsymbfont{A}}^{\Gamma}$ but
not a DK-equivalence ${\catsymbfont{A}}^{\prime S}\to {\catsymbfont{A}}^{S}$.
\end{example}
For an enhanced simplicially enriched Waldhausen category
${\catsymbfont{A}}\subset {\catsymbfont{C}}$, we have a natural spectral functor (of spectral
categories of symmetric spectra) ${\catsymbfont{A}}^{\Gamma}\to {\catsymbfont{A}}^{S}$. In the
previous example, and in fact in the examples of Example~\ref{exofinterest},
${\catsymbfont{A}}^{\Gamma}$ is a connective cover of ${\catsymbfont{A}}^{S}$, i.e., induces an
isomorphism on the non-negative homotopy groups.
The following proposition gives a sufficient general condition for
this to hold.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:conncover}
Let ${\catsymbfont{A}}\subset {\catsymbfont{C}}$ be an enhanced simplicially enriched Waldhausen
category, and assume that for every $a,b\in {\catsymbfont{A}}$ the suspension map
${\catsymbfont{C}}(a,b)\to {\catsymbfont{C}}(\Sigma a,\Sigma b)$ is a weak equivalence. Then
${\catsymbfont{A}}^{\Gamma}(a,b)\to {\catsymbfont{A}}^{S}(a,b)$ is a connective cover.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Fix $a,b$ and consider the functor $F(-)={\catsymbfont{C}}(a,(b\otimes
-)/(b\otimes *))$ as a functor from based finite simplicial sets to based
simplicial sets; we then get ${\catsymbfont{A}}^{\Gamma}(a,b)$ by viewing $F$ as
$\Gamma$-space and ${\catsymbfont{A}}^{S}(a,b)$ by viewing $\{F(S^{n})\}$ as a
symmetric spectrum. By the hypothesis of the proposition, the
canonical map $F(-)\to \Omega F(\Sigma -)$ is a weak equivalence. The
argument of \cite[17.9]{MMSS} shows that $F$ is ``linear'' meaning
that it takes homotopy pushouts to homotopy pullbacks, and in
particular, as a $\Gamma$-space $F$ is very special
\cite[18.6]{MMSS}. The homotopy groups of ${\catsymbfont{A}}^{\Gamma}(a,b)$ are
then the homotopy groups of $F(S^{0})={\catsymbfont{A}}(a,b)$. Likewise,
$\{F(S^{n})\}$ is an $\Omega$-spectrum, so its non-negative homotopy
are also the homotopy groups of $F(S^{0})$.
\end{proof}
In the absence of the stability hypothesis of the previous
proposition, ${\catsymbfont{A}}^{S}$ tends to better capture the stable homotopy
theory of ${\catsymbfont{A}}\subset {\catsymbfont{C}}$, as indicated for example in the following
proposition.
\begin{prop}\label{propfibercofiber}
Let ${\catsymbfont{A}}\subset {\catsymbfont{C}}$ be an enhanced simplicially enriched Waldhausen
category.
\begin{enumerate}
\item For any $x,y$ in ${\catsymbfont{A}}$, the map ${\catsymbfont{A}}^{S}(x,y)\to {\catsymbfont{A}}^{S}(\Sigma
x,\Sigma y)$ is a weak equivalence.
\item For a cofibration $f\colon a\to b$, $Cf$ the homotopy
cofiber, and any object $z$, the sequences
\[
\xymatrix@R-2pc{
\Omega{\catsymbfont{A}}^{S}(a,z) \ar[r] \ar[r] & {\catsymbfont{A}}^{S}(Cf,z) \ar[r] & {\catsymbfont{A}}^{S}(b,z) \ar[r] & {\catsymbfont{A}}^{S}(a,z) \\
{\catsymbfont{A}}^{S}(z,a) \ar[r] \ar[r] & {\catsymbfont{A}}^{S}(z,b) \ar[r] & {\catsymbfont{A}}^{S}(z,Cf) \ar[r] & \Sigma {\catsymbfont{A}}^{S}(z,a) \\
}
\]
form a fiber sequence and a cofiber sequence in the stable category, respectively.
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Part~(i) and the statement about the first sequence in part~(ii) are
clear. The statement about the second sequence follows from part~(i)
and the argument in~\cite[\S III.2.1]{LMS} or~\cite[7.4.vi]{MMSS}.
\end{proof}
The proposition indicates that for a simplicially tensored Waldhausen
category ${\catsymbfont{C}}$, the spectral category ${\catsymbfont{C}}^{S}$ is nearly
``pretriangulated'' in the sense of \cite[4.4]{BlumbergMandellTHHLoc}. In
fact, we have the following easy corollary:
\begin{cor}\label{cor:pretriang}
Let ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ be a simplicially tensored Waldhausen category in which
every object is weakly equivalent to a suspension. Then the category
${\catsymbfont{C}}^{S}$ is pretriangulated, i.e., the category of components
$\pi_{0}{\catsymbfont{C}}^{S}$ has the structure of a triangulated category with
triangles coming from the cofibration sequences and translation from the
suspension.
\end{cor}
\begin{rem}
As the preceding results indicate, the construction of the mapping
spectra described above provides a version of stabilization of
the simplicial Waldhausen category ${\catsymbfont{C}}$. In particular, the zeroth
space of (a fibrant replacement of) the mapping spectrum
${\catsymbfont{C}}^{S}(x,y)$ is given by
\[
\colim_n \Omega^n {\catsymbfont{C}}(x, \Sigma^n y) \cong \colim_n {\catsymbfont{C}}(\Sigma^n
x, \Sigma^n y).
\]
It is possible to explicitly compare ${\catsymbfont{C}}^{S}$ to a model of the
formal stabilization in terms of symmetric spectrum objects in ${\catsymbfont{C}}$.
We give an example below, but general theorems of this sort are
encumbered with technical hypotheses, and since we do not need such
results we leave this to the interested reader.
\end{rem}
\begin{example}[Spectral categories and stabilization in Waldhausen's
algebraic $K$- theory of spaces]
Let $G$ be a group-like topological monoid, let
$W$ a CW-complex on which $G$ acts, and let $R(W,G)$ denote the
category of $G$-spaces which have $W$ as a retract. When restricting
to objects satisfying some kind of finiteness condition, $R(W,G)$ provides
Waldhausen's motivating example for a Waldhausen category and one of
the models underlying the algebraic $K$-theory of spaces. We can give
$R(W,G)$ the
model structure in which the weak equivalences are the equivariant maps
that induce underlying equivalences of spaces. The category $R(W,G)$
is in no sense stable (for example, when $G$ and $W$ are trivial,
$R(W,G)$ is the category of based spaces), and the spectral category
$R(W,G)^{S}$ is equivalent to the evident subcategory of free
$\Sigma^{\infty}_+ G$-spectra, as expected.
\end{example}
\section{The $\Sdot$ and {M}oore nerve constructions}\label{sec:moore1}
As part of the construction of $THH$ and $TC$ of simplicially enriched
Waldhausen categories and the construction of the cyclotomic
trace in the next section, we need to extend Waldhausen's
$\Sdot$ construction and the nerve category construction to the
context of simplicially enriched Waldhausen categories. We begin with
the $\Sdot$ construction, where no difficulties arise.
Let $\Ar[n]$ denote the lexicographically ordered set of ordered pairs
of integers $i,j$ where $0\leq i\leq j\leq n$.
Recall that for a Waldhausen category ${\catsymbfont{C}}_{0}$, $\Sdot[n]{\catsymbfont{C}}_{0}$ is
the full subcategory of the category of functors $A=a_{-,-}\colon
\Ar[n]\to {\catsymbfont{C}}_{0}$ such that:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $a_{i,i}=*$,
\item $a_{i,j}\to a_{i,k}$ is a cofibration , and
\item $a_{i,i}\cup_{a_{i,j}}a_{i,k}\to a_{j,k}$ is an isomorphism
\end{enumerate}
for all $i\leq j\leq k$. A map in $\Sdot{\catsymbfont{C}}_{0}$ is simply a natural
transformation of
functors $\Ar[n]\to {\catsymbfont{C}}_{0}$. This becomes a Waldhausen category with weak
equivalences defined objectwise and cofibrations defined to be the
objectwise cofibrations
$A\to B$ such that each map $a_{i,k}\cup_{a_{i,j}}b_{i,j}\to b_{i,k}$
is a cofibration.
\begin{defn}
For a simplicially enriched Waldhausen category ${\catsymbfont{C}}$, let
$\Sdot[n]{\catsymbfont{C}}$ be the simplicially enriched category with objects the
same as $\Sdot[n]{\catsymbfont{C}}_{0}$ and simplicial sets of maps the
simplicial set of natural transformations of functors $\Ar[n]\to {\catsymbfont{C}}$.
\end{defn}
Condition~(iii) in the definition of $\Sdot$ implies that a map $A\to
B$ is completely determined by the maps $a_{0,j}\to b_{0,j}$. Since
the maps $a_{0,j}\to a_{0,j+1}$ are cofibrations, we can identify the
simplicial set of maps $\Sdot[n]{\catsymbfont{C}}(A,B)$ as a pullback over fibrations
\begin{equation}\label{eqsn}
\Sdot[n]{\catsymbfont{C}}(A,B)\iso
{\catsymbfont{C}}(a_{0,1},b_{0,1})\times_{{\catsymbfont{C}}(a_{0,1},b_{0,2})}
\dotsb
\times_{{\catsymbfont{C}}(a_{0,n-1},b_{0,n})}
{\catsymbfont{C}}(a_{0,n},b_{0,n}).
\end{equation}
That is, the simplicial set of maps computes a homotopy limit. Using
this formulation of the maps, the following becomes an easy check of
the definitions and standard properties of pullbacks of fibrations of
Kan complexes.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:Sdotinherit}
Let ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ be a simplicially enriched Waldhausen category. Then:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\Sdot[n]{\catsymbfont{C}}$
is a simplicially enriched Waldhausen category.
\item If ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ is simplicially
tensored or enhanced, then so is $\Sdot[n]{\catsymbfont{C}}$.
\item The face and degeneracy maps $\Sdot[m]{\catsymbfont{C}}\to \Sdot[n]{\catsymbfont{C}}$ are
enriched exact and are tensored exact or enhanced exact when ${\catsymbfont{C}}$
is simplicially tensored or enhanced.
\end{enumerate}
Moreover, $\Sdot[n]$ preserves enriched exact, tensored exact, and
enhanced exact functors.
\end{prop}
Applying the spectral category constructions of the previous section,
we get a simplicial spectral category $\Sdot{\catsymbfont{C}}^{\Gamma}$, natural in
enriched exact functors of ${\catsymbfont{C}}$. When ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ is simplicially
tensored or enhanced, we get a simplicial spectral category
$\Sdot{\catsymbfont{C}}^{S}$, natural in tensored exact or enhanced exact functors
of ${\catsymbfont{C}}$. The formula~\eqref{eqsn} for the mapping spaces then
implies the following result for spectral categories.
\begin{prop}\label{propfunct}
Let $\phi \colon {\catsymbfont{C}}\to {\catsymbfont{D}}$ be an enriched exact functor between
simplicially enriched Waldhausen categories that are DK-compatible.
If $\phi$ is a DK-embedding, then
$\Sdot[n]\phi^{\Gamma}\colon \Sdot[n]{\catsymbfont{C}}^{\Gamma}\to
\Sdot[n]{\catsymbfont{D}}^{\Gamma}$ is a DK-embedding.
\end{prop}
\begin{prop}\label{propfunctwo}
Let $\phi \colon ({\catsymbfont{A}} \subset {\catsymbfont{C}}) \to ({\catsymbfont{B}} \subset {\catsymbfont{D}})$ be an
enhanced exact functor between enhanced simplicially enriched
Waldhausen categories. If $\phi \colon
{\catsymbfont{C}} \to {\catsymbfont{D}}$ is a DK-embedding, then
\[
\Sdot[n]\phi^{S}\colon \Sdot[n]{\catsymbfont{A}}^{S}\to \Sdot[n]{\catsymbfont{B}}^{S}
\]
is a DK-embedding.
\end{prop}
In Proposition~\ref{propfunct}, we do not necessarily get a
DK-equivalence $\Sdot[n]{\catsymbfont{C}}^{\Gamma}\to \Sdot[n]{\catsymbfont{D}}^{\Gamma}$ from a
DK-equivalence ${\catsymbfont{C}}\to {\catsymbfont{D}}$. Applying the results of
\cite{BlumbergMandellUW}, we can do slightly better in
Proposition~\ref{propfunctwo}.
\begin{prop}\label{propfuncthree}
Under the hypotheses of Proposition~\ref{propfunctwo}, if $\phi \colon
{\catsymbfont{A}}\to {\catsymbfont{B}}$ and $\phi \colon {\catsymbfont{C}} \to {\catsymbfont{D}}$ are DK-equivalences, then
\[
\Sdot[n]\phi^{\Gamma}\colon \Sdot[n]{\catsymbfont{A}}^{\Gamma}\to \Sdot[n]{\catsymbfont{B}}^{\Gamma}
\qquad \text{and}\qquad
\Sdot[n]\phi^{S}\colon \Sdot[n]{\catsymbfont{A}}^{S}\to \Sdot[n]{\catsymbfont{B}}^{S}
\]
are also DK-equivalences.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
It suffices to show that for any sequence of cofibrations $b_{1}\to
\dotsb \to b_{n}$ in ${\catsymbfont{B}}$, there exists a sequence of cofibrations
$a_{1}\to \dotsb \to a_{n}$ in ${\catsymbfont{A}}$ and a commutative diagram
\[
\xymatrix@C-1pc{%
\phi (a_{1})\ar[r]\ar[d]_{\sim}&\phi (a_{2})\ar[r]\ar[d]_{\sim}
&\dotsb \ar[r]&\phi(a_{n-1})\ar[r]\ar[d]_{\sim}
&\phi(a_{n})\ar[d]_{\sim}\\
b_{1}\ar[r]&b_{2}\ar[r]&\dotsb \ar[r]&b_{n-1}\ar[r]&b_{n}
}
\]
with the vertical maps weak equivalences. We argue by induction on
$n$, the base case of $n=1$ following from the fact that $\phi$ is a
DK-equivalence and all weak equivalences have homotopy inverses.
Having constructed the diagram
\[
\xymatrix@C-1pc{%
\phi (a_{1})\ar[r]\ar[d]_{\sim}
&\phi (a_{2})\ar[r]\ar[d]_{\sim}
&\dotsb \ar[r]&\phi(a_{n-1})\ar[d]_{\sim}\\
b_{1}\ar[r]&b_{2}\ar[r]&\dotsb \ar[r]&b_{n-1}\ar[r]&b_{n}
}
\]
by induction, we know from \cite[1.4]{BlumbergMandellUW} that the
homotopy category of objects in ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ under $a_{n-1}$ is equivalent to
the homotopy category of objects in ${\catsymbfont{D}}$ under $\phi(a_{n-1})$. We
then get an object $a'$ a map $a_{n-1}\to a'$ in ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ and a zigzag of weak
equivalences under $\phi(a_{n-1})$ in ${\catsymbfont{D}}$ from $\phi(a')$ to
$b_{n}$. Since $b_{n}$ is in ${\catsymbfont{B}}$, by the embedding hypotheses, we
see that $a'$ is in ${\catsymbfont{A}}$.
Using an appropriate generalized interval $J$, we let $a_{n}=(a_{n-1}\otimes
J)\cup_{a_{n-1}}a'$. The inclusion of $a_{n-1}$ in $a_{n}$ is a
cofibration in ${\catsymbfont{C}}$, and we get a weak equivalence under
$\phi(a_{n-1})$ from $\phi(a_{n})$ to $b_{n}$. To complete the
argument we need to see that $a_{n-1}\to a_{n}$ is a cofibration in
${\catsymbfont{A}}$, i.e., that its cofiber is in ${\catsymbfont{A}}$. This follows since
$\phi(a_{n}/a_{n-1})$ is weakly equivalent to $b_{n}/b_{n-1}$, which
is in ${\catsymbfont{B}}$ since by hypothesis $b_{n-1}\to b_{n}$ is a cofibration in
${\catsymbfont{B}}$.
\end{proof}
Waldhausen constructed the $K$-theory spectrum $K{\catsymbfont{C}}_{0}$ as
$w_\ssdot\Sdot^{(n)}{\catsymbfont{C}}_{0}$, where $\Sdot^{(n)}$ is the iterated
$\Sdot$-construction and $w_\ssdot$ is the nerve of the subcategory of
weak equivalences. The previous proposition extends the iterated
$\Sdot$ construction to simplicially enriched categories. We could
likewise consider the simplicially enriched categories $w_{n}{\catsymbfont{C}}$ with
objects the sequences of weak equivalences
\[
a_{0}\overto{\sim}\dotsb \overto{\sim}a_{n}
\]
and simplicial sets of maps the natural transformations. Then for
objects $A$ and $B$, the simplicial set of $w_{n}{\catsymbfont{C}}(A,B)$
becomes
\[
{\catsymbfont{C}}(a_{0},b_{0})\times_{{\catsymbfont{C}}(a_{0},b_{1})}
\dotsb
\times_{{\catsymbfont{C}}(a_{n-1},b_{n})}
{\catsymbfont{C}}(a_{n},b_{n}).
\]
While this works formally, it does not work well homotopically because
the pullbacks are not over fibrations and so the mapping spaces are
not homotopy limits.
We can sometimes resolve this problem by working with the
simplicially enriched categories $\bar w_n {\catsymbfont{C}}$, where the objects
are the sequences of maps which are weak equivalences and
cofibrations; we use this construction in Section~\ref{sec:loc}.
However, this is often inconvenient and does not always produce the
correct result, and so instead we
describe a general technique for fixing the problem by putting choices of
homotopies in the mapping spaces. As a first case, consider the
following construction.
\begin{cons}\label{consvone}
Let ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ be a simplicially enriched category and let $v{\catsymbfont{C}}_{0}$ be a
subcategory of ${\catsymbfont{C}}_{0}$. We construct a topologically enriched
category $v_{1}^{M}{\catsymbfont{C}}$ as follows. An object consists of a map
$\alpha_{0}\colon a_{0}\to a_{1}$ in $v{\catsymbfont{C}}_{0}$. The space of maps
$v_{1}{\catsymbfont{C}}(A,B)$
consists of elements $f_{0},f_{1}$ of the geometric realizations
$|{\catsymbfont{C}}(a_{0},b_{0})|$, $|{\catsymbfont{C}}(a_{1},b_{1})|$ (respectively), a
non-negative real number $r$, and a homotopy $f_{0,1}$ of length $r$
in $|{\catsymbfont{C}}(a_{0},b_{1})|$ from $\beta_{0}\circ f_{0}$ to $f_{1}\circ
\alpha$; we topologize this as a subspace of
\[
|{\catsymbfont{C}}(a_{0},b_{0})|\times |{\catsymbfont{C}}(a_{1},b_{1})|\times {\mathbb{R}} \times |{\catsymbfont{C}}(a_{0},b_{1})|^{I}.
\]
Composition is induced by composition of maps and homotopies.
\end{cons}
In the notation ``$M$'' stands for Moore, as this employs the
Moore trick for making homotopy composition associative. In this
construction, the mapping space $v_{1}^{M}{\catsymbfont{C}}(A,B)$ is homotopy
equivalent to the homotopy pullback
\[
|{\catsymbfont{C}}(a_{0},b_{0})|\times_{|{\catsymbfont{C}}(a_{0},b_{1})|}
|{\catsymbfont{C}}(a_{0},b_{1})|^{I} \times_{|{\catsymbfont{C}}(a_{0},b_{1})|}
|{\catsymbfont{C}}(a_{1},b_{1})|.
\]
The Moore trick generalizes from paths to maps out of higher simplices
\cite[\S2]{McClureSmith}. We understand the $n$-simplex of length
$r>0$ to be the subspace $\Delta[n]_{r}$ of points
$(t_{0},t_{1},\dotsc,t_{n})$ of
${\mathbb{R}}^{n+1}$ with $0\leq t_{i}\leq r$ and $\sum t_{i}=r$. Then given
$r,s>0$, the maps $\sigma^{i,n-i}_{r,s}\colon \Delta[i]_{r}\times
\Delta[n-i]_{s}\to \Delta[n]_{r+s}$ defined by
\[
\sigma^{i,n-i}_{r,s}\colon (t_{0},\dotsc,t_{i}),(u_{0},\dotsc,u_{n-i})\longmapsto
(t_{0},\dotsc,t_{i}+u_{0},u_{1},\dotsc,u_{n-i})
\]
decompose $\Delta[n]_{r+s}$ as a union of prisms
\[
\psi^{n}_{r,s}\colon \Delta[n]_{r+s}\iso \bigcup_{i=0}^{n}
\Delta[i]_{r}\times \Delta[n-i]_{s}.
\]
(See Proof of Theorem~2.4 in \cite[p.~162]{McClureSmith}.) This
decomposition clearly commutes with the simplicial face and degeneracy
operations, and it is associative in that the following diagram
commutes.
\[
\xymatrix@C+1em{%
\Delta[i]_{q}\times\Delta[j]_{r}\times \Delta[k]_{s}
\ar[r]^{\sigma^{i,j}_{q,r}\times \id}
\ar[d]_{\id\times \sigma^{j,k}_{r,s}}
&\Delta[i+j]_{q+r}\times \Delta[k]_{s}
\ar[d]^{\sigma^{i+j,k}_{q+r,s}}\\
\Delta[i]_{q}\times \Delta[j+k]_{r+s}
\ar[r]_{\sigma^{i,j+k}_{q,r+s}}
&\Delta[i+j+k]_{q+r+s}
}
\]
\begin{cons}[Moore Nerve]\label{consmoore}
For ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ a simplicially enriched category and $v{\catsymbfont{C}}_{0}$ a
subcategory of ${\catsymbfont{C}}_{0}$, define the topologically enriched category
$v^{M}_{n}{\catsymbfont{C}}$ as follows. The objects consist of the sequences of
$n$ composable maps in $v{\catsymbfont{C}}_{0}$
\[
a_{0}\overto{v}\dotsb \overto{v}a_{n}.
\]
For convenience in what follows, we denote the structure map $a_{i}\to
a_{j}$ as $\alpha_{i,j}$, for $i\leq j$ (and $\beta_{i,j}$,
$\gamma_{i,j}$ similarly for objects $B$,$C$).
An element of the space of maps from $A$ to $B$ consists of the
following data:
\begin{enumerate}
\item An non-negative real number $r$
\item For each $0\leq m\leq n$ and each $0\leq i_{0}<\dotsb <i_{m}<n$
a map
\[
f_{i_{0},\dotsc,i_{m}}\colon \Delta[m]_{r}\to |{\catsymbfont{C}}(a_{i_{0}},b_{i_{m}})|
\]
for $r>0$, or an element of $|{\catsymbfont{C}}(a_{i_{0}},b_{i_{m}})|$ for $r=0$.
\end{enumerate}
such that for any subset $i_{j_{0}},\dotsc,i_{j_{\ell}}$ of
$i_{1},\dotsc,i_{m}$, the map
\[
\beta_{i_{j_{\ell}},i_{m}} \circ
f_{i_{j_{0}},\dotsc,i_{j_{\ell}}} \circ
\alpha_{i_{0},i_{j_{0}}} \colon \Delta[\ell]_{r}\to
|{\catsymbfont{C}}(a_{i_{0}},b_{i_{m}})|
\]
is the restriction to the face of $f_{i_{0},\dotsc,j_{m}}$ spanned by
$i_{j_{0}},\dotsc,i_{j_{\ell}}$. We topologize this as a subset of
the evident product. Composition is induced by the prismatic
decomposition above: for $F\colon A\to B$ of length $r>0$ and
$G\colon B\to C$ of length $s>0$, the composition $H\colon A\to C$ of
length $r+s$ is defined by taking $h_{i_{0},\dotsc,i_{m}}$ to be the
map
\[
(g_{i_{j},\dotsc,i_{m}}(u_{0},\dotsc,u_{m-j})\circ \alpha_{i_{0},i_{j}})
\circ
(\gamma_{i_{j},i_{m}}\circ f_{i_{0},\dotsc,i_{j}}(t_{0},\dots,t_{j}))
\]
on the $\Delta[j]_{r}\times\Delta[m-j]_{s}$ prism in the
$\psi^{m}_{r,s}$ decomposition of $\Delta[m]_{r+s}$. For $r=0$ or
$s=0$, composition is induced by composition in ${\catsymbfont{C}}$.
\end{cons}
A straightforward check of the formulas verifies that this defines a
topological category. Moreover, $v^{M}_\ssdot{\catsymbfont{C}}$ assembles into a
simplicial topological category with the following naturality
property. (It applies in particular to the important special case
${\catsymbfont{C}}={\catsymbfont{D}}$ with $v{\catsymbfont{C}}_{0}\subsetneqq v{\catsymbfont{D}}_{0}$.)
\begin{prop}\label{propmoorefunct}
Given simplicially enriched categories ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ and ${\catsymbfont{D}}$, a
simplicially enriched functor $\phi \colon {\catsymbfont{C}}\to{\catsymbfont{D}}$ that takes
$v{\catsymbfont{C}}_{0}$ into $v{\catsymbfont{D}}_{0}$ induces a topologically enriched simplicial functor
$v^{M}_\ssdot{\catsymbfont{C}}\to v^{M}_\ssdot{\catsymbfont{D}}$.
\end{prop}
For objects $A$ and $B$, $v^{M}_{n}(A,B)$ is homotopy equivalent to
the homotopy end of ${\catsymbfont{C}}(a_{i},b_{i})$ for $n>0$, while
$v^{M}_{0}{\catsymbfont{C}}(a,b)=|{\catsymbfont{C}}(a,b)|\times [0,\infty)$. In particular ${\catsymbfont{C}}$
includes in $v^{M}_{0}{\catsymbfont{C}}$ (after geometric realization) as the
subcategory of maps of length zero. More generally, the nerve
categories $v_{n}{\catsymbfont{C}}$ include (after geometric realization) as the
subcategories of the Moore nerve categories $v^{M}_{n}{\catsymbfont{C}}$ of the maps
of length zero. Restricting to simplicially enriched Waldhausen
categories, we get the following proposition.
\begin{prop}\label{propmoorecof}
Let ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ be a simplicially enriched Waldhausen category and
$v{\catsymbfont{C}}_{0}$ a subcategory of ${\catsymbfont{C}}_{0}$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item If $v{\catsymbfont{C}}_{0}\subset w{\catsymbfont{C}}_{0}$, then the inclusion of ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ in
$v^{M}_{n}{\catsymbfont{C}}$ is a DK-equivalence.
\item If $v{\catsymbfont{C}}_{0}\subset \co{\catsymbfont{C}}_{0}$, then the inclusion of
$v_{n}{\catsymbfont{C}}$ in $v^{M}_{n}{\catsymbfont{C}}$ is a DK-equivalence.
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}
Finally, we use the following notation.
\begin{defn}\label{defn:vnerve}
Let ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ be a simplicial enriched Waldhausen category, and let
$v{\catsymbfont{C}}_{0}$ be a subcategory of ${\catsymbfont{C}}_{0}$. Define
$v^{M}_\ssdot{\catsymbfont{C}}^{\Gamma}$ to be the simplicial spectral category
obtained from the simplicial $\Gamma$-category with
\[
v^{M}_{n}{\catsymbfont{C}}^{\Gamma}_{q}(X,Y)=v^{M}_{n}{\catsymbfont{C}}(X,\myop\bigvee_{q}Y).
\]
For ${\catsymbfont{A}}\subset {\catsymbfont{C}}$ an enhanced simplicially enriched Waldhausen
category, define
$v^{M}_\ssdot{\catsymbfont{A}}^{S}$ to be the simplicial spectral category
with
\[
v^{M}_{n}{\catsymbfont{A}}^{S}(X,Y)(q)=v^{M}_{n}{\catsymbfont{C}}(X,\Sigma^{q}Y).
\]
\end{defn}
In the formula, $\myop\bigvee$ denotes the entry-wise coproduct;
although this is not the coproduct in $v^{M}_{n}{\catsymbfont{C}}$, we can identify
\[
v^{M}_{n}{\catsymbfont{C}}(\myop\bigvee_{q} Y,Z)\subset \prod_{q} v^{M}_{n}{\catsymbfont{C}}(Y,Z)
\]
as the subspace of $q$-tuples of maps, all having the same length.
We then obtain $\Gamma$-category composition as in
Section~\ref{secspec}. Likewise, in the enhanced context, although
$\Sigma^{n} Y$ is not a based tensor in $v^{M}_{n}{\catsymbfont{C}}$, we
nevertheless have a continuous functor
\[
v^{M}_{n}{\catsymbfont{C}}(Y,Z)\to v^{M}_{n}(\Sigma^{n}Y,\Sigma^{n}Z)
\]
and we obtain the spectral category composition as in
Section~\ref{secspec}.
Finally, note that the resulting spectral categories are enriched in
symmetric spectra of topological spaces, as opposed to simplicial
sets. In the context of the definition of $THH$ we study in
Section~\ref{secdefthh}, this distinction will not cause any
difficulties.
\section{The {M}oore $\Spdot$ construction}\label{sec:spMdot}
Although the $\Sdot$ construction translates naturally to the enriched
context, it is often useful to be able to weaken the cocartesian
condition in the construction and instead work with an equivalent
construction defined in terms of \term{homotopy cocartesian} squares
called the $\Spdot$ construction \cite[\S2]{BlumbergMandell}. This
flexibility plays a key role in the proof of the d\'evissage theorem for
the localization theorem for $THH(ku)$ in Section~\ref{sec:dev}. Such
a definition also provides models of $K$-theory and $THH$ which are
functorial in functors ``exact up to homotopy'' as explained in
Section~\ref{sec:weaklyexact}.
In this section we introduce an appropriately enriched
version of the $\Spdot$ construction, using
the Moore ideas from the previous section to construct
the homotopically correct enrichment.
We begin by reviewing the $\Spdot$ construction. For this, recall
from \cite[\S2]{BlumbergMandellUW} that a \term{weak cofibration} is a
map that is weakly equivalent (by a zigzag) to a cofibration in the
category $\Ar{\catsymbfont{C}}_{0}$ of arrows in ${\catsymbfont{C}}_{0}$, and a \term{homotopy
cocartesian square} is a square diagram that is weakly equivalent (by
a zigzag) to a pushout square where one of the parallel sets of arrows
consists of cofibrations.
\begin{cons}
Let ${\catsymbfont{C}}_{0}$ be a Waldhausen category. Define
$\Spdot[n]{\catsymbfont{C}}_{0}$ to be the full subcategory of functors $A\colon
\Ar[n]\to {\catsymbfont{C}}_{0}$ such that:
\begin{itemize}
\item The initial map $*\to a_{i,i}$ is a weak equivalence for all $i$,
\item The map $a_{i,j}\to a_{i,k}$ is a weak cofibration for all $i
\leq j \leq k$, and
\item The diagram
\[ \xymatrix@-1pc{%
a_{i,j}\ar[r]\ar[d]&a_{i,k}\ar[d]\\a_{j,j}\ar[r]&a_{j,k}
} \]
is a homotopy cocartesian square for all $i \leq j \leq k$.
\end{itemize}
\end{cons}
We define a map $A\to B$ to be a weak equivalence when each
$a_{i,j}\to b_{i,j}$ is a weak equivalence. Clearly $\Spdot$
assembles into a simplicial category with the usual face and
degeneracy functors.
In order to use $\Spdot {\catsymbfont{C}}_0$ to construct $K$-theory, we need a
mild hypothesis on ${\catsymbfont{C}}_0$.
We say that a Waldhausen category ${\catsymbfont{C}}_{0}$ admits \term{factorization}
when any map $f\colon a\to b$ in ${\catsymbfont{C}}_{0}$ factors as a cofibration
followed by a weak equivalence
\[
\xymatrix{%
a\ar@{ >->}[r]\ar@{..>}@/_1em/[rr]_{f}&Tf\ar[r]^{\sim}&b,
}
\]
We say that ${\catsymbfont{C}}_{0}$ admits functorial factorization if this
factorization may be chosen functorially in $f$ in the category
$\Ar{\catsymbfont{C}}_{0}$ of arrows in ${\catsymbfont{C}}_{0}$. More generally, we say that
${\catsymbfont{C}}_{0}$ admits factorization of weak cofibrations (FWC) or
functorial factorization of weak cofibrations (FFWC) when the weak
cofibrations can be factored as above. Enhanced simplicially enriched
Waldhausen categories always admit FFWC using the standard mapping
cylinder construction.
\begin{prop}
If ${\catsymbfont{A}}$ is an enhanced simplicially enriched Waldhausen category,
then ${\catsymbfont{A}}$ admits FFWC.
\end{prop}
The significance of the hypothesis of FFWC is the following comparison
result \cite[2.9]{BlumbergMandell}.
\begin{prop}\label{propbm}
Let ${\catsymbfont{C}}_{0}$ be a Waldhausen category admitting FFWC.
Then for each $n$, the inclusion $w\Sdot[n]{\catsymbfont{C}}_{0}\to
w\Spdot[n]{\catsymbfont{C}}_{0}$ induces a weak equivalence on nerves.
\end{prop}
The previous proposition implies that $w_\ssdot\Spdot{\catsymbfont{C}}_{0}$ models
the $K$-theory space of ${\catsymbfont{C}}_{0}$. Using an iterated $\Spdot$
construction $\Spndot{\catsymbfont{C}}_{0}$ as a full subcategory of
functors $\Ar[\bullet}%{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}]\times \dotsb \times \Ar[\bullet}%{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}]$ to ${\catsymbfont{C}}_{0}$ (see
\cite[A.5.4]{BlumbergMandellUW}) gives a model
$w_\ssdot\Spndot{\catsymbfont{C}}_{0}$ for the $K$-theory spectrum.
For a simplicially enriched Waldhausen category ${\catsymbfont{C}}$, we need a
version of $\Spdot{\catsymbfont{C}}$ (or more generally $w_\ssdot\Spndot{\catsymbfont{C}}$) with
the correct mapping spaces. As in the construction of the Moore nerve
in~\ref{consmoore}, we do this using the Moore trick, this time with
the full generality of the McClure-Smith construction of the Moore Tot
\cite[\S2]{McClureSmith} of a cosimplicial object.
\begin{cons}\label{cons:moore}
Let ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ be a category enriched in simplicial sets, let $D$ be a small
category, and let $D{\catsymbfont{C}}_{0}$ be the category of $D$-diagrams in
${\catsymbfont{C}}_{0}$. For $A=(a_{d})$ and $B=(b_{d})$ in $D{\catsymbfont{C}}_{0}$, let
$D^{M}{\catsymbfont{C}}(A,B)$ be the McClure-Smith Moore Tot (denoted $\Tot'$ in
\cite[\S2]{McClureSmith}) of the cosimplicial object
\[
D^{M}{\catsymbfont{C}}(A,B)^{q}=\prod_{d_{0}\to \dotsb \to d_{q}}
|{\catsymbfont{C}}(a_{d_{q}},b_{d_{0}})|
\]
(the cosimplicial object for the homotopy end of $|{\catsymbfont{C}}(A,B)|$).
We let $D^{M}{\catsymbfont{C}}$ be the topologically enriched category with objects
the objects of $D{\catsymbfont{C}}_{0}$, maps the spaces $D^{M}{\catsymbfont{C}}(A,B)$ above, and
composition induced by the ``cup-pairing'' \cite[2.1]{McClureSmith}
\[
\prod_{d_{p}\to \dotsb \to d_{0}}
|{\catsymbfont{C}}(b_{d_{p}},c_{d_{0}})|
\times
\prod_{d'_{q}\to \dotsb \to d'_{0}}
|{\catsymbfont{C}}(a_{d'_{q}},b_{d'_{0}})|
\to
\prod_{d_{p+q}\to \dotsb \to d_{0}}
|{\catsymbfont{C}}(a_{d_{p+q}},c_{d_{0}})|.
\]
Here the map is induced on the $d_{p+q}\to \dotsb
\to d_{0}$ coordinate of the target by composition
\[
{\catsymbfont{C}}(b_{d_{p}},c_{d_{0}})\times {\catsymbfont{C}}(a_{d_{p+q}},b_{d_{p}})
\to {\catsymbfont{C}}(a_{d_{p+q}},c_{d_{0}})
\]
of the maps on the $d_{p}\to\dotsb \to d_{0}$ and $d_{p+q}\to \dotsb
\to d_{p}$ (i.e., $d'_{i}=d_{p+i}$) coordinates of the source.
\end{cons}
As in the previous section, we obtain a connective spectral enrichment
using the objectwise coproduct and (when defined) a non-connective
spectral enrichment using the objectwise suspension.
We use analogous notation for the enriched categories associated to
full subcategories of diagram categories, obtaining for example
$\SMdot[n]{\catsymbfont{C}}$ and $\SpMdot[n]{\catsymbfont{C}}$ as full subcategories of $\Ar[n]{\catsymbfont{C}}$.
Because the Moore Tot always has the homotopy type of the homotopy
end (containing it as a deformation retract), we obtain the
following result as an immediate consequence.
\begin{prop}
For a simplicially enriched Waldhausen category ${\catsymbfont{C}}$, the inclusion
of the topologically enriched category $|\Sdot[n]{\catsymbfont{C}}|$ in
$\SMdot[n]{\catsymbfont{C}}$ as the length zero part is a
DK-equivalence.
\end{prop}
Considering more complicated diagrams, this also applies to
$w_{p}\Sndot[q_{1},\dotsc,q_{n}]{\catsymbfont{C}}$. Thinking of these
categories as subcategories of $w_{p}\Spndot[q_{1},\dotsc,q_{n}]{\catsymbfont{C}}$,
the more restricted homotopies in
$w_{p}^{M}\Sndot[q_{1},\dotsc,q_{n}]{\catsymbfont{C}}$ make its mapping spaces
subspaces of $(w_{p}\Spndot[q_{1},\dotsc,q_{n}])^{M}{\catsymbfont{C}}$, and we
get the following result.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:zeroinclude}
For a simplicially enriched Waldhausen category ${\catsymbfont{C}}$, the inclusion
of $w_{p}^{M}\Sndot[q_{1},\dotsc,q_{n}]{\catsymbfont{C}}$ in
$(w_{p}\Spndot[q_{1},\dotsc,q_{n}])^{M}{\catsymbfont{C}}$ is a
DK-embedding. If ${\catsymbfont{C}}_{0}$ admits FFWC,
then it is a DK-equivalence.
\end{prop}
We write $(w_{p}\Spndot[q_{1},\dotsc,q_{n}])^{M}{\catsymbfont{C}}^{\Gamma}$ and
when appropriate $(w_{p}\Spndot[q_{1},\dotsc,q_{n}])^{M}{\catsymbfont{C}}^{S}$ for
the associated spectrally enriched categories, now enriched in
topological symmetric spectra.
\section{$THH$, $TC$, and the cyclotomic trace}\label{secdefthh}
In this section, we apply the constructions of $THH$ and $TC$ of
spectral categories \cite[\S 3]{BlumbergMandellTHHLoc} in the
context of the spectral enrichments associated to a simplicially enriched
Waldhausen category ${\catsymbfont{C}}$. For the connective enrichments,
we require Waldhausen's $\Sdot$ construction in order to properly handle
extension sequences in the Waldhausen structure for reasons first
observed by McCarthy~\cite[3.3.5]{McCarthyThesis} and Dundas-McCarthy
\cite[2.3.4]{DundasMcCarthy}; for the non-connective enrichment, the
$\Sdot$ construction turns out to be superfluous.
We understand the construction of $THH$ of a spectral category in
terms of the B\"okstedt-Dundas-McCarthy model
of the Hochschild-Mitchell ``cyclic nerve''. Its fundamental
properties include:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $THH$ is a continuous functor from spectral categories (in
topological symmetric spectra) to cyclotomic spectra.
\item $THH$ sends DK-equivalences of spectral categories to weak
equivalences of cyclotomic spectra.
\end{enumerate}
Associated to the cyclotomic spectrum $THH$ are natural pro-spectra
$TR$ and $TC$. Their fundamental properties include:
\begin{enumerate}
\item If a spectral functor induces a weak equivalence on $THH$, then
it induces a level weak equivalence of pro-spectra on $TR$ and $TC$.
\item The $TR$ and $TC$ constructions preserve cofiber sequences of
cyclotomic spectra.
\end{enumerate}
For details and constructions, we refer the reader to \cite[\S
3]{BlumbergMandellTHHLoc} and the references therein. The
construction makes sense for spectral categories enriched in symmetric
spectra in either simplicial sets or topological spaces; in the case
of simplicial sets, essentially the first step is geometric
realization. The treatment in \cite{BlumbergMandellTHHLoc} focuses on
the context of simplicial sets; the properties listed there still hold
in the context of topological spaces with the additional technical
hypothesis that the individual mapping spectra in the spectral
categories be non-degenerately based (the inclusion of the base point
in each space of the symmetric spectrum is a cofibration) and that the
inclusion of the identity elements (in zeroth spaces) are cofibrations. This
happens automatically for the spectral categories obtained by
geometric realization from spectral categories in the simplicial set
context and more generally for all of the spectral categories we work
with in this paper.
Because the properties of $TR$ and $TC$ are so closely tied to the
properties of $THH$, in later sections we will typically state weak
equivalence and cofiber sequence results in terms of $THH$, as these
then automatically imply the corresponding results for $TR$ and $TC$.
\begin{defn}\label{defwthhG}
For a simplicially enriched Waldhausen category ${\catsymbfont{C}}$, we define
\begin{align*}
WTHH^{\Gamma}{\catsymbfont{C}}&=\Omega |THH(\Sdot {\catsymbfont{C}}^{\Gamma})|\\
WTR^{\Gamma}{\catsymbfont{C}}&=\Omega |TR(\Sdot {\catsymbfont{C}}^{\Gamma})|\\
WTC^{\Gamma}{\catsymbfont{C}}&=\Omega |TC(\Sdot {\catsymbfont{C}}^{\Gamma})|.
\end{align*}
If ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ is a simplicially tensored Waldhausen category and
${\catsymbfont{A}}\subset {\catsymbfont{C}}$ is an enhanced simplicial Waldhausen category, then
we define
\begin{align*}
WTHH{\catsymbfont{A}}&=\Omega |THH(\Sdot {\catsymbfont{A}}^{S})|\\
WTR{\catsymbfont{A}}&=\Omega |TR(\Sdot {\catsymbfont{A}}^{S})|\\
WTC{\catsymbfont{A}}&=\Omega |TC(\Sdot {\catsymbfont{A}}^{S})|.
\end{align*}
\end{defn}
In other words, we apply $THH$, $TR$, or $TC$ first to get simplicial
(or multisimplicial) cyclotomic spectra or pro-spectra. Then we take the
geometric realization in the simplicial directions, followed by loops.
We have the following naturality properties.
\begin{prop}\label{propnat}
An enriched exact functor induces maps on $WTHH^{\Gamma}$,
$WTR^{\Gamma}$, and $WTC^{\Gamma}$. A tensored exact or enhanced exact
functor induces maps on $WTHH$, $WTR$, and $WTC$. Naturally weakly
equivalent functors induce the same map in the stable category.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
The only part not immediate from the construction is the last
statement. We use Construction~\ref{consvone} for $v{\catsymbfont{D}}_{0}$ the
subcategory of weak equivalences $w{\catsymbfont{D}}_{0}$. We have a pair of
simplicial spectrally enriched functors $w^{M}_{1}\Sdot{\catsymbfont{D}}^{\Gamma}\to
\Sdot{\catsymbfont{D}}^{\Gamma}$ each split by the inclusion $\Sdot{\catsymbfont{D}}^{\Gamma}\to
w^{M}_{1}\Sdot{\catsymbfont{D}}^{\Gamma}$. Since the inclusion induces a DK-equivalence
$\Sdot{\catsymbfont{D}}^{\Gamma}\to w^{M}_{1}\Sdot{\catsymbfont{D}}^{\Gamma}$, both maps
$w^{M}_{1}\Sdot{\catsymbfont{D}}^{\Gamma}\to \Sdot{\catsymbfont{D}}^{\Gamma}$ induce the same map
in the stable category on $THH$, $TR$, and $TC$. Now, given enriched
exact functors $\phi_{0},\phi_{1}\colon {\catsymbfont{C}}\to {\catsymbfont{D}}$ and $h$ a natural weak equivalence between them, we get
a simplicial spectrally enriched functor
$\Sdot{\catsymbfont{C}}^{\Gamma}\to w^{M}_{1}\Sdot{\catsymbfont{D}}^{\Gamma}$ (factoring through
the length zero part $w_{1}\Sdot{\catsymbfont{D}}^{\Gamma}$). The two composites
\[
\Sdot{\catsymbfont{C}}^{\Gamma}\to w^{M}_{1}\Sdot{\catsymbfont{D}}^{\Gamma}\to \Sdot{\catsymbfont{D}}^{\Gamma}
\]
are the maps induced by $\phi_{0}$ and $\phi_{1}$. For tensored exact or
enhanced exact functors $\phi_{0}$ and $\phi_{1}$ and a natural weak
equivalence between them, the same argument applies to show that the
maps on $WTHH$, $WTR$, and $WTC$ induced by $\phi_{0}$ and $\phi_{1}$
coincide in the stable category.
\end{proof}
Applying Proposition~\ref{propfunct} and~\ref{propfuncthree} we obtain
the following homotopy invariance properties.
\begin{prop}\label{propapproxone}
Let $\phi \colon {\catsymbfont{C}}\to {\catsymbfont{D}}$ be an enriched exact functor between
simplicially enriched Waldhausen categories that are DK-compatible. Assume
that $\phi$ is a DK-embedding and that every object of $\Sdot[n]{\catsymbfont{D}}$
is weakly equivalent to an object in the image of $\Sdot[n]\phi$ (for
all $n$). Then $\phi$ induces weak equivalences on $WTHH^{\Gamma}$, $WTR^{\Gamma}$, and $WTC^{\Gamma}$.
\end{prop}
\begin{prop}\label{propapprox}
Let $\phi \colon {\catsymbfont{A}}\to {\catsymbfont{B}}$ be an enhanced exact functor between
enhanced simplicially enriched Waldhausen categories. If $\phi$ is a
DK-embedding of the ambient simplicially tensored
categories and a DK-equivalence ${\catsymbfont{A}}\to {\catsymbfont{B}}$ and a DK-equivalence on
the ambient simplicially tensored Waldhausen categories, then $\phi$
induces a weak
equivalence on $WTHH$, $WTR$, and $WTC$.
\end{prop}
Implicitly in the previous propositions we passed from a level weak
equivalence of simplicial spectra $X_\ssdot\to Y_\ssdot$ to a weak
equivalence on geometric realization $|X_\ssdot|\to |Y_\ssdot|$.
Using the standard geometric realization, we need hypotheses on
$X_\ssdot$ and $Y_\ssdot$ for this to work. One sufficient hypothesis
is that $X_\ssdot$ and $Y_\ssdot$ are \term{spacewise proper}: we say
that a simplicial symmetric spectrum of topological spaces
$X_\ssdot$ is space-wise proper when the
simplicial space $X_\ssdot(n)$ is proper for every $n$, i.e., for each $k$, each
degeneracy map $X_{k}(n)\to X_{k+1}(n)$ is a Hurewicz cofibration
(satisfies the homotopy extension property).
The following proposition applies to verify this property for the
constructions in the previous propositions and the many other
constructions in this paper. Its proof requires the details of the
$THH$ construction but is then straightforward given the standard
properties of Hurewicz cofibrations.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:realok}
Let ${\catsymbfont{C}}_\ssdot$ be a simplicial object in the category of spectral
categories (in topological symmetric spectra). Assume that for all
$k$ and all objects $x,y$ of ${\catsymbfont{C}}_{k}$, each space of the mapping
spectrum ${\catsymbfont{C}}_{k}(x,y)(n)$ is non-degenerately based and each
degeneracy map $s^{i}\colon {\catsymbfont{C}}_{k}(x,y)(n)\to
{\catsymbfont{C}}_{k+1}(s^{i}x,s^{i}y)(n)$ is a Hurewicz cofibration. Then the
simplicial spectrum $THH({\catsymbfont{C}}_\ssdot)$ is spacewise proper.
\end{prop}
Waldhausen's approximation property provides a convenient formulation
for the conditions in Propositions~\ref{propapproxone} and~\ref{propapprox} that often holds in
practice. We say that exact functor $\phi \colon {\catsymbfont{C}}\to{\catsymbfont{D}}$ has
\term{the approximation property} when:
\begin{enumerate}
\item A map $f\colon a\to b$ is a weak equivalence in ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ only if
the map $\phi(f)$ in ${\catsymbfont{D}}$ is a weak equivalence.
\item For every map $f\colon \phi(a)\to x$ in ${\catsymbfont{D}}$, there exists a
map $g\colon a\to b$ in ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ and a weak equivalence $h\colon \phi(b)\to x$ in
${\catsymbfont{D}}$ such that $g=h\circ \phi(g)$.
\end{enumerate}
We then have the following $THH$ analogue of Waldhausen's
Approximation Theorem. The proof is that under factorization
hypotheses, the approximation property implies that $\phi$ is a
DK-equivalence; see \cite[1.4--1.5]{BlumbergMandellUW}.
\begin{thm}\label{thmapprox}
Let $\phi \colon ({\catsymbfont{A}}\subset {\catsymbfont{C}})\to ({\catsymbfont{B}}\subset {\catsymbfont{D}})$ be an enhanced
exact functor between
enhanced simplicially enriched Waldhausen categories, and suppose that
$\phi_{0}\colon {\catsymbfont{C}}_{0}\to {\catsymbfont{D}}_{0}$
satisfies the approximation property. If every object of ${\catsymbfont{B}}$ is
weakly equivalent to the image of an object of ${\catsymbfont{A}}$, then
$\phi$ induces weak equivalences on $WTHH^{\Gamma}$, $WTR^{\Gamma}$,
$WTC^{\Gamma}$ and on $WTHH$, $WTR$, $WTC$.
\end{thm}
In many situations, the underlying Waldhausen category ${\catsymbfont{C}}_{0}$ of
a simplicially enriched Waldhausen category ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ admits a second
subcategory of weak equivalences $v{\catsymbfont{C}}_{0}$ (not necessarily related
to the simplicial structure, or even satisfying the two out of three
property). When $v{\catsymbfont{C}}_{0}$ contains all the
isomorphisms and satisfies the Gluing Axiom (Weq~2
in~\cite[\S1.2]{WaldhausenKT}), each Waldhausen category
$\Sdot[n]{\catsymbfont{C}}_{0}$ inherits a subcategory $v\Sdot[n]{\catsymbfont{C}}_{0}$ also
satisfying these properties. In this context, we have additional
variants of $THH$, $TR$, and $TC$.
\begin{defn}
Let ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ be a simplicially enriched Waldhausen category, and let
$v{\catsymbfont{C}}_{0}$ be a subcategory of ${\catsymbfont{C}}_{0}$ containing all the
isomorphisms and satisfying the Gluing Axiom. Then we define the
connective relative $THH$, $TC$, and $TR$ of $({\catsymbfont{C}}|v)$ as indicated
below (on the left). When ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ is simplicially tensored and
${\catsymbfont{A}}\subset {\catsymbfont{C}}$ is an enhanced simplicially enriched Waldhausen
category, we define the non-connective $THH$, $TC$, and $TR$ of
$({\catsymbfont{A}}|v)$ as indicated below (on the right).
\begin{align*}
WTHH^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{C}}|v)&=\Omega |THH(v^{M}_\ssdot\Sdot {\catsymbfont{C}}^{\Gamma})|
&WTHH({\catsymbfont{A}}|v)&=\Omega |THH(v^{M}_\ssdot\Sdot {\catsymbfont{A}}^{S})|\\
WTR^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{C}}|v)&=\Omega |TR(v^{M}_\ssdot\Sdot {\catsymbfont{C}}^{\Gamma})|
&WTR({\catsymbfont{A}}|v)&=\Omega |TR(v^{M}_\ssdot\Sdot {\catsymbfont{A}}^{S})|\\
WTC^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{C}}|v)&=\Omega |TC(v^{M}_\ssdot\Sdot {\catsymbfont{C}}^{\Gamma})|
&WTC({\catsymbfont{A}}|v)&=\Omega |TC(v^{M}_\ssdot\Sdot {\catsymbfont{A}}^{S})|
\end{align*}
\end{defn}
In the special case when $v{\catsymbfont{C}}_{0}$ is the category of weak
equivalences $w{\catsymbfont{C}}_{0}$, the inclusion of each $\Sdot[n]{\catsymbfont{C}}^{\Gamma}$
into $w^{M}_{q} \Sdot[n] {\catsymbfont{C}}^{\Gamma}$ and (when defined) $\Sdot[n]{\catsymbfont{A}}^{S}$
into $w^{M}_{q} \Sdot[n] {\catsymbfont{A}}^{S}$ is a DK-equivalence. This implies the
following proposition.
\begin{prop}
For ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ a simplicially enriched Waldhausen category and ${\catsymbfont{A}}$ an
enhanced simplicial enriched Waldhausen category, the maps
\begin{align*}
WTHH^{\Gamma}{\catsymbfont{C}}&\to WTHH^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{C}}|w)
&WTHH{\catsymbfont{A}}&\to WTHH({\catsymbfont{A}}|w)\\
WTR^{\Gamma}{\catsymbfont{C}}&\to WTR^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{C}}|w)
&WTR{\catsymbfont{A}}&\to WTR({\catsymbfont{A}}|w)\\
WTC^{\Gamma}{\catsymbfont{C}}&\to WTC^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{C}}|w)
&WTC{\catsymbfont{A}}&\to WTC({\catsymbfont{A}}|w)
\end{align*}
are weak equivalences
\end{prop}
To construct the cyclotomic trace, we need a final variant of these
constructions where we iterate the $\Sdot$ construction.
\begin{defn}\label{deftildethh}
Let
\[
\wt{WTHH}^{\Gamma}{\catsymbfont{C}}(n)=|THH(w^{M}_\ssdot S^{(n)}_\ssdot{\catsymbfont{C}}^{\Gamma})|.
\]
The simplicial maps of spectral categories
\[
\Sigma^{n-m}_\ssdot w^{M}_\ssdot S^{(m)}_\ssdot{\catsymbfont{C}}^{\Gamma}
\to w^{M}_\ssdot S^{(n)}_\ssdot{\catsymbfont{C}}^{\Gamma}
\]
induce maps
\[
\Sigma^{n-m} \wt{WTHH}^{\Gamma}{\catsymbfont{C}}(m)
\to \wt{WTHH}^{\Gamma}{\catsymbfont{C}}(n)
\]
(as in \cite[\S1.3]{WaldhausenKT}). These maps assemble
$\wt{WTHH}^{\Gamma}{\catsymbfont{C}}$
into a symmetric spectrum in the category of cyclotomic spectra.
We define $\wt{WTR}$ and
$\wt{WTC}$ to be the $TR$ and $TC$ pro-spectra constructed from
$\wt{WTHH}$.
\end{defn}
As a consequence of the Additivity Theorem~\ref{thmadditivity}, we
prove the following lemma in Section~\ref{secadd}.
\begin{lem}\label{lemadd}
The map $\Sigma^{n-m} \wt{WTHH}^{\Gamma}{\catsymbfont{C}}(m)
\to \wt{WTHH}^{\Gamma}{\catsymbfont{C}}(n)$ in Definition~\ref{deftildethh} is a
weak equivalence for all $n\geq m>0$.
\end{lem}
We have analogous constructions and results in the relative case
(using $v^{M}_\ssdot$ in place of $w^{M}_\ssdot$)
and non-connective case (using ${\catsymbfont{A}}^{S}$ for ${\catsymbfont{A}}^{\Gamma}$
when ${\catsymbfont{A}}$ is enhanced).
The identity $WTHH^{\Gamma}{\catsymbfont{C}}=\Omega \wt{WTHH}^{\Gamma}{\catsymbfont{C}}(1)$
then immediately implies the following result.
\begin{thm}\label{thmwtadd}
We have natural isomorphisms in the stable category
\[
WTHH^{\Gamma}{\catsymbfont{C}} \simeq
\wt{WTHH}^{\Gamma}{\catsymbfont{C}}
\qquad
WTR^{\Gamma}{\catsymbfont{C}} \simeq
\wt{WTR}^{\Gamma}{\catsymbfont{C}}
\qquad
WTR^{\Gamma}{\catsymbfont{C}} \simeq
\wt{WTC}^{\Gamma}{\catsymbfont{C}}
\]
and likewise for the relative and non-connective variants when these
are defined.
\end{thm}
We can now define the cyclotomic trace.
\begin{defn}
For a simplicially enriched Waldhausen category ${\catsymbfont{C}}$, the cyclotomic
trace
\[
K({\catsymbfont{C}}_{0})\to \wt{WTC}^{\Gamma}{\catsymbfont{C}}\to \wt{WTHH}^{\Gamma}{\catsymbfont{C}}
\]
is the map induced by the inclusion of objects
\[
K{\catsymbfont{C}}_{0}=\Ob(w_\ssdot\Sdot^{(n)}{\catsymbfont{C}}_{0})=
\Ob(w^{M}_\ssdot\Sdot^{(n)}{\catsymbfont{C}}^{\Gamma})\to
\wt{WTHH}^{\Gamma}{\catsymbfont{C}}.
\]
For $v{\catsymbfont{C}}_{0}$ a subcategory of
${\catsymbfont{C}}_{0}$ containing the isomorphisms and satisfying the Gluing Axiom,
the relative cyclotomic trace is the map
\[
K({\catsymbfont{C}}_{0}|v) \to \wt{WTC}^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{C}}|v)\to \wt{WTHH}^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{C}}|v)
\]
induced by the inclusion of objects
\[
K({\catsymbfont{C}}_{0}|v)=\Ob(v_\ssdot\Sdot^{(n)}{\catsymbfont{C}}_{0})=
\Ob(v^{M}_\ssdot\Sdot^{(n)}{\catsymbfont{C}}^{\Gamma})\to
\wt{WTHH}^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{C}}|v).
\]
\end{defn}
Finally, to compare the definitions of this section with the theories
used in \cite{BlumbergMandellTHHLoc}, we state the following two theorems.
The first is a consequence of the Additivity
Theorem~\ref{thmadditivitynoncon} and proved in
Section~\ref{secadd}.
\begin{thm}\label{thmnoSnoncon}
Let ${\catsymbfont{A}}$ be an enhanced simplicial Waldhausen category.
The inclusion of $THH({\catsymbfont{A}}^{S})$ in $WTHH({\catsymbfont{A}})$ is a weak equivalence
of cyclotomic spectra.
\end{thm}
The second is a special case of the Sphere Theorem from
Section~\ref{secspheretheorem}; see Corollaries~\ref{cor:ekmm}
and~\ref{cor:simpring}.
\begin{thm}\label{thmspecsphere}
Let $R$ be a ring, a simplicial ring, or a connective ring spectrum,
and let ${\catsymbfont{A}}$ be the simplicially tensored Waldhausen category of
finite cell
modules (built out of free or finitely generated projective modules) in
Example~\ref{exofinterest}.(i) or (ii) (as appropriate).
Then the natural map $WTHH^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{A}})\to WTHH({\catsymbfont{A}})$ is a weak
equivalence of cyclotomic spectra.
\end{thm}
Thus, for a ring, simplicial ring, or connective ring spectrum, we
have weak equivalences of cyclotomic spectra
\[
WTHH^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{A}})\overto{\sim}
WTHH({\catsymbfont{A}})\overfrom{\sim}
THH({\catsymbfont{A}}) \overfrom{\sim} THH(R),
\]
where the last weak equivalence is a special case of
\cite[4.12]{BlumbergMandellTHHLoc}.
\part{$K$-theory theorems in $THH$ and $TC$}
\section{The Additivity Theorem}\label{secadd}
In this section, we present the Additivity Theorem for the $THH$ of
Waldhausen categories.
The modern viewpoint, implicit in \cite{WaldhausenKT} but first
written explicitly by Staffeldt \cite{Staffeldt}, holds the Additivity
Theorem as the fundamental property of $K$-theory. Following this
perspective, we deduce the remaining $K$-theoretic properties of $THH$
from the Additivity Theorem in the next three sections.
To state the Additivity Theorem, we use the following
notation. For ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ a simplicially enriched Waldhausen category, let
${\catsymbfont{E}}({\catsymbfont{C}})=\Sdot[2]{\catsymbfont{C}}$ be the simplicially enriched Waldhausen
category with objects the cofiber sequences $x \to y \to z$ (in
${\catsymbfont{C}}_{0})$. We have enriched exact functors $\alpha,\beta,\gamma$
from ${\catsymbfont{E}}({\catsymbfont{C}})$ to ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ defined by
\[
\alpha(x\rightarrow y\rightarrow z)=x,
\qquad
\beta(x\rightarrow y\rightarrow z)=y,
\qquad
\gamma(x\rightarrow y\rightarrow z)=z.
\]
\begin{thm}[Additivity Theorem]\label{thmadditivity}
For a simplicially enriched Waldhausen category ${\catsymbfont{C}}$, the
enriched exact functors $\alpha$ and $\gamma$ induce
a weak equivalence of cyclotomic spectra
\[
WTHH^\Gamma({\catsymbfont{E}}({\catsymbfont{C}})) \to WTHH^\Gamma({\catsymbfont{C}}) \times WTHH^\Gamma({\catsymbfont{C}})
\simeq WTHH^\Gamma({\catsymbfont{C}}) \vee WTHH^\Gamma({\catsymbfont{C}}).
\]
\end{thm}
McCarthy's proof of the Additivity Theorem for
$K$-theory~\cite{McCarthyAdditivity} provides a very general argument
for showing that the map $(\alpha ,\gamma)\colon \Sdot{\catsymbfont{E}}({\catsymbfont{C}})\to
\Sdot{\catsymbfont{C}}\times \Sdot{\catsymbfont{C}}$ induces a homotopy equivalence in various
contexts. The elaboration in~\cite[\S3.4-3.5]{McCarthyThesis} to
prove the Additivity Theorem for cyclic homology of $k$-linear
categories carries over essentially word for word to prove the
Additivity Theorem above, just replacing ``$CN$'' with ``$THH$'' and
``$k$-linear'' with ``spectral''. (The only property of $THH$ or $CN$
needed is that it takes simplicial homotopy equivalences of simplicial
(spectrally or $k$-linearly) enriched categories to weak equivalences
of spectra or simplicial sets.)
The following result is both a generalization and a corollary of the
Additivity Theorem above. Recall that a sequence of natural
transformations of exact functors $f\to g\to h$ from ${\catsymbfont{C}}_{0}$ to
${\catsymbfont{D}}_{0}$ forms a \term{cofiber sequence of exact functors}, when
(taken together) they define an exact functor ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ to ${\catsymbfont{E}}({\catsymbfont{D}})$.
\begin{cor}\label{coradditivity}
Let ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ and ${\catsymbfont{D}}$ be simplicially enriched Waldhausen categories,
and let $f\to g\to h$ be a sequence of enriched exact functors ${\catsymbfont{C}}\to
{\catsymbfont{D}}$ that forms a cofiber sequence of exact functors.
Then the maps
\[
WTHH^{\Gamma}(g)
\qquad \text{and}\qquad
WTHH^{\Gamma}(f) \vee WTHH^{\Gamma}(h).
\]
from $WTHH^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{C}})$ to $WTHH^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{D}})$
agree in the homotopy category of cyclotomic spectra.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
The functor ${\catsymbfont{D}}\times {\catsymbfont{D}}\to {\catsymbfont{E}}({\catsymbfont{D}})$ sending $(a,b)$ to $a \to
a\vee b\to b$ is a enriched exact functor, and the composite map
\[
WTHH^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{D}})\vee WTHH^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{D}})
\to WTHH^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{D}}\times {\catsymbfont{D}})
\to WTHH^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{E}}({\catsymbfont{D}}))
\]
splits the zigzag of weak equivalences in the Additivity Theorem and
is therefore a weak equivalence of cyclotomic spectra. It follows
that $\beta$ and $\alpha \vee \gamma$ induce the same map ${\catsymbfont{E}}({\catsymbfont{D}})\to
{\catsymbfont{D}}$ in the homotopy category of cyclotomic spectra. Precomposing
with $f\to g\to h$ proves the corollary.
\end{proof}
This corollary provides the key tool for even more general additivity
statements. For example, the map
$\Sdot[n]{\catsymbfont{C}}\to {\catsymbfont{C}}\times \Sdot[n-1]{\catsymbfont{C}}$
defined by sending $X=(x_{i,j})$ to $(x_{0,1},d_{0}X)$
induces a weak equivalence on $WTHH^{\Gamma}$. To see this, consider
the map ${\catsymbfont{C}}\times \Sdot[n-1]{\catsymbfont{C}}\to \Sdot[n]{\catsymbfont{C}}$ sending $(x,Y)$ to
$Z=(z_{i,j})$ with
\[
z_{i,j}=\begin{cases}
x\vee y_{0,j-1}&i=0\\
y_{i-1,j-1}&i>0.
\end{cases}
\]
The composite map on ${\catsymbfont{C}}\times \Sdot[n-1]{\catsymbfont{C}}$ is the identity, and
the composite map on $\Sdot[n]{\catsymbfont{C}}$ is $f\vee h$ for exact functors $f$
and $h$ that fit in a cofiber sequence of exact functors $f\to g\to h$
with $g$ the identity. We will use this argument many times in what
follows.
When ${\catsymbfont{A}}$ is a simplicially enhanced Waldhausen category, so is
${\catsymbfont{E}}({\catsymbfont{A}})$ and the functors $\alpha,\beta,\gamma$ are enhanced exact.
We have precise analogues of the previous results (with the same
proof). In fact, we have the following stronger version of the
Additivity Theorem for the non-connective enrichment as a consequence
of the analogue of the Thomason-Trobaugh localization theorem for
$THH$ \cite[6.1]{BlumbergMandellTHHLoc} (q.v.\ op.\ cit.~B.8).
\begin{thm}\label{thmadditivitynoncon}
Let ${\catsymbfont{A}}$ be an enhanced simplicial Waldhausen category.
The enhanced exact functors $\alpha$ and $\gamma$ induce a
weak equivalence of cyclotomic spectra
\[
THH({\catsymbfont{E}}^{S}({\catsymbfont{A}})) \to
THH({\catsymbfont{A}}^{S})\times THH({\catsymbfont{A}}^{S}) \mathchoice{\longleftarrow}{\leftarrow}{\leftarrow}{\leftarrow}
THH({\catsymbfont{A}}^{S}) \vee THH({\catsymbfont{A}}^{S}).
\]
\end{thm}
As a consequence of the Additivity Theorems~\ref{thmadditivity}
and~\ref{thmadditivitynoncon}, we can now prove Lemma~\ref{lemadd} and
Theorem~\ref{thmnoSnoncon}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma~\ref{lemadd} and
Theorem~\ref{thmnoSnoncon}]
We will treat Lemma~\ref{lemadd} in detail;
Theorem~\ref{thmnoSnoncon} follows from the same argument using ${\catsymbfont{A}}$
in place of $\Sdot{\catsymbfont{C}}$ and Theorem~\ref{thmadditivitynoncon} in place
of Theorem~\ref{thmadditivity}. To prove Lemma~\ref{lemadd}, it
suffices to show that the map $\Sigma WTHH^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{C}})\to
WTHH^{\Gamma}(\Sdot {\catsymbfont{C}})$ is a weak equivalence. This map is induced by a
simplicial map
\[
\myop\bigvee_{n} WTHH^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{C}})\to WTHH^{\Gamma}(\Sdot[n]{\catsymbfont{C}}),
\]
which is a weak equivalence by the Additivity Theorem and
the argument following Corollary~\ref{coradditivity}.
\end{proof}
\section{The Cofiber Theorem}
This section is the first of three
that apply the Additivity Theorem to prove standard
$K$-theory theorems in $THH$ and $TC$. This section provides a
general cofibration sequence for $THH$ (and $TC$) associated to a map of
Waldhausen categories by identifying the cofiber term as a version of
$THH$. Following Waldhausen~\cite[\S1.5]{WaldhausenKT}, we call this
theorem the ``Cofiber Theorem''.
We begin with the construction of the cofiber term. For $f\colon
{\catsymbfont{C}}\to {\catsymbfont{D}}$ an enriched exact functor, we define a simplicially
enriched Waldhausen category $\Sdot[n] f$ as follows. An object
consists of an object $Y=(y_{i,j})$ of $\Sdot[n]{\catsymbfont{C}}$ together with an
object $X=(x_{i,j})$ of $\Sdot[n+1]{\catsymbfont{D}}$ such that $d_{0}X=f(Y)$, that
is, $x_{i+1,j+1}=f(y_{i,j})$, with the structure maps for this
subdiagram in $X$ identical with $f(Y)$. For objects $(X,Y),(X',Y')$,
the simplicial set of maps consists of the simplicial set of natural
transformations. We make this a Waldhausen category by declaring a
map $(X,Y)\to (X',Y')$ to be a cofibration (resp., weak equivalence)
when the restrictions $X'\to X$ (in $\Sdot[n+1]{\catsymbfont{D}}$) and $Y'\to Y$ (in
$\Sdot[n]{\catsymbfont{C}}$) are both cofibrations (resp., weak equivalences). This
assembles into a simplicial object in the category of simplicially
enriched Waldhausen categories using the usual face and degeneracy
maps on $\Sdot[n] {\catsymbfont{C}}$ and the last $n+1$ face and degeneracy maps on
$\Sdot[n+1]{\catsymbfont{D}}$.
\begin{defn}\label{defrelthh}
For $f\colon {\catsymbfont{C}}\to {\catsymbfont{D}}$ an enriched exact functor, define
\[
WTHH^{\Gamma}(f)=|WTHH^{\Gamma}(\Sdot f)|.
\]
\end{defn}
We note that when $f\colon {\catsymbfont{A}}\to {\catsymbfont{B}}$ is an enhanced exact functor
between enhanced simplicially enriched Waldhausen categories, then
$\Sdot[n]f$ is also an enhanced simplicially enriched Waldhausen
category and $\Sdot f$ is a simplicial object in enhanced simplicially
enriched Waldhausen categories. We write $WTHH(f)=|WTHH(\Sdot f)|$.
To put this construction in perspective, we have an alternative
description of $\Sdot f$ as a pullback. For any simplicial object
$Z_\ssdot$, we can form the ``path'' object $PZ_\ssdot$ precomposing
with the shift operation $[n] \mapsto [n+1]$ in the category of
standard simplices (or finite ordered sets). In this notation, we
have a pullback square
\[
\xymatrix{%
\Sdot f\ar[r]^{X}\ar[d]_{Y}&P\Sdot {\catsymbfont{D}}\ar[d]^{d_{0}}\\
\Sdot {\catsymbfont{C}}\ar[r]_{f}&\Sdot {\catsymbfont{D}}
}
\]
in the category of simplicial simplicially enriched categories. The
usual extra degeneracy argument produces a simplicial null homotopy on
$P\Sdot {\catsymbfont{C}}$, and applying $WTHH^{\Gamma}$ and (when appropriate)
$WTHH$, we get commutative squares of cyclotomic spectra
\[
\xymatrix@C-1pc{%
WTHH^{\Gamma}(f)\ar[r]\ar[d]&|WTHH^{\Gamma}(P\Sdot {\catsymbfont{D}})|\ar[d]
&WTHH(f)\ar[r]\ar[d]&|WTHH(P\Sdot {\catsymbfont{B}})|\ar[d]\\
|WTHH^{\Gamma}(\Sdot{\catsymbfont{C}})|\ar[r]&|WTHH^{\Gamma}(\Sdot{\catsymbfont{D}})|
&|WTHH (\Sdot{\catsymbfont{A}})|\ar[r]&|WTHH(\Sdot{\catsymbfont{B}})|
}
\]
where the top right entry comes with a canonical null homotopy through
cyclotomic maps. We therefore get a map of cyclotomic spectra from
$WTHH^{\Gamma}(f)$ to the homotopy fiber of the map
$|WTHH^{\Gamma} (\Sdot{\catsymbfont{C}})|\to |WTHH^{\Gamma} (\Sdot{\catsymbfont{D}})|$, which is
equivalent to the
homotopy cofiber of the map $WTHH^{\Gamma}{\catsymbfont{C}}\to WTHH^{\Gamma}{\catsymbfont{D}}$.
Likewise in the enhanced exact context, we get a map of cyclotomic
spectra from $WTHH(f)$ to the homotopy cofiber of the map
$WTHH{\catsymbfont{A}}\to WTHH {\catsymbfont{B}}$. The Cofiber Theorem asserts that these maps are
weak equivalences.
\begin{thm}[Cofiber Theorem]\label{thmcofiber}
For $f \colon {\catsymbfont{C}} \to {\catsymbfont{D}}$ an enriched exact functor, we have a
cofiber sequence of cyclotomic spectra
\[
WTHH^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{C}})\to WTHH^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{D}})\to WTHH^{\Gamma}(f)
\to |WTHH^{\Gamma}(\Sdot{\catsymbfont{C}})|.
\]
For $f\colon {\catsymbfont{A}}\to {\catsymbfont{B}}$ an enhanced exact functor, we have a cofiber
sequence of cyclotomic spectra
\[
WTHH({\catsymbfont{A}})\to WTHH({\catsymbfont{B}})\to WTHH(f)\to |WTHH(\Sdot{\catsymbfont{A}})|.
\]
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}(cf.~\cite[1.5.5]{WaldhausenKT})
The argument for the connective and non-connective enrichments are
identical; we treat the connective case in detail.
Consider the map
\[
WTHH^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{D}})\vee \myop\bigvee_{n} WTHH^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{C}})
\to WTHH^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{D}}\times \Sdot[n]{\catsymbfont{C}})
\to WTHH^{\Gamma}(\Sdot[n]f)
\]
induced by sending $b, a_{1},\dotsc,a_{n}$ to $(b,Y)$ and then $(X,Y)$
with $Y=(y_{i.j})$ for
\[
y_{i,j}=a_{i+1}\vee\dotsb \vee a_{j}
\]
and $X=(x_{i,j})$ for
\[
x_{i,j}=\begin{cases}
b\vee f(y_{0,j-1})&i=0\\
f(y_{i-1,j-1})&i>0
\end{cases}
\]
with the canonical maps induced by inclusions and quotients of
summands. Applying the argument following
Corollary~\ref{coradditivity}, we see that this
map is a weak equivalence. Letting $n$ vary, these assemble into a
simplicial map where we regard the domain as the simplicial cyclotomic
spectrum
\[
WTHH^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{D}})\cup_{WTHH^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{C}})}
WTHH^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{C}})\sma \Delta[1].
\]
On geometric realization, this induces a map
from the homotopy cofiber
\[
\cofiber{WTHH^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{D}})}{WTHH^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{C}})} =
WTHH^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{D}})\cup_{WTHH^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{C}})}
WTHH^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{C}})\sma I
\]
to $ WTHH^{\Gamma}(f)$
that we see is a weak equivalence. The composite map
\[
\cofiber{WTHH^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{D}})}{WTHH^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{C}})}
\to WTHH^{\Gamma}(f)
\to WTHH^{\Gamma}(\Sdot {\catsymbfont{C}})
\]
factors as the connecting map
$\cofiber{WTHH^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{D}})}{WTHH^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{C}})}
\to \Sigma WTHH^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{C}})$
composed with the weak equivalence $\Sigma WTHH^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{C}})\to
|WTHH^{\Gamma}(\Sdot {\catsymbfont{C}})|$.
\end{proof}
Using the alternate models $\wt{WTC}$ and $\wt{WTHH}$ of
Definition~\ref{deftildethh}, we get constructions
$\wt{WTC}^{\Gamma}(f)$ and
$\wt{WTHH}^{\Gamma}(f)$ that admit a cyclotomic trace from $K$-theory.
Because on objects, the map constructed in the proof of
Theorem~\ref{thmcofiber} agrees with the corresponding map in
cofiber sequence on $K$-theory, we get the following theorem as an
immediate consequence.
\begin{thm}
For $f\colon {\catsymbfont{C}}\to {\catsymbfont{D}}$ an enriched exact functor, the following
diagram commutes.
\[
\xymatrix@-1pc{%
K({\catsymbfont{C}}_{0})\ar[r]\ar[d]_{\mathrm{trc}}
&K({\catsymbfont{D}}_{0})\ar[r]\ar[d]_{\mathrm{trc}}
&K(f)\ar[r]\ar[d]_{\mathrm{trc}}
&K(\Sdot{\catsymbfont{C}}_{0})\ar[d]_{\mathrm{trc}}\\
\wt{WTC}^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{C}})\ar[r]\ar[d]
&\relax\wt{WTC}^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{D}})\ar[r]\ar[d]\ar[d]
&\relax\wt{WTC}^{\Gamma}(f)\ar[r]\ar[d]
&\relax\wt{WTC}^{\Gamma}(\Sdot{\catsymbfont{C}})\ar[d]\\
\relax\wt{WTHH}^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{C}})\ar[r]
&\relax\wt{WTHH}^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{D}})\ar[r]
&\relax\wt{WTHH}^{\Gamma}(f)\ar[r]
&\relax\wt{WTHH}^{\Gamma}(\Sdot{\catsymbfont{C}})
}
\]
\end{thm}
Returning to Theorem~\ref{thmcofiber}, we have the following corollary
that allows us to study the cofibers of exact functors in
``$THH$-theoretic'' terms.
\begin{cor}\label{corcocart}
Let $f\colon {\catsymbfont{A}}\to {\catsymbfont{B}}$ and $g\colon {\catsymbfont{C}}\to {\catsymbfont{D}}$ be enriched
exact functors. Then the commutative square of cyclotomic spectra on
the left is homotopy (co)cartesian.
\[
\xymatrix@C-1pc{%
WTHH^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{B}})\ar[r]\ar[d]&WTHH^{\Gamma}(f)\ar[d]
&WTHH({\catsymbfont{B}})\ar[r]\ar[d]&WTHH(f)\ar[d]\\
WTHH^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{C}})\ar[r]&WTHH^{\Gamma}(g\circ f)
&WTHH({\catsymbfont{C}})\ar[r]&WTHH(g\circ f)
}
\]
If $f$ and $g$ are enhanced exact then the commutative square of
cyclotomic spectra on the right is homotopy cartesian.
\end{cor}
In the special case when ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ is a simplicially enriched Waldhausen
subcategory of ${\catsymbfont{D}}$
and $f$ is the inclusion, $S_\ssdot f$ admits an equivalent but
smaller variant where we omit the choices of subquotients.
\begin{defn}\label{defF}
We say that ${\catsymbfont{C}}\subset {\catsymbfont{D}}$ is a \term{simplicially enriched
Waldhausen subcategory} when ${\catsymbfont{C}}\subset {\catsymbfont{D}}$ is full as a
simplicially enriched category and ${\catsymbfont{C}}_{0}$ is a Waldhausen
subcategory of ${\catsymbfont{D}}_{0}$. In this case we define $\Fdot({\catsymbfont{D}},{\catsymbfont{C}})$
to be the simplicially enriched Waldhausen subcategory of the nerve of
the cofibrations in ${\catsymbfont{D}}$ whose quotients lie in ${\catsymbfont{C}}$.
\end{defn}
Concretely, $\Fdot[n]({\catsymbfont{D}},{\catsymbfont{C}})$ has as objects the composable sequences
of $n$ cofibrations
\[
\xymatrix@C-1pc{%
x_{0}\ar@{ >->}[r]&x_{1}\ar@{ >->}[r]&\dotsb\ar@{ >->}[r]&x_{n}
}
\]
such that $x_{i+1}/x_{i}$ is an object of ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ for all $i$, with maps
the simplicial sets of natural transformations. We have a forgetful
functor from $S_\ssdot ({\catsymbfont{C}}\rightarrow {\catsymbfont{D}})$ to $\Fdot({\catsymbfont{D}},{\catsymbfont{C}})$ that
throws away the subquotients, i.e., sending $(X,Y)$ in
$\Sdot[n+1]{\catsymbfont{D}}\times \Sdot[n]{\catsymbfont{C}}$ to
\[
\xymatrix@C-1pc{%
x_{0,1}\ar@{ >->}[r]&x_{0,2}\ar@{ >->}[r]&\dotsb\ar@{ >->}[r]&x_{0,n+1}
}
\]
in $\Fdot[n]({\catsymbfont{D}},{\catsymbfont{C}}$), where $X=(x_{i,j})$. At each simplicial level
this map is an equivalence of simplicial Waldhausen categories, and in
particular induces a DK-equivalence
\[
\Sdot[m]\Sdot[n]({\catsymbfont{C}}\rightarrow {\catsymbfont{D}}) \to \Sdot[m]\Fdot[n]({\catsymbfont{D}},{\catsymbfont{C}}).
\]
We therefore obtain the following observation, useful in combination
with Theorem~\ref{thmcofiber}.
\begin{prop}\label{propcofiber}
For ${\catsymbfont{C}}\subset {\catsymbfont{D}}$ a simplicially enriched Waldhausen subcategory,
the forgetful functor from $S_\ssdot({\catsymbfont{C}}\to{\catsymbfont{D}})$ to
$\Fdot({\catsymbfont{D}},{\catsymbfont{C}})$ induces a weak equivalence of cyclotomic spectra
\[
WTHH^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{C}}\rightarrow{\catsymbfont{D}})\to |WTHH^{\Gamma}(\Fdot({\catsymbfont{D}},{\catsymbfont{C}}))|.
\]
\end{prop}
We have the notion of a \term{closed} simplicially enriched Waldhausen
subcategory, which is a simplicially enriched Waldhausen subcategory
${\catsymbfont{A}}\subset {\catsymbfont{B}}$ where ${\catsymbfont{A}}_{0}$ is a closed Waldhausen subcategory of
${\catsymbfont{B}}_{0}$ (i.e., every object of ${\catsymbfont{B}}$ weakly equivalent to an object
of ${\catsymbfont{A}}$ is in ${\catsymbfont{A}}$). When ${\catsymbfont{B}}$ is an enhanced simplicially enriched
Waldhausen category and ${\catsymbfont{A}}\subset {\catsymbfont{B}}$ is a closed simplicially
enriched Waldhausen subcategory, then ${\catsymbfont{A}}$ is also enhanced
simplicially enriched. The discussion above then generalizes to show
that
\[
\Sdot[m]\Sdot[n]({\catsymbfont{C}}\rightarrow {\catsymbfont{D}}) \to \Sdot[m]\Fdot[n]({\catsymbfont{D}},{\catsymbfont{C}}).
\]
induces an equivalence (and in particular DK-equivalence) on
non-connective enrichments. It follows that
\[
WTHH({\catsymbfont{A}}\rightarrow {\catsymbfont{B}})\to |WTHH(\Fdot({\catsymbfont{B}},{\catsymbfont{A}}))|
\]
is also a weak equivalence of cyclotomic spectra.
\section{The Localization Theorem}\label{sec:loc}
The Localization Theorem, called by Waldhausen the ``Fibration
Theorem'', provides the most important instance of the Cofiber
Theorem. Roughly speaking, this theorem states that algebraic
$K$-theory takes quotient sequences of triangulated categories
to cofiber sequences of spectra. In this section, we prove versions
of this theorem for $THH$ and $TC$. In the case of the non-connective
enrichment, we obtain a localization sequence equivalent to the one in
\cite{BlumbergMandellTHHLoc}; in the case of the connective
enrichment, we obtain a localization sequence generalizing the one in
\cite{HM3}.
For the setup for the Localization Theorem, we take an enhanced
simplicially enriched Waldhausen category ${\catsymbfont{A}}$ together with an
additional subcategory of weak equivalences $v{\catsymbfont{A}}_{0}$ that contains
its usual weak equivalences $w{\catsymbfont{A}}_{0}$. We assume that $v{\catsymbfont{A}}_{0}$
satisfies the two-out-of-three properties and
the Extension Axiom
\cite[\S1.2]{WaldhausenKT}, meaning that given a map of cofibration
sequences
\[
\xymatrix@-1pc{%
x\ar@{ >->}[r]\ar[d]_{v}&y\ar[r]\ar[d]&y/x\ar[d]^{v}\\
x'\ar@{ >->}[r]&y'\ar[r]&y'/x'
}
\]
with the outer maps $x\to x'$ and $x/y\to x'/y'$ in $v{\catsymbfont{A}}_{0}$, then
the inner map $y\to y'$ is in $v{\catsymbfont{A}}_{0}$. Finally, recalling that as
an enhanced simplicially Waldhausen category, ${\catsymbfont{A}}$ admits
tensors with contractible simplicial sets, we say that $v{\catsymbfont{A}}_{0}$ is
\term{compatible with cylinders} when for any map $x\to x'$ in
$v{\catsymbfont{A}}_{0}$, the map
\[
x\to x' \cup_{x} (x\otimes \Delta[1])
\]
is a cofibration in ${\catsymbfont{A}}_{0}$, i.e., its quotient is in ${\catsymbfont{A}}$. The category
of \term{$v$-acyclics} ${\catsymbfont{A}}_{0}^{v}$ consists of the full subcategory
of objects $v$-equivalent to the trivial object $*$. Under these
hypotheses, ${\catsymbfont{A}}_{0}^{v}$ forms a
closed Waldhausen subcategory of ${\catsymbfont{A}}$. Moreover, ${\catsymbfont{A}}_{0}^{v}$
is \term{closed under extensions and cofibers in
${\catsymbfont{A}}_{0}$}, meaning that for a cofibration sequence in ${\catsymbfont{A}}_{0}$
\[
\xymatrix@-1pc{%
x\ar@{ >->}[r]&y\ar[r]&y/x,
}
\]
if $x$ and either of $y$ or $y/x$ is in ${\catsymbfont{A}}_{0}^{v}$, then so is the
other. Letting ${\catsymbfont{A}}^{v}$ be the full simplicially enriched
subcategory of ${\catsymbfont{A}}$ consisting of the objects in ${\catsymbfont{A}}_{0}$, then
${\catsymbfont{A}}^{v}$ forms an enhanced simplicially enriched Waldhausen category
with the inclusion functor ${\catsymbfont{A}}^{v}\to {\catsymbfont{A}}$ enhanced exact. We can
now state the Localization Theorem.
\begin{thm}[Localization Theorem]\label{thmloc}
With hypotheses and notation as in the previous paragraph, the
following commutative squares of cyclotomic spectra are homotopy
(co)cartesian.
\[
\xymatrix{%
WTHH^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{A}}^{v})\ar[r]\ar[d]&WTHH^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{A}}^{v}|v)\ar[d]
&WTHH({\catsymbfont{A}}^{v})\ar[r]\ar[d]&WTHH({\catsymbfont{A}}^{v}|v)\ar[d]\\
WTHH^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{A}})\ar[r]&WTHH^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{A}}|v)
&WTHH({\catsymbfont{A}})\ar[r]&WTHH({\catsymbfont{A}}|v)
}
\]
Moreover, in each square, the upper right entry is null homotopic
through cyclotomic maps. Thus, we have cofiber sequences of
cyclotomic spectra,
\begin{gather*}
WTHH^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{A}}^{v})\to WTHH^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{A}})\to
WTHH^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{A}}|v)\to \Sigma WTHH^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{A}}^{v})\\
WTHH({\catsymbfont{A}}^{v})\to WTHH({\catsymbfont{A}})\to WTHH({\catsymbfont{A}}|v)\to \Sigma WTHH({\catsymbfont{A}}^{v}).
\end{gather*}
\end{thm}
Although formally similar in statement and proof, the two localization
sequences above are very different in practice. In the case when
${\catsymbfont{A}}$ is pretriangulated (which by Corollary~\ref{cor:pretriang}
just means in this context that every object is weakly equivalent to a
suspension), the Localization Theorem of \cite{BlumbergMandellTHHLoc}
identifies the relative term $WTHH({\catsymbfont{A}}|v)$ in the second sequence
above as the $THH$ of the triangulated quotient ${\catsymbfont{A}}/{\catsymbfont{A}}^{v}$ (for any
spectrally enriched model of this quotient).
In the special case when ${\catsymbfont{A}}$ is the category of finite cell EKMM
$R$-modules for the $S$-algebra $R=HA$ for a discrete valuation ring
$A$ or $R=ku$ is connective $K$-theory, we take the $v$-equivalences
$v{\catsymbfont{A}}_{0}$ to be the $R[\beta^{-1}]$-equivalences, the maps that
induce isomorphisms on homotopy groups after inverting $\beta$, where
$\beta$ is a uniformizer for $A$ (when $R=HA$) or is the Bott-element
(when $R=ku$). Then Theorem~\ref{thmspecsphere} (proved in
Section~\ref{secspheretheorem}) combined with
Theorem~\ref{thmnoSnoncon} identify both $WTHH^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{A}})$ and
$WTHH({\catsymbfont{A}})$ as $THH(R)$. In the non-connective case, we then have
that $WTHH({\catsymbfont{A}}|v)$ is equivalent to $THH(R[\beta^{-1}])$.
Calculations show $WTHH({\catsymbfont{A}}^{v})$ cannot be equivalent to
$THH(R/\beta)$. On the other hand, we will prove a d\'evissage theorem
in Part~4 that identifies $WTHH^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{A}}^{v})$ as $THH(R/\beta)$
and calculations show that $WTHH^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{A}}|v)$ cannot be equivalent
to $THH(R[\beta^{-1}])$.
Returning to Theorem~\ref{thmloc}, it follows that the analogous
squares in the ``tilde'' models $\wt{WTHH}^{\Gamma}$ and $\wt{WTC}^{\Gamma}$
are homotopy (co)cartesian as well, and we get cofiber sequences on
$\wt{WTHH}^{\Gamma}$ and $\wt{WTC}^{\Gamma}$. By naturality, the maps in the
squares and in the cofiber sequences commute with the cyclotomic
trace. For convenient reference, we state this explicitly in the
following theorem.
\begin{thm}
Under the hypotheses of Theorem~\ref{thmloc}, the following diagram of
cofiber sequences commutes.
\[
\xymatrix@-1pc{%
K({\catsymbfont{A}}_{0}^{v})\ar[r]\ar[d]_{\mathrm{trc}}&K({\catsymbfont{A}}_{0})\ar[r]\ar[d]_{\mathrm{trc}}
&K({\catsymbfont{A}}_{0}|v)\ar[r]\ar[d]_{\mathrm{trc}}
&\Sigma K({\catsymbfont{A}}_{0}^{v})\ar[d]_{\mathrm{trc}}\\
\wt{WTC}^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{A}}^{v})\ar[r]\ar[d]
&\wt{WTC}^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{A}})\ar[r]\ar[d]
&\wt{WTC}^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{A}}|v)\ar[r]\ar[d]
&\Sigma \wt{WTC}^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{A}}^{v})\ar[d]\\
\wt{WTHH}^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{A}}^{v})\ar[r]
&\wt{WTHH}^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{A}})\ar[r]
&\wt{WTHH}^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{A}}|v)\ar[r]
&\Sigma \wt{WTHH}^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{A}}^{v})
}
\]
\end{thm}
We begin the proof of Theorem~\ref{thmloc} by noting that the category
of $v$-acyclics completely characterizes the $v$-equivalences $v{\catsymbfont{A}}_{0}$.
\begin{prop}
Under the hypotheses of Theorem~\ref{thmloc}, a map $f\colon x\to y$ is in
$v{\catsymbfont{A}}_{0}$ if and only if the homotopy cofiber
\[
Cf=y \cup_{x}(x\otimes \Delta[1])\cup_{x}*
\]
is in ${\catsymbfont{A}}_{0}^{v}$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Let $Mf=y\cup_{x}(x\otimes \Delta [1])$ so that $Cf=Mf/x$. The map $Mf\to y$
is a weak equivalence (and so in particular a $v$-equivalence) and
the composite map $x\to Mf\to y$ is $f$ and so the inclusion of $x$
in $ Mf$ is in $v{\catsymbfont{A}}_{0}$ if and only if $f$ is. Consider the
commutative diagram of cofiber sequences
\[
\xymatrix@-1pc{%
x\ar@{ >->}[r]^{=}\ar[d]_{=}&x\ar[r]\ar[d]&\relax*\ar[d]\\
x\ar@{ >->}[r]&Mf\ar[r]&Cf.
}
\]
By the Gluing Axiom, $Cf$ is in ${\catsymbfont{A}}_{0}^{v}$ when $x\to Mf$ is in
$v{\catsymbfont{A}}_{0}$. By the Extension Axiom $x\to Mf$ is in $v{\catsymbfont{A}}_{0}$ when
$Cf$ is in ${\catsymbfont{A}}_{0}^{v}$.
\end{proof}
Let $\bar v{\catsymbfont{A}}_{0}=v{\catsymbfont{A}}_{0}\cap \co{\catsymbfont{A}}_{0}$ denote the subcategory of
${\catsymbfont{A}}_{0}$ consisting of the maps that are both cofibrations and
$v$-equivalences. The previous proposition implies that $\bar
v{\catsymbfont{A}}_{0}$ consists of those cofibrations whose quotients are
$v$-acyclic. It follows that $\Fdot({\catsymbfont{A}},{\catsymbfont{A}}^{v})=\bar v_\ssdot{\catsymbfont{A}}$,
and applying Corollary~\ref{corcocart} and Proposition~\ref{propcofiber}, we get
homotopy (co)cartesian squares
\[
\xymatrix@C-1pc{%
WTHH^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{A}}^{v})\ar[r]\ar[d]
&\relax|WTHH^{\Gamma}(\bar v_\ssdot{\catsymbfont{A}}^{v})|\ar[d]
&WTHH({\catsymbfont{A}}^{v})\ar[r]\ar[d]
&\relax|WTHH(\bar v_\ssdot{\catsymbfont{A}}^{v})|\ar[d]\\
WTHH^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{A}})\ar[r]
&\relax|WTHH^{\Gamma}(\bar v_\ssdot{\catsymbfont{A}})|
&WTHH({\catsymbfont{A}})\ar[r]
&\relax|WTHH(\bar v_\ssdot{\catsymbfont{A}})|.
}
\]
We now have what we need to prove Theorem~\ref{thmloc}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{thmloc}]
To obtain the homotopy (co)cartesian squares,
we just need to see that the maps
\[
WTHH^{\Gamma}(\bar v_\ssdot{\catsymbfont{A}})\to WTHH^{\Gamma}(v^{M}_\ssdot{\catsymbfont{A}})
\quad \text{and}\quad
WTHH(\bar v_\ssdot{\catsymbfont{A}})\to WTHH(v^{M}_\ssdot{\catsymbfont{A}})
\]
are weak equivalences. The inclusion of $|\bar v_{p}\Sdot[q]{\catsymbfont{A}}|$ in
$|v_{p}^{M}\Sdot[q]{\catsymbfont{A}}|$ is a DK-embedding and an easy mapping
cylinder argument shows that it is a DK-equivalence.
It follows that $WTHH^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{A}}^{v}|v)$ and
$WTHH^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{A}}^{v}|v)$ are weakly equivalent as cyclotomic spectra
to the trivial spectrum, and to produce a null homotopy through
cyclotomic maps is not much more work. The simplicial object
$v^{M}_\ssdot{\catsymbfont{A}}^{v}$ has an extra degeneracy which on objects inserts
the trivial map at the start of the chain of maps. On maps, we use
the unique (constant trivial) homotopy on any subsimplex that has the
new trivial object as one of its vertices.
\end{proof}
\section{The Sphere Theorem}\label{secspheretheorem}
In this section, we state versions of Waldhausen's ``Sphere Theorem''
for the $THH$ of Waldhausen categories, which we prove in the next section.
These theorems allow us to deduce the important consistency result
that all the different models for the $THH$ of the finite-cell modules
over an EKMM $S$-algebra or a simplicial ring agree
(Theorem~\ref{thmspecsphere} above). Before stating a precise
theorem, we need two definitions,
\begin{defn}\label{defn:stable}
Let ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ be a simplicially tensored Waldhausen category. We say that
${\catsymbfont{C}}$ is \term{stable} when:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Every object of ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ is weakly equivalent to a suspension, and
\item For all objects $x$ and $y$ in ${\catsymbfont{C}}$, the suspension map
${\catsymbfont{C}}(x,y)\to {\catsymbfont{C}}(\Sigma x,\Sigma y)$ is a weak equivalence.
\end{enumerate}
We say that ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ is \term{almost stable} when it satisfies just
condition~(ii).
\end{defn}
As observed in Corollary~\ref{cor:pretriang}, the first condition
implies that the non-connective spectral category ${\catsymbfont{C}}^{S}$ is
pretriangulated, and its homotopy category $\pi_{0}{\catsymbfont{C}}^{S}$ is
triangulated. The second condition implies that the homotopy category
$\pi_{0}{\catsymbfont{C}}^{S}$ coincides with the homotopy category $\pi_{0}{\catsymbfont{C}}$ and
also that the connective spectral enrichment ${\catsymbfont{C}}^{\Gamma}(x,y)$
is the connective cover of the non-connective spectral enrichment
${\catsymbfont{C}}^{S}(x,y)$ (Proposition~\ref{prop:conncover}). Combined with the
fact that the mapping simplicial sets ${\catsymbfont{C}}(x,y)$ are Kan complexes
(and that weak equivalences in ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ are homotopy equivalences in the
obvious sense), this puts all the basic tools and techniques of homotopy
theory and stable homotopy theory at our disposal.
In the stable case the hypotheses we need for the Sphere Theorem
greatly simplify and so we will explore that case first. In addition
to the stability assumptions above, we need to assume that ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ is
generated by connective objects in the following sense.
\begin{defn}\label{defconnclass}
Let ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ be an almost stable simplicially tensored Waldhausen category.
A \term{connective class} $Q$ in ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ is a set of objects of ${\catsymbfont{C}}$
such that for any $a,b$ in $Q$, ${\catsymbfont{C}}^{S}(a,b)$ is connective. If
${\catsymbfont{C}}$ is stable, then we say that $Q$ is \term{generating} if the
smallest triangulated subcategory of the triangulated category $\pi_{0}
{\catsymbfont{C}}^{S}$ that contains $Q$ is all of $\pi_{0} {\catsymbfont{C}}^{S}$.
\end{defn}
See Definition~\ref{defn:asgen} for the definition of generating when
${\catsymbfont{C}}$ is almost stable.
In this terminology, we prove the following
theorem, the $THH$ analogue of Waldhausen's Sphere Theorem for the
stable case.
\begin{thm}[Sphere Theorem, Stable Version]\label{thm:spherestable}
Let ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ be a stable simplicially tensored Waldhausen category and
assume that ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ has a generating connective class $Q$. Then the canonical
cyclotomic maps are weak equivalences
\[
WTHH^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{C}}) \overto{\sim} WTHH({\catsymbfont{C}})
\overfrom{\sim}
THH({\catsymbfont{C}}^{S}) \overfrom{\sim} THH(Q^{S}).
\]
Here $Q^{S}$ denotes the full spectral subcategory of ${\catsymbfont{C}}^{S}$ on
the objects of $Q$.
\end{thm}
We state the following corollary for ease of reference and citation;
it is one case of Theorem~\ref{thmspecsphere}.
\begin{cor}\label{cor:ekmm}
Let $R$ be a connective EKMM $S$-algebra and ${\catsymbfont{C}}_{R}$ the
category of finite cell $R$-modules. Then the canonical cyclotomic
maps
\[
WTHH^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{C}}_{R}) \overto{\sim} WTHH({\catsymbfont{C}}_{R})
\overfrom{\sim}
THH({\catsymbfont{C}}_{R}^{S}) \overfrom{\sim} THH(R)
\]
are weak equivalences.
Here $THH(R)$ denotes the usual B\"okstedt model of $THH$ of a
particular symmetric ring spectrum (or FSP) equivalent to $R$.
\end{cor}
The corollary follows by taking the connective class $Q$ to be the
singleton set containing the one object $S_{R}$, the ``cell zero
sphere $R$-module'' \cite[III.2]{EKMM}. Then $THH(Q^{S})$ coincides
with $THH$ of the symmetric ring spectrum
\[
F=Q^{S}(S_{R},S_{R})={\catsymbfont{C}}_{R}^{S}(S_{R},S_{R}).
\]
Concretely, this has $n$-th space
\[
F(n)={\catsymbfont{C}}_{R}(S_{R},S_{R}\sma S^{n}),
\]
and multiplication induced by composition. We can identify this as
the symmetric ring spectrum (or ``FSP defined on
spheres'') obtained from the FSP
$\mathbf{F}(-)={\catsymbfont{C}}_{R}(S_{R},S_{R}\sma -)$ by restricting to
spheres $F(n)=\mathbf{F}(S^{n})$.
Another symmetric ring spectrum derives from the general theory
of~\cite{SchwedeEKMM}; writing ${\catsymbfont{M}}_{S}$ for the category of
$S$-modules, this has spaces $\Phi(n)={\catsymbfont{M}}_{S}((S_{S}^{-1})^{(n)},R)$ and
multiplication induced by smash product together with the
multiplication on $R$. Experts know how to compare these symmetric
ring spectra and therefore their $THH$, $TR$, and $TC$ spectra.
Briefly, noting that $S_{R}=R\sma S_{S}$, we construct a third
symmetric ring spectrum $\Phi'$ that lies between them. $\Phi'$ has
spaces
\begin{align*}
\Phi'(n)
&={\catsymbfont{C}}_{R}(S_{R}\sma_{S}(S_{S}^{-1} \sma S^{1})^{(n)},S_{R}\sma S^{n})\\
&\iso {\catsymbfont{M}}_{S}((S_{S}^{-1} \sma S^{1})^{(n)},F_{R}(S_{R},S_{R}\sma S^{n}))
\end{align*}
and multiplication induced both by smash product (on the
$(S_{S}^{-1} \sma S^{1})^{(n)}$ factors) and composition (on the
$F_{R}(S_{R},S_{R}\sma S^{n})$ factors). We have a weak equivalence
of symmetric ring spectra from $F$ to $\Phi'$ given by
\[
F(n)=
{\catsymbfont{C}}_{R}(S_{R},S_{R}\sma S^{n}) \to
{\catsymbfont{C}}_{R}(S_{R}\sma_{S}(S_{S}^{-1} \sma S^{1})^{(n)},S_{R}\sma S^{n})
=\Phi'(n)
\]
induced by the collapse map $S_{S}^{-1}\sma S^{1}\to S$; the induced
map $F(n)\to \Phi'(n)$ is a weak equivalence of simplicial sets for
all $n$. We have a
weak equivalence of symmetric ring spectra from $\Phi$ to $\Phi'$ given by
\begin{multline*}
\Phi(n)=
{\catsymbfont{M}}_{S}((S_{S}^{-1})^{(n)},R)\to
{\catsymbfont{M}}_{S}((S_{S}^{-1})^{(n)},F_{R}(S_{R},S_{R}))\\
\to
{\catsymbfont{M}}_{S}((S_{S}^{-1}\sma S^{1})^{(n)},F_{R}(S_{R},S_{R}\sma S^{n}))
\iso \Phi'(n)
\end{multline*}
induced by the unit map $R\to F_{R}(S_{R},S_{R})$ (which arises from
the extra $R$ action on $S_{R}=R\sma S_{S}$); again, this is a weak
equivalence of simplicial sets for all $n$. For convenience, we
state these remarks as a proposition.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:corEKMM}
The symmetric ring spectrum in Corollary~\ref{cor:ekmm} is weakly
equivalent to the symmetric ring spectrum obtained from the EKMM
$S$-algebra $R$ by~\cite{SchwedeEKMM}.
\end{prop}
For the other half of Theorem~\ref{thmspecsphere}, we need to treat
the almost stable case. This requires introducing the following
subcategories of ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ associated to a connective class $Q$.
\begin{notn}\label{notn:SigmaQ}
Let ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ be an almost stable simplicially tensored Waldhausen
category and let $Q$ be a connective class. Write ${\catsymbfont{Q}}$ for the
smallest closed Waldhausen category of ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ containing $Q$.
For $n\geq 0$, let $\Sigma^{n}{\catsymbfont{Q}}$ denote the full subcategory of ${\catsymbfont{C}}$
containing all objects weakly equivalent to $\Sigma^{n}x$ for $x$
in ${\catsymbfont{Q}}$. Let $\Sigma^{-n}{\catsymbfont{Q}}$ denote the
full subcategory of ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ containing all $x$ such that
$\Sigma^{n}x$ is in ${\catsymbfont{Q}}$.
\end{notn}
We note that the subcategories $\Sigma^{n}{\catsymbfont{Q}}$ are themselves
connective classes and closed Waldhausen subcategories.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:wccc}
Let ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ be an almost stable simplicially tensored Waldhausen
category and let $Q$ be a connective class. Then
$\Sigma^{n}{\catsymbfont{Q}}$ is a connective class and closed Waldhausen
subcategory for all $n\in {\mathbb{Z}}$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
We begin by showing that ${\catsymbfont{Q}}$ is a connective class; stability
hypothesis~(ii) then shows that $\Sigma^{n}{\catsymbfont{Q}}$ is a connective class
for all $n$.
Let $Q_{0}$ be the collection of objects of ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ weakly equivalent to
finite coproducts of objects in $Q$, and inductively let $Q_{n}$ be the
collection of objects of ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ that are weakly equivalent to finite
coproducts of homotopy pushouts $y\cup_{x}(x\otimes \Delta[1])\cup_{x}z$ where
$x,y,z\in Q_{n-1}$ and $y\cup_{x}(x\otimes \Delta[1])\cup_{x}*\in Q_{n-1}$.
If we regard $\bigcup Q_{n}$ as the full subcategory of ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ of objects in $Q_{n}$ for
some $n$, it is then clear that ${\catsymbfont{Q}}=\bigcup Q_{n}$ is the smallest closed
Waldhausen subcategory of ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ containing $Q$. To show that ${\catsymbfont{Q}}$ is
a connective class, it suffices to show that for $x,y$ in $Q_{n}$,
${\catsymbfont{C}}^{S}(x,y)$ is connective, which we do by induction. We know that
$x$ is weakly equivalent to a finite coproduct of homotopy pushouts of
objects in $Q_{n-1}$ along maps whose homotopy cofiber is also in
$Q_{n-1}$. Looking at the long exact sequence of homotopy
groups from the fibration sequence in
Proposition~\ref{propfibercofiber}, we then see that ${\catsymbfont{C}}(x,z)$ is
connective for all $z$ in $Q_{n-1}$. Using the same fact about $y$ and
the long exact sequence of homotopy groups from the cofibration
sequence in Proposition~\ref{propfibercofiber}, we see that ${\catsymbfont{C}}(x,y)$
is connective.
By definition $\Sigma^{0}{\catsymbfont{Q}}={\catsymbfont{Q}}$ is a closed Waldhausen subcategory
and it follows that $\Sigma^{n}{\catsymbfont{Q}}$ is a closed Waldhausen subcategory
for $n<0$ since suspension preserves homotopy pushouts. Let $n>0$ and
suppose $f\colon x\to y$ is a cofibration in ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ such that $x$, $y$, and
$y/x\simeq Cf$ are all in $\Sigma^{n}{\catsymbfont{Q}}$. Then we can find $x'$ and
$y'$ in ${\catsymbfont{Q}}$ and weak equivalences $\Sigma^{n}x'\to x$ and
$\Sigma^{n}y'\to y$. By stability hypothesis~(ii) and the fact that
the mapping spaces in ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ are Kan complexes, we can find a
map $f'\colon x'\to y'$ such that the diagram
\[
\xymatrix{%
\Sigma^{n}x'\ar[r]^{\Sigma^{n}f'}\ar[d]_{\sim}&\Sigma^{n}y'\ar[d]_{\sim}\\
x\ar[r]_{f}&y
}
\]
commutes up to homotopy. Choosing a homotopy, we get a weak
equivalence $C\Sigma^{n} f'\to Cf$. Then $y/x$ is weakly equivalent
to $\Sigma^{n}Cf$ and it follows (again applying
stability hypothesis~(ii)) that $Cf$ is in ${\catsymbfont{Q}}$. For any map $x\to
z$ with $z$ in $\Sigma^{n}{\catsymbfont{Q}}$, we can choose a compatible map $x'\to
z'$ (for some $z'$ with $\Sigma^{n}z'\simeq z$) such that the pushout
$w=z\cup_{x}y$ is weakly equivalent to $\Sigma^{n}$ of the homotopy
pushout $w'=z'\cup_{x'}(x'\otimes \Delta[1])\cup_{x'}y'$. Since ${\catsymbfont{Q}}$
is a closed Waldhausen subcategory of ${\catsymbfont{C}}$, $w'$ is in ${\catsymbfont{Q}}$, and it
follows that $w$ is in $\Sigma^{n}{\catsymbfont{Q}}$. This shows that
$\Sigma^{n}{\catsymbfont{Q}}$ is a closed Waldhausen subcategory of ${\catsymbfont{C}}$.
\end{proof}
We use the subcategories $\Sigma^{n}{\catsymbfont{Q}}$ to define what it means for a
connective class to be generating in the almost stable case. For this,
we need the following technical definitions.
\begin{defn}\label{defn:built}
Given a class $A$ of objects of a Waldhausen category ${\catsymbfont{C}}$, we say
that an object $x$ of ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ is \term{finitely cellularly built from}
$A$ if we can find a sequence of objects $x_{0},x_{1},\dotsc,x_{n}$ of
${\catsymbfont{C}}$ that fit into pushout squares
\[
\xymatrix@-1pc{%
a_{j}\ar@{ >->}[r]\ar[d]&b_{j}\ar[d]\\
x_{j}\ar@{ >->}[r]&x_{j+1}
}
\]
where $x_{n}$ is weakly equivalent to $x$, $x_{0}=*$, and for each $j$,
$a_{j}$ is in $A$, $b_{j}$ is contractible (weakly equivalent to $*$),
and $a_{j}\to b_{j}$ is a cofibration.
\end{defn}
The concept of ``finitely cellularly built from'' above differs from other
notions of ``built from'' in other contexts. Note in particular that
an object of $A$ is not necessarily finitely cellularly built from
$A$. However, suspensions of objects of $A$ are finitely cellularly
built from $A$, for example.
\begin{defn}\label{defn:asgen}
Let ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ be an almost stable simplicially tensored Waldhausen
category and $Q$ a connective class. We say that $Q$ is
\term{generating} if every object of ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ is finitely cellularly built from $\bigcup
\Sigma^{n}{\catsymbfont{Q}}$.
\end{defn}
The following proposition clarifies the relationship between the
notions of generating given in Definitions~\ref{defconnclass}
and~\ref{defn:asgen}.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:generating}
Let ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ be a stable simplicially tensored Waldhausen
category and $Q$ a connective class. Then $Q$ is generating in the
sense of Definition~\ref{defconnclass} if and only if it is generating
in the sense of Definition~\ref{defn:asgen}.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Since the triangulated subcategory generated by $Q$ contains $\bigcup
\Sigma^{n}{\catsymbfont{Q}}$ (cf.\ the proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:wccc}), one
direction is clear. We must show that if $Q$ is generating in the
sense of Definition~\ref{defconnclass}, then it is generating in the
sense of Definition~\ref{defn:asgen}. Let $C_{0}=\bigcup
\Sigma^{n}{\catsymbfont{Q}}$, and inductively let $C_{n}$ be the collection of
objects of ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ that are weakly equivalent to the homotopy cofiber of
a map between objects of $C_{n-1}$. We note that the $C_{n}$ are
closed under suspension and desuspension and that the objects of
$C_{0}$ are finitely cellularly built from $C_{0}$ (since each is equivalent to
the suspension of an object of $C_{0}$). Generating in the sense of
Definition~\ref{defconnclass} implies that ${\catsymbfont{C}}=\bigcup C_{n}$, so it
suffices to show by induction that all objects of $C_{n}$ are
finitely cellularly built from $C_{0}$. Given $f\colon x\to y$ with $x,y$ in
$C_{n-1}$, we need to show that $z=Cf=y\cup_{x}(x\otimes
\Delta[1])\cup_{x}*$ is finitely cellularly built from $C_{0}$. Replacing $z$
with a weakly equivalent object, we can assume
without loss of generality that $x$ and $y$ are isomorphic rather than
just weakly equivalent to an iterated pushout. Then we build $z$ by
first building $y$ and then gluing $Cb_{j}=(b_{j}\otimes \Delta
[1])\cup_{b_{j}}*$ along $a'_{j}=b_{j}\cup_{a_{j}}(a_{j}\otimes
\Delta[1])\cup_{a_{j}}*$ where $a_{j}\to b_{j}$ build $x$. Since
$Cb_{j}$ is contractible and $a'_{j}$ is weakly equivalent to $\Sigma
a_{j}$, this shows that $z$ is finitely cellularly built from $C_{0}$.
\end{proof}
The following theorem now generalizes
Theorem~\ref{thm:spherestable} to the almost stable case.
\begin{thm}[Sphere Theorem]\label{spheretheorem}
Let ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ be an almost stable simplicially tensored Waldhausen category and
assume that ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ has a generating connective class $Q$.
Then the canonical
cyclotomic maps are weak equivalences
\[
WTHH^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{C}}) \overto{\sim} WTHH({\catsymbfont{C}})
\overfrom{\sim}
THH({\catsymbfont{C}}^{S}) \overfrom{\sim} THH(Q^{S}).
\]
where $Q^{S}$ denotes the full spectral subcategory of ${\catsymbfont{C}}^{S}$ on
the objects of $Q$.
\end{thm}
We now have the other half of Theorem~\ref{thmspecsphere} as a
corollary.
\begin{cor}\label{cor:simpring}
Let $A$ be a simplicial ring, let ${\catsymbfont{C}}_{A}$ be the category of finite
cell $A$-modules and let ${\catsymbfont{P}}_{A}$ be the category of finite cell
$A$-modules built out of finitely generated projective $A$-modules.
Then the canonical cyclotomic maps
\[
\xymatrix{%
WTHH^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{C}}_{A})\ar[d]_{\sim}\ar[r]^{\sim}
&WTHH({\catsymbfont{C}}_{A})\ar[d]_{\sim}
&THH({\catsymbfont{C}}_{A}^{S})\ar[l]_{\sim}\ar[d]_{\sim}&THH(A)\ar[l]_{\sim}\\
WTHH^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{P}}_{A})\ar[r]^{\sim}
&WTHH({\catsymbfont{P}}_{A})&THH({\catsymbfont{P}}_{A}^{S})\ar[l]_{\sim}
}
\]
are weak equivalences.
\end{cor}
The vertical arrows are weak equivalences
by~\cite[4.11]{BlumbergMandellTHHLoc} since every object of ${\catsymbfont{P}}_{A}$
or $\Sdot[n]{\catsymbfont{P}}_{A}$ is a direct summand of an object of ${\catsymbfont{C}}_{A}$ or
$\Sdot[n]{\catsymbfont{C}}_{A}$. We get the top row from
Theorem~\ref{spheretheorem} taking the connective class $Q$ to be the
singleton set containing the object $A$, which is clearly generating.
The symmetric spectrum $Q^{S}(A,A)={\catsymbfont{C}}^{S}(A,A)$ is just the usual
symmetric ring spectrum constructed from $A$.
We have one last version of the Sphere Theorem, which is closer in
spirit to Waldhausen's Sphere Theorem for $K$-theory. It also has the
technical advantage of being stated purely in terms of the connective
enrichments.
\begin{thm}[Sphere Theorem, Alternate Version]\label{thm:altsphere}
Let ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ be an almost stable simplicially tensored Waldhausen category,
let $Q$ be a generating connective class, and let ${\catsymbfont{Q}}$ be the smallest
closed Waldhausen subcategory of ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ containing $Q$. The inclusion
of ${\catsymbfont{Q}}$ into ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ induces
a weak equivalence $WTHH^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{Q}})\to WTHH^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{C}})$.
\end{thm}
The previous theorem is equivalent to Theorem~\ref{spheretheorem}, but
to see this, we need more information about the categories $\Sdot{\catsymbfont{Q}}$
implicit in the statement. The following proposition has everything
we need for the comparison, plus what we need for the proofs in the
next section.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:sncc}
Let ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ be an almost stable simplicially tensored Waldhausen
category and let $Q$ be a connective class. Then $\Sdot[n]{\catsymbfont{C}}$ is an
almost stable simplicially tensored Waldhausen category, and
$\Sdot[n]{\catsymbfont{Q}}$ is a closed Waldhausen subcategory and a connective
class; moreover, $\Sdot[n]\Sigma^{m}{\catsymbfont{Q}}=\Sigma^{m}\Sdot[n]{\catsymbfont{Q}}$. If
$Q$ is generating, then so is $\Sdot[n]{\catsymbfont{Q}}$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
We saw in Proposition~\ref{prop:Sdotinherit} that $\Sdot[n]{\catsymbfont{C}}$ is
simplicially tensored; the fact that the tensor on $\Sdot[n]{\catsymbfont{C}}$ is
objectwise on the diagram and the formula~\eqref{eqsn} for the mapping
spaces of $\Sdot[n]{\catsymbfont{C}}$ prove that $\Sdot[n]{\catsymbfont{C}}$ is almost stable.
Since ${\catsymbfont{Q}}$ is a closed Waldhausen subcategory of ${\catsymbfont{C}}$, $\Sdot[n]{\catsymbfont{Q}}$
is a closed Waldhausen subcategory of $\Sdot[n]{\catsymbfont{C}}$. Again, the
formula~\eqref{eqsn} shows that the mapping spectra
$\Sdot[n]{\catsymbfont{Q}}^{S}(A,B)$ are connective. It is clear that
$\Sdot[n]\Sigma^{m}{\catsymbfont{Q}}=\Sigma^{m}\Sdot[n]{\catsymbfont{Q}}$ since both categories
are the functor categories whose objects are the sequences starting
with $*$ of $n$ composable cofibrations in ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ between objects in
$\Sigma^{m}{\catsymbfont{Q}}$ together with choices of quotients which also must be
in $\Sigma^{m}{\catsymbfont{Q}}$.
Now assume that $Q$ is generating; it remains to show that
$\Sdot[n]{\catsymbfont{Q}}$ is generating. For $n=2$, a typical object of $S_{2}{\catsymbfont{C}}$
is of the form $Z=[\xymatrix@-1pc{x\ar@{ >->}[r]&y\ar@{->>}[r]&z }]$
for objects $x,y,z$ in ${\catsymbfont{C}}$. Replacing $Z$ with a weakly equivalent
object, we can assume without loss of generality that $x$ and $y$ are
isomorphic rather than just weakly equivalent to an iterated pushout
in Definition~\ref{defn:built}.
Clearly the objects
\[
[\xymatrix@-1pc{%
x\ar@{ = }[r]&x\ar@{->>}[r]&\relax *
}]
\qquad \text{and}\qquad
[\xymatrix@-1pc{%
\relax * \ar@{ >->}[r]&y\ar@{ = }[r]&y
}]
\]
can be finitely cellularly built using pushouts of objects of the same form.
We can then build
\[
Z'=[\xymatrix@-1pc{%
x\ar@{ >->}[r]&y\cup_{x}(x\otimes \Delta[1])\ar@{->>}[r]
&y\cup_{x}(x\otimes \Delta[1])\cup_{x}*
}]
\]
by first building
$[\xymatrix@-1pc{%
x\ar@{ >->}[r]&x \amalg y \ar@{->>}[r]&y
}]$
and then using pushouts over maps of the form
\begin{multline*}
[\xymatrix@-1pc{%
\relax * \ar@{ >->}[r]
& b_{j}\cup_{a_{j}}(a_{j}\otimes \Delta[1])\cup_{a_{j}}b_{j} \ar@{ = }[r]
&b_{j}\cup_{a_{j}}(a_{j}\otimes \Delta[1])\cup_{a_{j}}b_{j}
}]\\
\to
[\xymatrix@-1pc{%
\relax * \ar@{ >->}[r]
& b_{j}\otimes \Delta[1] \ar@{ = }[r]
&b_{j}\otimes \Delta[1]
}]
\end{multline*}
where $a_{j}\to b_{j}$ are the cells building $x$.
Similar observations apply for $n>2$.
\end{proof}
Now Theorems~\ref{spheretheorem} and~\ref{thm:altsphere} are easily
seen to be equivalent by looking at the following diagram.
\[
\xymatrix{%
\Omega |THH(\Sdot{\catsymbfont{Q}}^{\Gamma})|\ar[r]\ar[d]_{\sim}
&\Omega |THH(\Sdot{\catsymbfont{C}}^{\Gamma})|\ar[d]\\
\Omega |THH(\Sdot{\catsymbfont{Q}}^{S})|\ar[r]^{\sim}
&\Omega |THH(\Sdot{\catsymbfont{C}}^{S})|
&THH({\catsymbfont{C}}^{S})\ar[l]_-{\sim}&THH(Q^{S}).\ar[l]_-{\sim}
}
\]
The lefthand vertical map is a weak equivalence since each map
$\Sdot[n]{\catsymbfont{Q}}^{\Gamma}\to \Sdot[n]{\catsymbfont{Q}}^{S}$ is a weak equivalence (and
in particular DK-equivalence) of spectral categories by
Propositions~\ref{prop:wccc} and~\ref{prop:sncc}, while the bottom horizontal
maps are weak equivalences by \cite[4.12]{BlumbergMandellTHHLoc}
(for the first and third maps) and Theorem~\ref{thmnoSnoncon} (for the
middle map). Theorem~\ref{spheretheorem} then amounts to the
assertion that the righthand vertical map is a weak equivalence while
Theorem~\ref{thm:altsphere} is the assertion that the top horizontal
map is a weak equivalence.
\section{Proof of the Sphere Theorem}
This section contains the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:altsphere}. We
fix the almost stable simplicially tensored Waldhausen category ${\catsymbfont{C}}$
and the generating connective class $Q$, letting ${\catsymbfont{Q}}$ and
$\Sigma^{n}{\catsymbfont{Q}}$ be as in Notation~\ref{notn:SigmaQ}. Just as in
Waldhausen's argument \cite[\S1.7]{WaldhausenKT} we need to introduce
a Waldhausen category of CW complexes built out of cells based on $Q$.
\begin{defn}\label{defn:QCW}
A $Q$-CW complex is a filtered object $X$ in ${\catsymbfont{C}}$
\[
\cdots \to x_n \to x_{n+1} \to \cdots
\]
indexed on the integers,
where the arrows $x_n \to x_{n+1}$ are cofibrations
for all $n$ and such that for some $N \geq 0$, the following
conditions hold:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $x_n = *$ for $n \leq -N$,
\item $x_n = x_{n+1}$ for $n \geq N$, and
\item For all $n$, the quotient $x_{n+1} / x_n$ is an object in $\Sigma^{n+1}{\catsymbfont{Q}}$.
\end{enumerate}
We call $x_{N}$ the \term{underlying object} of $X$ in ${\catsymbfont{C}}$. Let
$CW_{Q}{\catsymbfont{C}}$ denote the category whose objects are the $Q$-CW complexes
and whose maps are the maps of the underlying objects in ${\catsymbfont{C}}$. We say that a
$Q$-CW complex $X$ is connective if $x_n = *$ for $n < 0$, and denote
the full subcategory of connective $Q$-CW complexes by
$CW_{Q}{\catsymbfont{C}}_{[0,\infty)}$. More generally, for $I$ an interval in
${\mathbb{Z}}$, write $CW_{Q}{\catsymbfont{C}}_{I}$ for the full subcategory of $Q$-CW
complexes $X$ with $x_{n}=*$ whenever $n$ is less than the elements of
$I$ and $x_{n}=x_{n+1}$ whenever $n+1$ is greater than the elements of
$I$.
\end{defn}
We define the mapping spectra in $CW_{Q}{\catsymbfont{C}}^{\Gamma}$ and
$CW_{Q}{\catsymbfont{C}}^{S}$ as the mapping spectra of the underlying objects in
${\catsymbfont{C}}^{\Gamma}$ and ${\catsymbfont{C}}^{S}$, respectively. For the
Waldhausen category structure, we use the following definition.
\begin{defn}\label{defn:cellular}
A \term{cellular map} of $Q$-CW complexes $X\to Y$ consists of
compatible maps
$x_{n}\to y_{n}$ for all $n$. A cellular map is a \term{cellular cofibration} when
each map $x_n \cup_{x_{n-1}} y_{n-1} \to
y_n$ is a cofibration in ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ and the induced map $x_{n}/x_{n-1}\to
y_{n}/y_{n-1}$ is a cofibration in $\Sigma^{n}{\catsymbfont{Q}}$.
\end{defn}
An easy check of the definitions then proves the following proposition.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:CWwald}
The category of $Q$-CW complexes and cellular maps forms a
Waldhausen category with
cofibrations the cellular cofibrations of
Definition~\ref{defn:cellular} and weak equivalences the weak
equivalences of the underlying objects in ${\catsymbfont{C}}$. For $I$ an interval
in ${\mathbb{Z}}$, the subcategory $CW_{Q}{\catsymbfont{C}}_{I}$ forms a Waldhausen
subcategory (though not closed a closed one).
\end{prop}
Since $\Sdot[n]{\catsymbfont{Q}}$ is a connective class, we also have the category
of $\Sdot[n]{\catsymbfont{Q}}$-CW complexes in $\Sdot[n]{\catsymbfont{C}}$. When we restrict to the
subcategories of cellular maps, both $\Sdot[n](CW_{Q}{\catsymbfont{C}})$ and
$CW_{\Sdot[n]{\catsymbfont{Q}}}\Sdot[n]{\catsymbfont{C}}$ are subcategories of the category of
functors $\Ar[n]\times {\mathbb{Z}} \to {\catsymbfont{C}}$ (where the category ${\mathbb{Z}}$ is the
ordered set of integers). An easy check of the definitions then shows
that these categories coincide. More generally, for $I$ an interval
in ${\mathbb{Z}}$, the cellular maps in $\Sdot[n](CW_{Q}{\catsymbfont{C}}_{I})$ and
$(CW_{\Sdot[n]{\catsymbfont{Q}}}\Sdot[n]{\catsymbfont{C}})_{I}$ are the same subcategory of
functors $\Ar[n]\times I \to {\catsymbfont{C}}$. Expanding to all maps in
$\Sdot[n](CW_{Q}{\catsymbfont{C}})$ and $CW_{\Sdot[n]{\catsymbfont{Q}}}\Sdot[n]{\catsymbfont{C}}$, and looking at
the cofibrations and weak equivalences, we get the following
proposition.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:snswitch}
The Waldhausen categories $\Sdot[n](CW_{Q}{\catsymbfont{C}})$ and
$CW_{\Sdot[n]{\catsymbfont{Q}}}\Sdot[n]{\catsymbfont{C}}$ are canonically isomorphic.
For any interval $I$ in ${\mathbb{Z}}$, the Waldhausen categories\break
$\Sdot[n](CW_{Q}{\catsymbfont{C}}_{I})$ and $(CW_{\Sdot[n]{\catsymbfont{Q}}}\Sdot[n]{\catsymbfont{C}})_{I}$ are
canonically isomorphic.
\end{prop}
Because we need to restrict to cellular maps to obtain a Waldhausen
category, the category $CW_{Q}{\catsymbfont{C}}$ does not fit into our usual
framework of simplicially enriched Waldhausen categories (as the
familiar example of CW complexes in spaces demonstrates). Instead,
thinking of $Q$-CW complexes as objects of ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ with extra structure,
we assign mapping spectra by looking at the underlying objects. We
use the following notation.
\begin{notn}\label{notn:cwgamma}
Let $\Sdot[n](CW_{Q}{\catsymbfont{C}})^{\Gamma}$
denote the spectral category whose objects are the objects of
$\Sdot[n](CW_{Q}{\catsymbfont{C}})$ and whose mapping spectra are the
mapping spectra of the
underlying objects in $\Sdot[n]{\catsymbfont{C}}^{\Gamma}$.
For $I$ an interval in ${\mathbb{Z}}$, we define
$\Sdot[n](CW_{Q}{\catsymbfont{C}}_{I})^{\Gamma}$
analogously.
\end{notn}
As an alternate take on this notation, we note that under the
canonical isomorphism of Proposition~\ref{prop:snswitch},
we get the identification of spectral categories
\[
\Sdot[n](CW_{Q}{\catsymbfont{C}}_{I})^{\Gamma}=
(CW_{\Sdot[n]{\catsymbfont{Q}}}\Sdot[n]{\catsymbfont{C}}_{I})^{\Gamma}
\]
As a first reduction of Theorem~\ref{thm:altsphere}, we have the
following observation. In it, the ``forgetful functor'' is the
functor that takes a $\Sdot[n]{\catsymbfont{Q}}$-CW complex to its underlying object
of $\Sdot[n]{\catsymbfont{C}}$.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:cwreplace}
For any $n$, the forgetful functor
$\Sdot[n](CW_{Q}{\catsymbfont{C}})^{\Gamma}\to \Sdot[n]{\catsymbfont{C}}^{\Gamma}$ is a DK-equivalence.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Using the identification of $\Sdot[n](CW_{Q}{\catsymbfont{C}})$ as
$CW_{\Sdot[n]{\catsymbfont{Q}}}\Sdot[n]{\catsymbfont{C}}$, it suffices to show that for the
arbitrary almost stable simplicially tensored Waldhausen category
${\catsymbfont{C}}$ and generating connective class $Q$ the forgetful functor
$CW_{Q}{\catsymbfont{C}}^{\Gamma}\to {\catsymbfont{C}}^{\Gamma}$ is a DK-equivalence. By
definition of the mapping spectra, it is a DK-embedding, and so we
just need to show that every object of ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ is weakly equivalent to
the underlying object of a $Q$-CW complex. Since $Q$ is generating,
and $*$ is the underlying object of a $Q$-CW complex, it suffices to
show that if $y$ is the underlying object of a $Q$-CW complex $Y$,
then $x=y\cup_{a}b$ is weakly equivalent to the underlying object of a
$Q$-CW whenever $a$ is in $\Sigma^{n}{\catsymbfont{Q}}$, $b$ is contractible, and
$a\to b$ is a cofibration. Using the cofibration sequence of
Proposition~\ref{propfibercofiber} and stability hypothesis~(ii), we
see that we have homotopy fibration sequences
\[
{\catsymbfont{C}}(a,y_{m})\to {\catsymbfont{C}}(a,y_{m+1})\to {\catsymbfont{C}}(a,y_{m+1}/y_{m})
\]
for all $m$. Since $y_{m+1}/y_{m}$ is in $\Sigma^{m+1}{\catsymbfont{Q}}$, for
$m\geq n$ we have that $\pi_{0}{\catsymbfont{C}}(a,y_{m+1}/y_{m})=0$ and every map
from $a$ to $y_{m+1}$ lifts up to homotopy to a map $a\to y_{m}$.
Thus, the map $a\to y$ lifts up to homotopy to a map $a\to y_{n}$.
Let $X$ be the $Q$-CW complex
\[
X=(\dotsb \to y_{n-1}\to y_{n}\cup_{a} b \to y_{n+1}\cup_{a}b\to \dotsb ),
\]
Then the underlying object of $X$ is weakly equivalent to $x$.
\end{proof}
It follows from Proposition~\ref{prop:cwreplace} that the map
\[
THH(\Sdot[n] (CW_{Q}{\catsymbfont{C}})^{\Gamma})\to
THH(\Sdot[n] {\catsymbfont{C}}^{\Gamma})
\]
is a weak equivalence. The next step is to compare the subcategory of
connective objects. The cone and suspension functor on ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ extend
to cone and suspension functors of $Q$-CW complexes in the usual way:
for a $Q$-CW complex $X$, let $CX$ be the $Q$-CW complex with $n$-th
object $x_{n}\cup_{x_{n-1}}Cx_{n-1}$. The inclusion of $X$ in $CX$ is
a cellular cofibration and $\Sigma X$ is its quotient. The Additivity
Theorem and Corollary~\ref{coradditivity} generalize to the context of
$THH(\Sdot (CW_{Q}{\catsymbfont{C}})^{\Gamma})$ to show that the self-map of
$|THH(\Sdot (CW_{Q}{\catsymbfont{C}})^{\Gamma})|$ induced by $C$ coincides (in the
stable category) with the sum of the identity and the map induced by
$\Sigma $. Since $C$ induces the trivial map, it follows that
$\Sigma$ induces the map $-\id$, and in particular is a weak
equivalence. The analogous observations apply to ${\catsymbfont{C}}_{[0,\infty)}$,
showing that suspension induces a weak equivalence on $|THH(\Sdot
(CW_{Q}{\catsymbfont{C}})^{\Gamma})|$ and on
$|THH(\Sdot(CW_{Q}{\catsymbfont{C}}_{[0,\infty)})^{\Gamma})|$. Taking the homotopy
colimit of the maps induced by suspension, we see that the inclusions
\begin{gather*}
|THH(\Sdot (CW_{Q}{\catsymbfont{C}})^{\Gamma})|
\to \hocolim_{\Sigma}|THH(\Sdot (CW_{Q}{\catsymbfont{C}})^{\Gamma})|\\
|THH(\Sdot (CW_{Q}{\catsymbfont{C}}_{[0,\infty)})^{\Gamma})|
\to \hocolim_{\Sigma}|THH(\Sdot (CW_{Q}{\catsymbfont{C}}_{[0,\infty)})^{\Gamma})|
\end{gather*}
are weak equivalences. We use this observation in the proof of the
following proposition.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:connreplace}
The inclusion
\[
|THH(\Sdot (CW_{Q}{\catsymbfont{C}}_{[0,\infty)})^{\Gamma})|\to
|THH(\Sdot (CW_{Q}{\catsymbfont{C}})^{\Gamma})|
\]
is a weak equivalence.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
By the preceding observations, it suffices to prove that the map
\[
\hocolim_{\Sigma} THH(\Sdot[n] (CW_{Q}{\catsymbfont{C}}_{[0,\infty)})^{\Gamma})
\to \hocolim_{\Sigma} THH(\Sdot[n] (CW_{Q}{\catsymbfont{C}})^{\Gamma})
\]
is a weak equivalence for each $n$. Again using the fact that ${\catsymbfont{C}}$
and $Q$ are arbitrary, it suffices to consider the case $n=1$. Let
$CW^{\Sigma}_{Q}{\catsymbfont{C}}^{\Gamma}$ be the spectrally enriched category
where an object is an ordered
pair $(X,m)$ where $X$ is a $Q$-CW complex and $m$ is a non-negative
integer; for mapping spectra, we let
\[
CW^{\Sigma}_{Q}{\catsymbfont{C}}^{\Gamma}((X,m),(Y,n))=\lcolim_{k\geq \max(m,n)}
{\catsymbfont{C}}^{\Gamma}(\Sigma^{k-m}X,\Sigma^{k-n}Y).
\]
(Composition is induced levelwise in the colimit system after taking
$k$ large enough.) Let $CW^{\Sigma}_{Q}{\catsymbfont{C}}_{[0,\infty)}$ be the full
subcategory of $CW^{\Sigma}_{Q}{\catsymbfont{C}}^{\Gamma}$ consisting of the objects
$(X,m)$ with $X$ connective. Opening up the construction of $THH$, it
is straightforward to construct canonical maps
\begin{gather*}
\hocolim_{\Sigma} THH(CW_{Q}{\catsymbfont{C}}^{\Gamma})
\to THH(CW^{\Sigma}_{Q}{\catsymbfont{C}}^{\Gamma})\\
\hocolim_{\Sigma} THH(CW_{Q}{\catsymbfont{C}}_{[0,\infty)}^{\Gamma})
\to THH(CW^{\Sigma}_{Q}{\catsymbfont{C}}_{[0,\infty)}^{\Gamma})
\end{gather*}
and check that they are weak equivalences. The inclusion of
$CW^{\Sigma}_{Q}{\catsymbfont{C}}_{[0,\infty)}^{\Gamma}$ in
$CW^{\Sigma}_{Q}{\catsymbfont{C}}^{\Gamma}$ is a DK-equivalence, and so also induces
a weak equivalence on $THH$.
\end{proof}
The previous two propositions show that the map
\[
|THH(\Sdot(CW_{Q}{\catsymbfont{C}}_{[0,\infty)})^{\Gamma})|\to
|THH(\Sdot{\catsymbfont{C}}^{\Gamma})|
\]
is a weak equivalence, reducing the proof of
Theorem~\ref{thm:altsphere} to showing that the map
\[
|THH(\Sdot{\catsymbfont{Q}}^{\Gamma})|\to |THH(\Sdot(CW_{Q}{\catsymbfont{C}}_{[0,\infty)})^{\Gamma})|
\]
is a weak equivalence. This is an easy consequence of the following lemma.
\begin{lem}\label{lem:spheremain}
For every $n\geq 1$, the inclusion of $CW_{Q}{\catsymbfont{C}}_{[0,n-1]}$ in
$CW_{Q}{\catsymbfont{C}}_{[0,n]}$ induces a weak equivalence
\[
|THH(\Sdot (CW_{Q}{\catsymbfont{C}}_{[0,n-1]})^{\Gamma})|\to
|THH(\Sdot (CW_{Q}{\catsymbfont{C}}_{[0,n]})^{\Gamma})|.
\]
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:altsphere} from
Lemma~\ref{lem:spheremain}]
The lemma implies that the maps in the homotopy colimit system
\[
\hocolim_{n}|THH(\Sdot (CW_{Q}{\catsymbfont{C}}_{[0,n]})^{\Gamma})|
\]
are all weak equivalences. By inspection we see that the canonical
map from the homotopy colimit to
$|THH(\Sdot(CW_{Q}{\catsymbfont{C}}_{[0,\infty)})^{\Gamma})|$
is a weak equivalence. It follows that the map
\[
|THH(\Sdot{\catsymbfont{Q}}^{\Gamma})|=
|THH(\Sdot(CW_{Q}{\catsymbfont{C}}_{[0,0]})^{\Gamma})|
\to |THH(\Sdot(CW_{Q}{\catsymbfont{C}})^{\Gamma})|
\]
is a weak equivalence. Composing with the weak equivalence
\[
|THH(\Sdot (CW_{Q}{\catsymbfont{C}})^{\Gamma})|\to
|THH(\Sdot {\catsymbfont{C}}^{\Gamma})|
\]
above and applying $\Omega$, we see that the map
$WTHH^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{Q}})\to WTHH^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{C}})$ is a weak equivalence.
\end{proof}
The remainder of the section is devoted to the proof of
Lemma~\ref{lem:spheremain}. The argument is somewhat roundabout,
requiring the introduction of the spectral categories
$\Sdot[k](CW_{Q}{\catsymbfont{C}}_{[0,n]})^{S}$, defined analogously to
$\Sdot[k](CW_{Q}{\catsymbfont{C}}_{[0,n]})^{\Gamma}$ in Notation~\ref{notn:cwgamma}
but using the non-connective enrichment. The proof of
Proposition~\ref{prop:cwreplace} equally well shows that the forgetful
functor $\Sdot[k](CW_{Q}{\catsymbfont{C}})^{S}\to \Sdot[k]{\catsymbfont{C}}^{S}$ is a
DK-equivalence. These non-connective enrichments are easier to
understand because Proposition~\ref{propfibercofiber} implies that
when we DK-embed $\Sdot[k]{\catsymbfont{C}}^{S}$ in a pretriangulated
spectral category, the DK-embedding
takes cofiber sequences to distinguished triangles in the derived
category. As a consequence, \cite[4.12]{BlumbergMandellTHHLoc} tells
us that the maps
\[
THH(\Sdot[k]{\catsymbfont{Q}}^{S})\to
THH(\Sdot[k](CW_{Q}{\catsymbfont{C}}_{[0,n-1]})^{S}) \to
THH(\Sdot[k](CW_{Q}{\catsymbfont{C}}_{[0,n]})^{S})
\]
are weak equivalences.
Looking at the diagram
\[
\xymatrix{%
|THH(\Sdot(CW_{Q}{\catsymbfont{C}}_{[0,n-1]})^{\Gamma})|\ar[r]\ar[d]
&|THH(\Sdot(CW_{Q}{\catsymbfont{C}}_{[0,n]})^{\Gamma})|\ar[d]\\
|THH(\Sdot(CW_{Q}{\catsymbfont{C}}_{[0,n-1]})^{S})|\ar[r]^-{\sim}
&|THH(\Sdot(CW_{Q}{\catsymbfont{C}}_{[0,n]})^{S})|,
}
\]
we assume by induction on $n$ that the lefthand map is a weak
equivalence, the base case being the already known case of
$\Sdot CW_{Q}{\catsymbfont{C}}_{[0,0]}=\Sdot{\catsymbfont{Q}}$. We then prove that the top map is a weak
equivalence by showing that the righthand map is a weak equivalence.
To save space and eliminate unnecessary symbols, we will now write
${\catsymbfont{C}}^{n}_{k}$ for $\Sdot[k](CW_{Q}{\catsymbfont{C}}_{[0,n]})$ or
equivalently, $CW_{\Sdot[k]{\catsymbfont{Q}}}\Sdot[k]{\catsymbfont{C}}_{[0,n]}$, and
${\catsymbfont{C}}\Gamma^{n}_{k}$ and ${\catsymbfont{C}} S^{n}_{k}$ for the connective and
non-connective spectral enrichments, respectively.
Let ${\catsymbfont{E}}\Gamma^{n}_\ssdot$ denote the simplicial spectral category where the
objects of ${\catsymbfont{E}}\Gamma^{n}_{k}$ are the objects of
${\catsymbfont{C}}^{n}_{k}$
and for objects $X$ and $Y$, the mapping spectrum is the fiber product
\[
{\catsymbfont{E}}\Gamma^{n}_{k}(X,Y) = \Sdot[k]{\catsymbfont{C}}^{\Gamma}(x_{n-1},y_{n-1})
\times_{\Sdot[k]{\catsymbfont{C}}^{\Gamma}(x_{n-1},y_{n})}
\Sdot[k]{\catsymbfont{C}}^{\Gamma}(x_{n},y_{n}).
\]
We have a canonical simplicial spectral functor
${\catsymbfont{E}}\Gamma^{n}_\ssdot\to {\catsymbfont{C}}\Gamma^{n}_\ssdot$
sending $X$ in ${\catsymbfont{E}}\Gamma^{n}_{k}$ to $X$ viewed as an object of
${\catsymbfont{C}}\Gamma^{n}_{k}$ and using projection on the mapping
spectra.
We also have canonical simplicial spectral functors
\[
{\catsymbfont{E}}\Gamma^{n}_\ssdot\to {\catsymbfont{C}}\Gamma^{n-1}_\ssdot
\qquad \text{and}\qquad
{\catsymbfont{E}}\Gamma^{n} _\ssdot\to \Sdot \Sigma^{n}{\catsymbfont{Q}}^{\Gamma}
\]
sending $X$ to its $(n-1)$-skeleton $X_{n-1}$ and to $x_{n}/x_{n-1}$, respectively, and performing
the corresponding maps on mapping spectra. Using these maps, we can identify
${\catsymbfont{E}}\Gamma^{n}_\ssdot$ as the spectral category of extension sequences
$[\xymatrix@-1pc{X_{n-1}\ar@{ >->}[r]&X\ar@{->>}[r]&x_{n}/x_{n-1}}]$ in
${\catsymbfont{C}}^{n}_\ssdot$. Although the categories ${\catsymbfont{C}}\Gamma^{n}_\ssdot$ and
${\catsymbfont{E}}\Gamma^{n}$ do not exactly fit into the framework of
Section~\ref{secadd}, McCarthy's argument for the Additivity
Theorem works quite generally and formally essentially using little
more than the fact that the mapping spectra are functorial in the maps
in $\Sdot$; the Additivity Theorem generalizes to the current context,
and the argument following
Corollary~\ref{coradditivity} shows that the maps described above
induce a weak equivalence
\[
|THH({\catsymbfont{E}}\Gamma^{n}_\ssdot)|\overto{\sim}
|THH({\catsymbfont{C}}\Gamma^{n-1}_\ssdot)| \times
|THH(\Sdot\Sigma^{n}{\catsymbfont{Q}}^{\Gamma})|.
\]
We have an analogous simplicial spectral category ${\catsymbfont{E}} S^{n}_\ssdot$
with the analogous weak equivalence. The induction hypothesis
and the weak equivalences above then imply the following proposition.
\begin{prop}
The functor ${\catsymbfont{E}}\Gamma^{n}_\ssdot\to {\catsymbfont{E}} S^{n}_\ssdot$
induces a weak equivalence
\[
|THH({\catsymbfont{E}}\Gamma^{n}_\ssdot)|\overto{\sim}
|THH({\catsymbfont{E}} S^{n}_\ssdot)|.
\]
\end{prop}
Let $({\catsymbfont{C}}^{n}_{k})^{w}$ denote the objects of ${\catsymbfont{C}}^{n}_{k}$ that are
weakly equivalent to the zero object~$*$, and write
$({\catsymbfont{C}}\Gamma^{n}_{k})^{w}$, $({\catsymbfont{C}} S^{n}_{k})^{w}$,
$({\catsymbfont{E}}\Gamma^{n}_{k})^{w}$, $({\catsymbfont{E}} S^{n}_{k})^{w}$ for the various
spectral enrichments on this category, the full spectral subcategories
of ${\catsymbfont{C}}\Gamma^{n}_{k}$, ${\catsymbfont{C}} S^{n}_{k}$, ${\catsymbfont{E}}\Gamma^{n}_{k}$, ${\catsymbfont{E}}
S^{n}_{k}$, respectively. The mapping spectra in
$({\catsymbfont{C}}\Gamma^{n}_{k})^{w}$ and $({\catsymbfont{C}} S^{n}_{k})^{w}$ are all weakly
contractible so $THH$ is also weakly contractible,
\[
THH(({\catsymbfont{C}}\Gamma^{n}_{k})^{w})\simeq
THH(({\catsymbfont{C}} S^{n}_{k})^{w})\simeq *.
\]
For the ${\catsymbfont{E}}$ categories, we have the following proposition.
\begin{prop}
The canonical spectral functor $({\catsymbfont{E}}\Gamma^{n}_{k})^{w}\to({\catsymbfont{E}}
S^{n}_{k})^{w}$ is a DK-equivalence.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Since the categories have the same object set, it suffices to show
that the map is a DK-embedding, and for this it suffices to show that
the mapping spectra in $({\catsymbfont{E}} S^{n}_{k})^{w}$ are connective.
We note that for $X$ in $({\catsymbfont{C}}^{n}_{k})^{w}$, stability hypothesis~(ii)
implies that $x_{n-1}$ is an object of
$\Sdot[k]\Sigma^{n-1}{\catsymbfont{Q}}$ since $x_{n}$ is contractible and
$x_{n}/x_{n-1}$ is an object of $\Sdot[k]\Sigma^{n}{\catsymbfont{Q}}$. Now given $X$
and $Y$ in $({\catsymbfont{C}}^{n}_{k})^{w}$, the projection map
\[
{\catsymbfont{E}} S^{n}_{k}(X,Y) = \Sdot[k]{\catsymbfont{C}}^{S}(x_{n-1},y_{n-1})
\times_{\Sdot[k]{\catsymbfont{C}}^{S}(x_{n-1},y_{n})}
\Sdot[k]{\catsymbfont{C}}^{S}(x_{n},y_{n})
\to \Sdot[k]{\catsymbfont{C}}^{S}(x_{n-1},y_{n-1})
\]
is a weak equivalence. In particular, ${\catsymbfont{E}} S^{n}_{k}(X,Y)$ is connective.
\end{proof}
We denote by $CTHH({\catsymbfont{C}}\Gamma^{n}_{k},w)$ the homotopy cofiber of
the inclusion
\[
THH(({\catsymbfont{C}}\Gamma^{n}_{k})^{w})\to THH({\catsymbfont{C}}\Gamma^{n}_{k}),
\]
and analogously for $CTHH({\catsymbfont{C}} S^{n}_{k},w)$,
$CTHH({\catsymbfont{E}}\Gamma^{n}_{k},w)$, and $CTHH({\catsymbfont{E}} S^{n}_{k},w)$. In this
notation, the two previous propositions then imply the following
proposition.
\begin{prop}
The map $|CTHH({\catsymbfont{E}}\Gamma^{n}_\ssdot,w)|\to
|CTHH({\catsymbfont{E}} S^{n}_\ssdot,w)|$ is a
weak equivalence.
\end{prop}
Since the inclusions
\begin{gather*}
THH({\catsymbfont{C}}\Gamma^{n}_{k})\to
CTHH({\catsymbfont{C}}\Gamma^{n}_{k},w)
\\
THH({\catsymbfont{C}} S^{n}_{k})\to
CTHH({\catsymbfont{C}} S^{n}_{k},w)
\end{gather*}
are weak equivalences, the following lemma
when combined with the previous proposition
then completes the proof of
Lemma~\ref{lem:spheremain}.
\begin{lem}\label{lem:spherefinal}
For all $k$, the maps
\begin{gather*}
CTHH({\catsymbfont{E}}\Gamma^{n}_{k},w)\to CTHH({\catsymbfont{C}}\Gamma^{n}_{k},w)\\
CTHH({\catsymbfont{E}} S^{n}_{k},w)\to CTHH({\catsymbfont{C}} S^{n}_{k},w)
\end{gather*}
are weak equivalences.
\end{lem}
We prove the case for the connective enrichment in detail, the case
for the non-connective enrichment being similar (but slightly easier).
The statement is analogous to the Localization Theorem~6.1 of
\cite{BlumbergMandellTHHLoc} except for the fact that the
subcategories above are not pretriangulated. The proof goes roughly
along the same lines as well, using the technology of $THH$ with
coefficients and the Dennis-Waldhausen Morita Argument of Section~5 of
\cite{BlumbergMandellTHHLoc}; to keep this paper a reasonable length,
we do not review this theory, but instead assume the reader is
familiar with the ideas, notation, and terminology of Sections~5 and~6
of \cite{BlumbergMandellTHHLoc}.
Define the ${\catsymbfont{E}}\Gamma^{n}_{k}$-bimodule ${\catsymbfont{L}}_{{\catsymbfont{E}}}$ and
${\catsymbfont{C}}\Gamma^{n}_{k}$-bimodule ${\catsymbfont{L}}_{{\catsymbfont{C}}}$ by
\begin{gather*}
{\catsymbfont{L}}_{{\catsymbfont{E}}}(X,Y) =
TB({\catsymbfont{E}}\Gamma^{n}_{k}(-,Y);({\catsymbfont{E}}\Gamma^{n}_{k})^{w};{\catsymbfont{E}}\Gamma^{n}_{k}(X,-))
\\
{\catsymbfont{L}}_{{\catsymbfont{C}}}(X,Y) =
TB({\catsymbfont{C}}\Gamma^{n}_{k}(-,Y);({\catsymbfont{C}}\Gamma^{n}_{k})^{w};{\catsymbfont{C}}\Gamma^{n}_{k}(X,-)).
\end{gather*}
We then have maps of ${\catsymbfont{E}}\Gamma^{n}_{k}$- and
${\catsymbfont{C}}\Gamma^{n}_{k}$-bimodules
\[
{\catsymbfont{L}}_{{\catsymbfont{E}}}\to {\catsymbfont{E}}\Gamma^{n}_{k} \qquad \text{and}\qquad
{\catsymbfont{L}}_{{\catsymbfont{C}}}\to {\catsymbfont{C}}\Gamma^{n}_{k};
\]
we let ${\catsymbfont{M}}_{{\catsymbfont{E}}}$ and ${\catsymbfont{M}}_{{\catsymbfont{C}}}$ be the homotopy cofibers. Then as
in \cite[6.4]{BlumbergMandellTHHLoc}, the Dennis-Waldhausen Morita
Argument gives us weak equivalences
\begin{align*}
THH({\catsymbfont{E}}\Gamma^{n}_{k};{\catsymbfont{L}}_{{\catsymbfont{E}}}) &\simeq THH(({\catsymbfont{E}}\Gamma^{n}_{k})^{w})
&THH({\catsymbfont{E}}\Gamma^{n}_{k};{\catsymbfont{M}}_{{\catsymbfont{E}}}) &\simeq CTHH({\catsymbfont{E}}\Gamma^{n}_{k},w)\\
THH({\catsymbfont{C}}\Gamma^{n}_{k};{\catsymbfont{L}}_{{\catsymbfont{C}}}) &\simeq THH(({\catsymbfont{C}}\Gamma^{n}_{k})^{w})
&THH({\catsymbfont{C}}\Gamma^{n}_{k};{\catsymbfont{M}}_{{\catsymbfont{C}}}) &\simeq CTHH({\catsymbfont{C}}\Gamma^{n}_{k},w),
\end{align*}
and we can identify the map in Lemma~\ref{lem:spherefinal} as the map
\begin{equation}\label{eq:spherefinal}
THH({\catsymbfont{E}}\Gamma^{n}_{k};{\catsymbfont{M}}_{{\catsymbfont{E}}})\to
THH({\catsymbfont{C}}\Gamma^{n}_{k};{\catsymbfont{M}}_{{\catsymbfont{C}}}).
\end{equation}
As the mapping spectra in $({\catsymbfont{C}}\Gamma^{n}_{k})^{w}$ are weakly
contractible,
the spectra ${\catsymbfont{L}}_{{\catsymbfont{C}}}(X,Y)$ are weakly contractible for all $X,Y$,
and it follows that the map of ${\catsymbfont{C}}\Gamma^{n}_{k}$-bimodules
${\catsymbfont{C}}\Gamma^{n}_{k}\to
{\catsymbfont{M}}_{{\catsymbfont{C}}}$ is a weak equivalence. We next move towards understanding the
${\catsymbfont{E}}\Gamma^{n}_{k}$-bimodules ${\catsymbfont{L}}_{{\catsymbfont{E}}}$. We write $u$ for the
canonical functor ${\catsymbfont{E}}\Gamma^{n}_{k}\to {\catsymbfont{C}}\Gamma$ and also its restriction
$({\catsymbfont{E}}\Gamma^{n}_{k})^{w}\to ({\catsymbfont{C}}\Gamma)^{w}$. We then have a
commutative diagram of ${\catsymbfont{E}}\Gamma^{n}_{k}$-bimodules
\[
\xymatrix{%
{\catsymbfont{L}}_{{\catsymbfont{E}}}\ar[r]\ar[d]&u^{*}{\catsymbfont{L}}_{{\catsymbfont{C}}}\ar[d]\\
{\catsymbfont{E}}\Gamma^{n}_{k}\ar[r]&u^{*}{\catsymbfont{C}}\Gamma^{n}_{k},
}
\]
Letting ${\catsymbfont{F}}$ be the homotopy pullback of the deleted diagram
\[
{\catsymbfont{E}}\Gamma^{n}_{k}\to u^{*}{\catsymbfont{C}}\Gamma^{n}_{k}\mathchoice{\longleftarrow}{\leftarrow}{\leftarrow}{\leftarrow}
u^{*}{\catsymbfont{L}}_{{\catsymbfont{C}}},
\]
we get a map of ${\catsymbfont{E}}\Gamma^{n}_{k}$-bimodules ${\catsymbfont{L}}_{{\catsymbfont{E}}}\to {\catsymbfont{F}}$.
\begin{prop}
The map of ${\catsymbfont{E}}\Gamma^{n}_{k}$-bimodules ${\catsymbfont{L}}_{{\catsymbfont{E}}}\to {\catsymbfont{F}}$ is a weak
equivalence.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Fix $X$ and $Y$ objects in ${\catsymbfont{E}}\Gamma^{n}_{k}$; we need to show that
the map ${\catsymbfont{L}}_{{\catsymbfont{E}}}(X,Y)\to {\catsymbfont{F}}(X,Y)$ is a weak equivalence. Consider the cofibration sequence
\[
y_{n-1}\to y_{n} \to y_{n}/y_{n-1}\to \Sigma y_{n-1}
\]
obtained using a homotopy inverse weak equivalence to the collapse
weak equivalence $y_{n}\cup_{y_{n-1}}Cy_{n-1}\to y_{n}/y_{n-1}$.
By definition, $y_{n}/y_{n-1}$ is in $\Sdot[k]\Sigma^{n}{\catsymbfont{Q}}$, and since
$n\geq 1$, there exists an object $p$ in $\Sdot[k]\Sigma^{n-1}{\catsymbfont{Q}}$
such that $\Sigma p$ is weakly equivalent to $y_{n}/y_{n-1}$. Then
applying stability hypothesis~(ii), we obtain from the cofibration
sequence above a (homotopy class of) map $p\to y_{n-1}$ and a null
homotopy $Cp\to y_{n}$ such that the induced map $\Sigma p\to
y_{n}/y_{n-1}$ is homotopic to the chosen weak equivalence. Regarding
$Cp$ as an object of ${\catsymbfont{E}}^{n}_{k}$, it is an object of
$({\catsymbfont{E}}^{n}_{k})^{w}$ and we have constructed a cellular map $Cp\to Y$.
Consider the following commutative square.
\[
\xymatrix{%
{\catsymbfont{L}}_{{\catsymbfont{E}}}(X,Y)\ar[d]&{\catsymbfont{L}}_{{\catsymbfont{E}}}(X,Cp)\ar[l]_{a}\ar[d]^{c}\\
{\catsymbfont{F}}(X,Y)&{\catsymbfont{F}}(X,Cp)\ar[l]^{b}
}
\]
We complete the proof by arguing that the maps $a$, $b$, and $c$ are
weak equivalences.
To analyze the map $a$, consider an object $Z$ in
$({\catsymbfont{E}}\Gamma^{n}_{k})^{w}$. Since $z_{n}$ is weakly equivalent to $*$
in ${\catsymbfont{C}}$, ${\catsymbfont{E}}\Gamma^{n}_{k}(Z,Y)$ is weakly equivalent to the
homotopy fiber of the map $\Sdot[k]{\catsymbfont{C}}^{\Gamma}(z_{n-1},y_{n-1})$ to
$\Sdot[k]{\catsymbfont{C}}^{\Gamma}(z_{n-1},y_{n})$. We can use the cofibration
sequence of Proposition~\ref{propfibercofiber} to understand this
homotopy fiber: We have that $\Sdot[k]{\catsymbfont{C}}^{\Gamma}(z_{n-1},
y_{n}/y_{n-1})$ is connected since $z_{n-1}$ is an object of
$\Sdot[k]\Sigma^{n-1}{\catsymbfont{Q}}$ and $y_{n}/y_{n-1}$ is an object of
$\Sdot[k]\Sigma^{n}{\catsymbfont{Q}}$. It follows that ${\catsymbfont{E}}\Gamma^{n}_{k}(Z,Y)$ is
weakly equivalent to $\Omega \Sdot[k]{\catsymbfont{C}}^{\Gamma}(z_{n-1},
y_{n}/y_{n-1})$. The same observations apply to $Cp$. Since by
construction the map $\Sigma p=Cp/p\to y_{n}/y_{n-1}$ is a weak
equivalence, we see by naturality that the map
${\catsymbfont{E}}\Gamma^{n}_{k}(Z,Cp)\to {\catsymbfont{E}}\Gamma^{n}_{k}(Z,Y)$ is a weak
equivalence. Since this holds for any $Z$ in
$({\catsymbfont{E}}\Gamma^{n}_{k})^{w}$, unwinding the definition of ${\catsymbfont{L}}_{{\catsymbfont{E}}}$, we
see that $a$ is a weak equivalence.
For the map $b$, we note that ${\catsymbfont{F}}(X,Y)$ being the homotopy fiber of
the map ${\catsymbfont{E}}\Gamma^{n}_{k}(X,Y)$ to
${\catsymbfont{C}}\Gamma(X,Y)=\Sdot[k]{\catsymbfont{C}}^{\Gamma}(x_{n},y_{n})$, it is naturally
weakly equivalent to the homotopy fiber of the map
$\Sdot[k]{\catsymbfont{C}}^{\Gamma}(x_{n-1},y_{n-1})$ to
$\Sdot[k]{\catsymbfont{C}}^{\Gamma}(x_{n-1},y_{n})$. As in the previous case, we
can identify this as $\Omega \Sdot[k]{\catsymbfont{C}}^{\Gamma}(x_{n-1},
y_{n}/y_{n-1})$ since $\Sdot[k]{\catsymbfont{C}}^{\Gamma}(x_{n-1}, y_{n}/y_{n-1})$
is connected (which can be proved by induction up the skeletal
filtration of $X$ using Proposition~\ref{propfibercofiber}). Again, since
the map $\Sigma p=Cp/p\to y_{n}/y_{n-1}$ is a weak equivalence, we see
that $b$ is a weak equivalence .
For the map $c$, since $Cp$ is in $({\catsymbfont{E}}\Gamma^{n}_{k})^{w}$, the
Two-Sided Bar Lemma~\cite[5.3]{BlumbergMandellTHHLoc} implies that the
natural map ${\catsymbfont{L}}_{{\catsymbfont{E}}}(X,Cp)\to {\catsymbfont{E}}\Gamma^{n}_{k}(X,Cp)$ is a weak
equivalence. Since $Cp$ is weakly equivalent to $*$ in ${\catsymbfont{C}}$,
${\catsymbfont{C}}\Gamma(X,Cp)$ is weakly contractible and we see that $b$ is a weak
equivalence.
\end{proof}
The previous proposition lets us understand ${\catsymbfont{M}}_{{\catsymbfont{E}}}$.
\begin{prop}
The map of ${\catsymbfont{E}}\Gamma^{n}_{k}$-bimodules ${\catsymbfont{M}}_{{\catsymbfont{E}}}\to u^{*}{\catsymbfont{M}}_{{\catsymbfont{C}}}$
is a weak equivalence.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Since homotopy fiber squares in spectra are homotopy cocartesian, the
canonical map from the homotopy cofiber of ${\catsymbfont{F}}\to {\catsymbfont{E}}\Gamma^{n}_{k}$
to the homotopy cofiber of $u^{*}{\catsymbfont{L}}_{{\catsymbfont{C}}}\to u^{*}{\catsymbfont{C}}\Gamma^{n}_{k}$
is a weak equivalence.
\end{proof}
We now return to the map~\eqref{eq:spherefinal}. We see from the
previous proposition that we are in the situation
where Proposition~5.6 of \cite{BlumbergMandellTHHLoc} applies.
According to this proposition, to see that the map
\[
THH({\catsymbfont{E}}\Gamma^{n}_{k};{\catsymbfont{M}}_{{\catsymbfont{E}}})\to
THH({\catsymbfont{C}}\Gamma^{n}_{k};{\catsymbfont{M}}_{{\catsymbfont{C}}})
\]
is a weak equivalence, we just need to check that the map
\[
TB({\catsymbfont{C}}\Gamma^{n}_{k}(-,Y);{\catsymbfont{E}}\Gamma^{n}_{k};{\catsymbfont{M}}_{{\catsymbfont{C}}}(X,-))
\to {\catsymbfont{C}}\Gamma^{n}_{k}(X,Y)
\]
is a weak equivalence for all $X$, $Y$ in ${\catsymbfont{C}}\Gamma^{n}_{k}$, or
equivalently in this case, for all $X$, $Y$ in ${\catsymbfont{E}}\Gamma^{n}_{k}$.
Since the Two-Sided Bar
Lemma~\cite[5.3]{BlumbergMandellTHHLoc} shows that the map
\[
TB({\catsymbfont{C}}\Gamma^{n}_{k}(-,Y);{\catsymbfont{E}}\Gamma^{n}_{k};{\catsymbfont{E}}\Gamma^{n}_{k}(X,-))
\to {\catsymbfont{C}}\Gamma^{n}_{k}(X,Y)
\]
is a weak equivalence and ${\catsymbfont{M}}_{{\catsymbfont{C}}}(X,-)\simeq {\catsymbfont{M}}_{{\catsymbfont{E}}}(X,-)$ is
the homotopy cofiber of ${\catsymbfont{L}}_{{\catsymbfont{E}}}(X,-)\to {\catsymbfont{E}}\Gamma^{n}_{k}(X,-)$, it
suffices to show that
\[
{\catsymbfont{G}}(X,Y)=TB({\catsymbfont{C}}\Gamma^{n}_{k}(-,Y);{\catsymbfont{E}}\Gamma^{n}_{k};{\catsymbfont{L}}_{{\catsymbfont{E}}}(X,-))
\]
is weakly contractible. But we have
\begin{multline*}
{\catsymbfont{G}}(X,Y)=
TB({\catsymbfont{C}}\Gamma^{n}_{k}(-,Y);{\catsymbfont{E}}\Gamma^{n}_{k};
TB({\catsymbfont{E}}\Gamma^{n}_{k}(-,-);({\catsymbfont{E}}\Gamma^{n}_{k})^{w};{\catsymbfont{E}}\Gamma^{n}_{k}(X,-))
)\\
\simeq
TB({\catsymbfont{C}}\Gamma^{n}_{k}(-,Y);({\catsymbfont{E}}\Gamma^{n}_{k})^{w};{\catsymbfont{E}}\Gamma^{n}_{k}(X,-)).
\end{multline*}
Since ${\catsymbfont{C}}\Gamma^{n}_{k}(Z,Y)$ is weakly contractible for any $Z$ in
$({\catsymbfont{E}}\Gamma^{n}_{k})^{w}$, it follows that ${\catsymbfont{G}}(X,Y)$ is weakly
contractible. This completes the proof that~\eqref{eq:spherefinal} is
a weak equivalence and hence the proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:spherefinal},
which in turn completes the proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:spheremain}.
\part{The localization sequence for $THH(ku)$}
\section{The localization sequence for $THH(ku)$}
The work in this paper is motivated in large part by the need to
develop suitable machinery to prove the following localization
theorem, conjectured by Hesselholt and
Ausoni-Rognes \cite{AusoniRognes, AusoniTHH, AusoniK}. This generalizes
work of Hesselholt and Madsen at chromatic level $0$ \cite{HM3}.
\begin{thm}\label{thmkuloc}
The transfer maps and the
canonical maps fit into cofiber sequences of cyclotomic spectra
\begin{gather*}
THH(\mathbb{Z}^{\scriptscriptstyle\wedge}_{p})\to THH(\ell^{\scriptscriptstyle\wedge}_{p})\to WTHH^{\Gamma}(\ell^{\scriptscriptstyle\wedge}_{p} |
L^{\scriptscriptstyle\wedge}_{p})\to \Sigma THH(\mathbb{Z}^{\scriptscriptstyle\wedge}_{p})\\
THH(\mathbb{Z}_{(p)})\to THH(\ell)\to WTHH^{\Gamma}(\ell|L)\to \Sigma THH(\mathbb{Z}_{(p)})\\
THH(\mathbb{Z})\to THH(ku)\to WTHH^{\Gamma}(ku|KU) \to \Sigma THH(\mathbb{Z})
\end{gather*}
inducing cofiber sequences
\begin{gather*}
TC(\mathbb{Z}^{\scriptscriptstyle\wedge}_{p})\to TC(\ell^{\scriptscriptstyle\wedge}_{p})\to WTC^{\Gamma}(\ell^{\scriptscriptstyle\wedge}_{p} |
L^{\scriptscriptstyle\wedge}_{p})\to \Sigma TC(\mathbb{Z}^{\scriptscriptstyle\wedge}_{p})\\
TC(\mathbb{Z}_{(p)})\to TC(\ell)\to WTC^{\Gamma}(\ell|L)\to \Sigma TC(\mathbb{Z}_{(p)})\\
TC(\mathbb{Z})\to TC(ku)\to WTC^{\Gamma}(ku|KU) \to \Sigma TC(\mathbb{Z})
\end{gather*}
which are compatible via the cyclotomic trace with the corresponding
cofiber sequences in
algebraic $K$-theory constructed in \cite{BlumbergMandell}.
\end{thm}
Here $WTHH^{\Gamma}(ku|KU)$ denotes the connective $THH$ of the
category of finite cell $ku$-modules with the spectral enrichment
induced by the canonical mapping spaces in $ku$ but weak equivalences
the $KU$-equivalences. That is,
\[
WTHH^{\Gamma}(ku|KU) =
WTHH^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{C}}_{ku}|v) =
\Omega|THH(v_\ssdot^{M} \Sdot {\catsymbfont{C}}^{\Gamma}_{ku})|,
\]
where ${\catsymbfont{C}}_{ku}$ is the category of finite cell EKMM $ku$-modules
(as in Example~\ref{exofinterest}.(i)) and $v {\catsymbfont{C}}_{ku}$ is the
collection of maps $M \to N$ such that $M \sma_{ku} KU \to N \sma_{ku}
KU$ is an equivalence, or equivalently, those maps that induce an
isomorphism on homotopy groups after inverting the action of the Bott
element.
The proof of this theorem follows the same general outline as the
proof of the corresponding result in algebraic
$K$-theory \cite{BlumbergMandell}. In particular, the localization
theorem follows from a ``d\'{e}vissage'' theorem for finitely
generated finite stage Postnikov towers. We now give the definitions
necessary to state this theorem. Throughout, we work with EKMM
$S$-algebras and $S$-modules.
For an $S$-algebra $R$, let ${\catsymbfont{P}}_{R}$ denote the full subcategory of
left $R$-modules that are of the homotopy type of cell $R$-modules and
have only finitely many non-zero homotopy groups, all of which are
finitely generated over $\pi_{0}R$. We give ${\catsymbfont{P}}_{R}$ the structure
of a simplicially tensored Waldhausen category as follows. For the
simplicial structure, we use the
usual simplicial enrichment obtained by regarding the category of
$R$-modules as a simplicial model category. For the Waldhausen
category structure, we take
the weak equivalences to be the usual weak equivalences and the
cofibrations to be the Hurewicz cofibrations, i.e., the maps
satisfying the homotopy extension property in the category of
$R$-modules. As we described in \cite[\S 1]{BlumbergMandell}, this
gives ${\catsymbfont{P}}_R$ the structure of a Waldhausen category, and the
pushout-product axiom on the tensors follows from \cite[X.2.3]{EKMM}.
(Techniques to make a version of ${\catsymbfont{P}}_R$ that is a small category
are discussed in \cite[1.7]{BlumbergMandell}.)
Restricting to the subcategory of the category of $S$-algebras with
morphisms the maps $R\to R'$ for which $\pi_{0}R'$ is finitely
generated as a left $\pi_{0}R$-module, we can regard
$WTHH^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{P}}_{(-)})$ as a contravariant functor to the
homotopy category of cyclotomic spectra. We can now state the
D\'{e}vissage Theorem.
\begin{thm}[D\'evissage Theorem]\label{thm:dev}
Let $R$ be a connective $S$-algebra with $\pi_{0}R$ left Noetherian.
Then there is a natural isomorphism in the homotopy category of
cyclotomic spectra $THH({\catsymbfont{E}}^{fg}_{\pi_{0}R})\to
WTHH^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{P}}_{R})$, where ${\catsymbfont{E}}^{fg}_{\pi_{0}R}$ denotes the exact
category of finitely generated left $\pi_{0}R$-modules. Moreover,
this isomorphism and the induced isomorphism (in the stable category)
on $TC$ are compatible via the cyclotomic trace with the analogous
isomorphism (in the stable category) on algebraic $K$-theory
$K'(\pi_{0}R)\to K'(R)$ in
the D\'evissage Theorem of~\cite{BlumbergMandell}.
\end{thm}
We prove Theorem~\ref{thm:dev} in the next section and use the rest of
this section to prove Theorem~\ref{thmkuloc} from
Theorem~\ref{thm:dev}. Let $R$ be one of $ku$, $\ell$, or
$\ell^{\scriptscriptstyle\wedge}_{p}$, and let $\beta$ denote the appropriate Bott element in
$\pi_{*}R$ in degree $2$ or $2p-2$. Then $R[\beta^{-1}]$ is $KU$,
$L$, or $L^{\scriptscriptstyle\wedge}_{p}$ respectively. For convenience, let $Z$ denote
$\pi_{0}R$; so $Z={\mathbb{Z}}$, ${\mathbb{Z}}_{(p)}$, or ${\mathbb{Z}}^{\scriptscriptstyle\wedge}_{p}$ in the respective
cases. As above we write ${\catsymbfont{C}}_{A}$ for the simplicially
tensored Waldhausen category of finite cell $A$-modules (where $A=HZ$,
$R$, or $R[\beta^{-1}]$). On ${\catsymbfont{C}}_{R}$ we have the
additional weak equivalences $v{\catsymbfont{C}}_{R}$, the maps that induce an
isomorphism on homotopy groups after inverting the action of the Bott
element. Since $v{\catsymbfont{C}}_{R}$ contains the usual weak equivalences
$w{\catsymbfont{C}}_{R}$, the hypothesis of the Localization Theorem
(Theorem~\ref{thmloc}) applies and we get a cofibration sequence of
cyclotomic spectra
\[
WTHH^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{C}}_{R}^{v})\to
WTHH^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{C}}_{R})\to
WTHH^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{C}}_{R}|v)\to
\Sigma WTHH^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{C}}_{R}^{v}),
\]
compatible with the analogous sequence in $K$-theory via the
cyclotomic trace. Corollary~\ref{cor:ekmm} identifies
$WTHH^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{C}}_{R})$ with $THH(R)$, compatibly with the cyclotomic
trace. The inclusion of the $v$-acyclics ${\catsymbfont{C}}_{R}^{v}$ into
the simplicially tensored Waldhausen category ${\catsymbfont{P}}_{R}$ described
above is a tensored exact functor and a DK-equivalence. Thus,
Theorem~\ref{thm:dev} identifies ${\catsymbfont{C}}_{R}^{v}$ as $THH(Z)$,
compatibly with the identification of $K({\catsymbfont{C}}_{R}^{v})$ with $K(HZ)$.
This completes most of the proof of Theorem~\ref{thmkuloc}; it just
remains to identify the map
\[
THH(Z)\simeq WTHH^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{C}}_{R}^{v})\to
WTHH^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{C}}_{R})\simeq THH(R)
\]
in terms of
the transfer map $THH(HZ)\to THH(R)$. First, we review this transfer
map. In our current context with $R=ku$, $\ell$, or
$\ell^{\scriptscriptstyle\wedge}_{p}$, the Eilenberg-Mac Lane $R$-module $HZ$ is weakly
equivalent to a finite cell $R$-module. If we choose a model for $HZ$
as a cofibrant associative $R$-algebra, then finite cell $HZ$-modules
are cell $R$-modules and homotopy equivalent to finite cell
$R$-modules. Let ${\catsymbfont{M}}^{c}_{R}$ be the simplicially tensored
Waldhausen category whose objects are the $R$-modules that are
homotopy equivalent to finite cell $R$-modules with the usual
simplicial sets of maps, with the usual weak equivalences, and with
cofibrations the Hurewicz cofibrations
(using the technique of \cite[1.7]{BlumbergMandell} to make a version
that is a small category). Then ${\catsymbfont{P}}_{R}$ is a closed Waldhausen
subcategory of ${\catsymbfont{M}}^{c}_{R}$; moreover, the inclusion of ${\catsymbfont{C}}_{R}$ in
${\catsymbfont{M}}^{c}_{R}$ is tensored exact and a DK-equivalence, and so induces
an equivalence on all versions of $THH$. We also have the analogous category
${\catsymbfont{M}}^{c}_{HZ}$ for $HZ$, which coincides with ${\catsymbfont{P}}_{HZ}$. The forgetful
functor from $HZ$-modules to
$R$-modules is a tensored exact functor ${\catsymbfont{M}}^{c}_{HZ}\to
{\catsymbfont{M}}^{c}_{R}$.
The transfer map $THH(HZ)\to
THH(R)$ is by definition the map
\[
\tau_{HZ}^{R} \colon THH(HZ)\to THH({\catsymbfont{M}}^{c}_{R})
\overfrom{\sim}THH(R),
\]
induced by the inclusion of $S_{HZ}$ in ${\catsymbfont{M}}^{c}_{R}$ and the induced
map of endomorphism spectra
\[
{\catsymbfont{C}}^{S}_{HZ}(S_{HZ},S_{HZ}) =
({\catsymbfont{M}}^{c}_{HZ})^{S}(S_{HZ},S_{HZ}) \to
({\catsymbfont{M}}^{c}_{R})^{S}(S_{HZ},S_{HZ}).
\]
(We understand $THH$ of the EKMM $S$-algebra $HZ$ as $THH$ of the
symmetric ring spectrum
${\catsymbfont{C}}^{S}_{HZ}(S_{HZ},S_{HZ})$; cf.\ Corollary~\ref{cor:ekmm} and the
remarks that follow it.)
Since the transfer map coincides with the map
\[
THH(HZ)\overto{\sim} THH({\catsymbfont{M}}^{c}_{HZ})
\to THH({\catsymbfont{M}}^{c}_{R})
\overfrom{\sim}THH(R),
\]
applying Corollary~\ref{cor:ekmm} and naturality, we can also identify
it as the map
\[
THH(HZ)\simeq WTHH^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{M}}^{c}_{HZ})
\to WTHH^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{M}}^{c}_{R})
\simeq THH(R).
\]
Using the naturality of the isomorphism in
Theorem~\ref{thm:dev}, we obtain the following commutative diagram of
maps in the homotopy category of cyclotomic spectra.
\[
\xymatrix{%
THH(Z)\ar[d]_{=}\ar[r]^-{\sim}
&WTHH^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{P}}_{HZ})\ar[d]\ar[r]^-{=}
&WTHH^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{M}}^{c}_{HZ})\ar[d]
&THH(HZ)\ar[l]_-{\sim}\ar@{..>}[d]^{\tau_{HZ}^{R}}
\\
THH(Z)\ar[r]^-{\sim}
&WTHH^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{P}}_{R})\ar[r]
&WTHH^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{M}}^{c}_{R})
&THH(R)\ar[l]_-{\sim}\ar[dl]_-{\sim}\\
&WTHH^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{C}}^{v}_{R})\ar[u]^-{\sim}\ar[r]
&WTHH^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{C}}_{R})\ar[u]^-{\sim}
}
\]
It will be obvious from the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:dev} in the next
section that the isomorphism $THH(Z)\simeq THH(HZ)$ in the top row of
the diagram is the standard one, and this identifies the map
$THH(Z)\to THH(R)$ as the transfer map. This completes the proof of
Theorem~\ref{thmkuloc}.
\section{Proof of the D\'{e}vissage Theorem}\label{sec:dev}
This section is devoted to the proof of the D\'evissage Theorem,
Theorem~\ref{thm:dev}. The argument parallels the analogous
d\'evissage theorem in \cite{BlumbergMandell}, which we review along
the way.
We fix the connective $S$-algebra $R$, writing
${\catsymbfont{P}}$ for ${\catsymbfont{P}}_{R}$ . Let ${\catsymbfont{P}}_{m}^{n}$ denote the full subcategory of
${\catsymbfont{P}}$ consisting of those $R$-modules whose homotopy groups $\pi_{q}$
are zero for $q>n$ or $q<m$. In this notation, we permit $m=-\infty$
and/or $n=\infty$, so ${\catsymbfont{P}}={\catsymbfont{P}}_{-\infty}^{\infty}$. The categories
${\catsymbfont{P}}_{m}^{n}$ are closed Waldhausen subcategories of ${\catsymbfont{P}}_{R}$. The
following theorem proved below parallels \cite[1.2]{BlumbergMandell}.
\begin{thm}\label{thmbigthm}
The inclusion ${\catsymbfont{P}}_{0}^{0}\to {\catsymbfont{P}}$ induces a weak equivalence
\[
WTHH^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{P}}_{0}^{0}) \to WTHH^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{P}}).
\]
\end{thm}
The point of the previous theorem is that $\pi_{0}$ provides an exact
functor from ${\catsymbfont{P}}_{0}^{0}$ to the exact category of finitely generated
left $\pi_{0}R$-modules ${\catsymbfont{E}}^{fg}_{R}$. Theorem~1.3 of
\cite{BlumbergMandell} proves that this functor induces a weak
equivalence of $K$-theory. Since the simplicial mapping sets for
${\catsymbfont{E}}^{fg}_{R}$ are discrete, $\pi_{0}$ is also a simplicially enriched
functor ${\catsymbfont{P}}_{0}^{0}\to{\catsymbfont{E}}^{fg}_{R}$. It is in fact a DK-equivalence
and induces a DK-equivalence $\Sdot[n]{\catsymbfont{P}}_{0}^{0}\to
\Sdot[n]{\catsymbfont{E}}^{fg}_{R}$ for all $n$. This proves the following theorem,
which parallels \cite[1.3]{BlumbergMandell}.
\begin{thm}
The functor $\pi_{0}\colon {\catsymbfont{P}}_{0}^{0}\to {\catsymbfont{E}}^{fg}_{R}$ induces a weak
equivalence
\[
WTHH^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{P}}_{0}^{0})\to
WTHH^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{E}}^{fg}_{R})=THH({\catsymbfont{E}}^{fg}_{R}).
\]
\end{thm}
Theorem~\ref{thm:dev} is an immediate consequence of the previous two
theorems, with the natural isomorphism coming from the natural zigzag of weak
equivalences of cyclotomic spectra
\[
THH({\catsymbfont{E}}^{fg}_{R})=WTHH^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{E}}^{fg}_{R})\mathchoice{\longleftarrow}{\leftarrow}{\leftarrow}{\leftarrow}
WTHH^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{P}}_{0}^{0})\to WTHH^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{P}}).
\]
Thus, it remains to prove Theorem~\ref{thmbigthm}.
The proof of Theorem~\ref{thmbigthm} follows the same outline as the
parallel theorem \cite[1.2]{BlumbergMandell}. As in the argument
there, we have the following two easy observations.
\begin{prop}
The inclusion ${\catsymbfont{P}}_{0}^{\infty}\to {\catsymbfont{P}}$
induces an equivalence
\[
WTHH^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{P}}_{0}^{\infty}) \to WTHH^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{P}}).
\]
\end{prop}
\begin{prop}
The cyclotomic spectrum $WTHH^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{P}}_{0}^{\infty})$ is weakly
equivalent to the
telescope of the sequence of maps
\[
WTHH^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{P}}_{0}^{0})\to \dotsb \to WTHH^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{P}}_{0}^{n})\to
WTHH^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{P}}_{0}^{n+1})\to \dotsb.
\]
\end{prop}
As in \cite{BlumbergMandell}, the proof of Theorem~\ref{thmbigthm}
will then be completed by showing that the maps
\[
WTHH^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{P}}_{0}^{n})\to
WTHH^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{P}}_{0}^{n+1})
\]
are weak equivalences for all $n\geq 0$. Applying
Proposition~\ref{propcofiber} and Theorem~\ref{thmcofiber}, this is
equivalent to proving the following lemma.
\begin{lem}\label{lem:devmain}
$WTHH^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{P}}_{0}^{n}\to {\catsymbfont{P}}_{0}^{n+1})\simeq \Omega ||THH(\Sdot
\Fdot({\catsymbfont{P}}_{0}^{n+1},{\catsymbfont{P}}_{0}^{n})^{\Gamma})||$ is weakly contractible.
\end{lem}
In \cite{BlumbergMandell} the proof of the parallel (unnumbered) lemma
consisted of several steps, each of which compared (multi)simplicial
sets; the following diagram outlines the comparisons as stated there.
\[
\xymatrix@C-3pc{%
w_\ssdot \Sdot \Fdot({\catsymbfont{P}}_{0}^{n+1},{\catsymbfont{P}}_{0}^{n})\ar[dr]
&&u_\ssdot\Sdot {\catsymbfont{P}}_{0}^{n+1}\ar[dl]\ar[rr]
&\hspace{3pc}
&u_\ssdot\Spdot {\catsymbfont{P}}_{0}^{n+1}\ar@{..>}[rr]\ar@{..>}[d]
&&u_\ssdot M_\ssdot Z\\
&w_\ssdot u_\ssdot \Sdot {\catsymbfont{P}}_{0}^{n+1}
&&&u_\ssdot \Ffdot[\bullet}%{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}-1]{\catsymbfont{P}}^{n+1}_{0}\ar@{..>}[urr]
&\relax\hspace{3pc}
&u_\ssdot \Ffdot[\bullet}%{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}-1]{\catsymbfont{P}}^{n+1}_{n+1}\ar@{..>}[u]\ar@{..>}[ll]
}
\]
We review these constructions as needed below. Here the solid arrows
are simplicial maps of diagonal simplicial sets and the dotted arrows
are maps that are simplicial only in one of the simplicial directions.
We correct a minor error in \cite{BlumbergMandell} below. There we
claimed that the dotted arrow in the top row was a map of bisimplicial
sets; it is not. The diagram for the corrected argument looks like this; it
commutes up to simplicial homotopy.
\[
\xymatrix@C-4pc{%
w_\ssdot \Sdot \Fdot({\catsymbfont{P}}_{0}^{n+1},{\catsymbfont{P}}_{0}^{n})\ar[dr]
&&u_\ssdot\Sdot {\catsymbfont{P}}_{0}^{n+1}\ar[dl]\ar[rr]
&\hspace{4.5pc}
&u_\ssdot\Spdot {\catsymbfont{P}}_{0}^{n+1}\ar[rr]\ar@{..>}[d]
&\hspace{4.5pc}
&u_\ssdot S^{f}M_\ssdot Z
&\relax\hspace{4pc}
&u_\ssdot M_\ssdot Z\ar[ll]\\
&w_\ssdot u_\ssdot \Sdot {\catsymbfont{P}}_{0}^{n+1}
&&&u_\ssdot \Ffdot[\bullet}%{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}-1]{\catsymbfont{P}}^{n+1}_{0}\ar@{..>}[urrrr]
&&&&u_\ssdot \Ffdot[\bullet}%{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}-1]{\catsymbfont{P}}^{n+1}_{n+1}
\ar@{..>}[llll]\ar@{..>}[u]
}
\]
In the current context of $THH$, the line of reasoning and the diagram
simplifies slightly; we use the following diagram of
spectrally enriched functors, which commutes up to natural isomorphism.
\begin{equation}\label{eq:devmain}
\begin{gathered}
\hbox to 0pt{\hss
\[email protected]{%
(\Sdot[p] \Fdot[q]({\catsymbfont{P}}_{0}^{n+1},{\catsymbfont{P}}_{0}^{n}))^{\Gamma}\ar[r]^-{\sim}
&((u_{q}\Spdot[p])^{M}{\catsymbfont{P}}_{0}^{n+1})^{\Gamma}\ar[r]\ar@{..>}[d]_-{\sim}
&(u_{q}S^{f}M_{p})^{\Gamma}
&(u_{q}M_{p}Z)^{\Gamma}\ar[l]_-{\sim}\\
&((u_{q}\Ffdot[p-1])^{M}{\catsymbfont{P}}_{0}^{n+1})^{\Gamma}\ar@{..>}[urr]
&&((u_{q}\Ffdot[p-1])^{M}{\catsymbfont{P}}_{n+1}^{n+1})^{\Gamma}\ar@{..>}[u]_-{\sim}\ar@{..>}[ll]
}\hss}
\end{gathered}
\end{equation}
All of the spectral categories fit into simplicial spectral categories
(in the $q$ direction) and the ones on the top row fit into
bisimplicial spectral categories (in $p,q$). The solid arrows are the
spectrally enriched functors that respect the bisimplicial structure;
the dotted arrows respect the simplicial structure in the $q$
direction. The arrows marked ``$\sim$'' are DK-equivalences, as shown in
Propositions~\ref{prop:devdk1}, \ref{prop:devdk2},
\ref{prop:devdk3}, and \ref{prop:devdk4}. The goal is to show that the composite functor $(\Sdot[p] \Fdot[q]({\catsymbfont{P}}_{0}^{n+1},{\catsymbfont{P}}_{0}^{n}))^{\Gamma}\to
(u_{q}S^{f}M_{p}Z)^{\Gamma}$ induces a weak equivalence
\[
||THH((\Sdot \Fdot ({\catsymbfont{P}}_{0}^{n+1},{\catsymbfont{P}}_{0}^{n}))^{\Gamma})||\to
||THH((u_\ssdot S^{f}M_\ssdot Z)^{\Gamma})||
\simeq
||THH((u_\ssdot M_\ssdot Z)^{\Gamma})||
\]
and then prove Lemma~\ref{lem:devmain} by showing that
$||THH((u_\ssdot M_\ssdot Z)^{\Gamma})||$ is contractible
(Proposition~\ref{prop:uMcont}).
We now begin to review the categories and maps in
diagram~\eqref{eq:devmain}. We use the following notation.
\begin{defn}
Let $u{\catsymbfont{P}}$ denote the subcategory of ${\catsymbfont{P}}$ consisting of those maps
that induce an isomorphism on $\pi_{n+1}$ and an injection on
$\pi_{n}$. Let $f{\catsymbfont{P}}$ denote the subcategory of ${\catsymbfont{P}}$ consisting of
those maps that induce an epimorphism on $\pi_{0}$.
\end{defn}
We write $u_\ssdot {\catsymbfont{P}}$ for the nerve categories: An object of
$u_{q}{\catsymbfont{P}}$ is a sequence of $q$ composable maps in $u{\catsymbfont{P}}$ and a map in
$u_{q}{\catsymbfont{P}}$ is a commuting diagram (of maps in ${\catsymbfont{P}}$). For consistency
with \cite[3.7]{BlumbergMandell}, we let $\Ffdot[p]{\catsymbfont{P}}$ denote the nerve
category $f_{p}{\catsymbfont{P}}$: An object is a sequence of $p$ composable maps
in $f{\catsymbfont{P}}$ and a map is a commuting diagram (of maps in ${\catsymbfont{P}}$). We
extend the definition of $u_\ssdot$ in the obvious way to functor
categories: In diagram~\eqref{eq:devmain}, the category
$u_{q}\Sdot[p]{\catsymbfont{P}}_{0}^{n+1}$ has as objects the sequences of
$q$-composable maps
\[
A_{0}\overto{\alpha_{1}} A_{1}\overto{\alpha_{2}} \dotsb \overto{\alpha_{q}} A_{q}
\]
between objects $A_{i}$ in $\Sdot[p]{\catsymbfont{P}}_{0}^{n+1}$ where each
$\alpha_{i}$ is (objectwise) in $u{\catsymbfont{P}}_{0}^{n+1}$; a map from
$\{\alpha_{i}\}$ to $\{\alpha'_{i}\}$ consists of a map $\phi_{i}\colon A_{i}\to
A'_{i}$ in $\Spdot[p]{\catsymbfont{P}}_{0}^{n+1}$ for each $i$, making the diagram
\[
\xymatrix{%
A_{0}\ar[r]^{\alpha_{1}}\ar[d]_{\phi_{0}}
&A_{1}\ar[r]^{\alpha_{2}}\ar[d]_{\phi_{1}}
&\relax\dotsb \ar[r]^{\alpha_{q}}
&A_{q}\ar[d]^{\phi_{p}}\\
A'_{0}\ar[r]_{\alpha'_{1}}
&A'_{1}\ar[r]_{\alpha'_{2}}
&\relax\dotsb \ar[r]_{\alpha'_{q}}&A'_{q}
}
\]
in $\Spdot[p]{\catsymbfont{P}}_{0}^{n+1}$ commute. We define the
categories $u_{q}\Ffdot[p-1]{\catsymbfont{P}}_{0}^{n+1}$ and
$u_{q}\Ffdot[p-1]{\catsymbfont{P}}_{n+1}^{n+1}$ analogously in terms of composable
maps and diagrams in $\Ffdot[p-1]{\catsymbfont{P}}_{0}^{n+1}$ and
$\Ffdot[p-1]{\catsymbfont{P}}_{n+1}^{n+1}$. We obtain the spectrally enriched
categories $((u_{q}\Spdot[p])^{M}{\catsymbfont{P}}_{0}^{n+1})^{\Gamma}$,
$((u_{q}\Ffdot[p-1])^{M}{\catsymbfont{P}}_{0}^{n+1})^{\Gamma}$, and
$((u_{q}\Ffdot[p-1])^{M}{\catsymbfont{P}}_{n+1}^{n+1})^{\Gamma}$ using the Moore Tot
mapping spaces (Construction~\ref{cons:moore}) and the connective
spectral enrichment.
The usual face and degeneracy maps in the nerve construction makes
$((u_\ssdot\Spdot )^{M}{\catsymbfont{P}}_{0}^{n+1})^{\Gamma}$ into a bisimplicial
spectral category and make $((u_\ssdot
\Ffdot[p-1])^{M}{\catsymbfont{P}}_{0}^{n+1})^{\Gamma}$ and $((u_\ssdot
\Ffdot[p-1])^{M}{\catsymbfont{P}}_{n+1}^{n+1})^{\Gamma}$ into simplicial spectral
categories for each $p>0$.
Next we review the canonical inclusion
\[
\Fdot[q]({\catsymbfont{P}}_{0}^{n+1},{\catsymbfont{P}}_{0}^{n})\to u_{q}{\catsymbfont{P}}_{0}^{n+1}.
\]
We recall that an object of $\Fdot[q]({\catsymbfont{P}}_{0}^{n+1},{\catsymbfont{P}}_{0}^{n})$
consists of a sequence of $q$ composable cofibrations in
${\catsymbfont{P}}_{0}^{n+1}$
\[
\xymatrix@C-1pc{%
x_{0}\ar@{ >->}[r]&x_{1}\ar@{ >->}[r]&\dotsb\ar@{ >->}[r]&x_{q}
}
\]
such that each quotient $x_{i+1}/x_{i}$ is in ${\catsymbfont{P}}_{0}^{n+1}$. We
note that for a cofibration $j\colon a\to b$ in ${\catsymbfont{P}}$ between objects of
${\catsymbfont{P}}_{0}^{n+1}$, the quotient $b/a$ is in ${\catsymbfont{P}}_{0}^{n+1}$ if and only
if $j$ induces an isomorphism on $\pi_{n+1}$ and an injection on
$\pi_{n}$, that is, if and only if $j$ is in $u{\catsymbfont{P}}$. It follows that
$\Fdot[q]({\catsymbfont{P}}_{0}^{n+1},{\catsymbfont{P}}_{0}^{n})$ is the full subcategory of
$u_{q}{\catsymbfont{P}}_{0}^{n+1}$ consisting of those objects whose structure maps
are cofibrations. We then obtain the functors
\[
\Sdot[p] F_{q}({\catsymbfont{P}}_{0}^{n+1},{\catsymbfont{P}}_{0}^{n})\to
u_{q}\Spdot[p]{\catsymbfont{P}}_{0}^{n+1}
\]
as the corresponding inclusions of full subcategories. When we look
at mapping spaces and use the Moore enrichment, we obtain a DK-embedding
\[
\Sdot[p] F_{q}({\catsymbfont{P}}_{0}^{n+1},{\catsymbfont{P}}_{0}^{n})\to
(u_{q}\Spdot[p])^{M}{\catsymbfont{P}}_{0}^{n+1}.
\]
This map is a DK-equivalence since the usual cylinder argument
replacing a map with a cofibration converts any diagram in
$u_{q}\Spdot[p]{\catsymbfont{P}}_{0}^{n+1}$ to a weakly equivalent diagram in
$\Sdot[p]\Fdot[q]({\catsymbfont{P}}_{0}^{n+1},{\catsymbfont{P}}_{0}^{n})$. Passing to the
connective spectral enrichments, we obtain the following proposition.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:devdk1}
The spectrally enriched functor
\[
\Sdot[p]
F_{q}({\catsymbfont{P}}_{0}^{n+1},{\catsymbfont{P}}_{0}^{n})^{\Gamma}\to
((u_{q}\Spdot[p])^{M}{\catsymbfont{P}}_{0}^{n+1})^{\Gamma}
\]
is a DK-equivalence.
\end{prop}
Next we review the functor $\Spdot[p]{\catsymbfont{P}}_{0}^{n+1}\to
\Ffdot[p-1]{\catsymbfont{P}}_{0}^{n+1}$ of \cite[3.8]{BlumbergMandell}. First note
that for an object $A=\{a_{i,j}\}$ in
$\Spdot[p]{\catsymbfont{P}}_{0}^{n+1}$, the map $a_{i,p}\to a_{j,p}$ is the cofiber
of the map $a_{i,j}\to a_{i,p}$ and so we have a long exact sequence
of homotopy groups
\[
0\to \pi_{n+1}a_{i,j}\to \dotsb \to \pi_{0}a_{i,j}\to
\pi_{0}a_{i,p}\to \pi_{0}a_{j,p}\to 0.
\]
In particular, the map $a_{i,p}\to a_{j,p}$ is surjective on
$\pi_{0}$, that is, is a map in $f{\catsymbfont{P}}_{0}^{n+1}$. We therefore obtain
a functor $\Spdot[p]{\catsymbfont{P}}_{0}^{n+1}\to \Ffdot[p-1]{\catsymbfont{P}}_{0}^{n+1}$
by sending each object of $\Spdot[p]{\catsymbfont{P}}_{0}^{n+1}$ to the object of
$\Ffdot[p-1]{\catsymbfont{P}}_{0}^{n+1}$ defined by the sequence
\[
a_{0,p}\to a_{2,p}\to \dotsb \to a_{p-1,p}.
\]
In fact we have the following proposition.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:devdk2}
The spectrally enriched functor
\[
((u_{q}\Spdot[p])^{M}{\catsymbfont{P}}_{0}^{n+1})^{\Gamma}
\to ((u_{q}\Ffdot[p-1])^{M}{\catsymbfont{P}}_{0}^{n+1})^{\Gamma}
\]
is a DK-equivalence.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Although $\Spdot[p]{\catsymbfont{P}}_{0}^{n+1}$ is defined in terms of homotopy
cocartesian squares, it could
equally well be defined in terms of homotopy cartesian squares since
for EKMM $R$-modules a square is homotopy cartesian if and only if it
is homotopy cocartesian. The description of the mapping space of
$\Sdot[p]{\catsymbfont{P}}$ in~\eqref{eqsn} has an analogue in this context: The
canonical map from
$\SpMdot[p]{\catsymbfont{P}}$ to the iterated homotopy pullback
\[
{\catsymbfont{P}}(a_{0,p},b_{0,p})\times^{h}_{{\catsymbfont{P}}(a_{0,p},b_{1,p})}
\dotsb
\times^{h}_{{\catsymbfont{P}}(a_{p-2,p},b_{p-1,p})}
{\catsymbfont{P}}(a_{p-1,p},b_{p-1,p}).
\]
is a weak equivalence. This extends to $(u_{q}\Spdot[p])^{M}{\catsymbfont{P}}$ and
from this it is easy to deduce that we have a
DK-embedding. It is a DK-equivalence because every object of
$u_{q}\Ffdot[p-1]{\catsymbfont{P}}_{0}^{n+1}$ is weakly equivalent to the image of
an object in $u_{q}\Spdot[p]{\catsymbfont{P}}_{0}^{n+1}$, filling out the diagram by
taking homotopy fibers.
\end{proof}
The inclusion of ${\catsymbfont{P}}_{n+1}^{n+1}$ as a subcategory of ${\catsymbfont{P}}_{0}^{n+1}$
induces a spectrally enriched functor
$((u_{q}\Ffdot[p-1])^{M}{\catsymbfont{P}}_{n+1}^{n+1})^{\Gamma}\to
((u_{q}\Ffdot[p-1])^{M}{\catsymbfont{P}}_{0}^{n+1})^{\Gamma}$, which assembles to a
simplicial spectrally enriched functor in the $q$ direction. Although
not a DK-equivalence at any level, the simplicial spectrally enriched
functor does induce a weak equivalence on $THH$.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:post}
The inclusion
$((u_\ssdot\Ffdot[p-1])^{M}{\catsymbfont{P}}_{n+1}^{n+1})^{\Gamma}\to
((u_\ssdot\Ffdot[p-1])^{M}{\catsymbfont{P}}_{0}^{n+1})^{\Gamma}$
induces a weak equivalence
\[
|THH(((u _\ssdot \Ffdot[p-1])^{M} {\catsymbfont{P}}_{n+1}^{n+1})^{\Gamma})| \to
|THH(((u _\ssdot \Ffdot[p-1])^{M}{\catsymbfont{P}}_{0}^{n+1})^{\Gamma})|.
\]
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Consider the bisimplicial spectral category $V_{\ssdot\ssdot}^{\Gamma}$
defined as follows: in bidegree $r,s$, $V_{r,s}^{\Gamma}$ is the full
spectral subcategory of $((u_{r+s+1} \Ffdot[p-1])^{M}
{\catsymbfont{P}}_{0}^{n+1})^{\Gamma}$ with objects the sequences of sequences of
the form
\[
a_{0}\to \dotsb \to a_{r}\to b_{0}\to \dotsb b_{s}
\]
such that the objects $a_i$ are in $\Ffdot[p-1] {\catsymbfont{P}}_{n+1}^{n+1}$.
Dropping the objects $\{a_i\}$ and the objects $\{b_i\}$ respectively
induce bisimplicial spectrally enriched functors
\[
((u_r \Ffdot[p-1])^{M} {\catsymbfont{P}}_{n+1}^{n+1})^{\Gamma}
\mathchoice{\longleftarrow}{\leftarrow}{\leftarrow}{\leftarrow}
V_{r,s}^{\Gamma}
\to
((u_s \Ffdot[p-1])^{M} {\catsymbfont{P}}_{0}^{n+1})^{\Gamma},
\]
where we regard the targets as constant bisimplicial objects in the
appropriate direction. Since the (connective) spectrum of maps from
an object $x$ of ${\catsymbfont{P}}_{n+1}^{n+1}$ to an object $y$ of ${\catsymbfont{P}}^{n+1}_{0}$
is homotopy discrete with $\pi_{0}=\Hom_{{\mathbb{Z}}}(\pi_{n+1}x,\pi_{n+1}y)$,
we see that the map $V_{r,s}^{\Gamma} \to ((u_s \Ffdot[p-1])^{M}
{\catsymbfont{P}}_{0}^{n+1})^{\Gamma}$ is a DK-embedding. Furthermore, it is clear
that this functor is essentially surjective (choosing an $n$-connected
cover of $b_{0}$), and so is a DK-equivalence.
The usual arguments show that the map
$V_{r,s}^{\Gamma} \to
((u_r \Ffdot[p-1])^{M} {\catsymbfont{P}}_{n+1}^{n+1})^{\Gamma}$ is a simplicial
homotopy equivalence in the $s$-direction, using the homotopy inverse
induced by
\[
(a_{0}\to \dotsb \to a_{r}) \qquad \mapsto\qquad
(a_{0}\to \dotsb \to a_{r} = a_{r} = \dotsb = a_{r}).
\]
Using this homotopy inverse, the composite map on (diagonal)
simplicial spectral categories
\[
((u_r \Ffdot[p-1])^{M} {\catsymbfont{P}}_{n+1}^{n+1})^{\Gamma} \to
V_{r,r}^{\Gamma}\to
((u_r \Ffdot[p-1])^{M} {\catsymbfont{P}}_{0}^{n+1})^{\Gamma}
\]
is induced by
\[
(a_{0}\to \dotsb \to a_{r}) \qquad \mapsto\qquad
(a_{r} = a_{r} = \dotsb = a_{r}),
\]
and is easily seen to be simplicially homotopic to the inclusion map.
\end{proof}
For the categories $u_{q}M_{p}Z$, we copy the following definition
from \cite[3.9]{BlumbergMandell}.
\begin{defn}
Let $Z=\pi_{0}R$. Let $M_{p}Z$ be the category whose objects are
sequences of $p-1$ composable maps of finitely generated left $Z$-modules
$x_{0}\to \dotsb \to x_{p-1}$ and whose morphisms are commutative
diagrams. Let $uM_{p}Z$ be the subcategory of $M_{p}Z$ consisting of
all objects but only those maps $x\to y$ that are isomorphisms
$x_{i}\to y_{i}$ for all $0\leq i\leq p-1$.
\end{defn}
We understand $M_{0}Z$ to be the trivial category consisting of a
single object (the empty sequence of maps) with only the identity map.
As above, we let $u_{q}M_{p}Z$ denote the nerve category, which has as
its objects the composable sequences of $q$ maps in $uM_{p}Z$ (i.e.,
isomorphisms in $M_{p}Z$) and maps the commutative diagrams of maps in
$M_{p}Z$. We regard $u_{q}M_{p}Z$ as simplicially enriched with
discrete mapping spaces and we obtain a connective spectral enrichment
$(u_{q}M_{p}Z)^{\Gamma}$ using objectwise direct sum of finitely
generated left $Z$-modules.
As above, $(u_\ssdot M_{p}Z)^{\Gamma}$ assembles into a simplicial
spectral category using the usual face and degeneracy maps for the
nerve. We make $(u_\ssdot M_\ssdot Z)^{\Gamma}$ into a
bisimplicial spectral category as follows: For $0\leq i\leq p-1$, on
$x_{0}\to \dotsb \to x_{p-1}$, the face map $\partial_{i}\colon
u_{q}M_{p}Z\to u_{q}M_{p-1}Z$ is defined by dropping $x_{i}$ (and
composing) and the degeneracy map $s_{i}\colon M_{p-1}Z\to M_{p}Z$ is
defined by repeating $x_{i}$ (with the identity map). The face map
$\partial_{p}\colon M_{p}Z\to M_{p-1}Z$ sends $x_{0}\to \dotsb \to
x_{p-1}$ to $k_{0}\to \dotsb \to k_{p-2}$, where $k_{i}\subset x_{i}$ is the kernel
of the composite map $x_{i}\to x_{p-1}$. The last degeneracy
$s_{p-1}\colon M_{p-1}Z\to M_{p}Z$ puts $0$ in as the last object in
the sequence. The fundamental property of $(u_\ssdot M_\ssdot
Z)^{\Gamma}$ that we need is the following.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:uMcont}
For each $q$, $|THH((u_{q}M_\ssdot Z)^{\Gamma})|$ is contractible.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
The argument at the end of Section~3 of \cite{BlumbergMandell}
constructs a simplicial contraction on the simplicial spectral
category $(u_{q}M_\ssdot Z)^{\Gamma}$. This simplicial contraction
induces a simplicial contraction on the simplicial spectrum
$THH((u_{q}M_\ssdot Z)^{\Gamma})$ and geometric realization converts
this to a contraction of $|THH((u_{q}M_\ssdot Z)^{\Gamma})|$.
\end{proof}
Applying $\pi_{n+1}$, we get a functor $u\Ffdot[p-1] {\catsymbfont{P}}_{0}^{n+1}\to
uM_{p-1}$ and spectrally enriched functors
\[
((u_{q}\Ffdot[p-1])^{M}{\catsymbfont{P}}_{0}^{n+1})^{\Gamma}\to
(u_{q}M_{p}Z)^{\Gamma}
\quad \text{and}\quad
((u_{q}\Ffdot[p-1])^{M}{\catsymbfont{P}}_{n+1}^{n+1})^{\Gamma}\to
(u_{q}M_{p}Z)^{\Gamma}.
\]
Looking at the mapping spaces and mapping spectra, the following
proposition is clear.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:devdk3}
The spectrally enriched functor
\[
((u_{q}\Ffdot[p-1])^{M}{\catsymbfont{P}}_{n+1}^{n+1})^{\Gamma}\to
(u_{q}M_{p}Z)^{\Gamma}
\]
is a DK-equivalence.
\end{prop}
In \cite[\S3]{BlumbergMandell}, we claimed that the functors
$u\Spdot[p]{\catsymbfont{P}}_{0}^{n+1}\to uM_{p} Z$ respected the simplicial
structure in the $p$ direction, which is untrue. To fix this, we
introduce the category $uS^{f}M_\ssdot Z$.
\begin{defn}\label{def:usfM}
Let $S^{f}M_{p}Z$ be the category whose objects are functors
$A=a_{-,-}$ from $\Ar[p]$ to the category of finitely generated left
$Z$-modules such that:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $a_{i,i}=0$, and
\item $a_{i,j}\to a_{i,k}$ is an isomorphism onto the kernel of the
map $a_{i,k}\to a_{j,k}$
\end{enumerate}
for all $i\leq j\leq k$. A map in $S^{f}M_{p}Z$ is a commutative
diagram. The subcategory $uS^{f}M_{p}Z$ consists of those maps in
$S^{f}M_{p}$ that are isomorphisms.
\end{defn}
We make $uS^{f}M_\ssdot Z$ a simplicial category using the usual face
and degeneracy operations on $\Ar[\bullet}%{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}]$.
Basically $S^{f}M_\ssdot Z$ is the fibration version of the $\Sdot$
construction for the co-Waldhausen category (category with
\emph{fibrations} and weak equivalences) structure we get on the
category of finitely generated left $Z$-modules by taking the
fibrations to be all maps and the weak equivalences to be the
isomorphisms. We have a forgetful functor $uS^{f}M_{p}Z\to uM_{p}Z$
which takes $A=\{a_{i,j}\}$ to the sequence
\[
a_{0,p}\to \dotsb \to a_{p-1,p}.
\]
This functor is an equivalence of categories, with the inverse functor
$uM_{p}Z\to uS^{f}M_{p}Z$ filling out the $\Ar[p]$ diagram from the
sequence with the kernels of the maps. These functors then assemble
into a simplicial functor $uM_\ssdot Z\to uS^{f}M_\ssdot Z$.
Now $\pi_{n+1}$ defines a simplicial functor $u\Spdot{\catsymbfont{P}}_{0}^{n+1}\to
uS^{f}M_\ssdot Z$. The following theorem fixes the argument in
\cite{BlumbergMandell} by replacing Theorem~3.10.
\begin{thm}\label{thm:fixbm}
The simplicial functors $u\Spdot{\catsymbfont{P}}_{0}^{n+1}\to
uS^{f}M_\ssdot Z\mathchoice{\longleftarrow}{\leftarrow}{\leftarrow}{\leftarrow} uM_\ssdot Z$ induce weak equivalences on
nerves.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
Fix $p$. Since $uM_{p}Z\to uS^{f}M_{p}Z$ is an equivalence of
categories, it induces a weak equivalence on nerves. The proof of
Theorem~3.10 in \cite[\S4]{BlumbergMandell} correctly proves that the
functor $u\Sdot[p]{\catsymbfont{P}}_{0}^{n+1}\to uM_{p}Z$ induces a weak equivalence
on nerves, and the composite functor
\[
u\Sdot[p]{\catsymbfont{P}}_{0}^{n+1}\to uM_{p}Z\to uS^{f}M_{p}Z
\]
is naturally isomorphic to the functor $u\Sdot[p]{\catsymbfont{P}}_{0}^{n+1}\to
uS^{f}M_{p}Z$ in the statement, so that functor also induces a
weak equivalence on nerves.
\end{proof}
We regard the categories $u_{q}S^{f}M_{p}$ as
simplicially enriched with discrete mapping spaces and we obtain a
connective spectral enrichment $(u_{q}S^{f}M_{p})^{\Gamma}$ using
objectwise direct sum. Since the functor $u_{q}M_{p}Z\to
u_{q}S^{f}M_{p}Z$ is an equivalence of categories, we get a
DK-equivalence on the connective spectral enrichments.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:devdk4}
The spectral functor $(u_{q}M_{p}Z)^{\Gamma}\to
(u_{q}S^{f}M_{p}Z)^{\Gamma}$ is a DK-equivalence.
\end{prop}
Finally, we have everything in place to prove Lemma~\ref{lem:devmain}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:devmain}]
Propositions~\ref{prop:devdk1}, \ref{prop:devdk2}, \ref{prop:post},
\ref{prop:devdk3}, and~\ref{prop:devdk4} imply that the bisimplicial map
\[
THH(\Sdot[p]\Fdot[q]({\catsymbfont{P}}_{0}^{n+1},{\catsymbfont{P}}_{0}^{n})^{\Gamma})\to
THH((u_{q}S^{f}M_{p} Z)^{\Gamma})
\]
is a weak equivalence for each fixed $p,q$.
Propositions~\ref{prop:uMcont} and~\ref{prop:devdk4} then imply that
\[
||THH(\Sdot \Fdot({\catsymbfont{P}}_{0}^{n+1},{\catsymbfont{P}}_{0}^{n})^{\Gamma})||\simeq
||THH((u_\ssdot S^{f}M_\ssdot Z)^{\Gamma})|| \simeq
||THH((uM_\ssdot Z)^{\Gamma})||
\]
is contractible.
\end{proof}
\part{Generalization to {W}aldhausen categories with factorization}
\section{Weakly exact functors}\label{sec:weaklyexact}
In previous sections, we imposed stringent hypotheses on our
categories and functors. In this section and the following sections,
we relax these hypotheses and extend the theory. We begin in this
section by generalizing the maps we consider.
While (for now) we still consider functors that preserve the
simplicial enrichment, we drop the hypothesis that the functor is
exact, and substitute the up to weak equivalence version of this
hypothesis that the functor is ``weakly exact''
\cite[\S2]{BlumbergMandellUW}. For Waldhausen categories that admit
functorial factorization of weak cofibrations (FFWC), a weakly exact functor is the
minimum structure necessary to induce a map on $K$-theory.
The purpose of this section is to explain the proof of the following
theorem, which provides the corresponding result in our setting.
\begin{thm}\label{thmwkexact}
Let ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ and ${\catsymbfont{D}}$ be simplicially enriched Waldhausen categories and
assume that the underlying Waldhausen category of ${\catsymbfont{D}}$
admits FFWC. Let $\phi \colon {\catsymbfont{C}}\to {\catsymbfont{D}}$ be a simplicially
enriched functor that restricts to a based weakly exact functor on the
underlying Waldhausen categories, then it induces a map
\[
WTHH^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{C}})\to
WTHH^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{D}})
\]
in the
homotopy category of cyclotomic spectra. This map is compatible with
the cyclotomic trace in that the following diagram commutes in the
stable category.
\[
\xymatrix{%
K{\catsymbfont{C}}\ar[d]\ar[r]^-{\mathrm{trc}}&WTC^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{C}})\ar[d]\ar[r]&WTHH({\catsymbfont{C}})\ar[d]\\
K{\catsymbfont{D}}\ar[r]_-{\mathrm{trc}}&WTC^{\Gamma}{\catsymbfont{D}}\ar[r]&WTHH^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{D}})
}
\]
\end{thm}
In the case of enhanced simplicially enriched Waldhausen categories,
we have the following version of the previous theorem.
\begin{thm}\label{thmwkexactnc}
Let ${\catsymbfont{A}}$ and ${\catsymbfont{B}}$ be enhanced simplicially enriched Waldhausen
categories with ambient simplicially tensored Waldhausen categories
${\catsymbfont{C}}$ and ${\catsymbfont{D}}$ respectively. If $\phi \colon {\catsymbfont{C}}\to {\catsymbfont{D}}$ is a simplicially
enriched functor that sends ${\catsymbfont{A}}$ into ${\catsymbfont{B}}$ and restricts to a based weakly
exact functor on the underlying Waldhausen categories, then it induces
a map in the homotopy category of cyclotomic spectra
\[
WTHH({\catsymbfont{A}}) \to WTHH({\catsymbfont{B}})
\]
making the following diagram commute in the homotopy
category of cyclotomic spectra.
\[
\xymatrix{%
WTHH^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{A}})\ar[r]\ar[d]&WTHH({\catsymbfont{A}})\ar[d]\\
WTHH^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{B}})\ar[r]&WTHH({\catsymbfont{B}})
}
\]
\end{thm}
We also have the following theorem for natural weak equivalences
between enriched weakly exact functors.
\begin{thm}\label{thmwknat}
Let $\phi$ and $\phi'$ be as in Theorem~\ref{thmwkexact} or
Theorem~\ref{thmwkexactnc} above. If there is a natural weak
equivalence from $\phi$ to $\phi'$, then the induced maps from
$WTHH^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{C}})$ to $WTHH^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{D}})$ agree in the homotopy
category of cyclotomic spectra and (for Theorem~\ref{thmwkexactnc})
the induced maps from $WTHH({\catsymbfont{A}})$ to $WTHH({\catsymbfont{B}})$
agree in the homotopy category of cyclotomic spectra.
\end{thm}
The proof of these theorems requires the $\SpMdot$ construction from
Section~\ref{sec:spMdot}; a weakly exact functor is precisely a
functor that is compatible with that construction. We begin with the
definition of weakly exact functor.
\begin{defn}[{\cite[2.1]{BlumbergMandellUW}}]
Let ${\catsymbfont{C}}_{0}$ and ${\catsymbfont{D}}_{0}$ be Waldhausen categories. A functor $\phi
\colon {\catsymbfont{C}}_{0}\to {\catsymbfont{D}}_{0}$ is \term{weakly exact} if the initial map
$*\to \phi(*)$ in ${\catsymbfont{D}}_{0}$ is a weak equivalence and $\phi$ preserves
weak equivalences, weak cofibrations, and homotopy cocartesian
squares. We say that a weakly exact functor $\phi$ is \term{based} if
the initial map $*\to \phi(*)$ is the identity.
\end{defn}
It follows that a functor that preserves weak equivalences will
preserve weak cofibrations and homotopy cocartesian squares if and
only if it takes cofibrations to weak cofibrations and takes pushouts
along cofibrations to homotopy cocartesian squares.
Let
\begin{align*}
W'THH^{\Gamma}{\catsymbfont{C}}&=\Omega |THH(\SpMdot {\catsymbfont{C}}^{\Gamma})|\\
\wt{W'THH}^{\Gamma}{\catsymbfont{C}}(n)&=|THH((w\Spndot)^{M}{\catsymbfont{C}}^{\Gamma})|.
\end{align*}
If ${\catsymbfont{A}}$ in an enhanced simplicially enriched Waldhausen category, let
\begin{align*}
W'THH{\catsymbfont{A}}&=\Omega |THH(\SpMdot {\catsymbfont{A}}^{S})|\\
\wt{W'THH}{\catsymbfont{A}}(n)&=|THH((w\Spndot)^{M}{\catsymbfont{A}}^{S})|.
\end{align*}
Proposition~\ref{prop:zeroinclude} now implies the following theorem.
\begin{thm}
Let ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ be a simplicially enriched Waldhausen category that admits
FFWC. The maps of cyclotomic spectra
\[
WTHH^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{C}})\to W'THH^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{C}})
\quad \text{and}\quad
\wt{WTHH}^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{C}})\to \wt{W'THH}^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{C}})
\]
are weak equivalences.
If ${\catsymbfont{A}}$ is an enhanced simplicially enriched Waldhausen category,
then the maps of cyclotomic spectra
\[
WTHH({\catsymbfont{A}})\to W'THH({\catsymbfont{A}})
\quad \text{and}\quad
\wt{WTHH}({\catsymbfont{A}})\to \wt{W'THH}({\catsymbfont{A}})
\]
are weak equivalences.
\end{thm}
Functoriality of $THH$ in weakly exact functors requires one more
twist. Because an exact functor ${\catsymbfont{C}}_{0}\to {\catsymbfont{D}}_{0}$ preserves
coproducts, an enriched exact functor induces a functor on spectral
enrichments. For a weakly exact functor $\phi$, the map
\[
\phi (c_{1})\vee \dotsb \vee \phi (c_{n})\to
\phi (c_{1}\vee \dotsb \vee c_{n})
\]
is generally not an isomorphism, though it is required to be a weak
equivalence. To fix this problem, we use a zigzag with the following
construction.
\begin{cons}
For enriched categories ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ and ${\catsymbfont{D}}$, and an
enriched functor $\phi \colon {\catsymbfont{C}}\to {\catsymbfont{D}}$, let
$\phi^{*}{\catsymbfont{D}}$ be the simplicially enriched category whose objects are
the objects of ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ and whose maps are
$\phi^{*}{\catsymbfont{D}}(a,b)={\catsymbfont{D}}(\phi(a),\phi(b))$.
\end{cons}
When $\phi \colon {\catsymbfont{C}}\to {\catsymbfont{D}}$ is a simplicially enriched functor that
restricts to a based weakly exact functor ${\catsymbfont{C}}_{0}\to {\catsymbfont{D}}_{0}$, the
category $\phi^{*}{\catsymbfont{D}}$ has two obvious connective spectral
enrichments. We write $\phi^{*}{\catsymbfont{D}}^{\Gamma}_{{\catsymbfont{C}}}$
for the spectral enrichment prolonged from the $\Gamma$-space
\[
(\phi^{*}{\catsymbfont{D}}^{\Gamma}_{{\catsymbfont{C}}})_{q}(a,b)=\phi^{*}{\catsymbfont{D}}(a,\myop\bigvee_{q}b)
={\catsymbfont{D}}(\phi(a),\phi(\myop\bigvee_{q}b))
\]
(the wedge denoting the coproduct in ${\catsymbfont{C}}$);
the hypothesis that the
functor is based ensures that $(\phi^{*}{\catsymbfont{D}}^{\Gamma}_{{\catsymbfont{C}}})_{0}(a,b)=*$.
We write
$\phi^{*}{\catsymbfont{D}}^{\Gamma}$
for the spectral enrichment prolonged from the $\Gamma$-space
\[
(\phi^{*}{\catsymbfont{D}}^{\Gamma})_{q}(a,b)={\catsymbfont{D}}(\phi(a),\myop\bigvee_{q}\phi(b))
\]
(the wedge denoting the coproduct in ${\catsymbfont{D}}$).
From the universal property of the coproduct in ${\catsymbfont{D}}$, we see that the
weak equivalences
\[
(\phi^{*}{\catsymbfont{D}}^{\Gamma})_{q}(a,b)\to
(\phi^{*}{\catsymbfont{D}}^{\Gamma}_{{\catsymbfont{C}}})_{q}(a,b)
\]
assemble into a weak equivalence of spectra
\[
\phi^{*}{\catsymbfont{D}}^{\Gamma}(a,b)\to
\phi^{*}{\catsymbfont{D}}^{\Gamma}_{{\catsymbfont{C}}}(a,b)
\]
and induce a DK-equivalence of spectrally enriched categories
$\phi^{*}{\catsymbfont{D}}^{\Gamma}\to \phi^{*}{\catsymbfont{D}}^{\Gamma}_{{\catsymbfont{C}}}$.
We summarize this as follows.
\begin{thm}\label{thm:swefunct}
Let ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ and ${\catsymbfont{D}}$ be simplicially enriched Waldhausen categories and
let $\phi \colon {\catsymbfont{C}}\to {\catsymbfont{D}}$ be a functor that is simplicially
enriched and based weakly exact. Then we have a zigzag of spectrally
enriched functors, with the leftward arrow a DK-equivalence.
\[
{\catsymbfont{C}}^{\Gamma}\to \phi^{*}{\catsymbfont{D}}^{\Gamma}_{{\catsymbfont{C}}}\overfrom{\sim}
\phi^{*}{\catsymbfont{D}}^{\Gamma}\to {\catsymbfont{D}}^{\Gamma}
\]
\end{thm}
The constructions above, using coproducts in ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ or in ${\catsymbfont{D}}$, extend
to produce spectrally enriched categories and DK-equivalences
\[
\phi^{*}(w_{p}\Spndot[q_{1},\dotsc,q_{n}])^{M}{\catsymbfont{D}}^{\Gamma}\to
\phi^{*}(w_{p}\Spndot[q_{1},\dotsc,q_{n}])^{M}{\catsymbfont{D}}^{\Gamma}_{{\catsymbfont{C}}},
\]
which we assemble into zigzags of multisimplicial spectrally enriched
functors
\[
w_\ssdot\Sndot{\catsymbfont{C}}^{\Gamma}\to
\phi^{*}(w_\ssdot\Spndot)^{M}{\catsymbfont{D}}^{\Gamma}_{{\catsymbfont{C}}}
\overfrom{\sim}
\phi^{*}(w_\ssdot\Spndot)^{M}{\catsymbfont{D}}^{\Gamma}\to
(w_\ssdot\Spndot)^{M}{\catsymbfont{D}}^{\Gamma}.
\]
The fact that $\phi$ is based implies that these maps are compatible
with the suspension maps
\[
\Sigma (w_\ssdot\Spqdot[n])^{M}{\catsymbfont{X}}^{\Gamma}\to (w_\ssdot\Spqdot[n+1])^{M}{\catsymbfont{X}}^{\Gamma}
\]
for ${\catsymbfont{X}}^{\Gamma}={\catsymbfont{C}}^{\Gamma}, \phi^{*}{\catsymbfont{D}}^{\Gamma}_{{\catsymbfont{C}}},
\phi^{*}{\catsymbfont{D}}^{\Gamma}, {\catsymbfont{D}}^{\Gamma}$. Writing
\begin{align*}
W'THH^{\Gamma}(\phi^{*}{\catsymbfont{D}})&=\Omega |THH(\phi^{*}\SpMdot {\catsymbfont{D}}^{\Gamma})|\\
\wt{W'THH}^{\Gamma}(\phi^{*}{\catsymbfont{D}})(n)&=|THH(\phi^{*}(w\Spndot)^{M}{\catsymbfont{D}}^{\Gamma})|\\
\intertext{and}
W'THH^{\Gamma}_{{\catsymbfont{C}}}(\phi^{*}{\catsymbfont{D}})&=\Omega |THH(\phi^{*}\SpMdot {\catsymbfont{D}}^{\Gamma}_{{\catsymbfont{C}}})|\\
\wt{W'THH}^{\Gamma}_{{\catsymbfont{C}}}(\phi^{*}{\catsymbfont{D}})(n)&=|THH(\phi^{*}(w\Spndot)^{M}{\catsymbfont{D}}^{\Gamma}_{{\catsymbfont{C}}})|,
\end{align*}
this proves the following theorem.
\begin{thm}\label{thmwkzig}
Let $\phi \colon {\catsymbfont{C}}\to {\catsymbfont{D}}$ be a simplicially enriched functor that
restricts to a based weakly exact functor ${\catsymbfont{C}}_{0}\to {\catsymbfont{D}}_{0}$. Then
we have the following maps of cyclotomic spectra
\[
\xymatrix@[email protected]{%
WTHH^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{C}})\ar[d]&
\wt{WTHH}^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{C}})\ar[d]\\
W'THH^{\Gamma}_{{\catsymbfont{C}}}(\phi^{*}{\catsymbfont{D}})\ar@{<-}[d]_-{\sim}&
\wt{W'THH}^{\Gamma}_{{\catsymbfont{C}}}(\phi^{*}{\catsymbfont{D}})\ar@{<-}[d]_-{\sim}\\
W'THH^{\Gamma}(\phi^{*}{\catsymbfont{D}})\ar[d]&
\wt{W'THH}^{\Gamma}(\phi^{*}{\catsymbfont{D}})\ar[d]\\
W'THH^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{D}})\ar@{<-}[d]&
\wt{W'THH}^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{D}})\ar@{<-}[d]\\
WTHH^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{D}})&
\wt{WTHH}^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{D}})
}
\]
and the upward maps marked ``$\sim$'' are weak equivalences.
If ${\catsymbfont{D}}_0$ admits FFWC, then all upward maps are weak equivalences.
\end{thm}
For Theorem~\ref{thmwkexact}, we have the cyclotomic trace induced by
the inclusion of objects, producing the commutative diagram
\[
\[email protected]{%
K({\catsymbfont{C}})\ar[r]\ar[dr]\ar[ddr]\ar[ddd]&
\wt{WTC}^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{C}})\ar[d]\ar[r]
&\wt{WTHH}^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{C}})\ar[d]\\
&\wt{W'TC}^{\Gamma}_{{\catsymbfont{C}}}(\phi^{*}{\catsymbfont{D}})\ar@{<-}[d]_-{\sim}\ar[r]
&\wt{W'THH}^{\Gamma}_{{\catsymbfont{C}}}(\phi^{*}{\catsymbfont{D}})\ar@{<-}[d]_-{\sim}\\
&\wt{W'TC}^{\Gamma}(\phi^{*}{\catsymbfont{D}})\ar[d]\ar[r]
&\wt{W'THH}^{\Gamma}(\phi^{*}{\catsymbfont{D}})\ar[d]\\
K'({\catsymbfont{D}})\ar[r]
&\wt{W'THH}^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{D}})\ar@{<-}[d]_-{\sim}\ar[r]
&\wt{W'THH}^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{D}})\ar@{<-}[d]_-{\sim}\\
K({\catsymbfont{D}})\ar[r]\ar[u]^-{\sim}
&\wt{WTC}^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{D}})\ar[r]
&\wt{WTHH}^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{D}})
}
\]
where here $K'({\catsymbfont{D}})$ denotes $K$-theory constructed from the $\Spdot$
construction.
This completes the proof the Theorem~\ref{thmwkexact}.
For Theorem~\ref{thmwkexactnc},
we construct non-connective enrichments on $\phi^{*}{\catsymbfont{B}}$ by
\begin{align*}
\phi^{*}{\catsymbfont{B}}^{S}_{{\catsymbfont{C}}}(a,b)(n)&={\catsymbfont{D}}(\phi(a),\phi(\Sigma^{n}b))\\
\phi^{*}{\catsymbfont{B}}^{S}(a,b)(n)&={\catsymbfont{D}}(\phi(a),\Sigma^{n}\phi(b)).
\end{align*}
The hypothesis that $\phi \colon {\catsymbfont{C}}\to {\catsymbfont{D}}$ is enriched induces the
map $\Sigma^{n}\phi(b)\to \phi(\Sigma^{n}b)$, and the hypothesis that
$\phi$ preserves homotopy cocartesian squares implies that the map is
a weak equivalence. It follows that the
spectrally enriched functor $\phi^{*}{\catsymbfont{B}}^{S}\to \phi^{*}{\catsymbfont{B}}^{S}_{{\catsymbfont{C}}}$
is a DK-equivalence. This gives us the non-connective analogue of
Theorem~\ref{thm:swefunct}.
\begin{thm}\label{thm:swefunctS}
Let ${\catsymbfont{A}}$ and ${\catsymbfont{B}}$ be enhanced simplicially enriched Waldhausen
categories with ambient simplicially tensored Waldhausen categories
${\catsymbfont{C}}$ and ${\catsymbfont{D}}$, respectively, and
let $\phi \colon {\catsymbfont{C}}\to {\catsymbfont{D}}$ be a functor that is simplicially
enriched, based weakly exact, and restricts to a functor ${\catsymbfont{A}}\to {\catsymbfont{B}}$.
Then we have a zigzag of spectrally
enriched functors, with the leftward arrow a DK-equivalence.
\[
{\catsymbfont{A}}^{S}\to \phi^{*}{\catsymbfont{B}}^{S}_{{\catsymbfont{C}}}\overfrom{\sim}
\phi^{*}{\catsymbfont{B}}^{S}\to {\catsymbfont{B}}^{S}
\]
\end{thm}
Likewise, writing
\begin{align*}
W'THH(\phi^{*}{\catsymbfont{B}})&=\Omega |THH(\phi^{*}\SpMdot {\catsymbfont{B}}^{S})|\\
\wt{W'THH}(\phi^{*}{\catsymbfont{B}})(n)&=|THH(\phi^{*}(w\Spndot)^{M}{\catsymbfont{B}}^{S})|\\
\intertext{and}
W'THH_{{\catsymbfont{A}}}(\phi^{*}{\catsymbfont{B}})&=\Omega |THH(\phi^{*}\SpMdot {\catsymbfont{B}}^{S}_{{\catsymbfont{A}}})|\\
\wt{W'THH}_{{\catsymbfont{A}}}(\phi^{*}{\catsymbfont{B}})(n)&=|THH(\phi^{*}(w\Spndot)^{M}{\catsymbfont{B}}^{S}_{{\catsymbfont{A}}})|,
\end{align*}
we obtain non-connective analogue of Theorem~\ref{thmwkzig}.
\begin{thm}
Let ${\catsymbfont{A}}$ and ${\catsymbfont{B}}$ be enhanced simplicially enriched Waldhausen
categories with ambient simplicially tensored Waldhausen categories
${\catsymbfont{C}}$ and ${\catsymbfont{D}}$, respectively, and
let $\phi \colon {\catsymbfont{C}}\to {\catsymbfont{D}}$ be a functor that is simplicially
enriched, based weakly exact, and restricts to a functor ${\catsymbfont{A}}\to {\catsymbfont{B}}$.
Then we have the following maps of cyclotomic spectra
\[
\xymatrix@[email protected]{%
WTHH({\catsymbfont{C}})\ar[d]&
\wt{WTHH}({\catsymbfont{C}})\ar[d]\\
W'THH_{{\catsymbfont{C}}}(\phi^{*}{\catsymbfont{D}})\ar@{<-}[d]_-{\sim}&
\wt{W'THH}_{{\catsymbfont{C}}}(\phi^{*}{\catsymbfont{D}})\ar@{<-}[d]_-{\sim}\\
W'THH(\phi^{*}{\catsymbfont{D}})\ar[d]&
\wt{W'THH}(\phi^{*}{\catsymbfont{D}})\ar[d]\\
W'THH({\catsymbfont{D}})\ar@{<-}[d]&
\wt{W'THH}({\catsymbfont{D}})\ar@{<-}[d]\\
WTHH({\catsymbfont{D}})&
\wt{WTHH}({\catsymbfont{D}})
}
\]
and the upward maps marked ``$\sim$'' are weak equivalences.
If ${\catsymbfont{D}}_0$ admits FFWC, then all upward maps are weak equivalences.
\end{thm}
Finally for Theorem~\ref{thmwknat}, choosing a natural weak
equivalence from $\phi$ to $\phi'$, we obtain a simplicially enriched
and weakly exact functor $\Phi$ from ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ to $w_{1}{\catsymbfont{D}}$. We can
construct simplicially enriched categories
\[
\Phi^{*}(\Spdot[n]w_{1})^{M}{\catsymbfont{D}}
\]
and we obtain the zigzag
\begin{multline*}
THH(\Sdot{\catsymbfont{C}}^{\Gamma})\to
THH(\Phi^{*}(\Spdot w_{1})^{M}{\catsymbfont{D}}^{\Gamma}_{{\catsymbfont{C}}})
\overfrom{\sim}
THH(\Phi^{*}(\Spdot w_{1})^{M}{\catsymbfont{D}}^{\Gamma})\\
\to
THH((\Spdot w_{1})^{M}{\catsymbfont{D}}^{\Gamma})
\overfrom{\sim}
THH(\SpMdot{\catsymbfont{D}}^{\Gamma}),
\end{multline*}
and a similar zigzag in the non-connective case (when it applies).
\section{Embedding in simplicially tensored {W}aldhausen
categories}\label{futuresec}
In previous sections we worked under the stringent compatibility
hypotheses in our definition of a simplicially enriched Waldhausen
category. In this section, we show how to produce a DK-compatible
simplicially enriched Waldhausen category from a Waldhausen
category satisfying a certain technical hypothesis.
This construction is natural in the homotopy category of cyclotomic
spectra for weakly exact functors;
we prove the following theorem.
\begin{thm}\label{thmwrcsv}
Let ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ be a Waldhausen category that admits a homotopy calculus of
left fractions \cite{DKHammock}. Then there exists a DK-compatible
simplicially enriched
Waldhausen category $\wrcsv$ and a based weakly exact functor $\tilde\imath\colon {\catsymbfont{C}}\to
\wrcsv$ that is a DK-equivalence (on simplicial localizations).
Moreover:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $WTHH^{\Gamma}(\wrcsv)$ is a functor from the category of
Waldhausen categories and weakly exact maps to the homotopy category of
cyclotomic spectra.
\item As a map in the stable category, $K({\catsymbfont{C}})\to K(\wrcsv)$ is
natural in exact functors of ${\catsymbfont{C}}$.
\item As a map in the stable category, the cyclotomic trace $K(\wrcsv)\to
WTHH^{\Gamma}(\wrcsv)$ is natural in weakly exact functors of ${\catsymbfont{C}}$.
\item $\wrcsv$ admits FFWC.
\item If ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ is a DK-compatible simplicially enriched Waldhausen
category then $\tilde\imath$ is naturally
weakly equivalent to a simplicially enriched functor $\tilde\imath'$, which is
also based weakly exact.
\item If ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ can be given the structure of an enhanced simplicially
enriched Waldhausen category, then $\tilde\imath'$ induces DK-equivalence
$\Sdot[n]{\catsymbfont{C}}\to \SpMdot[n]\wrcsv$ for all $n$ and so induces a weak
equivalence on $WTHH^{\Gamma}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm}
In the context of part~(v), Theorem~\ref{thm:swefunct} gives a
zigzag of spectrally enriched functors relating ${\catsymbfont{C}}^{\Gamma}$ and
$\wrcsv{}^{\Gamma}$, all of which are DK-equivalences in this case.
As we showed in \cite[\S5, App. A]{BlumbergMandellUW}, a Waldhausen
category that admits factorization (every map factors as a cofibration
followed by a weak equivalence) and any closed Waldhausen subcategory
of such a category in particular admits a homotopy calculus of left
fractions. In this context, we can also produce an enhanced exact
Waldhausen category.
\begin{thm}\label{thmswrcsv}
Let ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ be a Waldhausen category that admits factorization and let
${\catsymbfont{A}}$ be a closed Waldhausen subcategory. Let $\swrcsv$ be the full subcategory
of $\wrcsv$ of objects weakly equivalent to objects from ${\catsymbfont{A}}$. Then
$\wrcsv$ is a simplicially tensored Waldhausen category, $\swrcsv$ is a
closed Waldhausen subcategory, and the induced based weakly
exact functor $\breve\imath\colon {\catsymbfont{A}}\to \swrcsv$ is a DK-equivalence.
Moreover:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $WTHH(\swrcsv)$ is a functor from the category of
pairs (Waldhausen category, closed Waldhausen subcategory) and weakly
exact maps to the homotopy category of
cyclotomic spectra.
\item There is a based weakly exact functor $\breve\jmath\colon \swrcsv\to \wrcsv[{\catsymbfont{A}}]$
such that $\breve\jmath\circ \breve\imath$ is naturally weakly equivalent to
$\tilde\imath$. (In particular, $\breve\jmath$ is a DK-equivalence.)
\item The map of
cyclotomic spectra $WTHH^{\Gamma}(\swrcsv)\to
WTHH^{\Gamma}(\wrcsv[{\catsymbfont{A}}])$ induced by $\breve\jmath$ is a weak equivalence and
natural in the homotopy category of cyclotomic spectra.
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm}
In the context of the previous theorem, when ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ is a simplicially
tensored Waldhausen category, ${\catsymbfont{A}}$ is an enhanced simplicially
enriched Waldhausen category, and part~(v) of
Theorem~\ref{thmwrcsv} gives us a based weakly exact simplicially
enriched functor $\breve\imath'\colon {\catsymbfont{A}}\to \swrcsv$, weakly equivalent to
$\breve\imath$; namely, $\breve\imath'$ is the restriction to ${\catsymbfont{A}}$ of $\tilde\imath'\colon {\catsymbfont{C}}\to
\wrcsv$. Theorem~\ref{thm:swefunctS} then produces a zigzag of
spectrally enriched functors between ${\catsymbfont{A}}^{S}$ and $\swrcsv{}^{S}$,
all of which are DK-equivalences in this case.
The proof of the previous theorems works by embedding ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ in a
simplicial model category in which all objects are fibrant. We do
this using a variant of a presheaf construction in To\"en
and Vezzosi \cite{ToenVezzosi} to define the $K$-theory of a
simplicial category. Because of the nature of the construction, the
naturality with respect to functors that preserve weak equivalences is
somewhat complicated (as indicated by what is claimed and perhaps more
by what is not claimed in the previous theorems). In the following
discussion, let $L{\catsymbfont{C}}$ denote the simplicial category obtained as the
Dwyer-Kan hammock simplicial localization of ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ with respect to the weak
equivalences in the given Waldhausen structure.
\begin{defn}\label{defcosheaves}
Let $\csv[{\catsymbfont{C}}]$ denote the category of simplicial functors from $L{\catsymbfont{C}}$ to
based simplicial sets taking values in a fixed but sufficiently large
cardinal depending on ${\catsymbfont{C}}$. We regard $\csv[{\catsymbfont{C}}]$ as a
simplicial model category using the injective model structure
\cite{Heller}, where cofibrations and weak equivalences are defined
objectwise and fibrations are defined by the right-lifting property
with respect to the acyclic cofibrations; in this model structure, all
objects are cofibrant. The opposite category $\csvop[{\catsymbfont{C}}]$ then has the
opposite simplicial model structure and all objects are fibrant.
\end{defn}
Since the cofibrations in $\csv[{\catsymbfont{C}}]$ are the injections, it is clear
that $\csv[{\catsymbfont{C}}]$ satisfies the pushout-product axiom, which is one of
the equivalent forms of Quillen's SM7; in other words, $\csv[{\catsymbfont{C}}]$ is
a simplicial model category. It follows that $\csvop[{\catsymbfont{C}}]$ is
likewise a simplicial model category. Heller \cite[\S4]{Heller}shows
that the injective model structure has functorial factorizations, and
in particular, we have a fibrant replacement functor in $\csv[{\catsymbfont{C}}]$.
In $\csvop[{\catsymbfont{C}}]$, this gives functorial factorization and a cofibrant
approximation functor. It will be useful for us to have these as
simplicial functors and to preserve the zero object $*$. We prove the
following lemma at the end of the section.
\begin{lem}\label{lem:cosheaves}
The category $\csv$ admits simplicial endo-functors $P^{c}$ and
$I^{f}$ such that $P^{c}$ is a cofibrant approximation functor for
the projective model structure, $I^{f}$ is a fibrant approximation
functor for the injective model structure, and $P^{c}(*)=*=I^{f}(*)$.
\end{lem}
The full subcategory of cofibrant objects in $\csvop[{\catsymbfont{C}}]$ inherits
the structure of a Waldhausen category.
\begin{defn}\label{defcosheaves2}
Let $\wrcsv[{\catsymbfont{C}}]$ be the full subcategory of $\csvop[{\catsymbfont{C}}]$ consisting of
cofibrant objects weakly equivalent to the opposite of a
corepresentable in the image of ${\catsymbfont{C}}$, i.e., weakly equivalent to a
functor of the form $L{\catsymbfont{C}}(x,-)$, where $x$ is an object of ${\catsymbfont{C}}$.
When ${\catsymbfont{A}}$ is a closed Waldhausen subcategory of ${\catsymbfont{C}}$,
let $\swrcsv$ be the full subcategory of $\csvop[{\catsymbfont{C}}]$
consisting of cofibrant objects weakly equivalent to the opposite of a
corepresentable of an object ${\catsymbfont{A}}$.
\end{defn}
As observed in Example~\ref{exofinterest}, $\wrcsv$ becomes a
DK-compatible simplicially enriched Waldhausen category when given the
Waldhausen structure induced by the model structure. The Yoneda
embedding
\[
Y_{{\catsymbfont{C}}}\colon x \mapsto L{\catsymbfont{C}}(x,-)
\]
gives us a functor $Y_{{\catsymbfont{C}}}$ from ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ to $\csvop[{\catsymbfont{C}}]$ that we can compose
with $I^{f}$ to obtain a functor ${\catsymbfont{C}}\to \wrcsv$.
We showed in
\cite[6.2]{BlumbergMandellUW} that under the hypothesis of homotopy
calculus of left fractions, the simplicial localization mapping spaces
take homotopy cocartesian squares to homotopy cartesian squares, and
hence to homotopy cocartesian squares in $\csvop[{\catsymbfont{C}}]$. It follows
that $I^{f}Y_{{\catsymbfont{C}}}$ is a weakly exact functor ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ to $\wrcsv$ and a
DK-equivalence. It is not, however, a based weakly exact functor as
the zero object of ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ is generally not a zero
object in $L{\catsymbfont{C}}$. On the other hand, $L{\catsymbfont{C}}(*,-)\to L{\catsymbfont{C}}(x,-)$ is an
objectwise injection (as it is split by the map $L{\catsymbfont{C}}(x,-)\to
L{\catsymbfont{C}}(*,-)$), and so the based functor
\[
Y'_{{\catsymbfont{C}}}\colon x \mapsto L{\catsymbfont{C}}(x,-)/L{\catsymbfont{C}}(*,-)
\]
is weakly equivalent to $Y_{{\catsymbfont{C}}}$ and hence is a based weakly exact
functor and DK-equivalence. This proves the following proposition.
\begin{prop}\label{propcowald}
Let ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ be a Waldhausen category that admits a homotopy calculus of
left fractions. Then the functor $\tilde\imath=I^{f}Y'_{{\catsymbfont{C}}}\colon
{\catsymbfont{C}}\to\wrcsv$ is a based weakly exact functor and a
DK-equivalence.
\end{prop}
When ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ is a simplicially enriched Waldhausen
category, $\tilde\imath$ is a simplicial functor $L{\catsymbfont{C}}\to \wrcsv$ but
generally not a simplicial functor ${\catsymbfont{C}}_\ssdot\to \wrcsv$.
We can regard the functor
\[
x\mapsto \diag L{\catsymbfont{C}}_\ssdot(x,-)/L{\catsymbfont{C}}_\ssdot(*,-)
\]
as a simplicial functor from ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ to $\csvop[{\catsymbfont{C}}]$. Composing with
$I^{f}$, we get a simplicial functor $\tilde\imath'\colon {\catsymbfont{C}}\to \wrcsv$. The
inclusion of $L{\catsymbfont{C}}_{0}$ in $L{\catsymbfont{C}}_\ssdot$ induces a natural
transformation $\tilde\imath\to \tilde\imath'$, which is a natural weak equivalence
when ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ is DK-compatible (by definition). This proves the
following proposition.
\begin{prop}
If ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ is a DK-compatible simplicially enriched Waldhausen category,
then $\tilde\imath$ is weakly equivalent to a simplicial functor, which is also
a based weakly exact DK-equivalence.
\end{prop}
When ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ is a DK-compatible simplicially enriched Waldhausen
category, just as in Proposition~\ref{propfunct}, looking at the
formula for mapping spectra in $\Sdot[n]{\catsymbfont{C}}$ and $\SpMdot[n]\wrcsv$,
we see that $\tilde\imath'$ induces a DK-embedding $\Sdot[n]{\catsymbfont{C}}\to
\SpMdot[n]\wrcsv$. If we assume the hypothesis of part~(vi), then
${\catsymbfont{C}}$ admits tensors with $\Delta[1]$, and for weak cofibration $x\to
y$, the map $x\vee y \to (x\otimes \Delta[1])\cup_{x\otimes \{1\}}y$
is a cofibration, i.e., ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ has functorial mapping cylinders for
weak cofibrations in the terminology of \cite[2.6]{BlumbergMandellUW}.
Since in any simplicially enriched Waldhausen category, weak
equivalences are closed under retracts, we can apply
\cite[6.1]{BlumbergMandellUW} to characterize the weak cofibrations in
${\catsymbfont{C}}$ as precisely those maps whose images in $\wrcsv$ are weak
cofibrations. Moreover, tensors with generalized intervals exist in
${\catsymbfont{C}}$, and arguing as in the proof of Proposition~\ref{propfuncthree},
we see that every object of $\Spdot[n]\wrcsv$ is weakly equivalent to
the image of an object of $\Spdot[n]{\catsymbfont{C}}$, i.e., that the DK-embedding
is a DK-equivalence. The induced map (from Theorem~\ref{thmwkexact})
\[
WTHH^{\Gamma}({\catsymbfont{C}})\to
WTHH^{\Gamma}(\wrcsv)
\]
is then a weak equivalence.
Now drop the assumption that ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ is simplicially enriched, and
assume instead that ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ admits factorization. Then Waldhausen
\cite[p.~357]{WaldhausenKT} shows that we can form homotopy colimits
in ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ over diagrams in finite partially ordered sets as iterated
pushouts over cofibrations. Since any finite simplicial set is weakly
equivalent to the nerve of a finite partially ordered set, it follows
that for any weakly corepresentable $C$ and any finite simplicial set
$X$, the simplicial functor $C^{X}$ is also weakly corepresentable.
This proves the following proposition.
\begin{prop}
If ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ admits factorization then $\wrcsv$ is a simplicially tensored
Waldhausen category.
\end{prop}
We also have the corresponding proposition for closed Waldhausen
subcategories.
\begin{prop}
If ${\catsymbfont{A}}$ is a closed Waldhausen subcategory of
${\catsymbfont{C}}$, then $\swrcsv\subset \wrcsv$ is an enhanced simplicial
Waldhausen category and
$\breve\imath\colon {\catsymbfont{A}}\to \swrcsv$ is a based weakly exact functor and a
DK-equivalence on simplicial localizations.
\end{prop}
We obtain the functor $\breve\jmath\colon \swrcsv\to \wrcsv[{\catsymbfont{A}}]$ as the
restriction to $\swrcsv$ of the functor
$I^{f}_{{\catsymbfont{A}}}\circ R_{{\catsymbfont{C}}}^{{\catsymbfont{A}}}$, where $R_{{\catsymbfont{C}}}^{{\catsymbfont{A}}}$ denotes the
functor $\csvop[{\catsymbfont{C}}]\to \csvop[{\catsymbfont{A}}]$ obtained by restricting an $L{\catsymbfont{C}}$
diagram to $L{\catsymbfont{A}}$ and $I^{f}_{{\catsymbfont{A}}}$ denotes the
endo-functor $I^{f}$ in $\wrcsv[{\catsymbfont{A}}]$. Writing $Y'_{{\catsymbfont{A}}}$ and
$Y'_{{\catsymbfont{C}}}$ for the modified Yoneda embeddings as above, then
\[
\breve\jmath\circ \breve\imath=I^{f}_{{\catsymbfont{A}}}R_{{\catsymbfont{C}}}^{{\catsymbfont{A}}}I^{f}_{{\catsymbfont{C}}}Y'_{{\catsymbfont{C}}}
\qquad \text{and}\qquad
\tilde\imath=I^{f}_{{\catsymbfont{A}}}Y'_{{\catsymbfont{A}}}.
\]
Under the hypothesis of homotopy calculus of left fractions, the
natural map $Y'_{{\catsymbfont{A}}}\to R_{{\catsymbfont{C}}}^{{\catsymbfont{A}}}Y'_{{\catsymbfont{C}}}$ in $\csv[{\catsymbfont{A}}]$ is a weak
equivalence;
combining this with the canonical weak equivalence $\Id \to
I^{f}_{{\catsymbfont{C}}}$ in $\csv[{\catsymbfont{C}}]$ and reversing arrows to work in
$\csvop[{\catsymbfont{A}}]$ gives natural weak equivalences
\[
\breve\jmath\circ \breve\imath
=
I^{f}_{{\catsymbfont{A}}}R_{{\catsymbfont{C}}}^{{\catsymbfont{A}}}I^{f}_{{\catsymbfont{C}}}Y'_{{\catsymbfont{C}}}
\to
I^{f}_{{\catsymbfont{A}}}R_{{\catsymbfont{C}}}^{{\catsymbfont{A}}}Y'_{{\catsymbfont{C}}}
\to
I^{f}_{{\catsymbfont{A}}}Y'_{{\catsymbfont{A}}}
=
\tilde\imath
\]
in $\wrcsv[{\catsymbfont{A}}]$.
The previous observations, propositions, and definitions cover all of
the statements in Theorems~\ref{thmwrcsv} and~\ref{thmswrcsv} except
for the naturality statements. The next result begins the study of
naturality.
\begin{thm}\label{thmfunctoriality}
Let ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ and ${\catsymbfont{C}}'$ be Waldhausen categories that admit homotopy
calculi of left fractions, and let $\phi \colon {\catsymbfont{C}}\to{\catsymbfont{C}}'$ be a
weakly exact functor. Then there exists a simplicial functor
$\wrcsv[\phi]\colon \wrcsv\to \wrcsv'$ that restricts to a based
weakly exact functor of the underlying Waldhausen categories and makes
the diagram of functors
\[
\xymatrix{%
{\catsymbfont{C}}\ar[r]\ar[d]_{\phi}&\wrcsv\ar[d]^{\wrcsv[\phi]}\\
{\catsymbfont{C}}'\ar[r]&\wrcsv'
}
\]
commute up to a zigzag of natural weak equivalences.
If ${\catsymbfont{A}}$ and
${\catsymbfont{A}}'$ are closed Waldhausen subcategories of ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ and ${\catsymbfont{C}}'$
(respectively) and $\phi$ restricts to a functor from ${\catsymbfont{A}}$ to ${\catsymbfont{A}}'$,
then the functor $\wrcsv[\phi]$ restricts to a functor
$\swrcsv[\phi]\colon \swrcsv\to \swrcsv'$ making the diagram of
functors
\[
\xymatrix{%
{\catsymbfont{A}}\ar[r]\ar[d]_{\phi}&\swrcsv\ar[d]^{\swrcsv[\phi]}\\
{\catsymbfont{A}}'\ar[r]&\swrcsv'
}
\]
commute up to a zigzag of natural weak equivalences.
\end{thm}
We prove this theorem below, but first state the following corollary.
\begin{cor}\label{cor:invariance}
Let ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ and ${\catsymbfont{C}}'$ be Waldhausen categories that admit homotopy
calculi of left fractions, and let $\phi \colon {\catsymbfont{C}} \to {\catsymbfont{C}}'$ be a
weakly exact functor. If $\phi$ induces a DK-equivalence on
passage to simplicial localizations, then the functor
$\wrcsv[\phi]\colon \wrcsv\to \wrcsv'$ is a DK-equivalence. Moreover,
$\wrcsv[\phi]$ and (when appropriate) $\swrcsv[\phi]$
induce an equivalence of cyclotomic spectra on $WTHH^{\Gamma}$ and
$WTHH$, respectively.
\end{cor}
The proof of Theorem~\ref{thmfunctoriality} combines the simplicially
enriched cofibrant and fibrant approximation functors with left Kan
extension. Fix the functor $\phi \colon {\catsymbfont{C}} \to {\catsymbfont{C}}'$. Left Kan
extension gives rise to a functor $\Lan_\phi \colon \csv[{\catsymbfont{C}}] \to
\csv[{\catsymbfont{C}}']$ and we let $\wrcsv[\phi]\colon \wrcsv \to \wrcsv'$ be the
composite functor
\[
\xymatrix{
\csv[{\catsymbfont{C}}] \ar[r]^{P^{c}} & \csv[{\catsymbfont{C}}] \ar[r]^{\Lan_\phi} & \csv[{\catsymbfont{C}}']
\ar[r]^{I^{f}} & \csv[{\catsymbfont{C}}'].
}
\]
By construction $\wrcsv[\phi]$ preserves weak equivalences and is equipped
with a zig-zag of natural weak equivalences connecting $\tilde\imath \circ \wrcsv[\phi]$
to $\phi \circ \tilde\imath$. This completes the proof of
Theorem~\ref{thmfunctoriality} .
Most of Corollary~\ref{cor:invariance} follows immediately from
Theorem~\ref{thmfunctoriality}. To see that $\wrcsv[\phi]$ induces a
weak equivalence on $WTHH^{\Gamma}$, we need to see that the induced
functor $\Sdot[n]\wrcsv \to \SpMdot[n]\wrcsv'$ is a DK-equivalence.
The argument for Proposition~\ref{propfuncthree} adapts to the current
context to complete the proof.
The proof of the naturality statements in Theorems~\ref{thmwrcsv}
and~\ref{thmswrcsv} now follow from an easy check that functors
$\wrcsv[\phi]$ compose as expected up to a zigzag of natural weak
equivalences. Somewhat more work shows that this construction
actually preserves composition up to coherent homotopy; we defer this
to a future paper.
Finally, we need to prove Lemma~\ref{lem:cosheaves}. The specifics of
the simplicial category $L{\catsymbfont{C}}$ play no role: the lemma holds for the
category of simplicial functors from any small simplicial
category ${\catsymbfont{D}}$ to based simplicial sets, and we argue in this context.
We prove the following lemma, of which Lemma~\ref{lem:cosheaves} is a
special case.
\begin{lem}\label{lem:funcfact}
Let ${\catsymbfont{D}}$ be a small simplicial category and let $\mathfrak{S}_{*}^{{\catsymbfont{D}}}$ denote the
category of simplicial functors from ${\catsymbfont{D}}$ to based simplicial sets.
Then the projective and injective model structures both admit
factorization functors that are simplicial functors and that send the
identity on $*$ to the factorization $*=*=*$.
\end{lem}
The most basic case is when ${\catsymbfont{D}}$ is the trivial category and $\mathfrak{S}_{*}^{{\catsymbfont{D}}}$
is the category of based simplicial sets. Let $C$ denote the
set of generating cofibrations ($\partial \Delta[n]\to \Delta[n]$) and let
$A$ denote the set of generating acyclic cofibrations
($\Lambda_{j}[n]\to \Delta[n]$). Then the usual construction of
the factorization functors uses the small objects argument as
follows. Given $f\colon x\to y$, the factorization of $f$ as an
acyclic cofibration $x\to x'$ followed by a fibration $x'\to y$ is
constructed as $x'=\colim x'_{n}$, where $x'_{0}=x$ and inductively
$x'_{n+1}$ is constructed as the pushout
\[
x'_{n+1}=x'_{n}\cup_{\coprod a}(\coprod b)
\]
where the coproduct is over commutative diagrams
\[
\xymatrix@-1pc{%
a\ar[d]\ar[r]&b\ar[d]\\
x'_{n}\ar[r]&y
}
\]
with $i\colon a\to b$ ranging over the elements of $A$. The version we need
for Lemma~\ref{lem:funcfact} instead uses the based simplicial set of
maps in place of the set of maps above: We construct $x'_{n}$
inductively as the pushout
\[
x'_{n+1}=x'_{n}\cup_{\coprod a\sma D_{i}}(\coprod b\sma D_{i})
\]
where the coproduct is over the elements $i\colon a\to b$ in $A$ and
\[
D_{i}=\mathfrak{S}_{*}(a,x'_{n})\times_{\mathfrak{S}_{*}(a,y)}\mathfrak{S}_{*}(b,y)
\]
is the based simplicial set of commutative diagrams of the form
\[
\xymatrix@-1pc{%
a\ar[d]\ar[r]&b\ar[d]\\
x'_{n}\ar[r]&y.
}
\]
The induced map $x'_{n}\to x'_{n+1}$ and the colimit map $x\to x'$ is
an injection and weak equivalence and the map $x'\to y$ is a
fibration. Moreover, this functor is clearly a simplicial functor
into the appropriate diagram category. The analogous construction
using $C$ instead of $A$ constructs the other factorization. When
applied to the identity map on the trivial based simplicial set $*$,
each $D_{i}$ is the trivial based simplicial set $*$, and so we get
that each map $*\iso x_{n}\to x'_{n+1}$ and $x_{n+1}\to y=*$ is an
isomorphism. Thus, (replacing the factorization functors with
naturally isomorphic functors if necessary), we have that the
factorization of $*=*$ is $*=*=*$.
A slight modification of the factorization functors in Heller
\cite{Heller} construct the factorizations in the general case. Let
$\mathfrak{S}_{*}^{\Ob {\catsymbfont{D}}}$ denote the simplicial category $\prod_{\Ob{\catsymbfont{D}}}\mathfrak{S}_{*}$, and
(following the notation in \cite{Heller}), let $J^{*}$ denote the
forgetful functor from $\mathfrak{S}_{*}^{{\catsymbfont{D}}}$ to $\mathfrak{S}_{*}^{\Ob {\catsymbfont{D}}}$ that remembers just the
objects in the diagram (values of the functor) and forgets the maps.
Let $J_{P}$ be its left adjoint; since we are working in based
simplicial sets, $J_{P}X$ is the simplicial functor
\[
J_{P}X = \bigvee_{c\in\Ob{\catsymbfont{D}}} X(c)\sma {\catsymbfont{D}}(c,-)_{+}.
\]
Likewise, let $J^{I}$ be the right adjoint of $J^{*}$,
\[
J^{I}X = \prod_{c\in\Ob{\catsymbfont{D}}} X(c)^{{\catsymbfont{D}}(-,c)},
\]
where $X(c)^{{\catsymbfont{D}}(-,c)}$ denotes the based simplicial set of unbased
simplicial maps from ${\catsymbfont{D}}(-,c)$ to $X(c)$. We note that for any $X$,
$J_{P}X$ is cofibrant in the projective model structure and more
generally, $J_{P}$ sends (objectwise) cofibrations and acyclic
cofibrations in $\mathfrak{S}_{*}^{\Ob {\catsymbfont{D}}}$ to cofibrations and acyclic cofibrations in
the projective model structure on $\mathfrak{S}_{*}^{{\catsymbfont{D}}}$. Likewise $J^{F}$ sends
(objectwise) fibrations and acyclic fibrations to fibrations and
acyclic fibrations in the injective model structure on $\mathfrak{S}_{*}^{{\catsymbfont{D}}}$.
The factorization functors for the projective model structure are
constructed as follows. For $f\colon X\to Y$, let $Z_{0}=X$ and
construct $Z_{n+1}$ inductively as follows. First factor
$J^{*}Z_{n}\to J^{*}Y$ objectwise
\[
J^{*}Z_{n}\to W_{n}\to J^{*}Y
\]
using the simplicial factorization functor (for the appropriate
factorization) on based simplicial sets constructed above, and let
$Z_{n+1}$ be the pushout
\[
Z_{n+1}=Z_{n}\cup_{J_{P}J^{*}Z_{n}}J_{P}W_{n},
\]
with the factorization $Z_{n+1}\to Y$ induced by the map
$J_{P}W_{n}\to Y$. Letting $Z=\colim Z_{n}$, we get a factorization
$X\to Z\to Y$, with the map $X\to Z$ a cofibration or acyclic
cofibration (as appropriate) in the projective model structure. We
note that the underlying map in $\mathfrak{S}_{*}^{\Ob {\catsymbfont{D}}}$ from $J^{*}Z_{n}$ to
$J^{*}Z_{n+1}$ factors through $W_{n}$. It follows that we can
identify $J^{*}Z$ as $\colim W_{n}$ and the underlying map $J^{*}Z\to
J^{*}Y$ in $\mathfrak{S}_{*}^{\Ob {\catsymbfont{D}}}$ as the colimit of the maps $W_{n}\to J^{*}Y$.
Since by construction, these maps are objectwise acyclic fibrations or
fibrations of simplicial sets, the map $j^{*}Z \to J^{*}Y$ is an
objectwise acyclic fibration or fibration as required. We note that
when $X=*=Y$, by construction each $W_{n}$ is $*$ and $J_{P}W_{n}$ is
isomorphic to $*$, and so we end up with both factorizations of $*=*$
as $*=*=*$.
The factorization functors on the injective model structure are
precisely dual. We start with $Z_{0}=Y$, and inductively construct
$Z_{n+1}$ as follows. Using the appropriate objectwise factorization
functor, we factor $J^{*}X\to J^{*}Z_{n}$ in $\mathfrak{S}_{*}^{\Ob {\catsymbfont{D}}}$ as
\[
J^{*}X\to W_{n}\to J^{*}Z_{n},
\]
and we define $Z_{n+1}$ as the pullback
\[
Z_{n+1}=Z_{n}\times_{J^{I}J^{*}Z_{n}}J^{I}W_{n}.
\]
We let $Z=\lim Z_{n}$ and get a factorization $X\to Z\to Y$ with $Z\to
Y$ by construction a fibration or acyclic fibration (as appropriate)
in the injective model structure. Again looking at the underlying map
in $\mathfrak{S}_{*}^{\Ob {\catsymbfont{D}}}$, we see that the map $X\to Z$ is an objectwise acyclic
cofibration or cofibration as appropriate. Again, the factorization
of $*=*$ becomes $*=*=*$. This completes the proof of
Lemma~\ref{lem:funcfact}.
\section{Spectral categories and Waldhausen categories}
The work of the previous section showed how to associate a spectral
category to any well-behaved Waldhausen category. On the other hand,
given a spectral category ${\catsymbfont{C}}$, we can produce a simplicially tensored
Waldhausen category by passage to the Waldhausen category ${\catsymbfont{F}}_{{\catsymbfont{C}}^{\op}}$
of ``finite cell right ${\catsymbfont{C}}$-modules'' described below. In this section we
show that when ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ is pretriangulated (has triangulated homotopy
category), the spectral category associated to ${\catsymbfont{F}}_{{\catsymbfont{C}}^{\op}}$ in
Definition~\ref{defcosheaves2} recovers the original spectral category
${\catsymbfont{C}}$ up to DK-equivalence.
As a general principal, it does not matter which modern category
of spectra we use as a model when discussing small spectral
categories. The monoidal Quillen equivalences relating the
various categories of diagram spectra and EKMM $S$-modules
\cite{MM,MMSS,SchwedeEKMM} allow us to convert a spectral category on
any of these models to one on any other. In particular, the following
theorem is an easy consequence of the work of \cite{SSMonoidalEq}
(extended by the techniques of \cite{EKMM} for dealing with
non-cofibrant units that arise there).
\begin{thm}\label{jthm:compare}
Fix a set of objects $O$. For ${\catsymbfont{S}}$ a modern category of spectra from
\cite{MMSS} or \cite{EKMM}, let ${\catsymbfont{S}}{O}$-Cat denote the category of
${\catsymbfont{S}}$-enriched categories with object set $O$ and functors that are
the identity on the object set $O$. Then:
\begin{enumerate}
\item The category ${\catsymbfont{S}}{O}$-Cat forms a closed model category where
the weak equivalences and fibrations are the functors that induce a
weak equivalence or positive fibration, respectively, on mapping spectra.
\item The monoidal Quillen equivalences from
\cite{MM,MMSS,SchwedeEKMM} induce Quillen equivalences between the
categories ${\catsymbfont{S}}{O}$-Cat for the various ${\catsymbfont{S}}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm}
Because of this theorem, without loss of generality, we can assume
that our spectral category ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ comes enriched in EKMM $S$-modules,
which have the technical advantage that every object is fibrant.
On the other hand, since our goal is to compare with the
non-connective enrichment of a simplicially tensored Waldhausen
category, our comparison must be between spectral categories enriched
in symmetric spectra. Again, we use the previous theorem. Spectral
categories enriched in EKMM $S$-modules are always fibrant in the
model structure of the previous theorem, so the associated spectral
category enriched in symmetric spectra has (the same object set and)
mapping spectra $\Phi {\catsymbfont{C}}(x,y)$, where $\Phi $ is the lax symmetric monoidal
right adjoint functor from EKMM $S$-modules to symmetric spectra
defined in \cite{SchwedeEKMM}. Specifically, for an EKMM $S$-module
$X$,
\[
\Phi X(n)={\catsymbfont{M}}_{S}((S_{S}^{-1})^{(n)},X).
\]
Here ${\catsymbfont{M}}_{S}$ denotes the mapping spaces (in simplicial sets) for the
category of EKMM $S$-modules and $S_{S}^{-1}$ denotes the canonical
cell $(-1)$-sphere $S$-module \cite[III.2]{EKMM}; $\Phi X$ is always a
positive $\Omega$-spectrum and when $X$ is a mapping spectrum,
$\Phi X$ often turns out to be an $\Omega$-spectrum (for example, this
happens for $X={\catsymbfont{F}}_{{\catsymbfont{C}}^{\op}}(x,y)$ where ${\catsymbfont{F}}_{{\catsymbfont{C}}^{\op}}$ is the spectral category
defined below). The lax monoidal natural transformation is induced by
\begin{multline*}
\Phi X(m) \sma \Phi Y(n) =
{\catsymbfont{M}}_{S}((S_{S}^{-1})^{(m)},X) \sma {\catsymbfont{M}}_{S}((S_{S}^{-1})^{(n)},Y)\\
\to
{\catsymbfont{M}}_{S}((S_{S}^{-1})^{(m+n)},X \sma Y)
= \Phi (X\sma Y)(m+n)
\end{multline*}
and the map $S\to \Phi S$ is induced by the map
$S^{0}\to {\catsymbfont{M}}_{S}(S,S)$ sending the non-base point to the identity
element.
\begin{notn}
For ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ a spectral category in EKMM $S$-modules, write $\Phi {\catsymbfont{C}}$
for the associated spectral category in symmetric spectra described above.
\end{notn}
Now given ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ a spectral category in EKMM $S$-modules we associate a
Waldhausen category to ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ as follows. Let $\Mod$ denote the
category of (right) ${\catsymbfont{C}}$-modules, the category of enriched functors from
${\catsymbfont{C}}^{\op}$ to the category of EKMM $S$-modules. We make $\Mod$ into a
model category with the projective model structure: The weak
equivalences and fibrations are the objectwise weak equivalences and
fibrations. The cofibrations in this model structure are the retracts
of relative cell inclusions, where a cell is of the form
\[
{\catsymbfont{C}}(-,x)\sma S_{S}^{q}\sma S^{n-1}_{+}\to {\catsymbfont{C}}(-,x)\sma S_{S}^{q}\sma D^{n}_{+}
\]
for some object $x$ in ${\catsymbfont{C}}$, $q\in {\mathbb{Z}}$, $n\geq 0$, where $S^{n-1}\to
D^{n}$ is the standard
$n$-cell in topology. We then have a subcategory of finite
cell ${\catsymbfont{C}}$-modules, having objects the ${\catsymbfont{C}}$-modules built from $*$ by
attaching finitely many cells. If we insist on using canonical
pushouts in building these complexes (or restrict to a skeleton), then
the resulting subcategory we get is small.
\begin{notn}
For ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ a small spectral category in EKMM $S$-modules, let
${\catsymbfont{F}}_{{\catsymbfont{C}}^{\op}}$ be the small subcategory of $\Mod$ of finite cell
${\catsymbfont{C}}$-modules.
\end{notn}
We have a spectrally enriched functor ${\catsymbfont{C}}\to {\catsymbfont{F}}_{{\catsymbfont{C}}^{\op}}$ sending $x$ to
${\catsymbfont{C}}(-,x)\sma S^{0}_{S}$. By the Yoneda lemma
\[
{\catsymbfont{F}}_{{\catsymbfont{C}}^{\op}}({\catsymbfont{C}}(-,x)\sma S^{0}_{S},{\catsymbfont{C}}(-,y)\sma S^{0}_{S})\iso
F_{S}(S^{0}_{S},{\catsymbfont{C}}(x,y)\sma S^{0}_{S})
\]
(where $F_{S}$ denotes the function $S$-module)
and the map
\[
{\catsymbfont{C}}(x,y)\to F_{S}(S^{0}_{S},{\catsymbfont{C}}(x,y)\sma S^{0}_{S})
\]
is a weak equivalence. The following theorem is now clear from the
construction of ${\catsymbfont{F}}_{{\catsymbfont{C}}^{\op}}$.
\begin{thm}
For ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ a small spectral category in EKMM $S$-modules,
the spectrally enriched functor ${\catsymbfont{C}}\to {\catsymbfont{F}}_{{\catsymbfont{C}}^{\op}}$ is a DK-embedding,
and $\pi_{0}{\catsymbfont{F}}_{{\catsymbfont{C}}^{\op}}$ is the thick subcategory of $\pi_{0}\Mod$
generated by the image of ${\catsymbfont{C}}$. In particular, ${\catsymbfont{C}}\to{\catsymbfont{F}}_{{\catsymbfont{C}}^{\op}}$ is a
DK-equivalence if and only if ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ is pretriangulated.
\end{thm}
Since ${\catsymbfont{F}}_{{\catsymbfont{C}}^{\op}}$ is a subcategory of cofibrant objects in a simplicial
model category with all objects fibrant, it fits into the context of
Example~\ref{exofinterest}, and is canonically a simplicially enriched
Waldhausen category. In fact, it is easy to see that the tensor in
$\Mod$ of an object of ${\catsymbfont{F}}_{{\catsymbfont{C}}^{\op}}$ with a finite simplicial set is
isomorphic to an object of ${\catsymbfont{F}}_{{\catsymbfont{C}}^{\op}}$, so ${\catsymbfont{F}}_{{\catsymbfont{C}}^{\op}}$ is a simplicially
tensored Waldhausen category. The following is the main theorem of
this section; combined with the previous theorem, it gives the zigzag
of DK-equivalence of spectral categories $\Phi {\catsymbfont{C}}\simeq \wrcsv[{\catsymbfont{F}}]_{{\catsymbfont{C}}^{\op}}^{S}$
when ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ is pretriangulated.
\begin{thm}\label{thm:compare}
For ${\catsymbfont{C}}$ a small spectral category in EKMM
$S$-modules, there are zigzags of DK-equivalences of spectral categories (in
symmetric spectra in simplicial sets)
\[
\Phi {\catsymbfont{F}}_{{\catsymbfont{C}}^{\op}} \simeq {\catsymbfont{F}}_{{\catsymbfont{C}}^{\op}}^{S} \simeq \wrcsv[{\catsymbfont{F}}]_{{\catsymbfont{C}}^{\op}}^{S},
\]
where $\wrcsv[{\catsymbfont{F}}]_{{\catsymbfont{C}}^{\op}}$ denotes the simplicially tensored Waldhausen
category constructed from ${\catsymbfont{F}}_{{\catsymbfont{C}}^{\op}}$ by Definition~\ref{defcosheaves2}.
\end{thm}
The zigzag of DK-equivalences ${\catsymbfont{F}}_{{\catsymbfont{C}}^{\op}}^{S} \simeq \wrcsv[{\catsymbfont{F}}]_{{\catsymbfont{C}}^{\op}}^{S}$ is
the one obtained from applying Theorem~\ref{thm:swefunctS} to the
simplicially enriched based weakly exact functor $\tilde\imath'\colon
{\catsymbfont{F}}_{{\catsymbfont{C}}^{\op}}\to \wrcsv[{\catsymbfont{F}}]_{{\catsymbfont{C}}^{\op}}$ in part~(v) of Theorem~\ref{thmwrcsv}. That
leaves us with constructing the zigzag of DK-equivalences $\Phi
{\catsymbfont{F}}_{{\catsymbfont{C}}^{\op}} \simeq {\catsymbfont{F}}_{{\catsymbfont{C}}^{\op}}^{S}$, which is just the generalization of
Proposition~\ref{prop:corEKMM} to rings with many objects. The proof
is essentially identical: Let $\Phi'{\catsymbfont{F}}_{{\catsymbfont{C}}^{\op}}$ denote the spectral
category (in symmetric spectra in simplicial sets) with the same
objects as ${\catsymbfont{F}}_{{\catsymbfont{C}}^{\op}}$, but with mapping spectra $\Phi'{\catsymbfont{F}}_{{\catsymbfont{C}}^{\op}}(x,y)$
defined by
\[
\Phi'{\catsymbfont{F}}_{{\catsymbfont{C}}^{\op}}(x,y)(n)={\catsymbfont{M}}_{S}((S^{-1}_{S}\sma
S^{1})^{(n)},F_{{\catsymbfont{F}}_{{\catsymbfont{C}}^{\op}}}(x,\Sigma^{n}y)),
\]
where we have written $F_{{\catsymbfont{F}}_{{\catsymbfont{C}}^{\op}}}$ for the mapping spectrum in
${\catsymbfont{F}}_{{\catsymbfont{C}}^{\op}}$ to avoid confusion with the mapping space (simplicial
set) ${\catsymbfont{F}}_{{\catsymbfont{C}}^{\op}}(x,y)$. For $y=x$, we have the unit $S\to \Phi'{\catsymbfont{F}}_{{\catsymbfont{C}}^{\op}}(x,x)$ induced
by the unit for ${\catsymbfont{F}}_{{\catsymbfont{C}}^{\op}}(x,x)$ and the canonical isomorphism
\[
{\catsymbfont{M}}_{S}((S^{-1}_{S}\sma S^{1})^{(0)},
F_{{\catsymbfont{F}}_{{\catsymbfont{C}}^{\op}}}(x,\Sigma^{0}y))
= {\catsymbfont{M}}_{S}(S,F_{{\catsymbfont{F}}_{{\catsymbfont{C}}^{\op}}}(x,y)) \iso {\catsymbfont{F}}_{{\catsymbfont{C}}^{\op}}(x,y).
\]
Composition is induced by the smash product map
\begin{multline*}
{\catsymbfont{M}}_{S}((S^{-1}_{S}\sma S^{1})^{(m)},F_{{\catsymbfont{F}}_{{\catsymbfont{C}}^{\op}}}(y,\Sigma^{m}z))\sma
{\catsymbfont{M}}_{S}((S^{-1}_{S}\sma S^{1})^{(n)},F_{{\catsymbfont{F}}_{{\catsymbfont{C}}^{\op}}}(x,\Sigma^{n}y))
\\
\to
{\catsymbfont{M}}_{S}((S^{-1}_{S}\sma S^{1})^{(m+n)},
F_{{\catsymbfont{F}}_{{\catsymbfont{C}}^{\op}}}(y,\Sigma^{m}z) \sma
F_{{\catsymbfont{F}}_{{\catsymbfont{C}}^{\op}}}(x,\Sigma^{n}y))
\end{multline*}
and the composition map
\begin{multline*}
F_{{\catsymbfont{F}}_{{\catsymbfont{C}}^{\op}}}(y,\Sigma^{m}z) \sma
F_{{\catsymbfont{F}}_{{\catsymbfont{C}}^{\op}}}(x,\Sigma^{n}y)
\to F_{{\catsymbfont{F}}_{{\catsymbfont{C}}^{\op}}}(\Sigma^{n}y,\Sigma^{m+n}z) \sma
F_{{\catsymbfont{F}}_{{\catsymbfont{C}}^{\op}}}(x,\Sigma^{n}y)\\
\to F_{{\catsymbfont{F}}_{{\catsymbfont{C}}^{\op}}}(x,\Sigma^{m+n}z)
\end{multline*}
analogous to the one in Definition~\ref{defenrich}.
We then have spectral functors
\[
\Phi{\catsymbfont{F}}_{{\catsymbfont{C}}^{\op}} \to \Phi'{\catsymbfont{F}}_{{\catsymbfont{C}}^{\op}} \mathchoice{\longleftarrow}{\leftarrow}{\leftarrow}{\leftarrow} {\catsymbfont{F}}_{{\catsymbfont{C}}^{\op}}^{S}
\]
defined as follows. The functor $\Phi {\catsymbfont{F}}_{{\catsymbfont{C}}^{\op}}\to \Phi'{\catsymbfont{F}}_{{\catsymbfont{C}}^{\op}}$ is
the map
\[
{\catsymbfont{M}}_{S}((S^{-1}_{S})^{(n)},F_{{\catsymbfont{F}}_{{\catsymbfont{C}}^{\op}}}(x,y))
\to
{\catsymbfont{M}}_{S}((S^{-1}_{S}\sma
S^{1})^{(n)},F_{{\catsymbfont{F}}_{{\catsymbfont{C}}^{\op}}}(x,\Sigma^{n}y))
\]
induced by $n$-fold suspension
\[
F_{{\catsymbfont{F}}_{{\catsymbfont{C}}^{\op}}}(x,y)\to F_{{\catsymbfont{F}}_{{\catsymbfont{C}}^{\op}}}(\Sigma^{n}x,\Sigma^{n}y)
\iso \Omega^{n}F_{{\catsymbfont{F}}_{{\catsymbfont{C}}^{\op}}}(x,\Sigma^{n}y)
\]
and the adjunction
\[
{\catsymbfont{M}}_{S}((S^{-1}_{S})^{(n)},\Omega^{n}F_{{\catsymbfont{F}}_{{\catsymbfont{C}}^{\op}}}(x,\Sigma^{n}y))
\iso
{\catsymbfont{M}}_{S}((S^{-1}_{S})^{(n)}\sma S^{n},F_{{\catsymbfont{F}}_{{\catsymbfont{C}}^{\op}}}(x,\Sigma^{n}y)).
\]
The functor ${\catsymbfont{F}}_{{\catsymbfont{C}}^{\op}}^{S}\to \Phi'$ is induced by the map
\[
{\catsymbfont{F}}_{{\catsymbfont{C}}^{\op}}(x,\Sigma^{n}y)=
{\catsymbfont{M}}_{S}(S,F_{{\catsymbfont{F}}_{{\catsymbfont{C}}^{\op}}}(x,\Sigma^{n}y))\to
{\catsymbfont{M}}_{S}((S^{-1}_{S}\sma
S^{1})^{(n)},F_{{\catsymbfont{F}}_{{\catsymbfont{C}}^{\op}}}(x,\Sigma^{n}y))
\]
induced by the canonical collapse map $S^{-1}_{S}\sma S^{1}\to S$. On
mapping spaces, both these functors are weak equivalences (in fact,
level equivalences) of symmetric spectra, and so the functors are
DK-equivalences. This completes the proof of
Theorem~\ref{thm:compare}.
\part*{Bibliography}
|
\section{Introduction}
\noindent
The study of superposition rules can be traced back to the end of the 19th century, when Lie, Vessiot, and
Guldberg \cite{LS}-\cite{Gu93} characterized and analysed the properties of systems of first-order
differential equations admitting this property, the so-called {\it Lie systems} \cite{CarRamGra}-\cite{CGM07}. Although the linear superposition
rule for homogeneous linear systems of first-order differential equations admits a natural analogue for
homogeneous linear systems of higher-order differential equations (HODEs), the generalisation of their nonlinear counterpart is not so evident and
it has hardly been investigated so far \cite{Ve95,CL10SecOrd2}.
Recently, the necessity of a theory of (linear and nonlinear) superposition rules for systems of HODEs became
even more evident, as this concept repeatedly came up in the study of certain systems of second-order
differential equations with multiple applications in physics and mathematics \cite{CL10SecOrd2}-\cite{SIGMA}.
In an attempt to fill in this gap of the mathematics literature, the present work aims to formalize the
superposition rule notion for systems of HODEs and to analyse its properties. Since superposition rules for
systems of second-order differential equations (SODEs) represent one of the most relevant types of
superposition rules appearing in the literature, special attention is paid to this case.
A notion of superposition rule for systems of SODEs was introduced in \cite{CL10SecOrd2}. Nevertheless, that
work was more focused on the practical use of the concept than on studying its properties. That is why we
start here by motivating this definition in detail and analysing some of its properties.
The fundamental problem on the analysis of superposition rules for systems of HODEs is to find coordinate-free geometric
conditions ensuring their existence. This problem, solved by the {\it Lie--Scheffers theorem} for systems of
first-order differential equations, is here explicitly solved for systems of SODEs. Our new result provides
not only a new insight into the study of superposition rules for SODEs, but also shows the existence of new
and more powerful types of superposition rules for such equations. These new notions can be regarded as
generalisations of other concepts already defined for systems of first-order differential equations (see
\cite{CGM07}). In addition, most of our achievements can be directly generalized to all systems of HODEs and
they are also employed to review previous notions dedicated to the study of such systems, e.g. SODE Lie
systems.
Apart from their mathematical interest, our results are also relevant so as to study all physical systems and problems, like nonquadratic Hamiltonians or Berry phases (see \cite{AL08} and references therein), related to differential equations admitting a superposition rule, such as second-order Riccati equations \cite{CL10SecOrd2} or Milne--Pinney equations \cite{CL08MP}.
To highlight the interest of our methods, they are illustrated by the analysis of examples extracted from the physics and mathematics
literature. Special attention is paid to second- and third-order Kummer--Schwarz equations, whose mathematical interest is
due, for instance, to their appearance in {\it Kummer's problem}, the study of Schwarzian derivatives, and other related topics \cite{Be07,Ta89}. Furthermore, Kummer--Schwarz equations occur in the analysis of non-stationary two body problems \cite{Be80,Be89} and, via their relation to Riccati and Milne--Pinney equations \cite{Co94,GGG11}, they can be employed to study several problems appearing in cosmology, quantum mechanics, and other branches of physics \cite{AL08,Be80,Co94,GGG11}. We here derive
superposition rules for the analysis of such equations that provides us with several advantages with respect to previous methods of studying these, and other related, equations \cite{Co94,GGG11,Lie77}. As a byproduct, we find a new property of
Kummer--Schwarz equations: their dynamics is determined by a curve in a Lie algebra of vector fields isomorphic
to $\mathfrak{sl}(2,\mathbb{R})$.
The content of the paper is structured as follows. In Section 2 we describe some notions and results of the
theory of Lie systems to be used throughout the paper. Section 3 concerns the motivation and analysis of the
definition of a superposition rule for SODEs as well as several particular types of it found in the literature.
In Section 4 we provide a characterization of systems of SODEs admitting certain types of superposition rules
and we describe a new kind of superposition rules for SODEs. In addition, several properties of superposition
rules for SODEs are analysed. The relation of our new results and the so--called SODE Lie systems is
studied in Section 5. The results of the previous sections lead to the definition and analysis, in Section 6, of a
general notion of a superposition rule for systems of first- and higher-order differential equations.
Subsequently, we illustrate in Sections 7 and 8 some of the theoretical results derived throughout our work
by the investigation of several remarkable HODEs. Finally, Section 9 summarizes
our achievements and details some work to be accomplished in the future.
\section{Fundamentals on Lie systems}\label{FLS}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
We hereafter assume all geometrical objects and mappings, like vector fields or superposition rules, to be real, smooth, and globally
defined. In this way, we highlight the key points of our presentation by omitting the analysis of certain
minor technical problems. For additional information, we refer to \cite{CGM07,CL10SecOrd2}.
\begin{definition} A {\it superposition rule} for a system of first-order ordinary differential equations
\begin{equation}\label{LieSystem}
\frac{dx^i}{dt}=X^i(t,x),\qquad i=1,\ldots,n,
\end{equation}
is a map $\Phi:\mathbb{R}^{mn} \times \mathbb{R}^n \rightarrow\mathbb{R}^n$ of the form
\begin{equation}\label{super}
x=\Phi(x_{(1)},\ldots,x_{(m)};k_1,\ldots,k_n),
\end{equation}
allowing us to write the general solution of system (\ref{LieSystem}) as
\begin{equation}\label{superposition}
x(t)=\Phi(x_{(1)}(t),\ldots,x_{(m)}(t);k_1,\ldots,k_n),
\end{equation}
with $x_{(1)}(t),\ldots,x_{(m)}(t)$ being a `generic' family of particular solutions and $k_1,\ldots,k_n$ being the constants related to the initial conditions of each particular solution.
\end{definition}
\begin{Note} We shall not define rigorously what `generic' means in the above definition, as it is not essential to our
purposes and depends on the particular case. It shall be sufficient to bear in mind that, in the case of
linear superposition rules for homogeneous linear systems of first-order differential equations, `generic'
means that the elements of the chosen finite family of particular solutions must be linearly independent.
\end{Note}
The uppermost achievement of the theory of Lie systems was obtained by Lie \cite{LS}, who succeeded in
characterizing systems of first-order differential equations that admit a superposition rule.
\begin{theorem}{\bf (The Lie--Scheffers theorem)} A system (\ref{LieSystem}) admits a superposition rule (\ref{super})
if and only if its right-hand side can be written as
\begin{equation}\label{LieDecom}
\frac{dx^i}{dt}=Z_1(t)\xi^i_1(x)+\ldots+Z_r(t)\xi^i_r(x),\qquad i=1,\ldots,n,
\end{equation}
so that the vector fields
\begin{equation}\label{VG}
X_\alpha(x)=\sum_{i=1}^n\xi_\alpha^i(x)\frac{\partial}{\partial x^i},\qquad \alpha=1,\ldots,r,
\end{equation}
with $r\leq m\cdot n$, span an $r$-dimensional real Lie algebra.
\end{theorem}
The following definition and lemma, whose proof is a straightforward consequence of the Jacobi identity,
notably simplify several statements and proofs of various results concerning the theory of Lie systems.
\begin{definition}\label{LieSpan} Given a (finite or infinite) family $\mathcal{A}$ of vector fields on $\mathbb{R}^n$,
we denote by ${\rm Lie}(\mathcal{A})$ the smallest Lie algebra $V$ of vector fields on $\mathbb{R}^n$ containing $\mathcal{A}$.
\end{definition}
\begin{lemma}\label{LieFam} Given a family of vector fields $\mathcal{A}$, the linear space ${\rm Lie}(\mathcal{A})$
is spanned by the vector fields of
$$\mathcal{A},\,\,[\mathcal{A},\mathcal{A}],\,\,[\mathcal{A},[\mathcal{A},\mathcal{A}]],\,\,
[\mathcal{A},[\mathcal{A},[\mathcal{A},\mathcal{A}]]],\ldots$$
where $[\mathcal{A},\mathcal{B}]$, with $\mathcal{B}=\mathcal{A},[\mathcal{A},\mathcal{A}],\dots$, denotes the set of Lie brackets between the elements of the families
$\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{B}$ of vector fields.
\end{lemma}
Recall that if $\tau:{\rm T}\mathbb{R}^n\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^n$ denotes the tangent bundle projection and
$\pi_2$ stands for the projection $\pi_2:(t,x)\in\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}^n\mapsto x\in\mathbb{R}^n$, a {\it
time-dependent vector field} $X$ on $\mathbb{R}^n$ is a map $X:(t,x)\in\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}^n\mapsto
X(t,x)\in \mathbb{\rm T}\mathbb{R}^n$ such that $\tau\circ X=\pi_2$. Observe that every time-dependent vector
field $X$ on $\mathbb{R}^n$ can be regarded as a family $\{X_t\}_{t\in\mathbb{R}}$ of vector fields on
$\mathbb{R}^n$, where $X_t:x\in\mathbb{R}^n\mapsto X_t(x)=X(t,x)\in{\rm T}_x\mathbb{R}^n$.
Similarly to standard vector fields, time-dependent vector fields also admit integral curves \cite{Car96,FM}.
We hereafter call an {\it integral curve} of $X$ passing through $(t_0,x_0)\in \mathbb{R} \times\mathbb{R}^n$ any
integral curve $\gamma^{x_0}_{t_0}:s\in\mathbb{R}\mapsto (t(s),\bar \gamma(s))\in \mathbb{R}\times
\mathbb{R}^n$ of the one-dimensional distribution on $\mathbb{R}\times \mathbb{R}^n$ spanned by the {\it
suspension} of $X$, i.e. the vector field $\partial/\partial t+X(t,x)$ \cite{FM}, satisfying that $(t_0,x_0)\in {\rm
Im}\,\gamma_{t_0}^{x_0}$.
From a modern geometric point of view, every system of first-order differential equations of the form
(\ref{LieSystem}) is described by the unique time-dependent vector field on $\mathbb{R}^n$, namely,
$X(t,x)=\sum_{i=1}^nX^i(t,x)\partial/\partial x^i$, whose integral curves are (up to an appropriate
reparametrisation) of the form $(t,x(t))$, with $x(t)$ being a solution of system (\ref{LieSystem}). For
simplicity, we use the symbol $X$ to refer to both, a time-dependent vector field and the system of
differential equations describing its integral curves.
In such geometric terms, the Lie--Scheffers theorem states that a system $X$ admits a superposition rule if
and only if there exists a finite-dimensional Lie algebra of vector fields $V$, the so-called {\it
Vessiot--Guldberg Lie algebra}, such that $\{X_t\}_{t\in\mathbb{R}}\subset V$. In consequence, $X$ is a Lie
system if and only if the Lie algebra ${\rm Lie}(\{X_t\}_{t\in\mathbb{R}})$ is finite-dimensional.
The geometrical interpretation of superposition rules as well as one of the techniques for their determination
is based on the notion of {\it diagonal prolongation} \cite{CGM07}.
\begin{definition} Given a time-dependent vector field $X(t,x)=\sum_{i=1}^nX^i(t,x)\partial/\partial x^i$ on $\mathbb{R}^n$,
the time-dependent vector field $\widetilde X$ on $\mathbb{R}^{n(m+1)}$ of the form
$$
\widetilde X=\sum_{a=0}^m\sum_{i=1}^nX^i(t,x_{(a)})\frac{\partial}{\partial x^i_{(a)}},
$$
is called the {\it diagonal prolongation} to $\mathbb{R}^{n(m+1)}$ of $X$.
\end{definition}
A method for determining superposition rules is briefly described as follows (see \cite{CGM07,CL10SecOrd2} for
details and examples).
\begin{enumerate}
\item Take a basis $X_1,\ldots,X_r$ of a finite-dimensional Lie algebra (\ref{VG}) associated with the Lie system under study.
\item Choose the smallest positive integer $m$, so that the diagonal prolongations of the elements of the previous basis to $(\mathbb{R}^{n})^m$
are linearly independent at a generic point.
\item Take global coordinates $x^1,\ldots,x^n$ on $\mathbb{R}^n$. By defining this coordinate
system on each copy of $\mathbb{R}^n$ within $(\mathbb{R}^n)^{m+1}$, we get a coordinate system
$\{x^i_{(a)}\mid i=1,\ldots,n,\,\,a=0,\ldots,m\}$ on $(\mathbb{R}^{n})^{m+1}$.
Obtain $n$ functionally independent first-integrals $F_1,\ldots, F_n$ common to all diagonal prolongations
$\widetilde X_1,\ldots,\widetilde X_r$ of $X_1,\ldots,X_r$ to $(\mathbb{R}^{n})^{m+1}$ such that $\partial(F_1,\ldots,F_n)/\partial(x_{(0)}^1,\ldots,x_{(0)}^n)\neq 0$. This can be performed,
for instance, by means of the well-known {\it method of characteristics}.
\item Assume the above first-integrals to take certain real constant values, i.e. $F_i=k_i$ for $i=1,\ldots,n$.
By means of these equations, calculate the expressions of the variables $x_{(0)}^1\ldots,x_{(0)}^n$ in
terms of $x^1_{(a)},\ldots,x_{(a)}^n$, with $a=1,\ldots,m,$ and $k_1,\ldots,k_n$.
\item The obtained expressions give rise to a superposition rule in terms of any generic family of $m$ particular solutions
and the constants $k_1,\ldots, k_n$.
\end{enumerate}
Given two vector fields $X$ and $Y$, we have that $\widetilde{[X,Y]}=[\widetilde X,\widetilde Y]$, i.e. the
Lie bracket of two diagonal prolongations is a diagonal prolongation. Another, much less evident, property of
diagonal prolongations is described in the following lemma, whose proof can be found in \cite[Lemma 1]{CGM07}.
\begin{lemma}\label{FundLem}
Consider a family of vector fields $X_1,\ldots, X_r$ on $\mathbb{R}^n$ whose diagonal prolongations to
$\mathbb{R}^{nm}$ are linearly independent at a generic point. Then, given their diagonal prolongations
$\widetilde X_1,\ldots,\widetilde X_r$ to $\mathbb{R}^{n(m+1)}$, a vector field
$X=\sum_{\alpha=1}^rb_\alpha\widetilde X_\alpha$, with $b_\alpha\in C^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^{n(m+1)})$, is again
a diagonal prolongation if and only if the functions $b_\alpha$ are constant.
\end{lemma}
It is worth noting that one can relate superposition rules to zero-curvature connections on a bundle ${\rm
pr}:(x_{(0)},\ldots,x_{(m)})\in\mathbb{R}^{n(m+1)}\mapsto(x_{(1)},\ldots,x_{(m)})\in\mathbb{R}^{nm}$ as
follows (cf. \cite{CGM07}).
\begin{proposition}\label{FolSup} Each superposition rule (\ref{superposition}) for a system $X$ is equivalent to
a local $n$-codimensional foliation on $\mathbb{R}^{n(m+1)}$ whose leaves project, by ${\rm pr}$, diffeomorphically
onto $\mathbb{R}^{nm}$ and such that the vector fields $\{\widetilde X_t\}_{t\in\mathbb{R}}$ are tangent to its leaves.
\end{proposition}
The above result can be used to easily prove the following new result which is used posteriorly in order to
analyse the existence of a particular class of superposition rules for systems of SODEs.
\begin{proposition}\label{CSR} A family of Lie systems admits a common superposition rule if and only if they admit
a common Vessiot--Guldberg Lie algebra.
\end{proposition}
\section{On the general definition of a superposition rule for SODEs}\label{Justify}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
To motivate the general definition of a superposition rule for SODEs, let us start by analysing a particular property
of standard superposition rules. It is well known that every homogeneous linear system on $\mathbb{R}^n$ of
the form
\begin{equation}\label{linear}
\frac{dx^i}{dt}=\sum_{j=1}^n A^i\,_j(t)x^j,\qquad i=1,\ldots,n,
\end{equation}
where the $A^i\,_j$ are real $t$-dependent functions, admits its general solution $x(t)$ to be written as
\begin{equation}\label{linearSup}
x(t)=k_1x_{(1)}(t)+\ldots+k_nx_{(n)}(t),
\end{equation}
with $x_{(1)}(t),\ldots,x_{(n)}(t)$ being a family of linearly independent particular solutions of
(\ref{linear}) and $k_1,\ldots,k_n$ a set of real constants. In other words, the system (\ref{linear}) admits a
{\it linear superposition rule}. This leads to the existence of nonlinear systems admitting general {\it
superposition rules} \cite{Win83}. Indeed, every diffeomorphism $\phi:\mathbb{R}^n\ni x\mapsto
z\in\mathbb{R}^n$ transforms system (\ref{linear}) into
\begin{equation}\label{nolinear}
\frac{dz^i}{dt}=F^i(t,z),\qquad i=1,\ldots,n,
\end{equation}
where the functions $F^i:\mathbb{R}^{n+1}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ are generally nonlinear in the variables
$z^1,\ldots,z^n$, and, what is more important, whose general solution $z(t)$ can be
expressed (maybe nonlinearly) as
$$
z(t)=\phi(k_1 \phi^{-1}(z_{(1)}(t))+\ldots+k_n\phi^{-1}(z_{(n)}(t))),
$$
in terms of certain families of particular solutions $z_{(1)}(t),\ldots,z_{(n)}(t)$ of (\ref{nolinear}) and
the constants $k_1,\ldots,k_n$. That is, since linearity depends on coordinate systems and the existence of
superposition rules does not (recall the Lie--Scheffers theorem), the mere existence of linear superposition
rules for homogeneous linear systems of first-order differential equations leads to the existence of nonlinear
systems admitting superposition rules. In addition, it is worth noting that not every system admitting a
nonlinear superposition rule is of this form. For instance, Riccati equations admit a superposition rule, but
they cannot always be transformed diffeomorphically into linear homogeneous systems \cite{RDM}.
The aforementioned properties have an analogue for systems of SODEs. In fact, it can easily be proved that every
homogeneous linear system of SODEs
\begin{equation}\label{SecondLinear}
\frac{d^2x^i}{dt^2}=\sum_{j=1}^n \left(A^i\,_j(t)\frac {d x^j}{dt} +B^i\,_j(t)x^j\right),\qquad i=1,\ldots,n,
\end{equation}
with $A^i\,_j$ and $B^i\,_j$ being any set of $2n^2$ time-dependent functions, admits its general
solution to be written as
\begin{equation}\label{SupSODElinear}
x(t)=k_1x_{(1)}(t)+\ldots+k_{2n}x_{(2n)}(t),
\end{equation}
in terms of some arbitrary constants $k_1,\ldots,k_{2n}$ and a set of solutions
$\{x_{(a)}(t)\,|\,a=1,\ldots,2n\}$ such that the vectors $(x_{(a)}(t),dx_{(a)}(t)/dt)\in{\rm T}\mathbb{R}^n$
are linearly independent at every $t\in\mathbb{R}$. Now, a change of variables $z=\phi(x)$ transforms the
above system into a (generally nonlinear) new one
\begin{equation}\label{SecondNolinear}
\frac{d^2z^i}{dt^2}=H^i\left(t,z,\frac{dz}{dt}\right),\qquad i=1,\ldots,n,
\end{equation}
for certain functions $H^i:{\rm T}\mathbb{R}^{n}\times\mathbb{R}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$, and, moreover, such a
change enables us, in view of (\ref{SupSODElinear}), to write its general solution $z(t)$ in the form
\begin{equation}\label{nolinearSupSeg}
z(t)=\phi(k_1\phi^{-1}(z_{(1)}(t))+\ldots+k_{2n}\phi^{-1}(z_{(2n)}(t))),
\end{equation}
in terms of a generic family of particular solutions $z_{(1)}(t),\ldots,z_{(2n)}(t)$ for
(\ref{SecondNolinear}) and constants $k_1,\ldots,k_{2n}$. Consequently, linear superposition rules
for systems (\ref{SecondLinear}) give rise to the existence of `superposition rule-like' expressions for
systems of SODEs. Expressions of this type frequently appear in the literature, e.g. in the study of linear
inhomogeneous systems of SODEs. This suggests us the following definition that was proposed and briefly
analysed in \cite{CL10SecOrd2} and that includes the previous expressions as particular cases.
\begin{definition}
A {\it base-superposition rule} for a system
\begin{equation}\label{SODE}
\frac{d^2x^i}{dt^2}=F^i\left(t,x,\frac{dx}{dt}\right), \qquad i=1,\ldots,n,
\end{equation} is a map
$\Upsilon:(\mathbb{R}^{n})^m\times\mathbb{R}^{2n}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^n$ allowing us to write its general
solution $x(t)$ as
\begin{equation}\label{FreeVel}
x(t)=\Upsilon(x_{(1)}(t),\ldots,x_{(m)}(t);k_1,\ldots,k_{2n}),
\end{equation}
where $x_{(1)}(t),\ldots,x_{(m)}(t)$ is a generic family of particular solutions and $k_1,\ldots,k_{2n}$ are constants.
\end{definition}
The above concept does not cover many other expressions found in the literature for describing systems of
SODEs \cite{CL10SecOrd2,CLNE07,CL08MP,SIGMA}. For instance, consider a Milne--Pinney equation
\begin{equation}\label{MilnePinney}
\frac{d^2x}{dt^2}=-\omega^2(t)x+\frac{c}{x^3},
\end{equation}
with $x>0$ and $\omega(t)$ being any time-dependent real function \cite{Mil30}-\cite{Re99}. This equation is relevant due to its applications in quantum mechanics, cosmology, Bose--Einstein condensates, and other physical topics \cite{CL08MP,SIGMA,AL08}. Recently, it was proved
(see \cite{CL08MP}) that its general solution can be written as
\begin{equation}\label{MilnSup}
x(t)=\left\{k_1x_{(1)}^2(t)+\!k_2x_{(2)}^2(t)\!\pm\! 2\left[\lambda_{12}[I_3x_{(1)}^2(t)x_{(2)}^2(t)-\!c(x_{(1)}^4(t)\!+\!x_{(2)}^4(t))]\right]^{1/2}\right\}^{1/2}\!\!,
\end{equation}
by means of a generic pair $x_{(1)}(t),x_{(2)}(t)$ of particular solutions, the function
$\lambda_{12}=\lambda_{12}(k_1,k_2,c,I_3)$, the constant of motion
$$I_3=\left(\frac{dx_{(1)}}{dt}(t)x_{(2)}(t)-\frac{dx_{(2)}}{dt}(t)x_{(1)}(t)\right)^2+
c\left[\left(\frac{x_{(1)}(t)}{x_{(2)}(t)}\right)^2+\left(\frac{x_{(2)}(t)}{x_{(1)}(t)}\right)^2\right],
$$
and two constants $k_1, k_2$ related to initial conditions. Observe that expression (\ref{MilnSup}) cannot be
described by means of any base-superposition rule notion. Indeed, while $k_1, k_2$ take different values to
describe the different particular solutions of (\ref{MilnSup}), the constant $I_3$, whose value is fixed by
the chosen particular solutions and their time-derivatives, does not appear in base-superposition rules. The
same will happen for other new relevant expressions to be presented in this work. This motivates us to
generalize the base-superposition rule as follows.
\begin{definition}
A {\it quasi-base superposition rule} for a system of SODEs in $\mathbb{R}^n$ of the form (\ref{SODE}) is a function $G:\mathbb{R}^{mn}\times\mathbb{R}^{q}\times\mathbb{R}^{2n}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^n$ allowing us to
cast its general solution $x(t)$ in the form
\begin{equation}\label{express1}
x(t)=G(x_{(1)}(t),\ldots,x_{(m)}(t),I_1,\ldots,I_{q};k_1,\ldots,k_{2n}),
\end{equation}
in terms of any generic family $x_{(1)}(t),\ldots,x_{(m)}(t)$ of particular solutions of (\ref{SODE}), a set
of time-independent constants of motion $I_1,\ldots,I_{q}$, whose values are determined by the choice of the
previous family and their derivatives with respect to the time, and a set of constants $k_1,\ldots,k_{2n}$.
\end{definition}
Although almost every example of `superposition-rule like' expression for SODEs is a particular instance of
a quasi-base superposition rule, this notion still fails to cover several expressions found in the literature.
That is the case of the very recently discovered expression for second-order Riccati equations, presented in
\cite{CL10SecOrd2}, which describes the general solution of such equations in terms of a generic family of
particular solutions, their derivatives, and several constants. This motivates us to generalize the
the concept of a quasi-base superposition rule as follows.
\begin{definition}\label{Def1} A system of second-order ordinary differential equations on $\mathbb{R}^n$ given by (\ref{SODE}) admits a {\it superposition rule} if there exists a map $\Upsilon:({\rm
T}\mathbb{R}^{n})^{m}\times\mathbb{R}^{2n}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^n$ of the form
\begin{equation}\label{SupSODE1}
x=\Upsilon(x_{(1)},v_{(1)},\ldots,x_{(m)},v_{(m)};k_1,\ldots,k_{2n}),
\end{equation}
with $(x_{(a)},v_{(a)})\in {\rm T}_{x_{(a)}}\mathbb{R}^n$ for $a=1,\ldots,m$, such that the general solution
$x(t)$ of (\ref{SODE}) can be written as
\begin{equation}\label{SupSODE}
x(t)=\Upsilon\left(x_{(1)}(t),\frac{dx_{(1)}}{dt}(t),\ldots,x_{(m)}(t),\frac{dx_{(m)}}{dt}(t);k_1,\ldots,k_{2n}\right),
\end{equation}
with $x_{(1)}(t),\ldots,x_{(m)}(t)$ being any generic family of $m$ particular solutions of the system, and
$k_1,\ldots,k_{2n}$ being a set of constants related to the initial conditions of each particular solution.
\end{definition}
As every constant of motion involved in a quasi-base superposition rule can be considered as a function on
${\rm T}\mathbb{R}^{mn}$, quasi-base superposition rules can be easily regarded as a particular type of
superposition rules for SODEs. Base-superposition rules can also be regarded as
superposition rules that depend only on the base variables of ${\rm T}\mathbb{R}^{nm}$ that justifies
their name.
Let us now turn to analysing several properties of superposition rules for systems of SODEs. Similarly to
superposition rules for systems of first-order differential equations, expression (\ref{SupSODE}) cannot be
applied for each family of $m$ particular solutions. Recall that even in the simple case of a homogeneous linear
system of SODEs, expression (\ref{linearSup}) just remains valid for certain families of particular solutions.
Consequently, in order to establish when a system (\ref{SODE}) admits a superposition rule, it is essential to
establish what `generic' means in this new context. From now on, we say that (\ref{SupSODE}) is satisfied by a
generic set of $m$ particular solutions if there exists an open and dense subset $U$ of $({\rm
T}\mathbb{R}^{n})^m$ such that expression (\ref{SupSODE}) is valid for every family
$x_{(1)}(t),\ldots,x_{(m)}(t)$ that satisfies
$$
\left(x_{(1)}(0),\frac{dx_{(1)}}{dt}(0),\ldots,x_{(m)}(0),\frac{dx_{(m)}}{dt}(0)\right)\in U\subset ({\rm
T}\mathbb{R}^n)^m.
$$
Every family of particular solutions satisfying the above condition is called a {\it fundamental system} of
particular solutions of system (\ref{SODE}).
Superposition rules for systems of SODEs possess properties different from those of superposition rules for systems of
first-order ones. Let us illustrate this fact by means of a particular remarkable difference. Consider again
(\ref{LieSystem}) as a Lie system admitting superposition rule (\ref{superposition}). A time-reparametrisation
$\tau=\tau(t)$, with the inverse $t=t(\tau)$, transforms this system into
\begin{equation}\label{transf}
\frac{dx^i}{d\tau}=\frac{dt}{d\tau}F^i(t(\tau),x),\qquad i=1,\ldots,n.
\end{equation}
As we assume (\ref{LieSystem}) to be a Lie system, formula (\ref{LieDecom}) applies and the right-hand term
of the above expression can be brought into the form
\begin{equation}\label{De2}
\frac{dx^i}{d\tau}=\frac{dt}{d\tau}\left(Z_1(t(\tau))\xi^i_1(x)+\ldots+Z_r(t(\tau))\xi^i_r(x)\right),\qquad
i=1,\ldots,n.
\end{equation}
Consequently, in view of the Lie--Scheffers theorem, the system (\ref{transf}) becomes a Lie system. Moreover, as the
general solution $x(t)$ of (\ref{LieSystem}) and the general solution $x(\tau)$ of (\ref{transf}) satisfy
$x(t(\tau))=x(\tau)$, then the superposition rule (\ref{superposition}) for (\ref{LieSystem}) allows one to
write
$$
x(\tau)=\Phi(x_{(1)}(\tau),\ldots,x_{(m)}(\tau);k_1,\ldots,k_n),
$$
in terms of a generic family $x_{(1)}(\tau),\ldots,x_{(m)}(\tau)$ of particular solutions of system (\ref{transf})
and $k_1,\ldots,k_n$. In summary, Lie's characterization of systems of first-order ordinary differential
equations admitting a superposition rule is invariant under time-reparametrisations and Lie systems related in
this way share a common superposition rule. Indeed, note that this follows trivially from the form of
(\ref{De2}) and Proposition \ref{CSR}.
The above property is no longer valid for superposition rules of systems of SODEs. Given a system of SODEs
admitting a superposition rule, the systems obtained from it by time-reparametrisations do not necessarily
possess the same superposition rule. For instance, consider a system of SODEs (\ref{SODE}) admitting a
superposition rule (\ref{SupSODE}). A time-reparametrisation $\tau=\tau(t)$, with the inverse $t=t(\tau)$,
transforms (\ref{SODE}) into
\begin{equation}\label{transfSecOrd}
\frac{d^2x^i}{d\tau^2}=\frac{d^2t}{d\tau^2}\frac{dx^i}{d\tau}\frac{d\tau}{dt}+
\left(\frac{dt}{d\tau}\right)^2F^i\left(t(\tau),x,\frac{dx}{d\tau}\frac{d\tau}{dt}\right),\quad
i=1,\ldots,n,
\end{equation}
whose general solution $x(\tau)$ satisfies $x(\tau)=x(t(\tau))$, where $x(t)$ is the general solution of
(\ref{SODE}). Hence, from the superposition rule (\ref{SupSODE}), we get that $x(\tau)$ can be expressed as
$$
x(\tau)=\Upsilon\left(x_{(1)}(\tau),\frac{d\tau}{dt}(t(\tau))\frac{dx_{(1)}}{d\tau}(\tau),
\ldots,x_{(m)}(\tau),\frac{d\tau}{dt}(t(\tau))\frac{dx_{(m)}}{d\tau}(\tau);k_1,\ldots,k_{2n}\right).
$$
The above expression is not necessarily a superposition rule, as it may admit an explicit dependence on the
new time variable $\tau$. A simple example illustrating this fact can be found in Section \ref{Examples}.
Obviously, we could have also required the superposition rule concept for systems of SODEs to be invariant
under time-reparametrisations, but this would exclude several important examples like second-order Riccati or
Milne--Pinney equations \cite{CL10SecOrd2, SIGMA}.
\section{On the existence of superposition rules for SODEs}\label{TheorySODE}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
The following theorem characterizes systems of SODEs admitting a superposition rule. We hereafter use canonical
global coordinates $(x^1,\ldots,x^n,v^1,\ldots,v^n)$ on ${\rm T}\mathbb{R}^n$. By defining this coordinate
system on each copy of ${\rm T}\mathbb{R}^n$ within $({\rm T}\mathbb{R}^n)^m$, we obtain a coordinate system
$\{x^i_{(a)},v^i_{(a)}\,|\,i=1,\ldots,n,\,\,a=1,\ldots,m\}$ on $({\rm T}\mathbb{R}^n)^m$.
\begin{theorem}\label{MT}A mapping $\Upsilon:({\rm T}\mathbb{R}^n)^m\times\mathbb{R}^{2n}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^n$
is a superposition rule for a system of SODEs (\ref{SODE}) if and only if
\begin{enumerate}
\item the functions $u_k:({\rm T}\mathbb{R}^n)^m\ni p\mapsto u_k(p)=\Upsilon(p;k)\in\mathbb{R}^n$, with $k\in\mathbb{R}^{2n}$,
are common solutions for the $t$-parametrized family of systems of PDEs on $({\rm T}\mathbb{R}^n)^m$ given by
\begin{equation}\label{Char}
\qquad (X^{(m)}_D)_t^2u^i_k+(X^{(m)}_L)_tu^i_k=F^i(t,u_k,(X^{(m)}_D)_tu_k),\qquad i=1,\ldots,n,
\end{equation}
where $u_k=(u_k^1,\ldots,u_k^n)\in\mathbb{R}^n$ and $X^{(m)}_D, X^{(m)}_L$ are the diagonal prolongations to
$({\rm T}\mathbb{R}^n)^m$ of the time-dependent vector fields
\begin{equation}\label{DefVec}
\qquad X_D=\sum_{i=1}^n\left(v^i\frac{\partial}{\partial {x^i}}+F^{i}(t,x,v)\frac{\partial}{\partial
{v^{i}}}\right),\,\,\,\, X_L=\sum_{i=1}^n\partial_tF^i(t,x,v)\frac{\partial}{\partial v^i}\,
\end{equation}
and
\item the map $\varphi:({\rm T}\mathbb{R}^n)^m\times\mathbb{R}^{2n}\rightarrow{\rm T}\mathbb{R}^n$ of the form
\begin{equation}\label{Fun}
\varphi(p;k)=(u_k(p),[(X_D^{(m)})_0u_k](p))\in {\rm T}_{u_k(p)}\mathbb{R}^n
\end{equation}
gives rise to a family of bijections $\varphi_p:k\in\mathbb{R}^{2n}\mapsto \varphi(p;k)\in{\rm
T}\mathbb{R}^{n}$, with $p$ being a generic point of $({\rm T}\mathbb{R}^n)^m$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} Assume that the SODE Lie system (\ref{SODE}) has a superposition rule (\ref{superposition}).
One can define the function $u_k:p\in({\rm T}\mathbb{R}^n)^m\mapsto \Upsilon(p;k)\in \mathbb{R}^n$,
for each $k\in\mathbb{R}^{2n}$, which leads, for every fundamental system of solutions $x_{(1)}(t),\ldots,x_{(m)}(t)$
of (\ref{SODE}), to a new particular solution of this system,
\begin{equation}\label{NewSol}
\bar x(t)=u_k\left(x_{(1)}(t),\frac{dx_{(1)}}{dt}(t),\ldots,x_{(m)}(t),\frac{dx_{(m)}}{dt}(t)\right).
\end{equation}
On the other hand,
\begin{equation}\label{eq0}
\frac{d\bar{x}^i}{dt}(t)=\sum_{a=1}^m\sum_{j=1}^n\left(v^j_{(a)}\frac{\partial
u_k^i}{\partial{x^j_{(a)}}}+F^j_{(a)}\frac{\partial u_k^i}{\partial {v^j_{(a)}}}\right)(p(t)),\qquad
i=1,\ldots,n,
\end{equation}
where, for shortening the notation, we have denoted $F_{(a)}^j=F^j(t,x_{(a)},v_{(a)})$ and
\begin{equation}\label{Setting}
p(t)=\left(x_{(1)}(t),\frac{dx_{(1)}}{dt}(t),\ldots,x_{(m)}(t),\frac{dx_{(m)}}{dt}(t)\right).
\end{equation}
From the expression of $X_D$ given in (\ref{DefVec}), it follows
\begin{equation}\label{eq1}
\frac{d\bar{x}^i}{dt}(t)=[(X^{(m)}_D)_tu^i_k](p(t)),\qquad i=1,\ldots,n.
\end{equation}
By differentiating expression (\ref{eq0}) with respect to the time, we obtain
\begin{eqnarray*}
\!\!\!\! \!\frac{d^2\bar{x}^i}{dt^2}(t)=\left[\sum_{j,l=1}^n\sum_{a,b=1}^m\left(v^j_{(a)}v^l_{(b)}\frac{\partial^2
u^i_k}{\partial {x^j_{(a)}\partial x^l_{(b)}}}+2v^j_{(a)}F^l_{(b)}\frac{\partial^2u^i_k}{\partial
x^j_{(a)}\partial v^l_{(b)}}+F^j_{(a)}F^l_{(b)}\frac{\partial^2 u^i_k}{\partial v^j_{(a)}\partial v^l_{(b)}
}\right)\right.\\
\!\!\!\! \! \left. +\sum_{a=1}^m\sum_{j=1}^n\left(F^j_{(a)}\frac{\partial u^i_k}{\partial
x^j_{(a)}}+\frac{\partial F^j_{(a)}}{\partial t}\frac{\partial u^i_k}{\partial
v^j_{(a)}}\right)+\sum_{a=1}^m\sum_{j,l=1}^n\left(v^l_{(a)}\frac{\partial
F^j_{(a)}}{\partial{x^l_{(a)}}}+F^l_{(a)}\frac{\partial F^j_{(a)}}{\partial{v^l_{(a)}}}\right)\frac{\partial
u^i_k}{\partial v^j_{(a)}}\right](p(t)).
\end{eqnarray*}
If we compare the above expression with
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}(X_D^{(m)})_t^2u_k^i=\sum_{j,l=1}^n\sum_{a,b=1}^m\left(v^j_{(a)}\frac{\partial}{\partial {x^j_{(a)}}}+
F^{j}_{(a)}\frac{\partial}{\partial {v^{j}}_{(a)}}\right)\left(v^l_{(b)}\frac{\partial}{\partial {x^l_{(b)}}}+
F^{l}_{(b)}\frac{\partial}{\partial {v^{l}}_{(b)}}\right)u^i_k\\
\,\,\qquad\qquad=\sum_{j,l=1}^n\sum_{a,b=1}^m\left(v^j_{(a)}v^l_{(b)}\frac{\partial^2u^i_k}{\partial x^j_{(a)}\partial
x^l_{(b)}}+2v^j_{(a)}F^l_{(b)}\frac{\partial^2 u^i_k}{\partial x^j_{(a)}\partial
v^l_{(b)}}+F^j_{(a)}F^l_{(b)}\frac{\partial^2u^i_k}{\partial v^j_{(a)}\partial
v^l_{(b)}}\right)
\\\qquad\qquad\,\,\qquad\qquad+\sum_{a=1}^m\sum_{j=1}^nF^j_{(a)}\frac{\partial u^i_k}{\partial
x^{j}_{(a)}}+ \sum_{a=1}^m\sum_{j,l=1}^n\left(v^j_{(a)}\frac{\partial F^{l}_{(a)}}{\partial {x^j_{(a)}}
}+F^j_{(a)}\frac{\partial F^{l}_{(a)}}{\partial {v^j_{(a)}}}\right)\frac{\partial u^i_k}{\partial
v^{l}_{(a)}}\,,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{eq2}
\frac{d^2\bar{x}^i}{dt^2}(t)=((X_D^{(m)})_t^2u_k^i+(X_L^{(m)})_tu_k^i)(p(t)),\qquad i=1,\ldots,n.
\end{equation}
As $\bar x(t)$ is a solution of system (\ref{SODE}), and in view of expressions (\ref{eq1}) and (\ref{eq2}), it
turns out that
\begin{equation}\label{QuasiEq}
((X_D^{(m)})_t^2u_k^i+(X_L^{(m)})_tu_k^i)(p(t))=F^i\left(t,u_k(p(t)),((X_D^{(m)})_tu_k)(p(t))\right).
\end{equation}
Now, equation (\ref{QuasiEq}) holds for every fundamental system. This implies that, for each
$t\in\mathbb{R}$, the above equation remains valid for a generic open and dense subset of $({\rm
T}\mathbb{R}^n)^m$. Hence,
$$
(X_D^{(m)})_t^2u^i_k+(X_L^{(m)})_tu^i_k=F^i\left(t,u_k,(X_D^{(m)})_tu_k\right),\qquad i=1,\ldots,n,
$$
for every $t\in\mathbb{R}$. Additionally, as the above procedure is still valid for every
$k\in\mathbb{R}^{2n}$, every superposition rule provides us with a family of $2n$-parametrized solutions
$u_k(\cdot)=\Upsilon(\cdot;k)$ of the $t$-parametrized family of systems of PDEs (\ref{Char}).
Consider now a fundamental system $x_{(1)}(t),\ldots,x_{(m)}(t)$ and denote $p=p(0)$. For an arbitrary
$(x_0,v_0)\in {\rm T}_{x_0}\mathbb{R}^n$, the theorem of the existence and uniqueness of solutions for systems of
first-order differential equations shows that there exists a solution $x(t)$ of system (\ref{SODE}) with
initial conditions $x(0)=x_0$ and $dx/dt(0)=v_0$. In view of the properties of superposition rules, there
exists a single $k\in\mathbb{R}^{2n}$ such that $x(t)=\Upsilon\left(p(t);k\right)=u_k\left(p(t)\right)$.
Consequently, in view of expression (\ref{eq1}), one has
\begin{equation*}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}x^i_0&=u^i_k(p), \cr v^i_0&=\frac{du_k^i(p(t))}{dt}\bigg|_{t=0}=[(X_D^{(m)})_0u_k^i](p),\end{aligned} \qquad i=1,\ldots,n.\right.
\end{equation*}
In other words, for a generic $p\in({\rm T}\mathbb{R}^n)^m$, there exists a single $k\in\mathbb{R}^{2n}$ such
that $\varphi(p,k)=(x_0,v_0)$. It follows that $\varphi_p$ is a bijection that concludes the
``if'' part of our demonstration.
Let us now prove that a map $\Upsilon:({\rm T}\mathbb{R}^n)^m\times\mathbb{R}^{2n}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^n$
satisfying conditions $(i)$ and $(ii)$ is a superposition rule for (\ref{SODE}). Consider any solution $x(t)$
of (\ref{SODE}). Given a generic family of $m$ particular solutions $x_{(1)}(t),\ldots,x_{(m)}(t)$ of
(\ref{SODE}), condition $(ii)$ ensures that there exists a unique $k\in\mathbb{R}^{2n}$ such that
$\varphi(p(0),k)=\left(x(0),dx/dt(0)\right)$, where we took again $p(t)$ to be of the form (\ref{Setting}). In
view of condition $(i)$, the function $u_k(\cdot)=\Upsilon(\cdot;k)$ is a solution for the family of systems
of PDEs (\ref{Char}). Defining now $\bar x(t)=u_k(p(t))$ and using that expressions (\ref{eq1}) and
(\ref{eq2}) are valid again, we get
\begin{equation}\label{SinSol}
\frac{d^2\bar{x}^i}{dt^2}(t)=F^i\left(t,\bar x(t),\frac{d\bar x}{dt}(t)\right),\qquad i=1,\ldots,n.
\end{equation}
That is, $\bar x(t)$ is a solution to (\ref{SODE}). Moreover, in view of condition $(ii)$ and formula
(\ref{eq1}), $\bar x(0)=x(0)$ and $d\bar x/dt(0)=dx/dt(0)$. Consequently, $\bar x(t)$ and $x(t)$ are both
solutions of (\ref{SODE}) with the same initial conditions and they hence coincide. In summary, for every
solution $x(t)$ of system (\ref{SODE}) and a generic family of $m$ particular solutions, there exists a unique
$k\in\mathbb{R}^{2n}$ such that $x(t)=\Upsilon(p(t);k)$, so $\Upsilon$ is a superposition rule.
\end{proof}
Roughly speaking, Theorem \ref{MT} states that the existence of a superposition rule for a system of SODEs
(\ref{SODE}) is determined by the existence of an `appropriate' $2n$-parametric family of particular solutions
of the family of systems of PDEs (\ref{Char}). The interest of this result is obvious: it characterizes not
only the existence of superposition rules for systems of SODEs, but also provides us with a tool, namely the
family of systems (\ref{Char}), to determine them.
\begin{Note} Note that $X_D$ and $X_L$ are properly defined $t$-dependent vector fields over $({\rm T}\mathbb{R}^{n})^m$
and they maintain the form (\ref{DefVec}) for every coordinate system on $({\rm T}\mathbb{R}^n)^m$ induced by a coordinate system on $\mathbb{R}^n$.
\end{Note}
\begin{Note} Denote by $S_{ij}$ a permutation of variables $x_{(i)}\leftrightarrow x_{(j)}$, with $i,j=1,\ldots,m$.
As (\ref{Char}) and (\ref{Fun}) are invariant under such permutations, it can be easily inferred that, if $\Upsilon$
is a superposition rule for (\ref{SODE}), then $S_{ij}\Upsilon$ is also, which provides an analogue for systems of SODEs
of a known result about standard superposition rules \cite{CGM07}.
\end{Note}
Apart from the main result of Theorem \ref{MT}, a careful analysis of its proof suggests us new types of
superposition rules for systems of SODEs generalising previous notions used in the study of first-order
differential equations \cite{CGM07,In72}. Indeed, given a particular solution of the family of systems of PDEs
(\ref{Char}) and a family of particular solutions $x_{(1)}(t),\ldots,x_{(m)}(t)$ of system (\ref{SODE}), we
can define
$$
\bar x(t)=u_k\left(x_{(1)}(t),\frac{dx_{(1)}}{dt}(t),\ldots,x_{(m)}(t),\frac{dx_{(m)}}{dt}(t)\right).
$$
The above expression has the same form as (\ref{NewSol}). Following the calculations carried out in the ``if''
part of Theorem \ref{MT}, we obtain that the first and the second derivative of the above curve satisfy relations
(\ref{eq1}) and (\ref{eq2}). From here, as $u_k$ is a solution of (\ref{Char}), it follows that $\bar x(t)$ is
a new solution of (\ref{SODE}). In other words, a particular solution of the systems of PDEs (\ref{Char})
allows us to generate new solutions of system (\ref{SODE}) from any set of $m$ particular solutions for this
same system. This fact enables us to define a new type of superposition rule for systems of SODEs as follows.
\begin{definition} A {\it partial superposition rule} for a system of SODEs (\ref{SODE})
is a mapping $\mathcal{P}:({\rm T}\mathbb{R}^n)^m\times\mathbb{R}^{p}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^n$, with $p<2n$, such that
\begin{itemize}
\item For a generic set $x_{(1)}(t),\ldots,x_{(m)}(t)$ of particular solutions of system (\ref{SODE}),
$$
\bar
x(t)=\mathcal{P}\left(x_{(1)}(t),\frac{dx_{(1)}}{dt}(t),\ldots,x_{(m)}(t),\frac{dx_{(m)}}{dt}(t);k_1,\ldots,k_p\right)
$$
is a new solution of (\ref{SODE}).
\item For a generic $p\in ({\rm T}\mathbb{R}^n)^m$, the map $\mathcal{P}_p:\bar k\in\mathbb{R}^{p}\mapsto \mathcal{P}(p;\bar k)\in\mathbb{R}^n$
is an immersion.
\end{itemize}
\end{definition}
Obviously, for every fixed $\bar k=(k_1,\ldots,k_p)$, the map $u_{\bar k}(\cdot)=\mathcal{P}(\,\cdot\,;\bar
k)$ is a solution of the system (\ref{Char}). In view of this, it is easy to generalize Theorem \ref{MT} in
order to characterize systems of SODEs admitting partial superposition rules. Moreover, the above notion
extends to systems of SODEs the notion of partial superposition rule for systems of first-order differential
equations defined in \cite{CGM07}.
Let us now illustrate how the above results and definitions work. Consider the SODE
\begin{equation}\label{lesssimple}
\frac{d^2x}{dt^2}=t^2
\end{equation}
and look for a superposition rule depending on a single particular solution. Following the terminology used in
Theorem \ref{MT}, we have $m=1$ (one particular solution) and $n=1$ (system defined on $\mathbb{R}$).
Consequently, the corresponding family of systems of PDEs (\ref{Char}) reads
\begin{equation}\label{fam2}
v^2\frac{\partial^2 u}{\partial x_{(1)}^2}+2v_{(1)}t^2\frac{\partial^2 u}{\partial x_{(1)}\partial
v_{(1)}}+t^4\frac{\partial^2 u}{\partial v_{(1)}^2}+t^2\frac{\partial u} {\partial x_{(1)}}+2t \frac{\partial
u}{\partial v_{(1)}}=t^2,
\end{equation}
whose common solutions, which do not depend on $t$, are solutions of the system
$$
\frac{\partial^2 u}{\partial v_{(1)}^2}=0,\qquad \frac{\partial u}{\partial v_{(1)}}=0,\qquad
2v_{(1)}\frac{\partial^2 u}{\partial x_{(1)}\partial v_{(1)}}+\frac{\partial u} {\partial x_{(1)}}=1,\qquad
\frac{\partial ^2u}{\partial x_{(1)}^2}=0.
$$
The solutions of the above system are of the form $u=x_{(1)}+k_1$, with $k_1$ being an arbitrary constant.
Obviously, the family of systems (\ref{fam2}) does not give rise to a two parametric family of solutions and
(\ref{lesssimple}) does not admit any superposition rule in terms of one particular solution. Nevertheless, it
is interesting to point out that the solutions $u=x_{(1)}+k_1$ exemplify that, for every particular solution
$x_{(1)}(t)$ of (\ref{fam2}), the new function $u(x_{(1)}(t))=x_{(1)}(t)+k_1$ is a new solution of the system
that gives rise to a partial superposition rule $\mathcal{P}:(x_{(1)},v_{(1)};k_1)\in{\rm
T}\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}\mapsto x_{(1)}+k_1\in\mathbb{R}$ for equation (\ref{lesssimple}).
Let us now turn to determining all possible superposition rules for (\ref{lesssimple}) involving two particular
solutions. So, we have $m=2,$ $n=1$, and the family (\ref{Char}) reads
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}\sum_{a,b=1}^2\!\left(v_{(a)}v_{(b)}\frac{\partial^2 u}{\partial x_{(a)}\partial
x_{(b)}}\!+2v_{(a)}t^2\frac{\partial^2 u}{\partial x_{(a)}\partial v_{(b)}}\!+t^4\frac{\partial^2 u}{\partial
v_{(a)}\partial v_{(b)} }\right)\!+\!\sum_{a=1}^2\!\left(t^2\frac{\partial u}{\partial x_{(a)}}\!+\!2t\frac{\partial
u}{\partial v_{(a)}}\!\right)\!=\!t^2.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
Proceeding as before, we obtain that solutions of this $t$-parametrized family of PDEs are solutions of the
system
\begin{eqnarray*}
\sum_{a=1}^2\frac{\partial
u}{\partial v_{(a)}}=0,\quad \sum_{a,b=1}^2\frac{\partial^2 u}{\partial v_{(a)}\partial
v_{(b)}}=0, \quad \sum_{a,b=1}^2v_{(a)}v_{(b)}\frac{\partial^2 u}{\partial x_{(a)}\partial
x_{(b)}}=0,\\ \sum_{a,b=1}^22v_{(a)}\frac{\partial^2 u}{\partial x_{(a)}\partial v_{(b)}}+\sum_{a=1}^2\frac{\partial u}{\partial x_{(a)}}=1.
\end{eqnarray*}
Plugging the first equation of the above system into the others, we obtain that the above system is equivalent
to
\begin{equation*}
\frac{\partial u}{\partial v_{(1)}}=-\frac{\partial u}{\partial v_{(2)}},\quad \frac{\partial u}{\partial
x_{(1)}}=1-\frac{\partial u}{\partial x_{(2)}},\quad (v_{(1)}-v_{(2)})^2\frac{\partial^2 u}{\partial
x_{(1)}\partial x_{(2)}}=0,
\end{equation*}
whose solutions take the form $u=(x_{(1)}-x_{(2)})f_1+x_{(1)}+f_2$,
with $f_1$ and $f_2$ being two arbitrary functions depending on $v_{(1)}-v_{(2)}$. Now, by choosing
appropriate one-parametric families of solutions of the above form, we can get partial superposition rules.
For example, setting $f_1=k$ and $f_2=0$, with $k\in\mathbb{R}$, we obtain the family of solutions
$u_k=(x_{(1)}-x_{(2)})k+x_{(1)}$ which results in the partial superposition rule
$\mathcal{P}(x_{(1)},x_{(2)};k)=(x_{(1)}-x_{(2)})k+x_{(1)}$, which generates new particular solutions out of two
known ones and one constant. Moreover, Theorem \ref{MT} shows that the determination of a superposition rule
for system (\ref{lesssimple}) amounts us to obtaining a two-parametric family of solutions $u_{(k_1,k_2)}$ of the
above form such that condition $(ii)$ of Theorem \ref{MT} holds. This can be done in several ways. For
instance, by setting $f_1=k_1$ and $f_2=k_2$, with $k_1,k_2\in\mathbb{R}$, we obtain the superposition rule
$$
\Upsilon(x_1,v_1,x_2,v_2;k_1,k_2)=u_{(k_1,k_2)}(x_{(1)},x_{(2)})=k_1(x_{(1)}-x_{(2)})+x_{(1)}+k_2,
$$
and if we choose $f_1=k_1(v_{(1)}-v_{(2)})$ and $f_2=k_2(v_{(1)}-v_{(2)})$, we arrive to
$$
\Upsilon(x_1,v_1,x_2,v_2;k_1,k_2)=u_{(k_1,k_2)}(x_{(1)},x_{(2)})=k_1(v_{(1)}-v_{(2)})(x_{(1)}-x_{(2)})+x_{(1)}+k_2(v_{(1)}-v_{(2)}).
$$
Using our methods, we can easily derive the results of Table \ref{tab:template}. Special attention must be
paid to the second example, illustrating that partial superposition rules may exist when superposition rules
depending on the same number of particular solutions do not. In addition, this particular example is not a
SODE Lie system (see definition in the next section), which was almost the only tool to study superposition rules
for systems of SODEs so far.
\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{| c | c | c | }
\hline
SODE & Superposition rule & Partial superposition rule\\[.05in] \hline
$ \frac{d^2x}{dt^2}=0$ & $v_{(1)}(k_1x_{(1)}+k_2)$ & $x_{(1)}+k_1$ \\[.05in] \hline
$\frac{d^2x}{dt^2}=t\left(\frac{dx}{dt}\right)^2$ & nonexistent& $x_{(1)}+k_1$ \\[.05in] \hline
$\frac{d^2x}{dt^2}=t^2\frac{dx}{dt}$ & $k_1x_{(1)}+k_2$ & $k_1x_{(1)}$ \\[.05in] \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Superposition and partial superposition rules depending on a particular solution.} \label{tab:template}
\end{table}
Theorem \ref{MT} characterizes systems of SODEs possessing a base-superposition rule as follows.
\begin{corollary} A mapping $\Upsilon:(\mathbb{R}^n)^m\times\mathbb{R}^{2n}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^n$ is a
base-superposition rule for a system of SODEs (\ref{SODE}) if and only if the following two conditions hold:
\begin{enumerate}
\item The functions $u_k:p\in\mathbb{R}^{nm}\mapsto u_k(p)=\Upsilon(p;k)\in\mathbb{R}^n$, with $k\in\mathbb{R}^{2n}$,
are solutions of the $t$-parametrized family of systems of PDEs on $({\rm T}\mathbb{R}^n)^m$ given by
\begin{equation*}
({X}^{(m)}_1)_t^2u^i_k+(X^{(m)}_2)_tu^i_k=F^i(t,u,(X^{(m)}_1)_tu_k),\qquad i=1,\ldots,n,
\end{equation*}
where $X^{(m)}_1, X^{(m)}_2$ are the diagonal prolongations to $({\rm T}\mathbb{R}^n)^m$ of the time-dependent
vector fields
$$
X_1=\sum_{i=1}^nv^i\frac{\partial}{\partial x^i}, \qquad X_2=\sum_{i=1}^nF^i(t,x,v)\frac{\partial}{\partial
x^i}.
$$
\item The map $\varphi:({\rm T}\mathbb{R}^n)^m\times\mathbb{R}^{2n}\rightarrow{\rm T}\mathbb{R}^n$ of the form
$$
\varphi(p;k)=(u_k(p),[(X_1^{(m)})_0u_k](p))\in {\rm T}_{u_k(p)}\mathbb{R}^n
$$
gives rise to a family of bijections $\varphi_p:k\in\mathbb{R}^{2n}\mapsto \varphi(p;k)\in{\rm
T}\mathbb{R}^{n}$, with $p$ being a generic point of $({\rm T}\mathbb{R}^n)^m$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{corollary}
\section{Superposition rules and SODE Lie systems}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
Recently, the theory of Lie systems was employed to obtain a few results about superposition rules for systems
of SODEs \cite{RSW97}--\cite{SIGMA}. All these achievements were based on the notion of a {\it SODE Lie system}.
We now describe this concept and provide several new results about the use of Lie systems to analyse
different types of superposition rules for systems of SODEs.
\begin{definition}\label{DefiSODE} A system of second-order ordinary differential equations (\ref{SODE})
is a {\it SODE Lie system} if the first-order system
\begin{equation}\label{FirstOrd}
\left\{\begin{aligned}\frac{dx^i}{dt}&=v^i,\cr
\frac{dv^i}{dt}&=F^i(t,x,v),\end{aligned}\right. \qquad i=1,\ldots,n,
\end{equation}
obtained from (\ref{SODE}) by adding the variables $v^i\equiv dx^i/dt$, $i=1,\ldots,n$, is a Lie
system.
\end{definition}
The Lie--Scheffers theorem is an effective tool to determine whether a system (\ref{SODE}) is a SODE Lie system or not.
Nevertheless, this method is based on analysing properties of the time-dependent vector field associated with
the corresponding system (\ref{FirstOrd}) and it does not provide any straightforward information about the
superposition rules for these systems. In order to overcome this drawback, we provide the following
characterization of SODE Lie systems in terms of properties of superposition rules.
\begin{proposition}\label{SODEsSup} A system of SODEs (\ref{SODE}) is a SODE Lie system if and only if it admits
a superposition rule $\Upsilon:({\rm T}\mathbb{R}^n)^m\times\mathbb{R}^{2n}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^n$ such that $X_L^{(m)}\Upsilon=0$,
where $X_L$ is given by (\ref{DefVec}).
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Consider a second-order system of the form (\ref{SODE}) admitting a superposition rule (\ref{SupSODE1}). The
general solution $x(t)$ of this system can be put in the form (\ref{SupSODE}). Differentiating this expression
with respect to the time, we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{ex1}
\frac{dx^i}{dt}(t)=\sum_{a=1}^m\sum_{j=1}^n\frac{dx^j_{(a)}}{dt}(t)\frac{\partial\Upsilon^i}{\partial
x^j_{(a)}}(p(t))+\sum_{a=1}^m\sum_{j=1}^nF^j\left(t,x_{(a)}(t),\frac{dx_{(a)}}{dt}(t)\right)\frac{\partial\Upsilon^i}{\partial
v^j_{(a)}}(p(t)),
\end{equation}
where $i=1,\ldots,n$ and $p(t)$ is given by (\ref{Setting}). Therefore, by defining
\begin{equation}\label{ex4}
\widehat\Upsilon^i(t,x_{(1)},v_{(1)},\ldots,x_{(m)},v_{(m)})=\sum_{a=1}^m\sum_{j=1}^nv^j_{(a)}\frac{\partial\Upsilon^i}{\partial
x^j_{(a)}}+\sum_{a=1}^m\sum_{j=1}^nF^j\left(t,x_{(a)},v_{(a)}\right)\frac{\partial\Upsilon^i}{\partial
v^j_{(a)}},
\end{equation}
expressions (\ref{SupSODE}) and (\ref{ex1}) can be brought into the form
\begin{equation}\label{sys}
\left\{\begin{aligned}x^i(t)&=\Upsilon^i\left(x_{(1)}(t),\frac{dx_{(1)}}{dt}(t),\ldots,x_{(m)}(t),\frac{dx_{(m)}}{dt}(t);k_1,\ldots,k_{2n}\right),\cr
\frac{dx^i}{dt}(t)&=\widehat\Upsilon^i\left(t,x_{(1)}(t),\frac{dx_{(1)}}{dt}(t),\ldots,x_{(m)}(t),\frac{dx_{(m)}}{dt}(t);k_1,\ldots,k_{2n}\right),\end{aligned}\right.\,\, i=1,\ldots,n.
\end{equation}
Taking into account that the general solution $(x(t),v(t))$ of the first-order system (\ref{FirstOrd}) is
obtained by adding the variables $v^i=dx^i/dt$ to system (\ref{SODE}), we see that expressions (\ref{sys})
define a map $\bar\Phi:(t,p;k)\in\mathbb{R}\times ({\rm T}\mathbb{R}^n)^m\times\mathbb{R}^{2n}\mapsto
(\Upsilon(p;k),\widehat\Upsilon(t,p;k))\in {\rm T}\mathbb{R}^n$ which allows us to write the general solution
of this first-order system in terms of a generic set of particular solutions $(x_{(a)}(t),v_{(a)}(t))$, with
$a=1,\ldots,m$. In view of expression (\ref{ex4}),
$$
\frac{\partial \widehat{\Upsilon}^i}{\partial
t}(t,x_{(1)},v_{(1)},\ldots,x_{(m)},v_{(m)})=\sum_{a=1}^m\sum_{j=1}^n\frac{\partial F^j}{\partial
t}\left(t,x_{(a)},v_{(a)}\right)\frac{\partial\Upsilon^i}{\partial v^j_{(a)}}=X^{(m)}_L\Upsilon^i.
$$
Therefore, if $X^{(m)}_L\Upsilon=0$, the mapping $\widehat\Upsilon$ and, in consequence, $\bar\Phi$ are
time-independent. This shows that the function $\bar \Phi$ is a superposition rule for system
(\ref{FirstOrd}), which is therefore a Lie system. Hence, system (\ref{SODE}) is a SODE Lie system.
Let us assume now that system (\ref{SODE}) is a SODE Lie system, i.e. the first-order system (\ref{FirstOrd})
is a Lie system and there exists a superposition rule $\Phi:(p;k)\in{\rm
T}\mathbb{R}^{nm}\times\mathbb{R}^{2n}\mapsto (\Upsilon(p;k),{\Phi}_v(p;k))\in{\rm T}\mathbb{R}^n$ such that
its general solution $(x(t),v(t))$ can be written as
\begin{equation*}
\left\{\begin{aligned}x(t)=\Upsilon(x_{(1)}(t),v_{(1)}(t),\ldots,x_{(m)}(t),v_{(m)}(t);k_1,\ldots,k_{2n}),\cr
v(t)={\Phi}_v(x_{(1)}(t),v_{(1)}(t),\ldots,x_{(m)}(t),v_{(m)}(t);k_1,\ldots,k_{2n}),\end{aligned}\right.
\end{equation*}
where $(x_{(a)}(t),v_{(a)}(t))$, with $a=1,\ldots,m$, is a generic family of particular solutions of system
(\ref{FirstOrd}). Since $dx_{(a)}(t)/dt=v_{(a)}(t)$, the function $\Upsilon:{\rm
T}\mathbb{R}^{nm}\times\mathbb{R}^{2n}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^n$ enables us to write the general solution $x(t)$
of system (\ref{SODE}) in the form
$$
x(t)=\Upsilon\left(x_{(1)}(t),\frac{dx_{(1)}}{dt}(t),\ldots,x_{(m)}(t),\frac{dx_{(m)}}{dt}(t);k_1,\ldots,k_{2n}\right),\\
$$
i.e. in terms of a generic family of its particular solutions $x_{(1)}(t),\ldots,x_{(m)}(t)$, their
derivatives, and a set of $2n$-constants. In other words, our system of SODEs admits a superposition rule.
Consequently, differentiating the above expression with respect to $t$, we obtain, in virtue of
(\ref{ex4}), that $\bar{\Phi}_v\left(p(t);k\right)=
\widehat\Upsilon\left(t,p(t);k\right)$ for a generic $p(t)$, which is given by (\ref{Setting}) and constructed from a family of particular solutions $x_{(1)}(t),\ldots,x_{(m)}(t)$. Hence,
$\bar{\Phi}_v\left(x_{(1)},v_{(1)},\ldots,x_{(m)},v_{(m)};k\right)=\widehat\Upsilon\left(t,x_{(1)},v_{(1)},\ldots,x_{(m)},v_{(m)};k\right)$ and
$$
\frac{\partial\bar{\Phi}^i_v}{\partial
t}\left(x_{(1)},v_{(1)},\ldots,x_{(m)},v_{(m)};k\right)=\frac{\partial\widehat{\Upsilon}^i}{\partial
t}\left(t,x_{(1)},v_{(1)},\ldots,x_{(m)},v_{(m)};k\right)=X_L^{(m)}\Upsilon^i=0,
$$
for $i=1,\ldots,n$.
\end{proof}
The above proposition improves the results of \cite{CL10SecOrd2}, where it is only stated that SODE Lie
systems admit superposition rules. Indeed, our new result also supplies additional information about such
superposition rules, namely, $X^{(m)}_L\Upsilon=0$. This property is going to be used next to retrieve easily
some previous results found in \cite{CL10SecOrd2} and various new ones.
\begin{proposition}\label{QuasiBase} Every system of SODEs (\ref{SODE}) admitting a quasi-base-superposition rule is a SODE Lie system.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Assume that system (\ref{SODE}) admits a quasi-base-superposition rule. Let us now prove that this quasi-base
superposition rule gives rise to a superposition rule for (\ref{SODE}) such that $X_L^{(m)}\Upsilon=0$, which,
in view of Proposition \ref{SODEsSup}, proves that system (\ref{SODE}) is a SODE Lie system.
The general solution $x(t)$ of (\ref{SODE}) can be cast in the form (\ref{express1}). As the functions
$I_j:{\rm T}\mathbb{R}^{nm}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$, with $j=1,\ldots,q$, are constant along the $m$-tuples
$(x_{(a)}(t),dx_{(a)}(t)/dt)$ obtained from $m$ particular solutions $x_{(a)}(t)$ of system (\ref{SODE}), i.e.
\begin{equation}\label{exp1}
I_j\left(x_{(1)}(t),\frac{dx_{(1)}}{dt}(t),\ldots,x_{(m)}(t),\frac{dx_{(m)}}{dt}(t)\right)={\rm const.,}
\end{equation}
we obtain
$$
\frac{dI_j}{dt}=\sum_{i=1}^n\sum_{a=1}^m\left[\frac{dx^i_{(a)}}{dt}(t)\frac{\partial I_j}{\partial
x^i_{(a)}}(p(t))+F^i\left(t,x_{(a)}(t),\frac{dx_{(a)}}{dt}(t)\right)\frac{\partial I_j}{\partial
v^i_{(a)}}(p(t))\right]=0,
$$
where $p(t)$ is given by expression (\ref{Setting}). The above holds for every generic family of particular
solutions. Then, $X^{(m)}_DI_j=0$, for $j=1,\ldots,q$. Substituting expression (\ref{exp1}) into
(\ref{express1}), it turns out that there exists a superposition rule $\Upsilon:({\rm
T}\mathbb{R}^n)^m\times\mathbb{R}^{2n}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{n}$ for system (\ref{SODE}) of the form
$\Upsilon\left(p;k\right)=G(x_{(1)},\ldots,x_{(m)},I_1(p),\ldots,I_{q}(p);k)$, where
$p=(x_{(1)},v_{(1)},\ldots,x_{(m)},v_{(m)})$. Indeed, in view of the definition of $\Upsilon$ and the
properties of the quasi-base-superposition rule $G$,
$$x(t)=G(x_{(1)}(t),\ldots,x_{(m)}(t),I_1(p(t)),\ldots,I_{q}(p(t));k)=\Upsilon\left(p(t);k\right),$$
where $x_{(1)}(t),\ldots,x_{(m)}(t)$ is any generic family of particular solutions of system (\ref{SODE}).
Then,
$$
X_L^{(m)}\Upsilon=\sum_{j=1}^{q}\sum_{i=1}^n\sum_{a=1}^m\frac{\partial F^i}{\partial
t}\left(t,x_{(a)},\frac{dx_{(a)}}{dt}\right)\frac{\partial I_j}{\partial v^i_{(a)}}\frac{\partial G}{\partial
I_j}=\sum_{j=1}^{q}\frac{\partial}{\partial t}(X^{(m)}_DI_j)\frac{\partial G}{\partial I_j}=0.
$$
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}\label{Free} Every system of SODEs admitting
a base-superposition rule is a SODE Lie system.
\end{corollary}
The implication of the above corollary cannot be reversed, i.e. not every SODE Lie system admits a
base-superposition rule. Indeed, the following results can be easily used to prove the existence of SODE Lie
systems admitting no base-superposition rule.
\begin{lemma}\label{CondNec} Given a system of SODEs (\ref{SODE}) admitting a base-superposition rule, the systems
\begin{equation}\label{FamSODE}
\frac{d^2x^i}{d\tau^2}=\frac{d\tau}{dt}\frac{d^2t}{d\tau^2}\frac{dx^i}{d\tau}+\left(\frac{dt}{d\tau}\right)^2F^i
\left(t(\tau),x,\frac{d\tau}{dt}\frac{dx}{d\tau}\right),\qquad
i=1,\ldots,n,
\end{equation}
with $t=t(\tau)$ being any time-reparametrisation, are SODE Lie systems admitting a common base-superposition
rule.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} A time-reparametrisation $t=t(\tau)$ maps system (\ref{SODE}) to a system of SODEs of the
form (\ref{FamSODE}) with the general solution $x(\tau)=x(t(\tau))$. If $\Upsilon:\mathbb{R}^{nm}\times\mathbb{R}^{2n}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^n$
is a base-superposition rule for (\ref{SODE}), then $
x(\tau)=\Upsilon(x_{(1)}(\tau),\ldots,x_{(m)}(\tau);k_1,\ldots,k_{2n}), $ where
$x_{(1)}(\tau),\ldots,x_{(m)}(\tau)$ is any generic family of particular solutions of (\ref{FamSODE}).
Consequently, all the second-order differential equations of the family (\ref{FamSODE}) admit a common
base-superposition rule and, according to Corollary \ref{Free}, all systems (\ref{FamSODE}) are SODE Lie
systems.
\end{proof}
Although only few SODE Lie systems admit them, base-superposition rules are the main superposition rules treated in the literature. The next proposition shows that SODE Lie systems must satisfy various restrictive
conditions to admit a base-superposition rule.
\begin{proposition}\label{IncField} Given a system of SODEs (\ref{SODE}) admitting a base-superposition rule,
the associated first-order system (\ref{FirstOrd}) is a Lie system related to a Vessiot--Guldberg Lie algebra
containing the Liouville vector field $\Delta_L$ of the tangent bundle ${\rm T}\mathbb{R}^n$ and the vector fields
\begin{equation}\label{IncFieldVec}
X^\lambda_p(x,v)=\sum_{i=1}^n \frac{d^p}{d\lambda^p} (\lambda^{2}F^i(t_1,x,\lambda^{-1} v))\frac{\partial}{\partial
v^i},\qquad \qquad p=1,2,\ldots,
\end{equation}
where $t_1\in\mathbb{R}$ and $\lambda\in\mathbb{R}^\times=\mathbb{R}-\{0\}$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof} In view of Lemma \ref{CondNec}, time-reparametrisations $\tau=\tau(t)$, with inverses $t=t(\tau)$,
transform system (\ref{SODE}) into the family of SODE Lie systems (\ref{FamSODE}), whose associated first-order systems
\begin{equation*}
\left\{\begin{aligned}\frac{dx^i}{d\tau}&=v^i,\\
\frac{dv^i}{d\tau}&=\frac{d\tau}{dt}\frac{d^2t}{d\tau^2}v^i+\left(\frac{dt}{d\tau}\right)^2F^i\left(t(\tau),x,\frac{d\tau}{dt}v\right),\end{aligned}\right.
\end{equation*}
with $i=1,\ldots,n$, admit a common base-superposition rule. According to Proposition \ref{CSR}, this implies that there exists a
finite-dimensional Lie algebra of vector fields $V$ containing all the vector fields
$$
X^{ t(\tau)}_\tau(x,v)=\sum_{i=1}^n\left( v^i\frac{\partial}{\partial
x^i}+\left(\frac{d\tau}{dt}\frac{d^2t}{d\tau^2}v^i+\left(\frac{dt}{d\tau}\right)^2F^i\left(t(\tau),x,
\frac{d\tau}{dt}v\right)\right)\frac{\partial}{\partial
v^i}\right),
$$
with $t=t(\tau)$ being any time-reparametrisation and $\tau\in\mathbb{R}$. In particular, if we take
$t(\tau)=\tau$, we obtain that
$$
X_\tau=\sum_{i=1}^n\left( v^i\frac{\partial}{\partial x^i}+F^i\left(\tau,x,v\right)\frac{\partial}{\partial
v^i}\right)\in V,\qquad \forall\tau\in\mathbb{R}.
$$
Now, if we take a time-reparametrisation $t=\bar t(\tau)$ such that
$$\bar t(\tau_1)=t_1,\qquad \,\,\frac{d\bar t}{d\tau}(\tau_1)=1,\qquad \,\, \frac{d^2\bar t}{d\tau^2}(\tau_1)=1,$$
it follows that $X^{\bar t(\tau)}_{\tau_1},X_{t_1}\in V$ and, consequently, $X^{\bar
t(\tau)}_{\tau_1}-X_{t_1}\in V$. Taking into account that
$$
X^{\bar t(\tau)}_{\tau_1}(x,v)=\sum_{i=1}^n\left( v^i\frac{\partial}{\partial
x^i}+\left(v^i+F^i\left(t_1,x,v\right)\right)\frac{\partial}{\partial v^i}\right),
$$
we have $X^{\bar t(\tau)}_{\tau_1}-X_{t_1}=\sum_{i=1}^nv^i\partial/\partial v^i=\Delta_L\in V$.
On the other hand, consider a family of parametrizations $t=t_{\lambda,t_1}(\tau)$, with
$\lambda\in\mathbb{R}^\times$ and $t_1\in\mathbb{R}$, satisfying the conditions
$$t_{\lambda,t_1}(\tau_1)=t_1,\qquad \,\,\frac{d t_{\lambda,t_1}}{d\tau}(\tau_1)=\lambda,\qquad \,\,\frac{d^2 t_{\lambda,t_1}}{d\tau^2}(\tau_1)=0.$$
Consequently, the family of vector fields
$$
X^\lambda_{\tau_1}(x,v)\equiv X^{t_{\lambda,t_1}(\tau_1)}_{\tau_1}(x,v)=\sum_{i=1}^n\left(
v^i\frac{\partial}{\partial x^i}+\lambda^{2}F^i\left(t_1,x,\lambda^{-1} v\right)\frac{\partial}{\partial
v^i}\right),\qquad \lambda\in\mathbb{R}^\times,
$$
is included in $V$. Note that, for every $t_1$, the above family of vector fields can be considered as a curve
in $V$. As $V$ is a vector space, all the derivatives of such a curve, that is, the vector fields
$$
\frac{d^p}{d\lambda^p}\left[X^\lambda_{\tau_1}(x,v)\right]=\sum_{i=1}^n \frac{d^p}{d\lambda^p}
(\lambda^{2}F^i(t_1,x,\lambda^{-1} v))\frac{\partial}{\partial v^i}=X^\lambda_p(x,v),
$$
are included in $V$.
\end{proof}
\section{Superposition rules and systems of HODEs}\label{HODEs}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
In order to introduce a general theory of superposition rules for systems of HODEs, let us recall some basic concepts of
the theory of higher-order tangent bundles \cite{LOS01}.
Given two curves $\rho,\sigma:\mathbb{R}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^n$ such that
$\rho(0)=\sigma(0)=x_0\in\mathbb{R}^n$, we say that they have a {\it contact of order $s$ at $x_0$}, with
$s\in\mathbb{N}$, if they satisfy
$$
\frac{d^j(f\circ\rho)}{dt^j}(0)=\frac{d^j(f\circ\sigma)}{dt^j}(0),\qquad j=1,\ldots,s,
$$
for every function $f\in C^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^n)$. The relation `to have a contact of order $s$ at $x_0$' is
an equivalence relation. Each equivalence class, say ${\bf t}^s_{x_0}$, is called an {\it $s$-tangent vector}
at $x_0$. Now, we define ${\rm T}^s_{x_0}\mathbb{R}^n$ as the set of all $s$-tangent vectors at $x_0$ and we
put
$$
{\rm T}^s\mathbb{R}^n=\bigcup_{x_0\in\mathbb{R}^n}{\rm T}^s_{x_0}\mathbb{R}^n.
$$
It can be proved that $({\rm T}^s\mathbb{R}^n,\pi,\mathbb{R}^n)$, with $\pi:{\bf t}^s_{x_0}\in{\rm
T}^s\mathbb{R}^n\mapsto x_0\in\mathbb{R}^n$, can be endowed with a differential structure of fibre bundle. Let
us briefly analyse this fact.
Every global coordinate system $\{x^1,\ldots,x^n\}$ on $\mathbb{R}^n$ induces a natural coordinate system on
the space ${\rm T}^s\mathbb{R}^n$. Indeed, consider again a curve $\rho$. The $s$-tangent vector ${\bf
t}^s_{x_0}$ associated with this curve admits a representative
$$
\rho^i(0)+\frac{t}{1!}\frac{d\rho^i}{dt}(0)+\ldots+\frac{t^s}{s!}\frac{d^s\rho^i}{dt^s}(0),\qquad
i=1,\ldots,n,
$$
which can be characterized by its coefficients
$$
x_0^i=\rho^i(0),\quad y^{(1)i}_0=\frac{1}{1!}\frac{d\rho^i}{dt}(0),\quad \ldots,\quad
y^{(s)i}_0=\frac{1}{s!}\frac{d^s\rho^i}{dt^s}(0),\qquad i=1,\ldots,n.
$$
In consequence, the mapping $\varphi:{\bf t}^s_{x_0}\in{\rm T}^s\mathbb{R}^n\mapsto
(x^i_0,y^{(1)i}_0,\ldots,y^{(s)i}_0)\in \mathbb{R}^{(s+1)n}$ gives a canonical global coordinate for ${\rm
T}^s\mathbb{R}^n$. Obviously, the map $\pi$ becomes a smooth submersion which makes ${\rm T}^s\mathbb{R}^n$
into a fibre bundle with base $\mathbb{R}^n$. We hereby denote each element of ${\rm T}^s\mathbb{R}^n$ by
${\bf t}^s_x=(x,y^{(1)},\ldots,y^{(s)})$.
Now, given a curve $c:t\in \mathbb{R}\mapsto c(t)\in\mathbb{R}^n$, we call {\it prolongation to ${\rm
T}^s\mathbb{R}^n$ of $c$} the curve ${\bf t}^sc:t\in \mathbb{R} \mapsto {\bf t}^sc(t)\in {\rm
T}^s\mathbb{R}^n$, associating with every $t_0$ the corresponding equivalence class of $c(t-t_0)$, and given
in coordinates by
$$
{\bf t}^sc(t)=\left(x(t),\frac{1}{1!}\frac{dc}{dt}(t),\ldots,\frac{1}{s!}\frac{d^sc}{dt^s}(t)\right).
$$
\begin{definition}\label{Def1b} We say that a system of $s$-order ordinary differential equations on $\mathbb{R}^n$ given by
\begin{equation}\label{HODE}
\frac{d^sx^i}{dt^p}=F^i\left(t,x,\frac{dx}{dt},\ldots,\frac{d^{s-1}x}{dt^{s-1}}\right), \qquad i=1,\ldots,n,
\end{equation}
admits a {\it superposition rule} if there exists a map $\Upsilon:({\rm
T}^{s-1}(\mathbb{R}^{n}))^m\times\mathbb{R}^{sn}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^n$ of the form
\begin{equation*}
x=\Upsilon({\bf t}^{s-1}_{x_{(1)}},\ldots,{\bf t}^{s-1}_{x_{(m)}};k_1,\ldots,k_{sn}),
\end{equation*}
such that the general solution $x(t)$ of system (\ref{HODE}) can be written as
\begin{equation}\label{SupHODE}
x(t)=\Upsilon\left({\bf t}^{s-1}{x_{(1)}}(t),\ldots,{\bf t}^{s-1}{x_{(m)}}(t);k_1,\ldots,k_{sn}\right),
\end{equation}
for any generic family of particular solutions $x_{(1)}(t),\ldots, x_{(m)}(t)$ of (\ref{HODE}) and
$k_1,\ldots,k_{sn}$ being a set of constants related to the initial conditions of each particular solution.
\end{definition}
\begin{Note} Observe that, according to the above definitions, we have ${\rm T}^1\mathbb{R}^n\simeq {\rm T}\mathbb{R}^n$
and ${\bf t}^1x_{(a)}(t)=\left(x_{(a)}(t),dx_{(a)}(t)/dt\right)$. Hence, Definition \ref{Def1} describing superposition
rules for systems of SODEs turns out to be a particular case of the above definition. Moreover,
if we put ${\rm T}^0\mathbb{R}^n=\mathbb{R}^n$, Definition \ref{Def1b} reduces to the standard superposition rule notion.
\end{Note}
\begin{definition} We say that a system of ordinary differential equations (\ref{HODE}) of the order $s$
is a {\it HODE Lie system} if the first-order system
\begin{equation}\label{FirstHOrd}
\left\{\begin{aligned}\frac{dx^i}{dt}&=y^{(1)i},\cr
\frac{dy^{(1)i}}{dt}&=y^{(2)i},\cr
\ldots&=\ldots,\cr
\frac{dy^{(s-1)i}}{dt}&=F^i\left(t,x,y^{(1)},\ldots,y^{(s-1)}\right),\end{aligned}\right.\qquad i=1,\ldots,n,
\end{equation}
obtained from (\ref{HODE}) by adding the new variables $y^{(j)i}= d^jx^i/dt^j$, with $i=1,\ldots,n$ and
$j=1,\ldots,s-1$, is a Lie system.
\end{definition}
Observe that the results and definitions described in previous sections can be directly generalized to systems
of HODEs. This is why, instead of detailing such generalisations, we shall merely describe a simple but
relevant result ensuring the existence of superposition rules for HODE Lie systems. In next sections, this
result is used to determine a superposition rule for second- and third-order Kummer--Schwarz equations.
\begin{proposition} Every HODE Lie system admits a superposition rule.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof} Note that every solution of system (\ref{FirstHOrd}) is of the form ${\bf t}^{s-1}x_p(t)$
for a particular solution $x_p(t)$ of system (\ref{HODE}) and vice versa. Consequently, the superposition rule
$\Phi:({\rm T}^{s-1}\mathbb{R}^n)^m\times\mathbb{R}^{sn}\rightarrow {\rm T}^{s-1}\mathbb{R}^{n}$ for (\ref{FirstHOrd})
allows us to write that the general solution ${\rm t}^{s-1}x(t)$ of (\ref{FirstHOrd}) in the form
\begin{equation*}
{\bf t}^{s-1}x(t)=\Phi({\bf t}^{s-1}x_{(1)}(t),\ldots,{\bf t}^{s-1}x_{(m)}(t);k_1,\ldots,k_{sn}).
\end{equation*}
in terms of generic families of particular solutions $x_{(1)}(t),\ldots,x_{(m)}(t)$ of (\ref{HODE}), their
derivatives up to $s-1$ order, and the constants $k_1,\ldots,k_{sn}$. Applying the projection $\pi:{\rm
T}^{s-1}\mathbb{R}^n\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^n$ to both sides of the above relation, it follows that the general
solution $x(t)$ of system (\ref{HODE}) can be written as
\begin{equation*}
x(t)=(\pi\circ \Phi)({\bf t}^{s-1}x_{(1)}(t),\ldots,{\bf t}^{s-1}x_{(m)}(t);k_1,\ldots,k_{sn}).
\end{equation*}
In other words, $\Upsilon=\pi\circ\Phi:({\rm
T}^{s-1}\mathbb{R}^n)^m\times\mathbb{R}^{sn}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^n$ is a superposition rule for
(\ref{HODE}).
\end{proof}
\section{Examples of superposition rules for systems of SODEs}\label{Examples}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
Let us illustrate now the results described in the previous sections by means of various examples extracted from
the physics and mathematics literature. As the first simple instance, consider the $n$-dimensional isotropic
harmonic oscillator
\begin{equation}\label{HO}
\frac{d^2x^{i}}{dt^2}=-\omega^2(t)x^i,\qquad i=1,\ldots,n,
\end{equation}
with a time-dependent frequency $\omega(t)$. This system appears broadly in the physics literature. For
instance, it occurs in the study of the fluctuations of the tachyon field obtained by using effective
Lagrangians \cite{ACT04,Kl04}, in the description of the movement of a particle on a heated spring
\cite{JS98}, in the analysis of the properties of diverse interesting nonlinear differential equations, like
Milne--Pinney equations, with many applications in physics \cite{CL08Diss,AL08,HG99}.
As shown in Section \ref{Justify}, systems (\ref{HO}) admit a base-superposition rule. Consequently,
Proposition \ref{Free} ensures that the systems of the form (\ref{HO}) must be SODE Lie systems. Actually,
this can be proved easily. In view of Definition \ref{DefiSODE}, demonstrating that each system of the form
(\ref{HO}) is a SODE Lie system reduces to proving that every first-order system
\begin{equation}\label{HarSysFirst}
\left\{\begin{aligned}\frac{dx^i}{dt}&=v^i,\\
\frac{dv^i}{dt}&=-\omega^2(t)x^i,\end{aligned}\right.\qquad i=1,\ldots,n,
\end{equation}
is a Lie system. Any system of the above type describes integral curves of the time-dependent vector field
$X_t=X_1+\omega^2(t)X_3$, with
\begin{equation*}
X_1=\sum_{i=1}^nv^i\frac{\partial}{\partial x^i},\quad
X_2=\frac 12\sum_{i=1}^n\left(x^i\frac{\partial}{\partial x^i}-v^i\frac{\partial}{\partial v^i}\right),\quad X_3=-\sum_{i=1}^nx^i\frac{\partial}{\partial v^i},
\end{equation*}
spanning a Lie algebra $V_{HO}$ of vector fields isomorphic to $\mathfrak{sl}(2,\mathbb{R})$ \cite{SIGMA}. It turns out that every system (\ref{HarSysFirst}) is a Lie system
and, therefore, the isotropic harmonic oscillators with time-dependent frequency (\ref{HO}) are SODE Lie
systems, as Proposition \ref{QuasiSup} states.
As equations (\ref{HO}) admit the same base-superposition rule, Proposition \ref{IncField}
ensures the existence of a finite-dimensional Lie algebra including $V_{HO}$ and $\Delta_{L}=\sum_{i=1}^nv^i\partial/\partial v^i$. Indeed, it is a straightforward computation to check that $\Delta_L$, $X_1$, $X_2$, and $X_3$ generate a Lie
algebra of vector fields isomorphic to $\mathfrak{gl}(2,\mathbb{R})$.
Let us now turn to exemplifying that superposition rules for systems of SODEs need not be invariant under
time-reparametrisations, as pointed out in Section \ref{TheorySODE}. Recall that Milne--Pinney equations
(\ref{MilnePinney}) admit a quasi-base superposition rule depending on a constant of motion $I_3$. A
time-reparametrisation $\tau=\int^t_0e^{F(t')}dt'$ transforms (\ref{MilnePinney}) into the dissipative Milne--Pinney equation \cite{Sr86}-\cite{ABCCN97}
\begin{equation}\label{DMP}
\frac{d^2x}{d\tau^2}=-\frac{dF}{dt}(t(\tau))e^{-F(t(\tau))}\frac{dx}{d\tau}-\omega^2(t(\tau))e^{-2F(t(\tau))}x+\frac{ce^{-2F(t(\tau))}}{x^3}\,,
\end{equation}
and the superposition rule (\ref{MilnSup}) for Milne--Pinney equations yields that the general solution of
the above equation can be cast in the form (\ref{MilnSup}) again, but in terms of a new constant $I_3$ reading
$$I_3=e^{2F(t)}\left(\frac{dx_{(1)}}{d\tau}(t)x_{(2)}(t)-\frac{dx_{(2)}}{d\tau}(t)x_{(1)}(t)\right)^2+
c\left[\left(\frac{x_{(1)}(t)}{x_{(2)}(t)}\right)^2+\left(\frac{x_{(2)}(t)}{x_{(1)}(t)}\right)^2\right].$$
This proves that the (quasi-base) superposition rule for Milne--Pinney equations is not invariant under
time-reparametrisations. Moreover, as SODEs (\ref{DMP}) admit, generically, a time-dependent superposition
rule (see \cite{CL10SecOrd2} for details), they need not be SODE Lie systems. Indeed, it was proved in
\cite{CL08Diss} that systems (\ref{DMP}) are not SODE Lie systems. Then, from Lemma \ref{CondNec},
Milne--Pinney equations cannot admit a base-superposition rule.
Let us now derive a new superposition rule for a relevant type of (nonautonomous) second-order differential
equation: the second-order Kummer--Schwarz equation
\begin{equation}\label{KS2}
\frac{d^2x}{dt^2}=\frac 3{2x} \left(\frac{dx}{dt}\right)^2-2b_0x^3+2a_0(t)x,
\end{equation}
where $b_0$ is a constant and $a_0(t)$ is an arbitrary time-dependent function. The study of these, hereafter
KS-2 equations, is motivated by its appearance in the theory of superposition rules \cite{Be07} and in
the analysis of second-order differential equations, where they appear related to the so-called {\it Kummer
problem} \cite{BR97}. These equations also appear associated with the so-called second-order Gambier equation \cite{GGG11} and can be used to describe certain cosmological problems \cite{NR02}. Moreover, the solution of several cases of KS-2 equations amounts us to solving certain Milne--Pinney and Riccati equations \cite{Co94,GGG11,Nonlinear}. As these equations are ubiquitous in the physical literature, e.g. they appear in cosmology, quantum mechanics, classical mechanics \cite{NR02,Dissertationes}, the study of KS-2 equations can be consider as a useful approach to the analysis of these equations and their respective related physical problems.
In order to describe a superposition rule for KS-2 equations, we shall first prove that these equations are
SODE Lie systems, which ensures, by Proposition \ref{SODEsSup}, that they admit a superposition rule and
indicates how to derive it.
Recall that demonstrating that KS-2 equations are SODE Lie systems relies on proving that the first-order
system
\begin{equation}\label{FirstOrderKS2}
\left\{\begin{aligned}\frac{dx}{dt}&=v,\\
\frac{dv}{dt}&=\frac 32 \frac{v^2}x-2b_0x^3+2a_0(t) x,\end{aligned}\right.
\end{equation}
is a Lie system. To do this, consider the vector fields
\begin{eqnarray}\label{VFKS2}
X_1=2x\frac{\partial}{\partial v},\quad X_2=x\frac{\partial}{\partial x}+2v\frac{\partial}{\partial v},\quad
X_3=v\frac{\partial}{\partial x}+\left(\frac 32\frac{v^2}x-2b_0x^3\right)\frac{\partial }{\partial v}.
\end{eqnarray}
Since
\begin{equation*}
[X_1,X_2]=X_1,\qquad [X_1,X_3]=2X_2,\qquad [X_2,X_3]=X_3,
\end{equation*}
they span a Lie algebra of vector fields isomorphic to $\mathfrak{sl}(2,\mathbb{R})$ and, as system (\ref{FirstOrderKS2})
is determined by the time-dependent vector field
$$
X_t=v\frac{\partial}{\partial x}+\left(\frac 32 \frac{v^2}x-2b_0x^3+2a_0(t)x\right)\frac{\partial}{\partial
v}=X_3+a_0(t)X_1,
$$
the second-order Kummer--Schwarz equations are SODE Lie systems.
It is interesting that, like time-dependent frequency harmonic oscillators, Kummer--Schwarz
equations are SODE Lie systems related to a Vessiot--Guldberg Lie algebra isomorphic to
$\mathfrak{sl}(2,\mathbb{R})$. This can be used to establish interesting relations between these equations and
other (SODE) Lie systems associated with the same Lie algebra (cf. \cite{SIGMA}).
Once it has been proved that KS-2 equations are SODE Lie systems, the following step toward deriving their
superposition rule is, in view of Lemma \ref{SODEsSup}, to determine the part of the standard superposition
rule for system (\ref{FirstOrderKS2}) describing the $x$ coordinate of its general solution. To do this, let us
apply the method described in Section \ref{FLS}.
The vector fields $X_1,X_2,X_3$ form a basis for a Vessiot--Guldberg Lie algebra of (\ref{FirstOrderKS2}) and
their prolongations to $({\rm T}\mathbb{R})^2$ are linearly independent at a generic point. Let $\widetilde
X_1$, $\widetilde X_2$, and $\widetilde X_3$ be diagonal prolongations to $({\rm T}\mathbb{R})^3$. As
$[\widetilde X_1,\widetilde X_3]=\widetilde{[X_1,X_3]}=2\widetilde X_2$, if a function $F:\left({\rm
T}\mathbb{R}\right)^3\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ satisfies $\widetilde X_1F=\widetilde X_3F=0$, then $\widetilde
X_2F=0$. Thus, obtaining a common first-integral for $\widetilde X_1,\widetilde X_2,\widetilde X_3$ reduces
to finding a common first-integral for $\widetilde X_1$ and $\widetilde X_3$.
Consider the canonical coordinates $\{x_0,v_0,x_1,v_1,x_2,v_2\}$ in $({\rm T}\mathbb{R})^3$ and
suppose that the common first-integral $F$ for $\widetilde X_1$ and $\widetilde X_3$ depends only on the
variables $x_0,x_1,v_0$, and $v_1$. As $\widetilde X_1F=0$, the method of characteristics yields that $F$ must
be constant along the solutions of the characteristic system
\begin{equation}
\frac{dv_0}{x_0}=\frac{dv_1}{x_1},\qquad dx_0=dx_1=0.
\end{equation}
Integrating the above system, we find that that there exists a certain function
$F_2:\mathbb{R}^3\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ such that
$F\left(x_0,x_1,v_0,v_1\right)=F_2\left(x_0,x_1,\xi=x_1v_0-x_0v_1\right)$. In terms of the variables
$x_0,x_1,\xi,v_1$, the condition $\widetilde X_3F=\widetilde X_3F_2=0$ reads
$$
\left(\frac{\xi+v_1x_0}{x_1}\right)\frac{\partial F_2}{\partial x_0}+v_1\frac{\partial F_2}{\partial
x_1}+\left[\frac 32\left(\frac{\xi^2+2\xi v_1x_0}{x_1x_0}\right)+2b_0(x_1^3x_0-x_0^3x_1)\right]\frac{\partial
F_2}{\partial \xi}=0.
$$
As $F_2$ does not depend on $v_1$, the above equation implies
$$
\frac{\xi}{x_1}\frac{\partial F_2}{\partial x_0}+\left[\frac{3
\xi^2}{2x_1x_0}+2b_0(x_1^3x_0-x_0^3x_1)\right]\frac{\partial F_2}{\partial \xi}=0, \quad
\frac{x_0}{x_1}\frac{\partial F_2}{\partial x_0}+\frac{\partial F_2}{\partial
x_1}+\frac{3\xi}{x_1}\frac{\partial F_2}{\partial \xi}=0.
$$
Applying again the method of characteristics to the second equation, we see that there exists a function
$F_3:\mathbb{R}^2\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ such that $F_2(x_0,x_1,\xi)=F_3(K_1=x_0/x_1,K_2=x_1^3/\xi)$. Let us
express the first of the above equations using the variables $K_1, K_2$, and $\xi$. As a result, it turns out that
$$
\widetilde X_3F_3=\frac{\xi}{x_1^2}\left(\frac{\partial F_3}{\partial K_1}-\left[\frac
3{2K_1}+2b_0K_2^2(K_1-K_1^3)\right]K_2 \frac{\partial F_3}{\partial K_2}\right)=0.
$$
The characteristic system for the preceding equation is
\begin{equation}\label{FirstInt}
dK_1=-\frac{dK_2}{K_2\left[\frac{3}{2K_1}+2b_0K_2^2(K_1-K_1^3)\right]},
\end{equation}
whose solution is
\begin{equation*}
\Gamma_1=\frac{(v_0x_1-v_1x_0)^2}{x_0^3x_1^3}+4b_0\frac{x_0^2+x_1^2}{x_0x_1}.
\end{equation*}
Hence, $\Gamma_1$ is a first-integral common to $\widetilde X_1$ and $\widetilde X_3$. Similarly, if we
suppose that $F$ depends only on $x_0,x_2,v_0$, and $v_2$, or, alternatively, on $x_1,x_2,v_1$, and $v_2$, two
new first-integrals appear:
\begin{equation}\label{SecondInt}
\Gamma_2=\frac{(v_0x_2-v_2x_0)^2}{x_0^3x_2^3}+4b_0\frac{x_0^2+x_2^2}{x_0x_2},\qquad
\Gamma_3=\frac{(v_1x_2-v_2x_1)^2}{x_1^3x_2^3}+4b_0\frac{x_1^2+x_2^2}{x_1x_2}.
\end{equation}
Since $\partial(\Gamma_1,\Gamma_2)/\partial(x_0,v_0)\neq 0$ at a generic point of $({\rm T}\mathbb{R})^3$, the procedure described in Section \ref{FLS} allows us to determine the values of $x_{0}$ and $v_{0}$ in terms
of $x_{1}, x_{2}, v_1,v_2$, and two constants giving rise to a superposition rule for system
(\ref{FirstOrderKS2}). Indeed, fixing $\Gamma_1=k_1$ enables us to determine the value of $v_0$ in terms of
$x_0,x_1,v_1,$ and $k_1$. Substituting this value into the equation $k_2=\Gamma_2$ and with the aid of
$\Gamma_3$, we can express $x_0$ in terms of $x_1,x_2,k_1,k_2$, and $\Gamma_3$ as
\begin{equation}\label{QuasiSup}
x_0=\frac{(\Gamma_3k_1-8b_0k_2)x_1+\!(\Gamma_3k_2-8b_0k_1)x_2\pm
2\lambda_{k_1,k_2}(\Gamma_3)[\Gamma_3x_1x_2-4b_0(x_1^2+x_2^2)]^{1/2}}{16 b_0 \Gamma_3
+x^{-1}_1x^{-1}_2[(k_1x_1-k_2x_2)^2-64b_0^2(x_1^2+x_2^2)]},
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation*}
\lambda_{k_1,k_2}(\Gamma_3)=\left[256b_0^3+k_1k_2\Gamma_3-4b_0(k_1^2+k_2^2+\Gamma_3^3)\right]^{1/2}.
\end{equation*}
Expressions (\ref{SecondInt}) ensure that $[\Gamma_3 x_1x_2-4b_0(x_1^2+x_2^2)]^{1/2}$ is real. Meanwhile, for
each pair of solutions $x_1(t),x_2(t)$, $k_1$ and $k_2$ must be chosen so that $\lambda_{k_1,k_2}(\Gamma_3)$ is
real.
Since $\Gamma_3$ depends on the variables $x_1,x_2,v_1,v_2,$ it is clear that expression (\ref{QuasiSup})
constitutes a part of a superposition rule for any system of the form (\ref{FirstOrderKS2}), describing the
component $x$ of its general solution in terms of two particular solutions $x_1(t)$, $x_2(t)$ of (\ref{KS2}),
their derivatives $v_1(t),v_2(t)$, and two constants $k_1$ and $k_2$. Therefore, in view of Lemma \ref{Free},
this allows us to write the general solution $x(t)$ of the equation (\ref{KS2}) in terms of two particular
solutions, their derivatives, and two constants. This provides us with a superposition rule $\Upsilon:({\rm\bf t}^1_{x_1},{\rm \bf t}^1_{x_2};k_1,k_2)\in({\rm
T}\mathbb{R})^2\times\mathbb{R}^2\mapsto x=\Upsilon({\rm\bf t}^1_{x_1},{\rm \bf t}^1_{x_2};k_1,k_2))\in\mathbb{R}$ for KS-2 equations of the form
$$
x=\frac{(Ik_1-8b_0k_2)x_1+(Ik_2-8b_0k_1)x_2-2\lambda_{k_1,k_2}(I)[Ix_1x_2-4b_0(x_1^2+x_2^2)]^{1/2}}{16
b_0 I +x^{-1}_1x^{-1}_2[(k_1x_1-k_2x_2)^2-64b_0^2(x_1^2+x_2^2)]},
$$
where $I=\Gamma_3$ is regarded as a function of the variables of $({\rm T}\mathbb{R})^2$. Note in addition
that the above expression can also be naturally considered as a quasi-base superposition rule of the form
$G(x_1,x_2,I;k_1,k_2)$ for KS-2 equations.
\section{A superposition rule for the third-order Kummer--Schwarz equations}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
The present section is devoted to the study of third-order Kummer--Schwarz equations \cite{Be07,Be88,Be82} of the
form
\begin{equation}\label{KS3}
\frac{d^3x}{dt^3}=\frac 32
\left(\frac{dx}{dt}\right)^{-1}\left(\frac{d^2x}{dt^2}\right)^2-2b_0\left(\frac{dx}{dt}\right)^3+2
a_0(t)\frac{dx}{dt},
\end{equation}
with $b_0$ being a constant and $a_0(t)$ being any time-dependent function. Our aim is to exemplify how the results
of Section \ref{HODEs} can be applied to investigate a relevant third-order differential equation. As a
result, it is shown that third-order Kummer--Schwarz equations, hereby KS-3, are HODE Lie systems, and an
interesting relation to KS-2, Riccati, and Milne--Pinney equations is pointed out. Finally, a new superposition
rule for KS-3 equations depending on a single particular solution and three constants is derived.
The relevance of the study of KS-3 equations relies, for instance, on their relation to the so-called {\it
Kummer's problem} \cite{Be07,Be88,Be82}, Milne--Pinney equations \cite{AL08}, and Riccati equations
\cite{AL08,Co94,EEL07}. These relations can be used to study multiple physical systems described by these latter equations through KS-3 equations, e.g. the case of quantum non-equilibrium dynamics of many-body
systems \cite{BDG09}. Furthermore, Kummer--Schwarz equations with $b_0=0$ can be rewritten as $\{x,t\}=2a_0(t)$, where $\{x,t\}$ is the so-called {\it Schwarzian derivative} of the function $x(t)$ with respect to $t$ \cite{LG99}.
In order to study KS-3 equations, let us define $y^{(1)}=dx/dt$, $y^{(2)}=d^2x/dt^2$, and write equation
(\ref{KS3}) in the form
\begin{equation}\left\{\label{FirstOrderKummer}
\begin{aligned}\frac{dx}{dt}&=y^{(1)},\\
\frac{dy^{(1)}}{dt}&=y^{(2)},\\
\frac{dy^{(2)}}{dt}&=\frac 32 \frac{y^{(2)2}}{y^{(1)}}-2b_0y^{(1)3}+2a_0(t)y^{(1)}.\end{aligned}\right.
\end{equation}
Consider the vector fields $X_1$, $X_2$, and $X_3$ on ${\rm T}^2\mathbb{R}$,
\begin{equation}\label{VFKS1}
\begin{aligned}X_1=2y^{(1)}\frac{\partial}{\partial y^{(2)}},\qquad
X_2=y^{(1)}\frac{\partial}{\partial y^{(1)}}+2y^{(2)}\frac{\partial}{\partial y^{(2)}},\\
X_3=y^{(1)}\frac{\partial}{\partial x}+y^{(2)}\frac{\partial}{\partial y^{(1)}}+\left(\frac 32
\frac{y^{(2)2}}{y^{(1)}}-2b_0y^{(1)3}\right)\frac{\partial}{\partial y^{(2)}},\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
satisfying the commutation relations
\begin{equation*}
[X_1,X_3]=2X_2,\qquad [X_2,X_3]=X_3,\qquad [X_1,X_2]=X_1.
\end{equation*}
Obviously, these vector fields span a Lie algebra of vector fields isomorphic to
$\mathfrak{sl}(2,\mathbb{R})$. Additionally, system (\ref{FirstOrderKummer}) describes integral curves of the
time-dependent vector field $X_t=X_3+a_0(t)X_1$. Thus, KS-3 equations are HODE Lie systems. Let us derive a
superposition rule for them.
The vector fields $X_1, X_2, X_3$ are linearly independent at a generic point of ${\rm T}^2\mathbb{R}$.
Therefore, the diagonal prolongations $\widetilde X_1, \widetilde X_2, \widetilde X_3$ of $X_1,X_2,X_3$ to $({\rm
T}^2\mathbb{R})^2$ span a generalized distribution $\mathcal{D}$. Such a generalized
distribution is three-dimensional in a neighbourhood of a generic point, where the distribution becomes
regular. Hence, the vector fields of the distribution admit, at least locally, three common first-integrals.
As $[X_1,X_3]=2X_2$, we have $[\widetilde X_1,\widetilde X_3]=2\widetilde X_2$, and obtaining first-integrals
common for all the vector fields of $\mathcal{D}$ reduces to determining first-integrals common for
$\widetilde X_1$ and $\widetilde X_3$.
Let us first analyse first-integrals of the vector field $\widetilde X_1$ on $({\rm T}^2\mathbb{R})^2$, i.e.
solutions $F:\left({\rm T}^2\mathbb{R}\right)^2\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ of the equation
\begin{equation*}
\widetilde X_1F=2y_0^{(1)}\frac{\partial F}{\partial y_0^{(2)}}+2y_1^{(1)}\frac{\partial F}{\partial
y_1^{(2)}}=0.
\end{equation*}
The method of characteristics shows that the first-integrals of the above vector field are
functions constant along the solutions of the so-called characteristic system of $\widetilde X_1$, namely,
\begin{equation*}
\frac{dy^{(2)}_0}{y^{(1)}_0}=\frac{dy^{(2)}_1}{y^{(1)}_1},\qquad dy^{(1)}_0=dy^{(1)}_1=dx_0=dx_1=0.
\end{equation*}
Such solutions are given, in an implicit form, by the algebraic equations $\xi=y^{(1)}_0y^{(2)}_1-y^{(1)}_1y^{(2)}_0,\,\,v_0=y^{(1)}_0,\,\,v_1=y^{(1)}_1,\,\,y_0=x_0,\,\,y_1=x_1$, where $\xi,v_0,v_1,y_0,y_1$ are certain real constants. In other words, any first-integral $F:\left({\rm
T}^2\mathbb{R}\right)^2\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ of the vector field $\widetilde X_1$ depends only on the
previous variables. Hence, there exists a function $F_2:\mathbb{R}^5\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ such that
$F(x_0,x_1,y_0^{(1)},y^{(1)}_1,y_0^{(2)},y^{(2)}_1)=F_2(y_0,y_1,v_0,v_1,\xi)$.
Remember that we are interested in determining a common first-integral for the vector fields $\widetilde X_1$
and $\widetilde X_3$. In view of the above result, $\widetilde X_3F_2=0$ amounts us to
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned} \sum_{a=0,1}v_a\frac{\partial F_2}{\partial y_a}\!+\left(\frac{v_0a_1-\xi}{v_1}\right)\frac{\partial F_2}{\partial v_0}+\!a_1\frac{\partial F_2}{\partial
v_1}+\!\left(\frac{3\xi a_1}{v_1}-\frac{3\xi^2}{2v_1v_0}+2 b_0(v_0^3v_1-v_1^3v_0)\right)\frac{\partial
F_2}{\partial \xi}=0,\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
where we defined $a_1\equiv y_1^{(2)}$. In terms of the vector fields
$$
\begin{aligned}
Z_1=v_0\frac{\partial}{\partial y_0}+v_1\frac{\partial}{\partial y_1}-\frac{\xi}{v_1}\frac{\partial}{\partial v_0}+
\left(-\frac{3\xi^2}{2v_1v_0}+2 b_0(v_0^3v_1-v_1^3v_0)\right)\frac{\partial}{\partial \xi},\\
Z_2=v_0\frac{\partial}{\partial v_0}+v_1\frac{\partial}{\partial v_1}+{3\xi}\frac{\partial}{\partial \xi},
\end{aligned}
$$
we can write $\widetilde X_3F_2=Z_1F_2+\frac{a_1}{v_1}Z_2F_2=0$. Since $F_2$ does not depend on $a_1$, the previous decomposition implies $Z_1F_2=Z_2F_2=0$. Applying the method of characteristics to
$Z_2F_2=0$, we find that $F_2$ must be constant along solutions of the characteristic system
\begin{equation*}
\frac{dv_0}{v_0}=\frac{dv_1}{v_1}=\frac{d\xi}{3\xi},\qquad dy_0=dy_1=0.
\end{equation*}
Therefore, $F_2$ depends only on the variables $K_1=v_1/v_0$, $K_2=v_1^3/\xi$, $y_0,y_1$, i.e.
there exists a function $F_3:\mathbb{R}^4\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ such that
$F(x_0,x_1,v_0,v_1,a_0,a_1)=F_3(y_0,y_1,K_1,K_2)$.
To obtain a common first-integral for all the vector fields in $\mathcal{D}$, it remains to impose
$Z_1F=Z_1F_3=0$. In the coordinate system $\{y_0,y_1,K_1,K_2,\xi,a_1\}$, this equation reads
\begin{equation*}
\qquad \xi^{1/3}K_2^{1/3}\left(\frac{1}{K_1}\frac{\partial F_3}{\partial y_0}+\frac{\partial F_3}{\partial
y_1}+\frac{K_1^2}{K_2}\frac{\partial F_3}{\partial
K_1}+\right.\left.\left[\frac{3K_1}{2}-2b_0K_2^2\left(K_1^{-3}-K_1^{-1}\right)\right]\frac{\partial
F_3}{\partial K_2}\right)=0.
\end{equation*}
The characteristic system corresponding to the above equation is
\begin{equation*}
dy_0=\frac{dy_1}{K_1}=\frac{K_2dK_1}{K_1^3}=\frac{K_1^2dK_2}{\frac{3}{2} K_1^4-2b_0K^2_2(1-K_1^{2})}.
\end{equation*}
From the last equality of the above system, we obtain
\begin{equation*}
\frac{dK_2}{dK_1}=\frac{3K_2}{2K_1}-\frac{2b_0}{K_1^5}(1-K_1^2)K_2^3\longrightarrow K_2(K_1)=\pm
\frac{K_1^2}{\sqrt{K_1\Gamma_1-4 b_0(1+K_1^2)}},
\end{equation*}
for a certain real constant $\Gamma_1$. Consequently, a common first-integral of the vector fields of
$\mathcal{D}$ reads
\begin{equation*}
\Gamma_1=\frac{K_1^4+4b_0K_2^2(1+K_1^2)}{K_1K_2^2}.
\end{equation*}
Now, $dy_1=K_2dK_1/K_1^2$ and the above expression yields
\begin{equation}\label{Gamma2}
\frac{dy_1}{dK_1}={\rm sg}(K_2){(\Gamma_1 K_1-4b_0(1+K_1^2))}^{-1/2},
\end{equation}
where ${\rm sg}$ stands for the {\it sign function}. Assume, for simplicity, ${\rm sg}(K_2)=1$ and
$b_0<0$. Hence,
\begin{equation*}
\Gamma_2=\left(-8b_0K_1+\Gamma_1+4\sqrt{4b^2_0(1+K_1^2)-b_0K_1\Gamma_1}\right)e^{-2x_1\sqrt{-b_0}}
\end{equation*}
is a second first-integral. Likewise, from $\Gamma_1$ and expression
$dy_0=K_2dK_1/K_1^3$, one gets
\begin{equation*}
\frac{dy_0}{dK_1}={\left(K_1\sqrt{\Gamma_1 K_1-4b_0(1+K_1^2)}\right)}^{-1},
\end{equation*}
i.e.
\begin{equation*}
\Gamma_3=y_0-\frac{1}{2\sqrt{-b_0}}\ln\left[\frac{2\sqrt{-b_0}K_1}{-8b_0+K_1\Gamma_1+4\sqrt{4b_0^2(1+K_1^2)-b_0K_1\Gamma_1}}\right],
\end{equation*}
is another first-integral. As $\partial(\Gamma_1,\Gamma_2,\Gamma_3)/\partial(x_0,y^{(1)}_0,y^{(2)}_0)\neq 0$ at a generic point of $({\rm T}^2\mathbb{R})^2$, fixing $k_1=\Gamma_1$, and $k_2=\Gamma_2$, we can easily express $K_1$ in terms of
$k_1, k_2$ and $x_1$. Using this and putting $k_3=\Gamma_3$, we obtain
$$
x_0=k_3+\ln\left[\frac{2\sqrt{-b_0}[64 b_0^2-f^2_{k_1,k_2}(x_1)]}{64
b_0^2(k_1-2e^{2\sqrt{-b_0}x_1}k_2)-k_1f^2_{k_1,k_2}(x_1)+8b_0(64b_0^2-k_1^2+e^{4\sqrt{-b_0}x_1}k_2^2)}\right]^{\frac{1}{2\sqrt{-b_0}}},
$$
where $f_{k_1,k_2}(x_1)=k_1-e^{2\sqrt{-b_0}x_1}k_2$. Note that the above expression is a superposition rule for
third-order Kummer--Schwarz equations, which provides the general solution $x_0(t)$ of any instance of such
equations in terms of a generic particular solution $x_1(t)$ and the constants $k_1,k_2,k_3$. Obviously, this
represents an improvement with respect to other similar expressions for KS-3 equations, which allows us to
describe their general solutions in terms of two particular solutions of a time-dependent frequency harmonic
oscillator \cite{Be07}. In addition, this expression is an instance of a quasi-base superposition rule for a
third-order differential equation.
\section{Conclusions and Outlook}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
We have proposed and analysed a general concept of a superposition rule for systems of HODEs. Some specific
types of such superposition rules that appear in the literature have been studied and other new types have been
introduced and investigated. All our results have been illustrated with examples extracted from the mathematical
and physics literature. In particular, two new superposition rules for second- and third-order Kummer--Schwarz
equations have been derived.
There are still many open questions concerning the properties of
superposition rules for systems of HODEs. For instance, it would be interesting to find methods for analysing
the existence of solutions of system (\ref{Char}), which would facilitate the determination of the existence
of superposition rules for systems of SODEs. Additionally, it would be interesting to
apply the methods developed here to analyse first-order systems from a new perspective.
In the future, we intend to study the whole {\it Riccati hierarchy} \cite{GL99}, some of whose members, like second-order
Riccati equations, have already been analysed by means of the theory of Lie systems \cite{CL10SecOrd2}. Further, we aim to apply our results in the analysis of soliton solutions of PDEs described by the Riccati hierarchy \cite{GL99}. Additionally, we plan to employ the theory of Lie systems so as to geometrically explain the relation of Kummer--Schwarz equations to Lie systems associated with a Vessiot--Guldberg Lie algebra isomorphic to $\mathfrak{sl}(2,\mathbb{R})$. This may be used to clarify their known
connections with time-dependent harmonic oscillators or Riccati equations \cite{Co94,Be88} as well as to establish new ones. These and other topics
will be analysed in forthcoming works.
\section{Acknowledgements}
Partial financial support by research projects MTM2009-11154, MTM2010-12116-E, and E24/1 (DGA) are
acknowledged. Research of the second author financed by the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education
under the grant N N201 365636. J. de Lucas also acknowledges financial support by DGA under project FMI43/10
to accomplish a research stay in the University of Zaragoza.
|
\section{The other cases and concluding remarks} \label{s:concl}
Note that the $O(n^\omega)$ algorithm for well-parenthesized forbidden pairs
also improves upon the result by \citet{chen} for the nested case, when the input graph is dense.
It remains an open problem whether there is a more efficient algorithm for the nested case.
An $O(n^{\omega+1})$ time algorithm for halving forbidden pairs is achieved by a refined version
of the algorithm given by \citet{kp}. Recall that in this case, the input graph $G$ consists of
two parts: all the forbidden pairs start in the first part, and end in the second part in the same order.
Let us denote the vertices in the first part $s\prec x_1\prec\cdots\prec x_n$ and vertices in the second
part $y_1\prec\cdots\prec y_n\prec t$, where $\{x_i,y_i\}$ are forbidden pairs.
We may assume that all vertices are accessible from $s$ and that $t$ is accessible from every vertex.
If there is a direct edge from $s$ to the second part or if there is an edge from the first part to $t$,
a safe $s$--$t$ path exists trivially. Otherwise, we reduce the halving case to $n$ instances of the nested case.
There will be a safe $s$--$t$ path in $G$ if and only if there is a safe $s$--$t'$ path in at least one of the produced instances.
First, remove all the $(x_i,y_j)$ edges, add a new terminal vertex $t'$, and reverse the direction of all edges
in the second part of $G$. Note that in this new order, $s\prec x_1\prec\cdots\prec x_n\prec t\prec y_n\prec\cdots\prec y_1\prec t'$,
the forbidden pairs are nested.
The $k$-th instance is obtained by adding edges $(x_k,t)$ and $(y_\ell,t')$ for each edge $(x_k,y_\ell)$, so
there is a safe $s$--$t$ path $s,\ldots,x_k, y_\ell,\ldots,t$ in the original graph $G$ if and only if
there is a safe $s$--$t'$ path $s,\ldots x_k, t,\ldots, y_\ell, t'$ in the new graph.
It remains an open problem whether a more efficient algorithm exists.
\section{Introduction}
Let $G=(V,E)$ be a directed graph with two distinguished vertices $s, t\in V$ and
let $F\subseteq {V\choose 2}$ be a set of \emph{forbidden pairs} of vertices.
We say that a path $\pi$ is \emph{safe}, if it does not contain any forbidden pair,
i.e., $\pi$ contains at most one vertex from each pair $\{u,v\}\in F$.
Given $G$ and $F$, the \emph{path avoiding forbidden pairs} problem (henceforth PAFP)
is to find a safe $s$--$t$ path in $G$.
In this paper, we study the complexity of different special cases
of the problem on directed \emph{acyclic} graphs.
\para{Motivation}
The PAFP problem was first studied by \citet{krause} and \citet{srimani}
motivated by designing test cases for automatic software testing and validation.
We can represent a program as a directed graph where vertices represent segments
of code and edges represent the flow of control from one code segment into another.
The goal is to cover this graph with $s$--$t$ paths corresponding to different test cases.
However, not all paths correspond to executable sequences in the program.
Therefore \citet{krause} introduced forbidden pairs which identify the
mutually exclusive code segments
and formulated the PAFP problem. Unfortunatelly, as shown by \citet{gabow},
the problem is NP-hard even for directed acyclic graphs.
A different motivation came from bioinformatics and the problem of peptide sequencing
via tandem mass spec\-tro\-met\-ry. Peptides are polymers which
can be though of as strings over a 20 character alphabet of amino acids and
the sequencing problem is to determine the amino acid sequence of a given peptide.
To this end, many copies of the peptide are fragmented and the mass
of the fragments is measured (very precisely) by a mass spectrometer.
The result of the experiment is a mass spectrum where
each peak corresponds to mass of some prefix or some suffix of
the amino acid sequence, or is a noise. The spectrum is then compared
against a database of known fragment weights.
\citet{chen} suggested the following formulation of the peptide sequencing problem:
Let us create a \emph{spectrum graph} with two vertices $p_i$ and $s_i$
for each peak $w_i$ with weights $w(p_i)=w_i-1$ and $w(s_i)=W-w_i+1$, where $W$
is the weight of the whole peptide.
We add an edge from $x$ to $y$ if the difference between
weights $w(y)-w(x)$ equals the total mass of some known sequence of amino acids.
Thus, paths in this graph correspond to amino acid sequences.
Paths going through $p_i$ correspond to $w_i$ being a weight of some prefix
and similarly, paths going through $s_i$ correspond to $w_i$ being a weight
of some suffix. (Paths going through neither $p_i$ nor $s_i$ correspond to $w_i$ being a noise.)
However, $w_i$ cannot be a prefix weight \emph{and} a suffix weight
at the same time, so $\{p_i,s_i\}$ will form a forbidden pair for each $i$.
This is a very special case of the PAFP problem in directed acyclic graphs
where all the forbidden pairs are nested and \citet{chen} showed that it is
polynomially solvable.
The PAFP problem on directed acyclic graphs also arose in a completely different application
in bioinformatics -- gene finding using RT-PCR tests \citep{pcr}.
In this application, we have a so called \emph{splicing graph} where vertices
represent non-overlapping segments of the DNA sequence, length of a vertex is
the number of nucleotides in this segment, and edge $(u, v)$ indicates
that segment $v$ immediately follows segment $u$ in some gene transcript.
Thus, paths in this splicing graph correspond to putative genes.
The problem is to identify the true genes with a help of information from RT-PCR experiments.
Without going into biology details, let us define a (simplified) result of an RT-PCR experiment
as a triple $t=(u,v,\ell)$, where $u,v\in V$ are two vertices and $\ell$ is the length of a product.
Let $\pi$ be a path going through $u$ and $v$ in the splicing graph; if the length of the $u$--$v$
subpath is equal to $\ell$, we say that $\pi$ \emph{explains} test $t$, otherwise, it is \emph{inconsistent}
with test $t$. We can define a score of a path $\pi$ with respect to a set of tests $T$ as a sum of
the scores of all of its vertices and edges, plus a bonus $B$ for each explained test from $T$, and
minus a penalty $P$ for each inconsistent test. The \emph{gene finding with RT-PCR tests} problem
is to find an $s$--$t$ path with the highest score in the given splicing graph $G$ with a set of RT-PCR tests $T$.
Note that if we set all lengths to an unattainable value, say $-1$, and we set a high (infinite) penalty $P$
for inconsistent tests, we basically get the PAFP problem. Thus, the PAFP problem is at the core of gene
finding with RT-PCR tests and the latter problem inherits all NP-hardness results for the PAFP problem.
On the positive side, we have shown in our previous work \citep{pcr} that some polynomial solutions
for special cases of the PAFP problem can be extended to pseudo-polynomial algorithms for the gene finding problem.
\para{Previous results}
As shown by \citet{gabow}, the PAFP problem is NP-hard in general, but several special cases
are polynomially solvable. \citet{yinnone} studied the PAFP problem under \emph{skew symmetry}
conditions where for each two forbidden pairs $\{u,u'\}, \{v, v'\}\in F$, \emph{if} there is an
edge from $u$ to $v$, there is also an edge from $v'$ to $u'$. He proved that under such conditions,
the problem is polynomially equivalent to finding an augmenting path with respect to a given matching
and thus polynomially solvable.
For directed acyclic graphs, we have already mentioned that the nested case is solvable in polynomial
time \citep{chen}; \citet{kp} were able to devise a polynomial algorithm if the set of forbidden pairs
has a well-parenthesized or a halving structure (see Preliminaries).
Recently, approximability and parameterized complexity of the PAFP problem have been studied:
We add 1 to the objective function to disallow a zero cost solutions -- otherwise the problem is
trivially inapproximable. \citet{checkpoint} showed that even then there is a constant $c>0$ such
that minimizing $1+\null$the number of forbidden pairs on an $s$--$t$ path is not $c\cdot n$-approximable.
\citet{w1} studied the PAFP problem on undirected graphs. When parameterized by the vertex cover of $G=(V,E)$,
the problem is W[1]-hard (the proof also carries over to directed acyclic graphs). On the other hand,
when parameterized by the vertex cover of $H=(V, F)$ (where edges are forbidden pairs), the problem is
fixed parameter tractable (FPT), but has no polynomial kernel unless $\hbox{NP}\subseteq \hbox{coNP}/\hbox{poly}$.
The problem is also FPT when parameterized by the treewidth of $G\cup H$.
\para{Contributions and road map}
In this paper, we systematically study different special cases of the PAFP problem on topologically sorted directed acyclic graphs.
In the next section, we introduce the different special cases based on mutual positions of forbidden pairs.
In Section~\ref{s:ordered}, we prove that the PAFP problem is NP-hard even if the set of forbidden pairs
has ordered structure and in Sections~\ref{s:paren} and \ref{s:concl}, we improve upon the results of \citet{chen} and \citet{kp}
for the nested, halving, and well-parenthesized forbidden pairs.
\subsection{#1}}
\let\ol\overline
\def\mathop{\mathit{first}}{\mathop{\mathit{first}}}
\def\mathop{\mathit{last}}{\mathop{\mathit{last}}}
\def\mathop{\mathit{zip}}{\mathop{\mathit{zip}}}
\def\mathbin{\MNSvertbowtie}{\mathbin{\MNSvertbowtie}}
\def\hbox{\tt (}{\hbox{\tt (}}
\def\hbox{\tt )}{\hbox{\tt )}}
\def\checkmark{\checkmark}
\def$\times${$\times$}
\begin{document}
\begin{frontmatter}
\title{Complexity of the path avoiding forbidden pairs problem revisited}
\author{Jakub Kov\'a\v c}
\ead{<EMAIL>}
\address{Department of Computer Science,
Comenius University,
Mlynsk\'a Dolina,\\842~48 Bratislava, Slovakia}
\begin{abstract}
Let $G=(V,E)$ be a directed acyclic graph with two distinguished vertices $s, t$,
and let $F$ be a set of \emph{forbidden pairs} of vertices. We say that a path in $G$
is \emph{safe}, if it contains at most one vertex from each pair $\{u,v\}\in F$.
Given $G$ and $F$, the \emph{path avoiding forbidden pairs} (PAFP) problem is
to find a safe $s$--$t$ path in $G$.
We systematically study the complexity of different special cases of the PAFP problem
defined by the mutual positions of fobidden pairs.
Fix one topological ordering $\prec$ of vertices; we say that pairs $\{u,v\}$ and $\{x,y\}$ are
\emph{disjoint}, if $u\prec v \prec x\prec y$, \emph{nested}, if $u\prec x\prec y \prec v$, and
\emph{halving}, if $u\prec x\prec v\prec y$.
The PAFP problem is known to be NP-hard in general or if no two pairs are disjoint;
we prove that it remains NP-hard even when no two forbidden pairs are nested.
On the other hand, if no two pairs are halving, the problem is known to be solvable in
cubic time. We simplify and improve this result by showing an $O(M(n))$ time algorithm,
where $M(n)$ is the time to multiply two $n\times n$ boolean matrices.
\end{abstract}
\begin{keyword}
path \sep forbidden pair \sep NP-hard \sep dynamic programming
\end{keyword}
\end{frontmatter}
\input intro
\input prelim
\input ordered2
\input paren
\input concl
\subsubsection*{Acknowledgements.}
The autor would like to thank Bro\v na Brejov\' a for many constructive comments.
The research of Jakub Kov\'a\v c is supported by
APVV grant SK-CN-0007-09,
Marie Curie Fellowship IRG-231025 to Dr.\ Bro\v na Brejov\' a,
Comenius University grant UK/121/2011, and
by National Scholarship Programme (SAIA), Slovak Republic.
Preliminary version of this work appeared in \citet{pcr}.
\bibliographystyle{elsarticle-num-names}
\section{Ordered forbidden pairs} \label{s:ordered}
In this section, we turn to a seemingly more restricted version of the PAFP problem,
allowing only disjoint and halving forbidden pairs. This special case has not been
studied before.
\begin{thm}\label{thm:ord-np}
The PAFP problem is NP-hard, even when the set of forbidden pairs is ordered.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
We will prove the claim by a reduction from 3-SAT. Let $\phi$ be a
Boolean formula over $m$ variables $x_1,\ldots,x_m$, which is a
conjunction of $n$ clauses $\phi_1\wedge \cdots \wedge \phi_n$, where
$\phi_i= (\ell_{i,1}\vee \ell_{i,2}\vee \ell_{i,3})$ and each literal
$\ell_{i,j}$ is either $x_k$ or $\lnot x_k$. We will construct graph
$G$ with a linear order $\prec$ on its vertices and an ordered set
of forbidden pairs $F$ such that there is an $s$--$t$ path avoiding pairs in $F$
if and only if $\phi$ is satisfiable.
Graph $G$ consists of several blocks $B$ and $B_\ell$ of $2m$ vertices
shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:ord-block}, \subref{fig:ord-block2}. The blocks
are connected together as outlined in Fig.~\ref{fig:ord-graph}.
Any left-to-right path through the block $B$ naturally corresponds to
a truth assignment of the variables and, since $B_\ell$ has an isolated vertex $\lnot\ell$,
a path through block $B_\ell$ corresponds to an assignment where $\ell$ is true.
A clause gadget consists of three such blocks, each corresponding to one literal.
Any $s$--$t$ path
must pass through one of the three blocks, and thus choose an assignment
that satisfies the clause.
The forbidden pairs in $F$ will enforce that the assignment of
the variables is the same in all blocks. This is done by adding a
forbidden pair
between all literals $\ell'$ in the $B_{\ell}$-blocks with their counterparts
$\lnot \ell'$ in the previous and the following $B$-block.
\begin{figure*}[tp]
\centering
\subfigure[Block $B$ -- vertices of this graph correspond to positive and
negative literals; a path through this block corresponds to
a truth assignment of the variables.]{
\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{ord_block.pdf}
\label{fig:ord-block}
}\qquad
\subfigure[Block $B_\ell$ is similar to a $B$-block, except that the order of vertices
is different and vertex $\lnot\ell$ is isolated. Thus, a path through
$B_\ell$ corresponds to an assignment where $\ell$ is true.]{
\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{ord_block2.pdf}
\label{fig:ord-block2}
}
\subfigure[Construction of $G$ from the blocks and zipped blocks corresponding to the clauses.
Forbidden pairs enforce that the assignment of variables is the same in all blocks.
]{
\includegraphics{ord_graph.pdf}
\label{fig:ord-graph}
}
\subfigure[An enlarged view of graph $G$ showing block $B$, the following blocks for clause $\phi_k$
and the way they are connected by forbidden pairs. Note that no two forbidden pairs are nested.]{
\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{ordering.pdf}
\label{fig:ordering}
}
\caption{Construction of the graph $G$ for a 3-SAT formula $\phi$. All edges are directed from left to right.}
\end{figure*}
The order of literals in a $B$-block is $\lnot x_1\prec x_1\prec\lnot x_2
\prec\cdots\prec x_m$, while the order in a $B_\ell$-block is $x_1\prec\lnot x_1\prec x_2
\prec\cdots\prec\lnot x_m$.
Let $v_1^i\prec v_2^i\prec v_3^i\prec\cdots$ be the order of vertices in graph $G^i$.
A \emph{zipping} operation takes graphs $G^1,G^2,G^3$
and produces a new graph $G^1\cup G^2\cup G^3$ with vertices
ordered $v_1^1\prec v_1^2\prec v_1^3\prec v_2^1\prec v_2^2\prec v_2^3\prec\cdots$.
The clause gadgets are produced by zipping the three blocks corresponding to their literals.
If we do not allow multiple forbidden pairs starting or ending in the same vertex, we
can substitute vertices in $G$ for short paths as in Fig.~\ref{fig:ordering}.
It is easy to check that under such linear order, no two pairs in $F$ are nested.
\end{proof}
\section{Well-parenthesized forbidden pairs} \label{s:paren}
The first polynomial algorithm for the PAFP problem with well-parenthesized forbidden
pairs was given by \citet{kp}. Their algorithm uses three rules for reducing the input graph:
\begin{enumerate}
\item \emph{contraction of a vertex} -- if $v$ does not appear in any forbidden pair,
remove it and add a direct edge $(u,w)$ for every pair of edges $(u,v)$, $(v,w)$;
\item \emph{removal of an edge} -- if edge $e\in E\cap F$ joins two vertices that make
up a forbidden pair, remove $e$ from $E$;
\item \emph{removal of a forbidden pair} -- if $(u,v)\in F$ is a forbidden pair,
but there is no path from $u$ to $v$, remove $(u,v)$ from $F$.
\end{enumerate}
These three rules are alternately applied to the input graph until we end up
with vertices $s$ and $t$ only -- either joined by an edge or disconnected
-- which is a trivial problem.
A simple implementation of this approach gives an $O(n^2m)$ algorithm.
Using fast matrix multiplication, the time complexity can be reduced to $O(n^{\omega+1})\approx O(n^{3.373})$
and using a dynamic data structure for ``finding paths and deleting edges
in directed acyclic graphs" by \citet{Italiano}, it can be reduced still to
$O(n^3)$.
In fact, this algorithm does not need a topological ordering of vertices
and solves the PAFP problem for a larger class of instances having
a so called \emph{hierarchical structure}: if $\{u,v\}, \{x,y\}\in F$,
there is no path $u\to x \to v \to y$. In other words, no path contains
two halving pairs. Note that there are instances with hierarchical structure
such that no linear ordering is well-parenthesized (see Fig.~\ref{fig:counterex}).
\begin{figure*}[ht] \centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{counterex.pdf}
\caption{Example of a PAFP instance with hierarchical structure which has no well-parenthesized linear ordering:
Since $b$ must be between $a$ and $e$, the only hope is to put $d$ before $e$ so that the pair $\{b,d\}$ is nested
in $\{a,e\}$, but then the order must be $a,b,c,d,e,f,g$ and $\{c,f\}$ halves the other pairs.} \label{fig:counterex}
\end{figure*}
Here we show that the linear ordering helps.
First, we describe our own cubic algorithm, which is simple, does not use any advanced data structures
and moreover, can be easily extended to solve more general problems such as
\begin{itemize}
\item find an $s$--$t$ path passing the minimum number of forbidden pairs or
\item given a graph where all edges have scores and there are bonuses
or penalties for some (well-parenthesized) pairs of vertices,
find an $s$--$t$ path with maximum score (a problem motivated by an application in gene finding \citep{pcr}).
\end{itemize}
It seems unlikely that these problems can be solved using the former approach (because of rule 2).
After that, we show that our algorithm can be improved using the Valiant's technique
and fast matrix multiplication algorithms \citep{valiant,ukelson}
or the Four-Russians technique \citep{4russians}.
Note that the reduction to matrix multiplication is not only of theoretical interest,
since there are fast and practical hardware-based solutions for multiplying two matrices \citep{mm3, mm4}.
\goodbreak
\begin{thm}\label{thm:paren-pafp}
The PAFP problem with well-parenthesized forbidden pairs can be solved in $O(n^3)$ time.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
We first modify the input graph so that no two forbidden pairs start or end in the same vertex.
Let $P[u,v]$ be true if a safe $u$--$v$ path exists, and let $J[u,v]$ be true if there is
a forbidden pair $(q,v)\in F$, $u\prec q \prec v$, and there is a safe $u$--$v$ path such that
the first edge jumps over $q$.
The values of $P$ and $J$ can be found by dynamic programming:
It is easy to compute $J[u,v]$ (if we already know $P[w,v]$ for all $u\prec w\preceq v$)
by inspecting the neighbours of $u$. Conversely, we can also compute $P[u,v]$ efficiently
using the table $J$:
If no forbidden pair ends in $v$ or vertex $u$ is ``inside'' the forbidden pair $(q,v)\in F$,
we just search the neighbours of $v$ for a vertex that could be penultimate on the $u$--$v$ path.
Otherwise, let $(q,v)\in F$ be a forbidden pair such that $u\prec q\prec v$.
Suppose that a safe $u$--$v$ path exists and let $w$ be the last vertex on this path before $q$.
Then $P[u,w]$ and $J[w,v]$ are both true.
Conversely, if $P[u,w]$ and $J[w,v]$ are true for some $w\prec q$, by concatenating the corresponding paths,
we get a safe $u$--$v$ path: The path obviously avoids all forbidden pairs before or after $q$
(from the definition of $P[u,w]$ and $J[w,v]$), and there are no forbidden pairs halving $(q,v)$.
Thus, $P[s,t]$ can be computed in cubic time using the following two recurrences:
\begin{numcases}{J[u,v]=}
\textstyle \bigvee_{(u,w)\in E,\,q\prec w} P[w,v] & \text{if $u\prec q$ and $(q,v)\in F$ is a forbidden pair}\\
\rlap{\it undefined}\hphantom{\textstyle \lor \bigvee_{u\preceq w\prec p} (P[u,w]\land J[w,v])} & \text{otherwise} \nonumber
\end{numcases}
\begin{numcases}{P[u,v]=}
\mathit{true} & \rlap{\text{if $u=v$}}\hphantom{{if $u\prec q$ and $(q,v)\in F$ is a forbidden pair}} \nonumber\\
\mathit{false} & \text{if $(u,v)\in F$ is a forbidden pair} \nonumber\\
\textstyle \bigvee_{u\preceq w\prec v,\ (w,v)\in E} P[u,w] & \text{if no forbidden pair ends in $v$ or $(q,v)\in F$ for $q\prec u$}\\
\textstyle \bigvee_{u\preceq w\prec q} (P[u,w]\land J[w,v]) & \text{if $(q,v)$ is a forbidden pair, $u\prec q\prec v$}
\end{numcases}
Obviously, each $J[u,v]$ and $P[u,v]$ can be computed in linear time, so the algorithm runs in $O(n^3)$.
\end{proof}
This algorithm can be further improved to $O(n^\omega)$ time by using fast boolean matrix multiplication.
The proof is actually simple
thanks to the work of \citet{ukelson} that simplified and generalized the Valiant's technique \citep{valiant}.
They introduce a generic problem called \emph{Inside Vector Multiplication Template} (VMT) which can be solved
in subcubic time. A problem is considered an Inside VMT problem if it fulfills the following requirements:
\begin{enumerate}
\item The goal of the problem is to compute for every $i,j$ a series of inside properties
$\beta_{i,j}^1,\beta_{i,j}^2,\ldots,\beta_{i,j}^K$.
\item Let $1\leq k \leq K$, and let $\mu_{i,j}^k$ be a result of a vector multiplication
of the form $\mu_{i,j}^k = \bigoplus_{q\in(i,j)}\left(\beta_{i,q}^{k'}\otimes\beta_{q,j}^{k''}\right)$,
for some $1\leq k', k''\leq K$. Assume that the following values are available: $\mu_{i,j}^k$,
all values $\beta_{i',j'}^{k'}$ for $1 \leq k' \leq K$ and $(i',j')\subsetneq (i,j)$
and all values $\beta_{i,j}^{k'}$ for $1 \leq k' < k$.
Then, $\beta_{i,j}^k$ can be computed in $o(n)$ time.
\item In the multiplication variant that is used for computing $\mu_{i,j}^k$, the $\oplus$ operation
is associative, and the domain of elements contains a zero element. In addition, there is a matrix
multiplication algorithm for this multiplication variant, whose running time $M(n)$ over two
$n\times n$ matrices satisfies $M(n) = o(n^3)$.
\end{enumerate}
\begin{thm}[\citet{ukelson}]
For every Inside VMT problem there is an algorithm whose running time is $o(n^3)$.
In particular,
let $M(n)$ be the complexity of the matrix multiplication used and suppose
that $\beta_{i,j}^k$ can be computed in $\Theta(1)$ time in item 2 of the definition above.
Then the time complexity is $\Theta(M(n)\log n)$, if $M(n)=O(n^2\log^k n)$;
and $\Theta(M(n))$, if $M(n)=\Omega(n^{2+\varepsilon})$ for $\varepsilon>0$
and $4M(n/2)\leq d\cdot M(n)$ for some $d<1$ and sufficiently large $n$.
\end{thm}
\defP^{\,\lceil\null\bullet}{P^{\,\lceil\null\bullet}}
\def\plbn_{w,v}{P^{\,\lceil\null\bullet}_{w,v}}
\defP^{\,\bullet\null\lceil}{P^{\,\bullet\null\lceil}}
\def\pbln_{w,v}{P^{\,\bullet\null\lceil}_{w,v}}
\begin{cor}
The PAFP problem with well-parenthesized forbidden pairs can be solved in $O(n^\omega)$ time,
where $2<\omega<2.3727$ is the exponent in the complexity of the boolean matrix multiplication.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
We formulate our solution from Theorem~\ref{thm:paren-pafp} as an Inside VMT problem.
The goal is to compute inside properties $A, J, \alpha, \beta, P, P^{\,\lceil\null\bullet}$, and $P^{\,\bullet\null\lceil}$.
Properties $J_{u,v}$ and $P_{u,v}$ correspond to the dynamic programming tables from
the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:paren-pafp}, other properties are auxilliary. Property
$A$ is the adjacency matrix of graph $G$ and it is constant ($A_{u,v} = 1$ if and only if $(u,v)\in E$).
Properties $\alpha, \beta$ are used to store the partial results from cases (2) and (3)
in the computation of $P[u,v]$. Finally, the auxiliary properties $P^{\,\lceil\null\bullet}$ and $P^{\,\bullet\null\lceil}$
can be computed from $P$ in constant time and are defined as follows:
\begin{eqnarray*}
&& \plbn_{w,v} = P_{w,v} \land (q \prec w) \quad\hbox{if $(q,v)\in F$, else \emph{false}} \\
&& \pbln_{w,v} = P_{w,v} \land (w \prec q) \quad\hbox{if $(q,v)\in F$, else \emph{false}}
\end{eqnarray*}
Now we can rewrite the computation of $J_{u,v}$ and $P_{u,v}$ using boolean vector multiplication
as follows:
\begin{align*}
\textstyle \bigvee_{(u,w)\in E,\,q\prec w} P[w,v] & \qquad\leadsto\qquad
J_{u,v} = \textstyle \bigoplus_{w\in(u,v)}(A_{u,w}\otimes \plbn_{w,v}) \tag{1'}\\
\textstyle \bigvee_{u\preceq w\preceq v,\ (w,v)\in E} P[u,w] & \qquad\leadsto\qquad
\alpha_{u,v} = \textstyle \bigoplus_{w\in(u,v)}(P_{u,w}\otimes A_{w,v}) \tag{2'}\\
\textstyle \bigvee_{u\preceq w\prec q} (P[u,w]\land J[w,v]) & \qquad\leadsto\qquad
\beta_{u,v} = \textstyle \bigoplus_{w\in(u,v)}(\pbln_{w,v}\otimes J_{w,v}) \tag{3'}
\end{align*}
Property $P_{u,v}$ can be computed from $\alpha_{u,v}$ and $\beta_{u,v}$ in constant time.
\end{proof}
\section{Preliminaries} \label{s:prelim}
Let $G=(V,E)$ be a directed acyclic graph and let $F$ be the set of forbidden pairs.
In this work, we assume that $G$ is topologically sorted and the linear order of
vertices is given. This is less general than in the work of \citet{kp}, on the other
hand, it is well motivated by applications -- all the graphs mentioned
in the Motivation section have natural linear ordering.
We say that vertex $u$ \emph{is before} or \emph{precedes} $v$,
$u\prec v$, if $u$ precedes $v$ in this linear order.
As already noticed by \citet{yinnone} and \citet{kp}, we may assume that
no vertex belongs to more than one forbidden pair. If this is the case, we can
replace a vertex with $k>1$ forbidden pairs by a directed path of length $k$
and move each end of a forbidden pair to a different vertex on this path.
This preprocessing can be done in linear time and the number of vertices and edges
is increased only by $|F|$ at most.
To define special cases of interest, let us denote the forbidden pairs $\{f_i,f_i'\}$
for $i=1,\ldots,k$, where $f_i\prec f_i'$ and $f_1\prec f_2\prec\cdots\prec f_k$,
i.e., we order them by position of the left member of the pair.
We recognize three possible types of mutual position of pairs $\{u,v\}$
and $\{x,y\}$ (without loss of generality, let $u\prec v$, $x\prec y$, and $u\prec x$):
\emph{disjoint} ($u,v \prec x,y$; see Fig.~\ref{fig:disjoint-pair}),
\emph{nested} ($u\prec x,y \prec v$; see Fig.~\ref{fig:nested-pair}), and
\emph{halving} ($u\prec x\prec v\prec y$; see Fig.~\ref{fig:halving-pair}).
All the special cases are obtained by restricting the set of forbidden pairs $F$
to only certain types of mutual positions (see Table~\ref{tab:pafp}).
This gives us $2^3=8$ cases, from which these 6 classes are non-trivial and interesting:
\begin{figure}[htp]
\centering
\subfigure[disjoint pairs]{ \includegraphics[scale=0.7]{disjoint_pair.pdf}\label{fig:disjoint-pair} }\qquad
\subfigure[nested pairs]{ \includegraphics[scale=0.7]{nested_pair.pdf}\label{fig:nested-pair} }\qquad
\subfigure[halving pairs]{ \includegraphics[scale=0.7]{halving_pair.pdf}\label{fig:halving-pair}}
\vskip-8pt
\caption{Different mutual positions of two forbidden pairs.}
\end{figure}
\begin{table*}
\centering
\caption{Complexity of the PAFP problem for its different special cases;
$n$ and $m$ denote the number of vertices and edges of $G$, respectively; $O(n^\omega)$
is the complexity of boolean matrix multiplication, $\omega< 2.3727$ \citep{mm,mm2}.}
\label{tab:pafp}
\smallskip
\noindent\makebox[\textwidth]{
\begin{tabular}{cccccc}
\multirow{2}{*}{\sc{Problem}} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{\sc Allowed Forbidden Pairs} & \multirow{2}{*}{\sc{Complexity}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\sc{Example}} \\
& \it disjoint & \it nested & \it halving & & \\
\it general problem & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & NP-hard \citep{gabow} & \includegraphics[width=10em]{general.pdf} \\
\it overlapping structure & $\times$ & \checkmark & \checkmark & NP-hard \citep{kp} & \includegraphics[width=10em]{halving.pdf} \\
\it ordered & \checkmark & $\times$ & \checkmark & NP-hard [new] & \includegraphics[width=10em]{ordered.pdf} \\
\noalign{\medskip}
\it well-parenthesized & \checkmark & \checkmark & $\times$ & $O(n^3)$ \citep{kp}, $O(n^\omega)$ [new] & \includegraphics[width=10em]{well_parenth.pdf} \\
\it halving & $\times$ & $\times$ & \checkmark & $O(n^5)$ \citep{kp}, $O(n^{\omega+1})$ [new] & \includegraphics[width=10em]{ordered_halving.pdf} \\
\it nested & $\times$ & \checkmark & $\times$ & $O(nm)$ \citep{chen}, $O(n^\omega)$ [new] & \includegraphics[width=10em]{nested.pdf} \\
\noalign{\medskip}
\it disjoint & \checkmark & $\times$ & $\times$ & $O(n+m)$ [trivial] & \includegraphics[width=10em]{disjoint.pdf}
\end{tabular}
}
\end{table*}
\begin{enumerate}
\item \emph{general case} -- there are no constraints on the positions of pairs;
\item \emph{overlapping structure}\footnote{note that this special case is refered to
as \emph{halving structure} by \citet{kp}; we reserve the term ``halving"
for sets where every two pairs halve each other}
-- every two forbidden pairs overlap (they may be nested or halving, but not disjoint);
as a consequence,
$f_1\prec f_2\prec \cdots\prec f_k \;\prec\; f_{\sigma(1)}'\prec f_{\sigma(2)}'\prec\cdots\prec f_{\sigma(k)}'$
for some permutation $\sigma$;
\item \emph{ordered} -- there may be disjoint and halving pairs, but no two forbidden pairs are
nested; as a consequence $f_1\prec f_2\prec\cdots\prec f_k$ and $f_1'\prec f_2'\prec\cdots\prec f_k'$;
\item \emph{well-parenthesized} -- there may be disjoint and nested pairs, but no two
pairs are halving; this case deserves its name since if we write $\hbox{\tt (}_i$ and $\hbox{\tt )}_i$
for the $i$-th pair, we get a well-parenthesized sequence;
\item \emph{halving} -- every two pairs halve each other;
$f_1\prec f_2\prec\cdots\prec f_k \;\prec\; f_1'\prec f_2'\prec\cdots\prec f_k'$;
\item \emph{nested} -- there are only nested pairs, i.e., the vertices in forbidden pairs are ordered
$f_1\prec f_2\prec \ldots\prec f_k \;\prec\; f_k'\prec \cdots\prec f_2'\prec f_1'$;
this is a special case of the well-parenthesized case.
\end{enumerate}
The previous work and our own results are summarized in Table~\ref{tab:pafp}.
For completeness and as a warm-up, we include our own proof of NP-hardness of the PAFP problem
in the general and overlapping case. This proof is also simpler than the one given by \citet{kp}.
\begin{thm}\label{thm:pafp-np}
The PAFP problem is NP-hard, even when the set of forbidden pairs has overlapping structure.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
By reduction from 3-SAT: Let $\phi=\bigwedge_{1\leq i\leq n} \phi_i$ be a formula
over $m$ variables $x_1,\ldots,x_m$, with $n$ clauses $\phi_i= (\ell_{i,1}\vee \ell_{i,2}\vee \ell_{i,3})$,
where each literal $\ell_{i,j}$ is either $x_k$ or $\lnot x_k$. We will construct graph
$G$ and a set of forbidden pairs $F$ such that there is an $s$--$t$ path avoiding pairs in $F$
if and only if $\phi$ is satisfiable.
\begin{figure}[htp]
\centering\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{gen_np.pdf}
\caption{Input for the PAFP problem for the formula $\phi_1\land\phi_2\land\cdots\land\phi_n$.
All edges are directed from left to right.}\label{fig:ppup-np}
\end{figure}
$G$ consists of two parts: The first part contains a vertex for each variable $x_k$ and its
negation $\lnot{x_k}$ (see Fig.~\ref{fig:ppup-np}). A path traversing this first part
corresponds to a truth assignment of variables where the visited vertices are true.
The second part contains a vertex for each literal $\ell_{i,j}$ (see Fig.~\ref{fig:ppup-np}).
Forbidden pairs connecting every literal from the first part to every occurence of its negation
in the second part of $G$ will ensure that we can only go through ``true'' vertices. Thus an $s$--$t$
path avoiding $F$ exists if and only if every clause is satisfied. Since every forbidden pair
starts in the first part and ends in the second part, all pairs overlap.
\end{proof} |
\section{Image of tautological sheaves under the Bridgeland-King-Reid equivalence}\label{bkr}
\subsection{The Bridgeland--King--Reid equivalence}
Let $G$ be a finite group acting on a smooth quasi-projective variety $M$ over $\mathbbm C$. The quotient $\pi\colon M\to M/G$ always exists as a quasi-projective variety
but is in general singular.
The following was introduced by Nakamura (see \cite{Nakam}) as a candidate for a resolution of the singularities of $M/G$ with good properties.
\begin{defin}
The \textit{G-Hilbert scheme} $\GHilb(M)$ parametrizes $G$-clusters on $M$, i.e. it is the scheme representing the functor
\[ T\mapsto\left\{\begin{matrix} Z\subset T\times X \text{ closed} \\ \text{G-invariant subscheme} \end{matrix} \;\middle|\;
\begin{matrix} \text{$Z$ is flat and finite over $T$,} \\ \text{$H^0(Z_t)\cong \mathbbm C^G$ as $G$-representations $\forall t\in T$} \end{matrix}\right\} \,.\]
The \textit{Nakamura-$G$-Hilbert scheme} $\Hilb^G(M)$ is defined to be the irreducible component of $\GHilb(M)$ which contains all the $\mathbbm C$-valued points corresponding to free orbits. It is equipped with a universal family $\mathcal Z\subset \Hilb^G(M)\times M$ and the \textit{$G$-Hilbert-Chow morphism} \[\tau \colon \Hilb^G(M)\to M/G\] sending a $G$-cluster to the $G$-orbit supporting it. In summary there is the commutative diagram
\[\begin{CD}
\mathcal Z
@>{p}>>
X^n \\
@V{q}VV
@VV{\pi}V \\
\Hilb^G(M)
@>>{\tau}>
S^nX
\end{CD}\,. \]
\end{defin}
\begin{theorem}[\cite{BKR}]
Let the quotient $M/G$ be Gorenstein, i.e $\omega_{M/G}$ exists as a line bundle, and \[\dim(\Hilb^G(M)\times_{M/G}\Hilb^G(M))\le \dim (M)+1\,.\] Then $\tau$ is a crepant resolution of the singularities of $M/G$, i.e $\tau^*\omega_{M/G}\cong \omega_{\Hilb^G(M)}$, and the equivariant Fourier-Mukai transform
\[\Phi_{\mathcal O_{\mathcal Z}}=Rp_*\circ q^*\colon \D^b(\Hilb^G(M))\to \D^b_G(M)\]
is an equivalence of triangulated categories.
\end{theorem}
The functor $\Phi_{\mathcal O_{\mathcal Z}}$ is called \textit{the Bridgeland-King-Reid equivalence.}
\begin{remark}
The group $G$ acts trivially on $\Hilb^G(M)$ and on $\mathcal Z\subset \Hilb^G(M)\times M$ by the action induced by the action on $M$.
To be formally correct the equivariant Fourier-Mukai transform $\Phi_{\mathcal O_{\mathcal Z}}$ is the functor
$Rp_*\circ q^*\colon \D^b_G(\Hilb^G(M))\to \D^b_G(M)$ and the Bridgeland-King-Reid equivalence is the functor $\Phi_{\mathcal O_{\mathcal Z}}\circ\triv$.
\end{remark}
\subsection{The Hilbert scheme of points on a surface}
Let $X$ be a smooth quasi-projective surface over $\mathbbm C$ and $P\in \mathbbm Q[x]$. Then the \textit{Hilbert functor}
\[ T\mapsto\left\{\begin{matrix} Z\subset T\times X \\ \text{closed subscheme} \end{matrix} \;\middle|\;
\begin{matrix} \text{$Z$ is flat and proper over $T$,} \\ \text{$Z_t$ has Hilbert polynomial $P\,\, \forall t\in T$} \end{matrix}\right\} \]
is representable by a result of Grothendieck (see \cite{Gro2}). In case $P=n\in\mathbbm N$ the representing scheme $X^{[n]}$ is called the \textit{Hilbert scheme of $n$ points on $X$}.
Its $\mathbbm C$-valued points correspond to zero-dimensonal subschemes $\xi$ of $X$ of length \[\ell(\xi):=\dim_\mathbbm C\Gamma( \xi,\mathcal O_\xi)=n\,.\]
The generic case of such subschemes are collections of $n$ distinct points. If the support of $\xi$ consists of less than $n$ points, the scheme structure has to be further specified. For example a subscheme of length 2 which is concentrated in one point is given by choosing a tangent direction of $X$ in that point.
$X^{[n]}$ is a $2n$-dimensional quasi-projective smooth variety (see \cite{Fog}).
It is a resolution of the symmetric product $S^nX:=X^n/\mathfrak S_n$ via the \textit{Hilbert-Chow morphism}
\[\mu\colon X^{[n]}\to S^nX\quad,\quad \xi\mapsto\sum_{x\in\xi}\ell (\xi,x)\cdot x\,.\]
The \textit{isospectral Hilbert scheme}
is defined as $I^nX:=(X^{[n]}\times_{S^nX} X^n)_{\text{red}}$. It is a family of $\mathfrak S_n$-clusters in $X^n$ flat over $X^{[n]}$ (see \cite{Hai}).
Thus, it induces a morphism $\eta$ from $X^{[n]}$ to the moduli space $\mathfrak S_n\Hilb(X^n)$. Since the generic fiber of $I^nX$ over $X^{[n]}$ consist of
$n$ distinct points, $\eta$ factorizes over $\Hilb^{\mathfrak S_n}(X^n)$.
\begin{theorem}[\cite{Hai}]
The morphism $\eta$ induces an isomorphism between the commutative diagrams
\[ \begin{CD}
I^nX
@>{p}>>
X^n \\
@V{q}VV
@VV{\pi}V \\
X^{[n]}
@>>{\mu}>
S^nX
\end{CD}\quad\cong\quad
\begin{CD}
\mathcal Z
@>{p}>>
X^n \\
@V{q}VV
@VV{\pi}V \\
\Hilb^{\mathfrak S_n}(X^n)
@>>{\tau}>
S^nX
\end{CD}\,. \]
\end{theorem}
That means that $X^{[n]}$ with $I^nX$ in the role of the universal family of $\mathfrak S_n$-clusters is isomorphic to $\Hilb^{\mathfrak S_n}(X^n)$ over $S^nX$. Since $S^nX$ is Gorenstein and the Hilbert-Chow morphism is semi-small (see also \cite{Hai}), the assumptions of the Bridgeland-King-Reid theorem are fulfilled.
\begin{cor}\label{equi}
The Fourier-Mukai Transform
\[\Phi:=\Phi^{X^{[n]}\to X^n}_{\mathcal O_{I^nX}}\colon \D^b(X^{[n]})\to \D^b_{\mathfrak S_n}(X^n)\]
is an equivalence of triangulated categories.
\end{cor}
The Bridgeland--King--Reid equivalence can be used to compute the extension groups of objects in the derived category of the Hilbert scheme.
\begin{cor}\label{bkrext}
Let $\mathcal F^\bullet,\mathcal G^\bullet\in\D^b(X^{[n]})$. Then
\[\Ext^i_{X^{[n]}}(\mathcal F^\bullet,\mathcal G^\bullet)\cong \mathfrak S_n\Ext^i_{X^n}(\Phi(\mathcal F^\bullet),\Phi(\mathcal G^\bullet))\quad\text{for all $i\in\mathbbm Z$}\,.\]
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
Using the last corollary we indeed have
\[
\begin{aligned} \Ext^i_{X^{[n]}}(\mathcal F^\bullet,\mathcal G^\bullet)\cong \Hom_{\D^b(X^{[n]})}(\mathcal F^\bullet,\mathcal G^\bullet[i])
&\cong \Hom_{\D^b_{\mathfrak S_n}(X^n)}(\Phi(\mathcal F^\bullet),\Phi(\mathcal G^\bullet[i]))\\
&\cong \Hom_{\D^b_{\mathfrak S_n}(X^n)}(\Phi(\mathcal F^\bullet),\Phi(\mathcal G^\bullet)[i])\\
&\cong \mathfrak S_n\Ext^i_{X^n}(\Phi(\mathcal F^\bullet),\Phi(\mathcal G^\bullet))\,.
\end{aligned}
\]
\end{proof}
We will abbreviate the functor $[\_]^{\mathfrak S_n}\circ\pi_*\colon \D^b_{\mathfrak S_n}(X^n)\to\D^b(S^nX)$ by $[\_]^{\mathfrak S_n}$. Note that $\pi_*$ indeed does not need to be derived since the quotient morphism $\pi$ is finite.
\begin{prop}\label{bkrstru}
In $\D^b_{\mathfrak S_n}(X^n)$ there is a natural isomorphism $\Phi(\mathcal O_{X^{[n]}})\simeq \mathcal O_{X^n}$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
See \cite[Proposition 1.7.3]{Sca1}.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Tautological sheaves}
\begin{defin}
We define the \textit{tautological functor for sheaves} as
\[(\_)^{[n]}:=\pr_{X^{[n]}*}(\mathcal O_\Xi\otimes \pr_X^*(\_))\colon\Coh(X)\to\Coh(X^{[n]})\,.\]
For a sheaf $F\in\Coh(X)$ we call its image $F^{[n]}$ under this functor the \textit{tautological sheaf associated to $F$}.
In \cite[Proposition 2.3]{Sca2} it is shown that the functor $(\_)^{[n]}$ is exact. Thus, it induces the \textit{tautological functor for objects}
$(\_)^{[n]}\colon \D^b(X)\to \D^b(X^{[n]})$.
For an object $F^\bullet\in\D^b(X)$ the \textit{tautological object associated to
$F^\bullet$} is $(F^\bullet)^{[n]}$.
\end{defin}
\begin{remark}\label{tautexact}
The tautological functor for objects is isomorphic to the Fourier-Mukai transform with kernel the structural sheaf of the universal family, i.e.
$(F^\bullet)^{[n]}\simeq \Phi^{X\to X^{[n]}}_{\mathcal O_\Xi}(F^\bullet)$ for every $F^\bullet\in \D^b(X)$.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
If $F$ is locally free of rank $k$ the \textit{tautological bundle} $F^{[n]}$ is
locally free of rank $k\cdot n$ with fibers
$F^{[n]}([\xi])=\glob(\xi,F_{\mid \xi})$ since $\pr_{X^{[n]}}\colon \Xi\to X^{[n]}$ is flat and finite of degree $n$.
\end{remark}
\subsection{The complex $C^\bullet$}\label{ccomplex}
\begin{defin}
For two finite totally ordered sets $M$, $L$ of the same cardinality we define $u_{M\to L}$ as the unique strictly increasing map.
Let now $N$ be totally ordered, $m\in M\subset N$ and $\sigma\in\mathfrak S_N$. We define the signs
\begin{align*}\varepsilon_{\sigma,M}:=\sgn(u_{\sigma(M)\to M}\circ \sigma_{|M})=(-1)^{\#\{(i,j)\in M\times M\mid i<j\,,\, \sigma(i)>\sigma(j)\}}
\end{align*}
and $\varepsilon_{m,M}:=(-1)^{\#\{j\in M\mid j<m\}}$.
\end{defin}
To any coherent sheaf $F$ on $X$ we associate a $\mathfrak S_n$-equivariant
complex $C_F^\bullet$ of sheaves on $X^n$ as follows.
For $I\subset [n]$ with $|I|\ge 2$ we define $F_I=\iota_{I*}p_I^*F$. Here $\iota_I\colon\Delta_I\to X^n$ is the closed embedding of the partial diagonal and $p_I\colon \Delta_I\to X$ is the projection induced by the projection $\pr_i\colon X^n\to X$ for any $i\in I$. We set
\[C^0_F=\bigoplus_{i=1}^n
p_i^*F\quad, \quad C^p_F=\bigoplus_{I\subset[n]\,,\,\mid I\mid =p+1} F_I\quad\text{for
$0< p< n$}\quad,\quad C^p_F=0 \quad\text{else}\,.\]
Let $s=(s_I)_{\mid I\mid= p+1}$ be a local section of $C^p_F$. We define the $\mathfrak S_n$-linearization of $C^p_F$ by
\[\lambda_{\sigma}(s)_I:=\varepsilon_{\sigma,I}\cdot\sigma_*(s_{\sigma^{-1}(I)})\,,\]
where $\sigma_*$ is the flat base change isomorphism from the following diagram with $p_I\circ \sigma =p_{\sigma^{-1}(I)}$
\[\xymatrix{
\Delta_{\sigma^{-1}(I)} \ar^\sigma[r] \ar_{\iota_{\sigma^{-1}(I)}}[d] & \Delta_I\ar^{p_I}[r] \ar_{\iota_I}[d] & X \\
X^n \ar^\sigma[r] & X^n \,. &
}
\]
This gives also a $\mathfrak S_n$-linearization of $C^0_F$ using the convention $F_{\{i\}}:=p_i^*F$ and $\Delta_{\{i\}}:=X^n$.
Note that for $J\subset [n]$ with $|J|\ge 2$ and $i\in J$ there is by projection formula a natural isomorphism $F_J\cong F_{J\setminus \{i\}|\Delta_J}$.
Using this, we define the differentials $d^p\colon C^p_F\to C^{p+1}_F$ by the formula
\[d^p(s)_J:=\sum_{i\in J} \varepsilon_{i,J}\cdot s_{J\setminus\{i\}\mid _{\Delta_J}}\,.\]
As one can check, $C^\bullet_F$ is indeed an $\mathfrak S_n$-equivariant complex.
\begin{remark}\label{CF}
Since $p_I$ is a projection and $\iota_I$ a closed embedding, the functor
\[C^p\colon \Coh(X)\to \Coh_{\mathfrak S_n}(X^n)\quad,\quad F\mapsto C^p_F\]
is exact for all $0\le p\le n-1$. Thus, the functor
\[C^\bullet\colon \Kom(\Coh(X))\to \Kom(\Coh_{\mathfrak S_n}(X^n))\quad F^\bullet\mapsto C^\bullet_{F^\bullet}:=\tot(K^{\bullet,\bullet})\]
is also exact, where the double complex is given by $K^{i,j}=C^i_{F^j}$. Hence, without deriving we get an exact functor $C^\bullet\colon \D^b(X)\to \D^b_{\mathfrak S_n}(X^n)$.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}\label{FI}
For every $I\subset[n]$ the sheaf $F_I$ carries a $\Stab(I)=\mathfrak S_I\times\overline{\mathfrak S_{I}}$-linearization. As a $\mathfrak S_I\times\overline{\mathfrak S_{I}}$-sheaf we can write it as
\[F_I= \iota_{I*}(\mathfrak a_I\otimes p^*_{I} F)\,.\]
Here $\mathfrak a_I$ denotes the alternating representation of $\mathfrak S_I$, i.e. the one-dimensional representation on which $\sigma\in \mathfrak S_I$ acts by multiplication by $\sgn(\sigma)$.
See also remark \ref{induequi} for a description of the linearization of $p_I^*F$. Note that, since the group $\mathfrak S_I$ acts trivially on $\Delta_I$, the $\mathfrak S_I$-linearization of $F_I$ is just a $\mathfrak S_I$-action. An element $\sigma\in \mathfrak S_I$ acts by multiplication by $\sgn(\sigma)$ on $F_I$.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}\label{Cinf}
For $1\le \ell\le n$ we fix an $I_0\subset[n]$ with $\ell$ elements, e.g. $I_0=[\ell]$, and choose for any $I\subset[n]$ with $\#I=\ell$ a $\sigma\in \mathfrak S_n$ with $\sigma(I)= I_0$, e.g. $\sigma={_{I_0}u_I}
\times {_{\bar I_0}u_{\bar I}}$. Then the chosen $\sigma$ form a system of representatives of $(\mathfrak S_{I_0}\times\overline{\mathfrak S_{I_0}})\setminus \mathfrak S_n$ (lemma \ref{repres}) and the canonical isomorphisms $F_{\Delta_I}\cong \sigma^*F_{\Delta_{I_0}}$ induce an isomorphism (see also lemma \ref{infrem})
\[C^{\ell-1}_F\cong \Inf_{\mathfrak S_I\times\overline{\mathfrak S_{I}}}^{\mathfrak S_n}(F_{I_0})\,.\]
\end{remark}
\begin{lemma}\label{opencover}
Let $X$ be a quasi-projective variety. Then $X^n$ and $S^nX$ have open coverings consisting of subsets of the form $U^n$ respectively $S^nU$ for $U\subset X$ open and affine.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
See \cite[Lemma 1.4.3]{Sca1}.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{invsur}
Let $F\in \Coh(X)$, $I\subset [n]$ with $|I|\ge 1$, $i\in [n]\setminus I$, and $r\colon F_I\to F_{I\cup \{i\}}$ the morphism given by restricting local sections of $F_I$ to $\Delta_{I\cup \{i\}}$. Then the induced morphism
\[\bar r\colon F_I^{\mathfrak S_{\bar I}}\to F_{I\cup\{i\}}^{\mathfrak S_{\overline{I\cup\{i\}}}}\]
is still surjective.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By the above lemma it suffices to show that the morphism $\bar r$ is surjective on the sections over $S^nU$ for every open affine subset $U\subset X$.
This can be seen by applying the lemmas 5.1.1. and 5.1.2 of \cite{Sca1} in cohomological degree zero.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Descriptition of $\Phi(F^{[n]})$}
\begin{theorem}[\cite{Sca2}]\label{Sca}\label{Scadesc}
For every $F\in\Coh(X)$ the object $\Phi(F^{[n]})$ is cohomologically concentrated in degree zero. Furthermore, the complex $C^\bullet_F$ is a right resolution of $p_*q^*(F^{[n]})$. Hence, in $\D^b_{\mathfrak S_n}(X^n)$ there are the isomorphisms
\[\Phi(F^{[n]})\simeq p_*q^*F^{[n]}\simeq C^\bullet_F\,.\]
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We will give a short sketch of Scala's proof here, since we need to make a statement about the naturalness of the isomorphisms in the theorem which can be read off from the proof. The object $\Phi(F^{[n]})$ is the image of $F$ under the composition of Fourier-Mukai transforms $\Phi_{\mathcal O_{I^nX}}^{X^{[n]}\to X^n}\circ\Phi_{\mathcal O_\Xi}^{X\to X^{[n]}}$. The composite of the two Fourier-Mukai kernels is given by the structural sheaf of the polygraph
\[D=\{(x_1,\dots,x_n,y)\in X^n\times X\mid y\in\{x_1,\dots,x_n\}\}\subset X^n\times X\,.\]
There is a right resolution $\mathcal K^\bullet$ of $\mathcal O_D$ defined as follows. For $i\in[n]$ let
\[D_i=\{(x_1,\dots,x_n,y)\in X^n\times X\mid y=x_i\}\subset X^n\times X\,.\]
and for $I\subset[n]$ set $D_I=\cap_{i\in I} D_i$. Then $\mathcal K^p=\oplus_{\#I=p+1}\mathcal O_{D_I}$ and the differentials are given by the restrictions $\mathcal O_{D_I}\to\mathcal O_{D_{I\cup\{i\}}}$ with signs as in the complex $C^\bullet_F$. The terms $\mathcal K^p$ are all flat over $X$. Since $\mathcal K^\bullet$ is a right resolution of $\mathcal O_D$, it follows that $\mathcal O_D$ is also flat over $X$. Furthermore $D$ is finite over $X^n$. Thus $\Phi(F^{[n]})$ is indeed concentrated in degree 0 and can be computed as
\[\Phi(F^{[n]})\simeq\Phi_{\mathcal O_D}^{X\to X^n}(F)\simeq p_{X^n*}( p_X^*F\otimes \mathcal K^\bullet)\,.\]
Now $p_{X^n|D_I}\colon D_I\to \Delta_I$ is an isomorphism which yields $p_{X^n*}( p_X^*F\otimes \mathcal \mathcal O_{\Delta_I})\cong F_I$ and hence the isomorphisms of the theorem.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}\label{natural}
Every morphism $\phi\colon E\to F$ of coherent sheaves on $X$ induces a morphism $\phi^{[n]}=\pr_{X^{[n]}*}(\mathcal O_\Xi\otimes \pr_X^* \phi)\colon E^{[n]}\to F^{[n]}$. Under the isomorphisms of the theorem
\[p_*q^*(\phi^{[n]})\simeq
\Phi(\phi^{[n]})\simeq\Phi_{\mathcal O_D}^{X\to X^n}(\phi)\simeq p_{X^n*}( p_X^*\phi\otimes \mathcal K^\bullet)\,.\]
corresponds to $C^\bullet (\phi)\colon C^\bullet_E\to C^\bullet_F$. Thus, we can rephrase the theorem by saying that there is an isomorphism of functors
\[p_*q^*(\_)^{[n]}\cong C^\bullet\colon \Coh(X)\to \Kom(\Coh_{\mathfrak S_n}(X^n))\,.\]
The functors $(\_)^{[n]}$ and $q^*$ are exact ($q$ is flat). Furthermore, $q^*F^{[n]}$ is $p_*$-acyclic for every tautological sheaf $F^{[n]}$ by the above theorem. Thus for every $E^\bullet\in \D^b(X)$ we have a natural isomorphism $\Phi((E^\bullet)^{[n]})\simeq p_*q^* (E^{[n]})^\bullet$. Since $C^\bullet$ is also an exact functor, we have the following isomorphism of functors on the level of derived categories:
\[\Phi((\_)^{[n]})\simeq C^\bullet \colon \D^b(X)\to \D^b_{\mathfrak S_n}(X^n)\,.\]
So $\Phi((F^\bullet)^{[n]})\simeq C^\bullet_{F^\bullet}$ holds for every $F^\bullet\in \D^b(X)$.
\end{remark}
There is also a result on the image under the Bridgeland-King-Reid equivalence of tensor products of tautological sheaves with multiple factors. We will state here the special case of tautological bundles.
\begin{theorem}[Scala, \cite{Sca2}]\label{tenstaut}
Let $E_1,\dots,E_k$ be locally free sheaves on the smooth quasi-projective surface $X$. Then $\Phi(\otimes_{i=1}^k E_i^{[n]})$ is cohomologically concentrated in degree zero and hence isomorphic in $\D^b_{\mathfrak S_n}(X^n)$ to
$p_*q^*(\otimes_{i=1}^k E_i^{[n]})$. Furthermore we have $p_*q^*(\otimes_{i=1}^k E_i^{[n]})\cong E^{0,0}_\infty$ where $E^{0,0}_\infty$ is on the limiting sheet of the spectral sequence
\[E^{p,q}_1=\bigoplus_{i_1+\dots+i_k=p}\sTor_{-q}(C^{i_1}_{E_1},\dots,C^{i_k}_{E_k})\Longrightarrow E^n=\mathcal H^n(C^\bullet_{E_1}\otimes^L\dots\otimes ^L C^\bullet_ {E_k})\,.\]
The differentials of the spectral sequence are induced by the differentials of the complexes $C^\bullet_{E_i}$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}\label{koneinva}
Let $E_1,\dots, E_k$ be locally free and $F$ an arbitrary coherent sheaf on $X$.
By theorem \ref{Sca} we can make the identification $p_*q^*F^{[n]}=\ker(d^0_F\colon C^0_F\to C^1_F)$. Thus, we can describe the space of sections of $p_*q^*F^{[n]}$ over $U^n$ as the sections $s=(s_1,\dots,s_n)$ of $C^0_F$ with $s_{i|\Delta_{ij}}=s_{j|\Delta_{ij}}$ for every distinct $i,j\in[n]$ or alternatively
\[p_*q^*F^{[n]}(U^n)=\{s\in C^0_F(U^n)\mid s_{|\Delta_{ij}} \text{ is $(i\,\,j)$-invariant } \forall i,j\in[n],\, i\neq j\}\,.\]
The differential
\[d_0^{0,0}\colon E_0^{0,0}=\bigotimes_{i=1}^k C_{E_i}^0\to E_0^{1,0}=\bigoplus_{\ell=1}^k \left(C_{E_\ell}^1\otimes \bigotimes_{i\in[n]\setminus\{\ell\}} C_{E_i}^0\right)\,.\]
on the 1-level of the spectral sequence of theorem \ref{tenstaut} is given by the direct sum of the maps $d_{E_\ell}^0\otimes\id_{\otimes_{i\in [n]\setminus \{\ell\}} C_{E_i}^0}$. Since the $\mathfrak S_n$-linearization of $C^0_{E_1}\otimes \dots \otimes C_{E_k}^0$ is given factor-wise, this implies that every local section of $E_1^{0,0}=\ker(d_0^{0,0})$, and thus also of $p_*q^*(\otimes_i E_i^{[n]})\cong E_\infty^{0,0}\subset E_1^{0,0}$, has the property that its restriction to $\Delta_{ij}$ is $(i\,\,j)$-invariant for every pair $1\le i<j\le n$.
\end{remark}
\section{Equivariant sheaves}
\subsection{Basic definitions}
Let $G$ be a finite group acting on a scheme $X$.
All group actions will be left actions.
Let $F\in \QCoh(X)$ be a quasi-coherent sheaf. A \textit{$G$-linearization} on $F$ is a family of $\mathcal O_X$-linear isomorphisms
$(\lambda_g\colon F\to g^*F)_{g\in G}$ with the properties $\lambda_e=\id$ and
\[\lambda_{hg}= g^*\lambda_h\circ \lambda_g\colon F\to g^*h^*F\cong(hg)^*F\,.\]
A quasi-coherent sheaf $F\in \QCoh(X)$ together with a $G$-linearization is called a \textit{$G$-equivariant sheaf} or just a \textit{$G$-sheaf}.
For two $G$-sheaves $(E,\lambda)$, $(F,\mu)$ the group $G$ acts on $\Hom_{\mathcal O_X}(E,F)$ by
\[ g\cdot\phi:=\mu_{g^{-1}}^{-1}\circ ((g^{-1})^*\phi)\circ \lambda_{g^{-1}}\,.\]
A \textit{morphism of $G$-sheaves} is an $\mathcal O_X$-linear morphism of the underlying ordinary sheaves which is invariant under this action, i.e.
\[G\Hom_{\mathcal O_X}(E,F):=(\Hom_{\mathcal O_X}(E,F))^G=\{\phi\colon E\to F\mid \mu_g\circ \phi=(g^*\phi)\circ \lambda_g\,\forall g\in G\}\,.\]
This gives the abelian category $\QCoh_G(X)$ of $G$-equivariant sheaves on $X$. The full abelian subcategory of $G$-sheaves
whose underlying sheaves are coherent is denoted by
$\Coh_G(X)$.
\subsection{Inflation and Restriction}
For every subgroup $H\subset G$ there is the \textit{restriction functor} $\Res_G^H\colon \QCoh_G(X)\to \QCoh_H(X)$ given by restricting the $G$-linearization of a $G$-sheaf $F$ to a $H$-linearization. In the special case $H=1$ we call the functor
\[\For:=\Res_G^1\colon \QCoh_G(X)\to \QCoh(X)\]
also the \textit{forgetful functor}. We choose a system of representatives of $H\setminus G$. Then there is the \textit{inflation functor}
\[\Inf^G_H\colon \QCoh_H(X)\to\QCoh_G(X)\quad,\quad \Inf_H^G(E,\lambda):= \bigoplus_{[g]\in H\setminus G} g^*E\]
depending only by canonical isomorphism on the chosen representatives.
The $G$-linearization $\mu$ of $\Inf_H^G(E)$ is given as follows.
For every $\sigma\in G$ and $g$ one of the chosen representatives of the classes in $H\setminus G$ there exist uniquely $h\in H$ and $\hat g$ one of the
chosen representatives such that $h\cdot \hat g= g \cdot \sigma$.
Now for a local section $s=(s_g\in g^*E)_{[g]\in H\setminus G}$ we define
$\mu_\sigma(s)_g\in \sigma^*g^* E$ as the image of $s_{\hat g}$ under the isomorphism
\[ \hat g ^* E\overset{\hat g ^*\lambda_h}{\to} \hat g^*h^*E\cong (h\hat g)^* E=(g\sigma)^* E\cong \sigma^*g^* E\,.\]
The inflation functor is left adjoint to the restriction functor. The adjoint pair
\[\Inf^G_H\colon \QCoh_H(X) \rightleftharpoons \QCoh_G(X)\colon \Res_G^H\]
clearly restricts to an adjoint pair of the full subcategories of equivariant coherent sheaves. Both the inflation and the restriction functor are exact.
Let $G$ act transitively on a set $I$.
Let
$\mathcal M$ be a $G$-sheaf on $X$ where the underlying ordinary sheaf admits a decomposition $\mathcal M=\oplus_{i\in I} \mathcal M_i$ such that for any $i\in I$ and $g\in G$ the linearization $\lambda$ restricted to $\mathcal M_i$ is an isomorphism $\lambda_g\colon \mathcal M_i\overset\cong\to g^*\mathcal M_{g(i)}$. Then the $G$-linearization of $\mathcal M$ restricts to a $\Stab_G(i)$-linearization of $\mathcal M_i$.
\begin{lemma}\label{inf}\label{infrem}
Under these assumptions for every $i\in I$ we have $\mathcal M\cong_G \Inf_{\Stab(i)}^G\mathcal M_i$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We only have to show that $\mathcal M$ fulfills the adjointness property of $\Inf_{\Stab(i)}^G(\mathcal M_i)$. Let $(\mathcal F,\mu)$ be a $G$-sheaf and $\phi\colon \mathcal M\to \mathcal F$ a $G$-equivariant morphism. For $j\in I$ let $\phi_j\colon \mathcal M_j\to \mathcal F$ be the component of $\phi$. Choose a $g\in G$ with $g(j)=i$. Then by the $G$-equivariance
\[\phi_j= \mu_g^{-1}\circ(g^*\phi_i)\circ (\lambda_{g|\mathcal M_j})\,.\]
Thus $\phi$ is determined by the $\Stab(i)$-equivariant morphism $\phi_i$. On the other hand every given $\Stab(i)$-equivariant morphism
$\phi_i\colon \mathcal M_i\to\mathcal F$ gives rise to a $G$-equivariant $\phi\colon \mathcal M\to \mathcal F$ by taking the above equation as the definition of the other components.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}\label{conv}
Conversely the inflated sheaf as defined above can be written in the form of $\mathcal M$ from above by setting $I=H\setminus G$ with $\sigma\in G$ acting on $I$ by $\sigma(Hg)=Hg\sigma^{-1}$.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Schemes with trivial $G$-action}\label{triv}
If $G$ acts trivially on $X$, a $G$-linearization of $F$ is just a $G$-action on $F$, i.e. a family of $G$-actions on $F(U)$ for each open subset $U\subset X$,
which are compatible with the restrictions. Thus, in this case there is also the \textit{functor of taking invariants}
$[\_]^G\colon \QCoh_G(X)\to \QCoh(X)$ given by $F^G(U):=[F(U)]^G$. If the scheme is defined over a field of characteristic zero the functor of taking invariants is exact because of the existence of the Reynolds operator. Considering an ordinary sheaf on $X$ as a sheaf with the trivial $G$-action also yields an exact functor $\triv\colon \QCoh(X)\to\QCoh_G(X)$.
Togethter these functors form the adjoint pair
\[\triv \colon \QCoh(X) \rightleftharpoons \QCoh_G(X)\colon [\_]^G\]
Again both functors restrict to functors between the coherent categories. We will write interchangeably $[\_]^G$ and $(\_)^G$ or leave the brackets away.
\subsection{Equivariant geometric functors}\label{geomfun}
Let $G$ act also on another scheme $Y$ and $f\colon X\to Y$ be an $G$-equivariant morphism.
Then there are the \textit{equivariant geometric functors} \[\otimes,\sHom\colon \QCoh_{G}(X)\times\QCoh_{G}(X)\to \QCoh_G(X)\,,\]
$f_*\colon \QCoh_G(X)\to\QCoh_G(Y)$ and
$f^*\colon \QCoh_G(Y)\to \QCoh_G(X)$ which are defined in a canonical way such that they are compatible with the
corresponding non-equivariant functors via the forgetful functor.
More concretely, since $f$ commutes with the action of every $\sigma\in G$ for $D,E\in\QCoh(X)$ and $F\in \QCoh(Y)$ there are natural isomorphisms $f^*\sigma^* F \cong \sigma^*f^* F$, $f_*\sigma^*E\cong \sigma^*f_*E$ (flat base change) and $\sigma^*D\otimes \sigma^*E\cong \sigma^*(D\otimes E)$. This allows us to define the $G$-linearization of the pull-back, the push-forward and the tensor product as the pull-back, push-forward and tensor product of the $G$-linearization of the original sheaves. Since the morphism $\sigma$ is an automorphism, the natural morphism $\sigma^*\sHom(D,E)\to \sHom(\sigma^*D,\sigma^*E)$ is also an isomorphism.
Using this identification, the linearization $\alpha$ of $\sHom(D,E)$ is given by $\alpha_\sigma(\phi)=(\mu_{\sigma|U})\circ \phi\circ(\lambda^{-1}_{\sigma|U})$ where $\phi\in \sHom(D,E)(U)$ for an open subset $U\subset X$ and $\lambda$ and $\mu$ are the linearizations of $D$ and $E$.
Because of the compatibility with the forgetful functor, all these functors restrict to functors between the
full subcategories of coherent sheaves if and only if the corresponding non-equivariant geometric functors do. Every $G$-linearization induces a $G$-action on the global sections of $X$.
Hence, there is also the functor \[\glob(X,\_)\colon \QCoh(X)\to \Mod(\mathbbm Z[G])\] mapping to the category of abelian groups equipped with an additive $G$-action. If $X$ is defined over a field $k$ we always assume the structural morphism $X\to \Spec k$ to be $G$-invariant, i.e $G$ acts $k$-linear on $X$. Thus, in this case the global sections functor factorises over the category of $k[G]$-modules. We have the formula
\[G\Hom(D,E)=[\glob(X,\sHom(D,E))]^G\,.\]
\begin{lemma}\label{inffun}
Let $H\le G$ be a subgroup, $\mathcal E$ a $G$-sheaf and $\mathcal F$ a $H$-sheaf on $X$. We set $\Inf=\Inf_H^G$ and $\Res=\Res_G^H$. Then
\begin{align*}\mathcal E\otimes\Inf\mathcal F\cong_G \Inf(\Res(\mathcal E)\otimes \mathcal F)\,&,\, \sHom(\mathcal E,\Inf \mathcal F)\cong_G \Inf(\sHom(\Res \mathcal E,\mathcal F))\,,\\ \sHom(\Inf \mathcal F,\mathcal E)&\cong_G \Inf(\sHom(\mathcal F,\Res \mathcal E))\,.
\end{align*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The underlying sheaf of $\mathcal E\otimes \Inf\mathcal F$ is $\oplus_{[g]\in H\setminus G} \mathcal E\otimes g^*\mathcal F$. For $\sigma\in G$ the $\sigma$-linearization of $\mathcal E\otimes \Inf \mathcal F$ maps $\mathcal E\otimes \hat g^* F$ isomorphic to $\sigma^*(\mathcal E\otimes g^*\mathcal F)$, where $[g]$ is the image of $[\hat g]$ under the action of $\sigma $ on $H\setminus G$ defined in remark \ref{conv}. Furthermore the $H$-linearization on the component $\mathcal E\otimes\mathcal F$ coincides with the $H$-linearization of $\Res(\mathcal E)\otimes \mathcal F$. By lemma \ref{inf} this gives the result. The other two cases are proven similarly.
\end{proof}
Also the equivariant pull-backs and push-forwards commute with the inflation functor.
\begin{remark}\label{induequi}
Let $X$ be a $G$-scheme and $\pi\colon X\to Y$ a $G$-invariant morphism, e.g. the quotient morphism. Then there is the composition
\[\pi^*\circ \triv\colon \QCoh(Y)\to \QCoh_G(X)\quad,\quad F\mapsto (\pi^*F,\lambda)\,.\]
For $\sigma\in G$ we denote $\lambda_\sigma$ in this case also by $\sigma_*$. The map $\sigma_*(U)\colon (\pi^*F)(U)\to (\pi^*F)(\sigma(U))$ is given for $s\in (\pi^*F)(U)$ by $(\sigma_*(U)s)(x)=s(\sigma^{-1}x)$ for every ring $R$ and every $R$-valued point $x$ of $\sigma(U)$. In the later sections, mostly $F$ will be a locally free sheaf and $X$ a variety over $\mathbbm C$. In this case it suffices to consider $\mathbbm C$-valued points $x\in \sigma(U)$.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Derived equivariant categories}
Let from now on $X$ be a noetherian scheme. We denote the derived categories as \[\D_G(\QCoh(X)):=\D(\QCoh_G(X))\,,\,
\D_G(X):=\D_G(\Coh(X)):=\D(\Coh_G(X))\,.\]
As usual for $*=+,-,b$ we denote by $\D^*_G(\QCoh(X))$ respectively $\D^*_G(X)$ the full subcategories of complexes with bounded from below, bounded from above or bounded cohomology. For the same reasons as in the non-equivariant case (see e.g. \cite[Prop. 3.5]{Huy}) the category $\D^*_G(X)$ can be identified with the full subcategory of $\D^*_G(\QCoh(X))$ of complexes with coherent cohomology sheaves. Since they are exact, the functors $\Inf$, $\Res$, and in case of the trivial $G$-action also $\triv$ from above define functors on the derived categories. If the scheme $X$ equipped with the trivial $G$-action is defined over a field $k$ of characteristic zero, the functor of taking invariants also is defined between the derived categories. For an $k$-scheme $X$ with an arbitrary $G$-action let $\pi\colon X\to Y$ be a $G$-invariant morphism of $k$-schemes, i.e. an equivariant morphism when considering $Y$ with the trivial action. Then we can push forward $G$-sheafs on $X$ along $\pi$ and take the $G$-invariants on $Y$ afterwards. If $\pi_*$ is an exact functor (which is independent of considering the equivariant functor $\QCoh_G(X)\to \QCoh_G(Y)$ or the non-equivariant one $\QCoh(X)\to \QCoh(Y)$ because of the compatibility with the forgetful functor), we write for short $[\_]^G$ instead of $[\_]^G\circ \pi_*$, which yields also directly a functor on the derived categories.
\subsection{Injective and locally free sheaves}
There are always enough injectives in the category $\QCoh_G(X)$ (see \cite[section 5.1]{Gro1}).
\begin{lemma} Whenever a $G$-sheaf $(F,\lambda)\in\QCoh_G(X)$ is an injective object also its underlying sheaf $F\in\QCoh(X)$ is injective.
If $X$ is defined over a field of characteristic zero also the converse holds.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} Let $(F,\lambda)\in\QCoh_G(X)$ be injective and
\[0\to E'\to E \to E''\to 0 \]
a short exact sequence in $\QCoh(X)$. Applying $\Inf$ to this sequence yields a short exact sequence in $\QCoh^G(X)$. By the adjointness of
$\Inf$ and $\For$ we get the following isomorphism of complexes:
\[\begin{xy}
\xymatrix{ 0 & \Hom(E',F)\ar[d]^\cong\ar[l] & \Hom(E,F)\ar[d]^\cong\ar[l] & \Hom(E'',F) \ar[l]\ar[d]^\cong & 0 \ar[l]
\\ 0 & G\Hom(\Inf E',F)\ar[l] & G\Hom(\Inf E,F)\ar[l] & G\Hom(\Inf E'',F)\ar[l] & 0 \ar[l]\,.}
\end{xy}\]
Since the lower complex is exact by the injectivity of $F$ as an $G$-sheaf, the upper one is also. This shows the injectivity of $F\in \QCoh(X)$.
Taking invariants of $G$-representations over a field of characteristic zero is exact. Since $G\Hom(E,F)$ is defined as the space of invariants of $\Hom(E,F)$ we get the second statement.
\end{proof}
A \textit{$G$-equivariant locally free sheaf} is just a
coherent $G$-sheaf whose underlying ordinary sheaf is locally free.
\begin{lemma}
There are enough $G$-equivariant locally free sheaves in $\Coh_G(X)$ if and only if there are enough locally free sheaves in $\Coh(X)$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let there be enough locally free $G$-sheaves in $\Coh_G(X)$ and let $F\in\Coh(X)$. Then there is a locally free $G$-sheaf $E$ and a surjection
$\phi\colon E\to \Inf(F)$. The component $\phi_e\colon E\to F$ is then a surjection in $\Coh(X)$. Let on the other hand $\Coh(X)$ have enough locally free sheaves and consider $F\in \Coh_G(X)$. Then there is a surjection $\psi\colon E\to \For(F)$ from a locally free sheaf $E\in \Coh(X)$. By the adjoint property of the inflation functor there is a map $\Inf(E)\to F$ in $\Coh_G(X)$. By construction it is still surjective.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Derived equivariant functors}
Because of the existence of enough injective equivariant sheaves the functors $\glob(X,\_)$, $f_*$ and $\sHom$ from subsection \ref{geomfun} can be derived to (bi-)functors
\begin{align*}R\glob(X,\_)\colon\D^+_G(\QCoh(X))\to \D^+(\Mod(\mathbbm Z[G])\,,\, Rf_*\colon \D^+_G(\QCoh(X))\to \D^+_G(\QCoh(Y))\,,\,\\
R\sHom\colon \D^-_G(\QCoh(X))^{\circ}\times \D^+_G(\QCoh(X))\to D^+_G(\QCoh(X))\,.
\end{align*}
If there are enough locally free coherent sheaves on $Y$ also the derived equivariant functors
\[Lf^*\colon \D_G^-(Y)\to \D_G^-(X)\quad,\,\quad \_\otimes^L\_\colon \D_G^-(Y)\times \D_G^-(Y)\to \D_G^-(Y) \]
exist. Since the forgetful functor maps injective to injective and locally free to locally free sheaves, all the equivariant derived functors are compatible
with their non-equivariant versions via the forgetful functor, for example the following diagram commutes
\[ \begin{CD}
\D^+_G(\QCoh(X))
@>{Rf_*}>>
\D^+_G(\QCoh(Y)) \\
@V{\For}VV
@VV{\For}V \\
\D^+(\QCoh(X))
@>>{Rf_*}>
\D^+(\QCoh(Y))\,.
\end{CD} \]
This implies that (when there are enough locally free sheaves) a derived geometric equivariant functor restricts to a functor between the bounded derived categories of coherent sheaves if and only if the corresponding non-equivariant functor does.
Also the functor $G\Hom(\_,\_)$ of global $G$-homomorphisms can be derived. We define $G\Ext^i(\_,\_)$ to be the $i$-th derived functor of $G\Hom(\_,\_)$. It coincides with $\Hom_{\D(\QCoh^G(X))}(\_,\_[-i])$.
All the common formulas (see e.g. the section ``Compatibilities`` in \cite[chapter 3]{Huy} ) relating the geometric derived functors generalise directly to the equivariant case. In the following lemma we proof one of them
as an example.
\begin{lemma}
Let $X$ be a scheme with a $G$-action such that there are enough locally free sheaves on $X$ and the geometric derived bifunctors restrict to
\[R\sHom\,,\,\otimes\colon \D^b_G(X)\times\D^b_G(X)\to \D^b_G(X)\,.\]
Then for every $\mathcal D^\bullet,\mathcal E^\bullet,\mathcal F^\bullet\in \D^b_G(X)$ there is a natural isomorphism
\[R\sHom(\mathcal D^\bullet, \mathcal E^\bullet)\otimes^L \mathcal F^\bullet\simeq R\sHom(\mathcal D^\bullet, \mathcal E^\bullet\otimes^L \mathcal F^\bullet)\,.\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Both sides are computed by taking locally free resolutions and then applying the non-derived functors. Thus it suffices to show the formula for locally free equivariant sheaves and the non-derived functors. Let $(D,\lambda)$, $(E,\mu)$ and $(F,\nu)$ be $G$-equivariant locally free sheaves on $X$. It is well known that the map of ordinary sheaves
\[T\colon\sHom(D,E)\otimes F\to\sHom(D,E\otimes F)\quad,\quad \phi\otimes s\mapsto (d\mapsto \phi(d)\otimes s)\]
is an isomorphism. We only have to show that it is equivariant. We denote the linearization of the left-hand side by $\alpha$ and that of the right-hand side by $\beta$. Then for $g\in G$ indeed
\begin{align*} (g^*T)(\alpha_g(\phi\otimes s))=(g^*T)((\mu_g\circ\phi\circ\lambda_g^{-1})\otimes \nu_g(s))&= \left(d\mapsto(\mu_g\circ\phi\circ\lambda_g^{-1})(d)\otimes \nu_g(s)\right)\\
&= \beta_g(d\mapsto \phi(d)\otimes s)\\
&= \beta_g(T(\phi\otimes s))\,.
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
\subsection{Equivariant Grothendieck duality}\label{Verd}
Also Grothendieck duality generalises to proper $G$-equivariant morphisms (see \cite{Has}).
\begin{theorem} Let the finite group $G$ act on schemes $X$ and $Y$, which are of finite type over $\mathbbm C$, and let $f\colon X\to Y$ be a proper $G$-equivariant morphism. Then there exists an exact functor $f^!\colon \D^+(\QCoh^G(Y))\to \D^+(\QCoh^G(X))$ which is compatible with the non-equivariant twisted inverse image functor via the forgetful functor and has the property that for every $\mathcal F^\bullet\in\D^-(\QCoh^G(X))$ and $\mathcal G^\bullet\in \D^+(\QCoh^G(Y))$ the following holds in $\D(\QCoh^G(Y))$:
\[Rf_*R\sHom_Y(\mathcal F^\bullet,f^!\mathcal G^\bullet)\simeq R\sHom_X(Rf_*\mathcal F^\bullet, \mathcal G^\bullet)\,. \]
\end{theorem}
We will need the case where $f=\iota\colon Z\to X$ is a regular embedding with vanishing ideal $\mathcal I_Z$ of a $G$-invariant subvariety.
In this case the normal sheaf
$N_{Z}:=(\iota^* \mathcal I_Z)^\vee$ is a locally free sheaf of rank equal to the codimension of $Z$ in $X$.
If $G$ acts on a scheme $X$, the structural sheaf always has a natural $G$-linearization given by $\lambda_g=(g^\#)^{-1}$, where $g^\#\colon g^*\mathcal O_X\to \mathcal O_X$ is the map of sheaves
which belongs to the morphism $g\in\Aut(X)$. Now if $Z$ is a $G$-invariant closed subscheme with vanishing ideal $\mathcal I$, the map $g^\#$ restricts to
$g^\#\colon g^*\mathcal I\to \mathcal I$. Thus the sheaf $\mathcal I$ carries a natural $G$-linearization $\lambda$. In the following we will always consider $\mathcal I_Z$ and $N_Z$ equipped with the linearization induced by $\lambda$.
\begin{prop}\label{Gro}
Let $X$ be a variety over a field $k$ and $\iota\colon Z\to X$ be the immersion of a closed $G$-invariant local complete intersection subvariety of codimension $c$ with vanishing ideal $\mathcal I$ and $\mathcal G^\bullet\in \D^b_G(\QCoh(X))$.
Then there are canonical $G$-equivariant isomorphisms
\begin{enumerate}
\item \[(\iota_*\mathcal O_Z)^\mathbbm v\simeq \iota_*({\wedge}^c N_Z)[-c]\,,\]
\item \[\sExt^k(\iota_*\mathcal O_Z,\iota_*\mathcal O_Z)\cong \iota_*({\wedge}^k N_Z)\quad \forall\, 0\le k\le c\,,\]
\item \[\iota^!\mathcal G^\bullet\simeq L\iota^*\mathcal G^\bullet\otimes ({\wedge}^c N_Z)[-c]\,.\]
\end{enumerate}
That means, that the $G$-linearizations on the right sides of the formulas are all the ones canonically induced by the linearization $\lambda$ of $\mathcal I$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
The proposition is proved in chapter 28 of \cite{Has} in the more general framework of diagrams of schemes. How to obtain schemes with a group action as a special case is explained in the introduction and chapter 29.
\end{proof}
\section{Introduction}
For every smooth quasi-projective surface $X$ over $\mathbbm C$ there is a series of associated higher dimensional smooth varieties namely the \textit{Hilbert schemes of $n$ points on $X$} for $n\in\mathbbm N$. They are the fine moduli spaces $X^{[n]}$ of zero dimensional subschemes of length $n$ of $X$.
Thus, there is a universal family $\Xi$ together with its projections
\[X\overset{\pr_X}\gets\Xi\overset{\pr_{X^{[n]}}}\to X^{[n]}\,.\]
Using this, one can associate to every coherent sheaf $F$ on $X$ the so called \textit{tautological sheaf} $F^{[n]}$ on each $X^{[n]}$ given by
\[F^{[n]}:=\pr_{X^{[n]}*}\pr_X^* F\,.\]
More generally, for any object of the bounded derived category $F^\bullet\in\D^b(X)$ using the Fourier-Mukai transform with kernel the structural sheaf of $\Xi$ yields the \textit{tautological object}
\begin{align*}(F^\bullet)^{[n]}:=\Phi^{X\to X^{[n]}}_{\mathcal O_\Xi}(F^\bullet)\,.\end{align*}
It is well known (see \cite{Fog}) that the Hilbert scheme $X^{[n]}$ of $n$ points on $X$ is a resolution of the singularities of $S^nX=X^n/\mathfrak S_n$ via the \textit{Hilbert-Chow morphism}
\[\mu\colon X^{[n]}\to S^nX\quad,\quad \xi\mapsto\sum_{x\in\xi}\ell(\xi,x)\cdot x\,.\]
For every line bundle $L$ on $X$ the line bundle $L^{\boxtimes n}\in \Pic(X^n)$ descents to the line bundle $(L^{\boxtimes n})^{\mathfrak S_n}$ on $S^nX$. Thus, for every $L\in\Pic(X)$ there is the \textit{determinant line bundle} on $X^{[n]}$ given by
\[\mathcal D_L:=\mu^*((L^{\boxtimes n})^{\mathfrak S_n})\,.\]
One goal in studying Hilbert schemes of points is to find formulas expressing the invariants of $X^{[n]}$ in terms of the invariants of the surface $X$. This includes the invariants of the induced sheaves defined above. There are already some results in this area.
For example, in \cite{Leh} there is a formula for the Chern classes of $F^{[n]}$ in terms of those of $F$ in the case that $F$ is a line bundle. In \cite{BNW} the existence of
universal formulas, i.e. formulas independent of the surface $X$, expressing the characteristic classes of any tautological sheaf in terms of the characteristic classes of $F$ is shown and those formulas are computed in some cases.
Furthermore, Danila (\cite{Dandual}, \cite{Dan}, \cite{Danglob}) and Scala (\cite{Sca1}, \cite{Sca2}) proved formulas for the cohomology of tautological sheaves, determinant line bundles, and some natural constructions (tensor, wedge, and symmetric products) of these.
In particular, in \cite{Sca2} there is the formula
\begin{align}\label{Scaformula}\Ho^*(X^{[n]},F^{[n]}\otimes \mathcal D_L)\cong \Ho^*(F\otimes L)\otimes S^{n-1}\Ho^*(L)\end{align}
for the cohomology of a tautological sheaf twisted by a determinant line bundle.
In this paper we compute extension groups between tautological sheaves and more generally \textit{twisted tautological objects}, i.e. tautological objects tensorised with determinant line bundles.
Our main theorem is the existence of natural isomorphisms of graded vector spaces
\begin{align*}
\Ext^*((E^\bullet)^{[n]}\otimes \mathcal D_L,(F^\bullet)^{[n]}\otimes \mathcal D_M)&\cong \begin{aligned} &\Ext^*(E^\bullet\otimes L,F^\bullet\otimes M)\otimes S^{n-1}\Ext^*(L,M)\oplus\\ &\Ext^*(E^\bullet\otimes L,M)\otimes \Ext^*(L,F^\bullet\otimes M)\otimes S^{n-2}\Ext^*(L,M)\end{aligned}
\end{align*}
for objects $E^\bullet,F^\bullet\in\D^b(X)$ and line bundles $L,M\in \Pic(X)$. We also give a similar formula for $\Ext^*((E^\bullet)^{[n]}\otimes \mathcal D_L,\mathcal D_M)$. Since $\mathcal D_{\mathcal O_X}=\mathcal O_{X^{[n]}}$, by setting $L=M=\mathcal O_X$ the extension groups and the cohomology of the dual of non-twisted tautological bundles occur as special cases. As an application of the formula for the extension groups we show for $X$ a projective surface with a trivial canonical bundle that twisted tautological objects are never spherical or $\mathbbm P^n$-objects in $\D^b(X^{[n]})$.
We will use Scala's approach of \cite{Sca1}, which in turn uses the Bridgeland--King--Reid equivalence.
Let $G$ be a finite group acting on a smooth quasi-projective variety $M$. A \textit{G-cluster} on $M$ is a zero-dimensional closed $G$-invariant subscheme $Z$ of $M$ where $\glob(Z,\mathcal O_Z)$ equipped with the induced $G$-action is isomorphic to the natural representation $\mathbbm C^G$.
Bridgeland, King and Reid proved in \cite{BKR} that under some requirements the irreducible component $\Hilb^G(M)$, called the \textit{Nakamura $G$-Hilbert scheme}, of the fine moduli space of $G$-clusters on $M$ which contains the points corresponding to free orbits is a crepant resolution of the quotient $M/G$. Furthermore, they showed that the $G$-equivariant Fourier-Mukai transform with kernel the structural sheaf of the universal family $\mathcal Z$ of $G$-clusters
\[\Phi:=\Phi_{\mathcal O_{\mathcal Z}}\colon \D^b(\Hilb^G(M))\to \D^b_G(M)\]
between the bounded derived category of $\Hilb^G(M)$ and the equivariant bounded derived category $\D_G^b(M)=\D^b(\Coh_G(M))$ of $M$ is an equivalence of triangulated categories. Hence, $\Phi$ is called the
\textit{Bridgeland--King--Reid equivalence}.
Haiman proved in \cite{Hai} that $X^{[n]}$ is isomorphic as a resolution of $S^nX$ to $\Hilb^{\mathfrak S_n}(X^n)$ with the \textit{isospectral Hilbert scheme}
\[I^nX:=\bigl(X^{[n]}\times_{S^nX} X^n\bigr)_{\text{red}}\]
as the universal family of $\mathfrak S_n$-clusters. Furthermore, the conditions of the Bridgeland--King--Reid theorem are satisfied in this situation. Thus, there is the equivalence
\[\Phi:=\Phi_{\mathcal O_{I^nX}}^{X^{[n]}\to X^n}\colon \D^b(X^{[n]})\xrightarrow\simeq \D^b_{\mathfrak S_n}(X^n)\,.\]
In general, for $\mathcal E^\bullet,\mathcal F^\bullet\in \D^b(\mathcal A)$ objects in the derived category of any abelian category with enough injectives and every $k\in \mathbbm Z$ there is the identification $\Ext^k(\mathcal E^\bullet,\mathcal F^\bullet)\cong \Hom_{\D^b(\mathcal A)}(\mathcal E^\bullet,\mathcal F^\bullet[k])$. Using this, we can compute extension groups on $X^{[n]}$ as $\mathfrak S_n$-invariant extension groups on $X^n$
after applying the Bridgeland-King-Reid equivalence, i.e. for $\mathcal E^\bullet,\mathcal F^\bullet\in\D^b(X^{[n]})$ we have
\[\Ext^*_{X^{[n]}}(\mathcal E^\bullet,\mathcal F^\bullet)\simeq \mathfrak S_n\Ext^*_{X^n}(\Phi(\mathcal E^\bullet),\Phi(\mathcal F^\bullet))\,.\]
Using the quotient morphism $\pi\colon X^n\to S^nX$ the right-hand side can be rewritten further as
\begin{align*}
\mathfrak S_n\Ext^i_{X^n}(\Phi(\mathcal E^\bullet),\Phi(\mathcal F^\bullet)))
\cong \Ho^i(S^nX,[\pi_*R\sHom_{X^n}(\Phi(\mathcal E^\bullet),\Phi(\mathcal E^\bullet)]^{\mathfrak S_n})\,.
\end{align*}
So instead of computing the extension groups of tautological sheaves and objects on $X^{[n]}$ directly, the approach is to compute them for the image of these objects under the Bridgeland--King--Reid equivalence.
In order to do this we need a good description of $\Phi(F^{[n]})\in \D^b_{\mathfrak S_n}(X^n)$ for $F^{[n]}$ a tautological sheaf. This was provided by Scala in \cite{Sca1} and \cite{Sca2}. He showed that $\Phi(F^{[n]})$ is always concentrated in degree zero. This means that we can replace $\Phi$ by its non-derived version $p_*q^*$ where $p$ and $q$ are the projections from $I^nX$ to $X^n$ and $X^{[n]}$ respectively, i.e. we have $\Phi(F^{[n]})\simeq p_*q^*(F^{[n]})$. Moreover, he gave for $p_*q^*(F^{[n]})$ a right resolution $C^\bullet_F$. This is a $\mathfrak S_n$-equivariant complex associated to $F$ concentrated in non-negative degrees whose terms are of the form
\[C^0_F=\bigoplus_{i=1}^n \pr_i^* F\quad,\quad
C^p_F=\bigoplus_{I\subset [n],\,|I|=p+1} F_I \text{ for $p>0$.}
\]
Here, $F_{I}$ denotes the sheaf $\iota_{I*}p_I^*F$, where $\iota_{I}\colon \Delta_{I}\to X^n$ is the inclusion of the partial diagonal and
$p_{I}\colon \Delta_{I}\to X$ is the projection induced by the projection $\pr_i\colon X^n\to X$ for any $i\in I$.
The main step of the proof of the main formula is to compute $[\pi_*R\sHom_{X^n}(\Phi(E^{[n]}),\Phi(F^{[n]})]^{\mathfrak S_n}$ in the case of tautological bundles, i.e. for $E,F$ locally free sheaves on $X$. We show that
\begin{align}\label{bundlehom}
[\pi_*R\sHom(\Phi(E^{[n]}),\Phi(F^{[n]}))]^{\mathfrak S_n}\simeq[\pi_*\sHom(C^0_E,C^0_F)]^{\mathfrak S_n}\,.
\end{align}
In particular the $\mathfrak S_n$-invariants of the higher sheaf-Ext vanish.
The isomorphism in degree zero is shown using the fact that the supports of the terms $C^p_E$ for $p>0$ have codimension at least two and the normality of the variety $X^n$. For the vanishing of the higher derived sheaf-Homs we do computations in the spectral sequences associated to the bifunctor
\[\ihom(\_,\_):=[\pi_*\sHom_{X^n}(\_,\_)]^{\mathfrak S_n}\] and the complexes $C^\bullet_E$ and $C^\bullet_F$.
We can generalise (\ref{bundlehom}) from locally free sheaves $E$ and $F$ to arbitrary objects $E^\bullet,F^\bullet\in \D^b(X)$ by taking locally free resolutions on $X$ and using some formal arguments for derived functors. Using the fact that $\Phi(\mathcal F^\bullet\otimes \mathcal D_L)\simeq \Phi(\mathcal F^\bullet)\otimes L^{\boxtimes n}$ holds for every object $\mathcal F^\bullet\in \D^b(X^{[n]})$ we can generalise further to twisted tautological objects and get
\begin{align*}
\left[\pi_*R\sHom(\Phi((E^\bullet)^{[n]}\otimes \mathcal D_L),\Phi((F^\bullet)^{[n]}\otimes \mathcal D_M))\right]^{\mathfrak S_n}&\simeq \left[\pi_*R\sHom(C^0_{E^\bullet}\otimes L^{\boxtimes n},C^0_{F\bullet}\otimes M^{\boxtimes n})\right]^{\mathfrak S_n}\,.
\end{align*}
Then we can compute the desired extension groups as the cohomology of the object on the right and get the main theorem.
There is also a similar formula for the extension groups between two determinant line bundles and we can apply our arguments to generalise Scala's result to get a formula for the cohomology of twisted tautological objects.
So now there are formulas for $\Ext^*_{X^{[n]}}(\mathcal F^\bullet,\mathcal G^\bullet)$ whenever both of $\mathcal F^\bullet$ and $\mathcal G^\bullet$ are either twisted tautological objects or determinant line bundles. In the last section we describe how to compute all the possible Yoneda products in terms of these formulas.
The author wants to thank his adviser Marc Nieper-Wi\ss kirchen for his many valuable suggestions. He thanks Malte Wandel for interesting and helpful discussions about the topic of this paper.
\section{Preliminary lemmas}
\subsection{Derived bifunctors}
Let $\mathcal A$, $\mathcal B$ and $\mathcal C$ be abelian categories and
$F\colon \mathcal A\times \mathcal B\to \mathcal C$
be an additive bifunctor which is left exact in both arguments. The functor
$K^+(F)\colon K^+(\mathcal A)\times K^+(\mathcal B)\to K^+(\mathcal C)$ is defined by
\[K(F)(A^\bullet,B^\bullet):=F^\bullet(A^\bullet, B^\bullet) :=\tot F(A^\bullet,B^\bullet)\,.\]
We assume that there is a full additive subcategory $\mathcal J$ of $\mathcal B$ such that for every $B\in \mathcal J$ the functor
$F(\_,B)\colon \mathcal A\to \mathcal C$ is exact and for every $A\in\mathcal A$ the subcategory $\mathcal J$ is a $F(A,\_)$-adapted class.
Under these assumptions the right derived bifunctor
\[RF\colon \D^+(\mathcal A)\times \D^+(\mathcal B)\to \D^+(\mathcal C)\]
exists. Furthermore $K^+(\mathcal J)$ is a $K^+(F)(A^\bullet,\_)$-adapted class for every $A^\bullet\in K^+(\mathcal A)$. Thus also the right derived functor $R(K^+(F)(A^\bullet,\_))$ exists and we have for each $A^\bullet\in \mathcal A$ and $B^\bullet\in \mathcal B$
\[RF(A^\bullet,B^\bullet)\simeq R(K^+(F)(A^\bullet,\_))(B^\bullet)\]
(see \cite[Section 13.4]{KS}). An example were the above assumptions are fulfilled is for any scheme $X$ the functor
\[\sHom\colon \QCoh(X)^\circ \times \QCoh(X)\to \QCoh(X)\,,\]
where we can choose $\mathcal J$ as the class of all injective sheaves (see \cite[Lemma II 3.1]{Har1}).
\begin{prop}\label{bifun}
Under the assumptions from above let $A^\bullet\in \D^+(\mathcal A)$ and $B^\bullet\in \D^+(\mathcal B)$ be complexes such that
$R^qF(A^i,B^j)=0$ for all $q\neq 0$ and all pairs $i,j\in \mathbbm Z$. Then we have $RF(A^\bullet,B^\bullet)\simeq F^\bullet(A^\bullet,B^\bullet)$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
We show that we can enlarge the $K^+(F)(A^\bullet,\_)$-adapted subcategory $K^+(\mathcal J)$ to the $K^+(F)(A^\bullet,\_)$-adapted subcategory $K^+(\mathcal J')$ consisting of all complexes $B^\bullet$ with the property as above, i.e. $\mathcal J'$ is the full subcategory of all objects $B\in \mathcal B$ which are $F(A^i,\_)$-acyclic for every $i\in \mathbbm Z$. The subcategory
$\mathcal J'$ is $F(A^i,\_)$-adapted for every $i\in \mathbbm Z$ (KS lemma 13.3.12). Thus for every acyclic complex $B^\bullet\in K^+(\mathcal J')$ the double complex
$F(A^\bullet,B^\bullet)$ has exact columns. Using the spectral sequence
\[E_2^{i,j}=\mathcal H_I^i(\mathcal H_{II}^j(F(A^\bullet,B^\bullet)))\Longrightarrow \mathcal H^n(\tot(F(A^\bullet,B^\bullet)))=\mathcal H^n(K^+(F)(A^\bullet,B^\bullet))\]
we see that $K^+(F)(A^\bullet,B^\bullet)$ is again acyclic. Hence the category $K^+(\mathcal J')$ is indeed adapted to the functor $K^+(F)(A^\bullet,\_)$ and we can use it to compute the derived functor. We get for $B^\bullet\in K^+(\mathcal J')$ as desired
\[RF(A^\bullet,B^\bullet)=R(K^+(F)(A^\bullet,\_))(B^\bullet)=F^\bullet(A^\bullet, B^\bullet)\,.\]
\end{proof}
Clearly there is an analogous statement for bifunctors which are right exact in each variable. For a fixed object $A^\bullet\in \D^+(\mathcal A)$ and $F$ as above, $G:=K^+(F)(A^\bullet,\_)$ and $\mathcal J'$ as in the proof we call every $B\in \mathcal J'$ a \textit{$G$-acyclic} object.
\subsection{Danila's lemma and corollaries}\label{Dani}
Let $G$ be a finite group acting transitively on a finite set $I$, $R$ a ring and $M$ an $R[G]$-module admitting a decomposition $M=\oplus_{i\in I} M_i$ such that for any $i\in I$ and $g\in G$ the action of $g$ on $M$ restricted to $M_i$ is an isomorphism $g\colon M_i\overset\cong\to M_{g(i)}$. Then the $G$-action on $M$ induces a $\Stab_G(i)$-action on $M_i$, which makes the projection $M\to M_i$ a $\Stab_G(i)$-equivariant map.
\begin{lemma}[\cite{Dan}]\label{Dan}
For all $i\in I$ the projection $M\to M_i$ induces an isomorphism $M^G\overset\cong\to M_i^{\Stab_G(i)}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The inverse is given by
$m_i\mapsto \oplus_{[g]\in G/\Stab_G(i)} g\cdot m_i$ with $g\cdot m_i\in M_{g(i)}$.
\end{proof}
We can globalise Danila's lemma to $G$-sheaves. Let $G$ and $I$ be as above and $G$ act on a scheme $X$. Let
$\mathcal M$ be a $G$-sheaf on $X$ admitting a decomposition $\mathcal M=\oplus_{i\in I} \mathcal M_i$ such that for any $i\in I$ and $g\in G$ the linearization $\lambda$ restricted to $\mathcal M_i$ is an isomorphism $\lambda_g\colon \mathcal M_i\overset\cong\to g^*\mathcal M_{g(i)}$. Then the $G$-linearization of $\mathcal M$ restricts to a $\Stab_G(i)$-linearization of $\mathcal M_i$, which makes the projection $\mathcal M\to \mathcal M_i$ a $\Stab_G(i)$-equivariant morphism. By lemma \ref{inf} for every $i\in I$ we have
\[\mathcal M\cong_G\Inf_{\Stab(i)}^G\mathcal M_i\,.\]
\begin{cor}
Let $\pi\colon X\to Y$ be a $G$-invariant morphism of schemes.
Then for all $i\in I$ the projection $\mathcal M\to\mathcal M_i$ induces an isomorphism $(\pi_*\mathcal M)^G\overset\cong\to (\pi_*\mathcal M_i)^{\Stab_G(i)}$.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
For an affine open $U\subset Y$ we set $R=\mathcal O(U)$, $M=\glob(\pi^{-1}U, \mathcal M)$ and $M_i=\glob(\pi^{-1}U, \mathcal M_i)$. Then the lemma applies and gives the isomorphism of sheaves over $U$. Since for varying $U$ all the isomorphisms are induced by the projection to the $i$-th summand, they glue together.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
The assertion of the lemma respectively the corollary remains true if we consider complexes of $R[G]$-modules $M^\bullet$ and $M_i^\bullet$ respectively complexes of $G$-sheaves. Let $k$ be a field of characteristic zero. If $R$ is a $k$-algebra respectively in the case of $G$-sheaves if $X$ and $Y$ are $k$-schemes and $\pi_*$ is exact, taking invariants is exact. Hence in this case we also have Danila's Lemma for the cohomology of the complexes, i.e.
\[[\mathcal H^k(M^\bullet)]^G\cong [\mathcal H^k (M_i^\bullet)]^{\Stab_G(i)}\,.\]
\end{remark}
Let $G$ act on a scheme $X$ and let $\mathcal E^\bullet\in \D^b_G(X)$.
Let $F$ be one of the functors $\mathcal E^\bullet\otimes\_$, $\sHom(\mathcal E^\bullet,\_)$ or $\sHom(\_,\mathcal E^\bullet)$. We assume that there are enough locally free sheaves on $X$. Then the functor $F$ can be derived and we denote its right respectively left derived by $DF$. Let $H\le G$ be a subgroup. We can consider $F$ and $DF$ as functors on the $H$-equivariant categories by replacing $\mathcal E^\bullet$ by $\Res_G^H \mathcal E^\bullet$.
\begin{lemma}
For $\mathcal F^\bullet\in \D^b_H(X)$ there is in $\D_G(\QCoh(X))$ a natural isomorphism \[DF(\Inf_H^G\mathcal F^\bullet)\simeq \Inf_H^G(DF(\mathcal F^\bullet))\,.\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $\mathcal A^\bullet$ be a $F$-acyclic $H$-equivariant resolution of $\mathcal F^\bullet$. Then $DF(\mathcal F^\bullet)\simeq F(\mathcal A^\bullet)$ in $\D_{H}(\QCoh(X))$. Since the inflation functor is exact, $\Inf(\mathcal A^\bullet)$ is a $G$-equivariant resolution of $\Inf\mathcal F^\bullet$. The objects $\Inf(\mathcal A^i)$ are still $F$-acyclic because of the compatibility of $DF$ with the forgetful functor and with direct sums. Thus
$DF(\Inf\mathcal F^\bullet)\simeq F(\Inf(\mathcal A^\bullet))\simeq\Inf(F(\mathcal A^\bullet))$ holds using lemma \ref{inffun}.
\end{proof}
\begin{cor}\label{deriveddanila}
Let $G$, $I$, $X$, $\pi\colon X\to Y$, $\mathcal M$ and $F$ be as above such that $X$ and $Y$ are schemes over a field of characteristic zero and $\pi_*$ is exact. Then there are natural isomorphisms $[\pi_*DF(\mathcal M)]^G\simeq [\pi_*DF(\mathcal M_i)]^{\Stab(i)}$ and $[\pi_*D^k F(\mathcal M)]^G\cong [\pi_*D^kF(\mathcal M_i)]^{\Stab(i)}$ for every $k\in \mathbbm Z$.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
Using the identification of $\mathcal M$ with the inflation of $\mathcal M_i$ we can conclude by the previous lemma and the previous remark.
\end{proof}
We can get analogous results with $F$ being the push-forward or the pull-back along an equivariant morphism.
\begin{remark}\label{morphismdanila}
Let $G$, $I$ and $M$ be as above, $N=\oplus_{j\in J}N_j$ a further $R[G]$ module such that $G$ acts transitive on $J$ and such that $g\colon N_j\to N_{g(j)}$
for all $j\in J$. Let $\phi\colon M\to N$ be a morphism of $R[G]$-modules with components $\phi(i,j)\colon M_i\to N_j$. Then for fixed $i\in I$ and $j\in J$ the map $\phi^G$ under the isomorphisms $M^G\cong M_i^{\Stab(i)}$ and $N^G\cong N_j^{\Stab(j)}$ of lemma \ref{Dan} is given by (see also \cite[Appendix B]{Sca1})
\[\phi^G\colon M_i^{\Stab(i)}\to N_j^{\Stab(j)}\quad,\quad m\mapsto\sum_{[g]\in \Stab(i)\setminus G} \phi(g(i),j)(g\cdot m)\,.\]
Clearly, there is the analogous formula in the case of $G$-sheaves.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}\label{notrans}
Danila's lemma and the corollaries can also be used to simplify the computation of invariants if $G$ does not act transitively on $I$. In that case let $I_1,\dots,I_k$ be the $G$-orbits in $I$. Then $G$ acts transitively on $I_\ell$ for every $1\le\ell\le k$ and the lemma can be applied to every $M_{I_\ell}=\oplus_{i\in I_\ell}M_i$ instead of $M$. Choosing representatives $i_\ell\in I_\ell$ yields
\[M^G\cong \bigoplus_{\ell=1}^k M_{i_\ell}^{\Stab_G(i_\ell)}\,.\]
\end{remark}
\begin{lemma}\label{tensinv}
Let $k$ be a field of characteristic zero, $R$ a $k$-algebra, $G$ a finite group and $M$ an $R[G]$-module. Let $N$ be a $R$-module, i.e. a $R[G]$-module where $G$ is acting trivially. Then
\[(M\otimes_R^LN)^G=M^G\otimes^L_R N\,.\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
See \cite[Lemma 1.7.1]{Sca1}.
\end{proof}
Also this lemma can be globalised to get an analogous result for $G$-sheaves.
\subsection{Pull-back along regular embeddings}\label{regemb}
Let $G$ be a finite group. In this subsection every variety is supposed to be a $G$-variety (over a fixed field $k$) and every subvariety is $G$-invariant and considered with the restricted $G$-action, i.e. all embeddings are $G$-equivariant. Also, all sheaves and the considered functors and derived functors are equivariant. Of course one can apply the results to the non-equivariant case by setting $G=1$. Throughout the whole section $X$ is a non-singular variety.
\begin{lemma}[{\cite[Lemma A.2]{Sca1}}]
Let $A$ be a regular notherian local ring, $M_1,\dots,M_\ell$ finite Cohen-Macauley modules over $A$, such that
\[
\codim(M_1\otimes\dots\otimes M_\ell)=\sum_{i=1}^\ell \codim(M_i)\,.
\]
Then all the higher torsion modules vanish, i.e. $\Tor^A_i(M_1,\dots,M_\ell)=0$ for all $i>0$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{cor}\label{propint}
Let $i\colon Y\hookrightarrow X$ and $j\colon Z\hookrightarrow X$ be embeddings of Cohen-Macaulay subvarieties which intersect properly in $X$, i.e. \[\codim(Y\cap Z)= \codim(Y)+\codim(Z)\,,\] and $F$ a Cohen-Macaulay sheaf on $Z$. Then all the derived pull-backs $L^{-q}i^*j_*F$ for $q>0$ vanish.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
By projection formula $L^{-q}i^*j_*F\cong \sTor_{q}^{\mathcal O_X}(i_*\mathcal O_Y,j_*F)$.
Since $\mathcal O_Y$ and $F$ are Cohen-Macaulay, $i_*\mathcal O_Y$ and $j_*F$ are also (see \cite[IV B prop 11]{Ser}) .
The stalks of the higher torsion sheaves can be computed as the torsion modules of the stalks so the result follows from the previous lemma.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}
\begin{enumerate}\label{exactcoh}
\item Let $f\colon X\to Y$ be a $G$-equivariant morphism such that the derived pull-back exists and $\mathcal E^\bullet\in \D^-_G(Y)$ a complex such that the cohomology $\mathcal H^q(\mathcal E^\bullet)$ is $f^*$-acyclic for all $q\in \mathbbm Z$.
Then $L^qf^*\mathcal E^\bullet\cong f^*\mathcal H^{q}(\mathcal E^\bullet)$ for all $q\in \mathbbm Z$.
\item Let $\mathcal F\in \Coh_G(X)$ such that $\mathcal H^q(\mathcal E^\bullet)$ is $(\mathcal F\otimes\_)$-acyclic for all integers $q$. Then $\sTor_{q}(\mathcal F,\mathcal E^\bullet)\cong \mathcal F\otimes\mathcal H^{-q}(\mathcal E^\bullet)$ for all $q\in \mathbbm Z$
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We consider the spectral sequence
\[E^{p,q}_2=L^pf^*(\mathcal H ^q(\mathcal E^\bullet))\Longrightarrow E^n=L^nf^*(\mathcal E^\bullet)\]
(see \cite[p.81]{Huy}). By the assumption this spectral sequence is concentrated on the $q$-axis, hence $E^q=E^{0,q}_2$ for each integer $q$.
For the second part we use the spectral sequence
\[E^{p,q}_2=\sTor_{-p}(\mathcal F,\mathcal H ^q(\mathcal E^\bullet))\Longrightarrow E^n=\sTor_{-n}(\mathcal F,\mathcal E^\bullet)\,.\]
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}
Let $j\colon Z\to X$ be an embedding of varieties. Then $j_*\colon \Coh_G(Z)\to \Coh_G(X)$ is a fully faithful functor.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
As in the non-equivariant case for $E,F\in \Coh_G(X)$ there are the natural isomorphisms
\[G\Hom_X(j_*E,j_*F)\cong G\Hom_Z(j^*j_* E,F)\cong G\Hom_Z(E,F)\,.\]
\end{proof}
Let $S$ be a variety and $Y,Z$ closed subvarieties. We denote the inclusions by
\[
\begin{CD}
Y\cap Z
@>{d}>>
Y \\
@V{c}VV
@VV{b}V \\
Z
@>>{a}>
S\,.
\end{CD}
\]
\begin{lemma}\label{closedbase}
For every $F\in \QCoh_G(Z)$ the base change formula $b^*a_*F\cong d_*c^*F$ holds.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We reduce to the case $S=\Spec A$ affine and notice that $\frac M{I_Y\cdot M}=\frac M{(I_Y+I_Z)\cdot M}$ holds for every $A/I_Z$-module $M$.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{selfint}
Let $j\colon S\hookrightarrow X$ be a regular embedding of codimension $c$ with vanishing ideal $\mathcal I_S$ and $F\in\Coh_G(X)$. Then for every $q\in \mathbbm Z$
\[L^{-q}j^*j_*F\cong F\otimes\wedge^{q}(j^*\mathcal I_S)\,.\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We first proof the special case $F=\mathcal O_S$. By \ref{Gro} (iii)
\[j_*(Lj^*j_*\mathcal O_S\otimes \wedge^cj^*\mathcal I_S^\vee[-c])\simeq j_*j^!j_*\mathcal O_S\simeq j_*R\sHom_S(\mathcal O_S,j^!j_*\mathcal O_S)\simeq R\sHom_X(j_*\mathcal O_S,j_*\mathcal O_S)\,.\]
Now taking the $(c-q)$-th cohomology on both sides by \ref{Gro} (ii) yields
\[j_*(L^{-q}j^*j_*\mathcal O_S\otimes \wedge^cj^*\mathcal I_S^\vee)\cong j_*(\wedge^{c-q}j^*\mathcal I_S^\vee)\,.\]
Using the fact that $j_*$ is fully faithful we can chancel it from the isomorphism. Tensoring with $\wedge^cj^*\mathcal I_S$ gives the result.
For general $F$ using the projection formula twice we get
\[j_*Lj^*j_*F\simeq j_*(Lj^*j_*F\otimes \mathcal O_S)\simeq j_*F\otimes^L j_*\mathcal O_S\simeq j_*(F\otimes^L Lj^*j_*\mathcal O_S)\,.\]
We have already proven, that the $L^qj^*j_*\mathcal O_S$ are locally free, hence $(F\otimes\_)$-acyclic. Thus we can use \ref{exactcoh} (ii) with $\mathcal E^\bullet=Lj^*j_*\mathcal O_S$ which proves the general formula.
\end{proof}
Let $j\colon S'\hookrightarrow X$ and $S\hookrightarrow X$ be regular embeddings. Then the composition $j'\colon S'\hookrightarrow X$ is also a regular embedding (see e.g. \cite[Appendix B.7]{Ful}). We denote by $\pi\colon j_*\mathcal O_{S}\to j'_*\mathcal O_{S'}$ the natural surjection.
\begin{lemma}\label{indu}
The induced morphism of the $(-q)$-th derived pull-back functors
\[L^{-q}j'_*(\pi)\colon L^{-q}j'^*j_*\mathcal O_S\cong \wedge^q (j^*\mathcal I_S)_{|S'}\to \wedge^q j'^*\mathcal I_{S'}\cong L^{-q}j'^*j'_*\mathcal O_{S'}\]
coincides with the one induced by the inclusion $\mathcal I_S\subset \mathcal I_{S'}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Because of the compatibility via the forgetful functor of the equivariant derived functors with the non-equivariant ones, we can compute
$L^{-q}j'^*(\pi)$ on the non-equivariant derived functor. The question is local. Thus we can assume that both vanishing ideals are globally generated by regular sequences
\[\mathcal I_S=(f_1,\dots, f_\alpha)\quad,\quad\mathcal I_{S'/S}=(f_{\alpha+1},\dots, f_{\alpha+\beta})\,.
\]
Now the non-equivariant derived pull-backs are computed (see e.g. \cite[chapter 11.1]{Huy}) using the Koszul complexes $K^\bullet(f_1,\dots f_{\alpha})$ and $K^\bullet(f_1,\dots f_{\alpha+\beta})$ as free resolutions of $j_*\mathcal O_S$ and $j'_*\mathcal O_{S'}$. After pulling back the Koszul complexes along $j'$ all the differentials vanish
which yields the isomorphism
\[L^{-q}j'^*J_*\mathcal O_S\cong \mathcal H^{-q}(j'^*K^\bullet(f_i,\dots,f_\alpha))\overset \cong\to \wedge^{q} j'^*\mathcal I_S\,,\,\quad e_{i_1}\wedge\dots\wedge e_{i_q}
\mapsto f_{i_1}\wedge\dots\wedge f_{i_q}
\]
and the analogous isomorphism for $S'$ instead of $S$.
The morphism $\pi$ can be continued on the Koszul resolutions by
\[K^{-q}(f_1,\dots,f_\alpha)\to K^{-q}(f_1,\dots,f_{\alpha+\beta})\,,\, e_{i_1}\wedge\dots\wedge e_{i_q}
\mapsto e_{i_1}\wedge\dots\wedge e_{i_q}\]
which yields the result.
\end{proof}
The two lemmas \ref{propint} and \ref{selfint} can be combined as follows. Let again $Y$ and $Z$ be closed Cohen-Macaulay subvarieties of $X$. We assume that there is a non-singular subvariety $S\hookrightarrow X$ such that $S$ contains $Y$ and $Z$ such that $Y$ and $Z$ intersect properly in $S$.
Note that the embedding $S\hookrightarrow X$ is regular since both $S$ and $X$ are non-singular.
We use the following notations for the closed embeddings:
\[\xymatrix{
& Y \ar^i[dr]\ar^b[d]& \\
Y\cap Z \ar^d[ur]\ar_c[dr] & S\ar^\iota[r] & X\,. \\
& Z\ar^a[u]\ar_j[ur] &
} \]
\begin{lemma}\label{mixedint}
Let $F\in\Coh_G(Z)$ be Cohen-Macauley. With the notations introduced above, for $q\in \mathbbm Z$ there is the following isomorphism
\[L^{-q}i^*j_*F\cong d_*c^*\left(F\otimes(a^*\wedge^q \iota^*\mathcal I_S)\right)\,.\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We have $L^{-q}i^*j_*F\cong L^{-q}b^*(L\iota^*\iota_*(a_*F))$. Also by lemma \ref{selfint} and the projection formula
\[L^{-q}\iota^*\iota_*(a_*F)\cong a_*F\otimes\wedge^{q} (\iota^*\mathcal I_S)\cong a_*(F\otimes a^*\wedge^q N_S^\vee)\,.\]
Since $F$ is Cohen-Macaulay and $\wedge^{q} N_S^\vee$ is locally free, the whole $F\otimes a^*\wedge^q N_S^\vee$ is Cohen-Macaulay for every $q$.
So by \ref{propint} the assumptions of \ref{exactcoh} (i) are satisfied with $f=b$ and $\mathcal E^\bullet=L\iota^*\iota_*(a_*F)$. Thus,
\begin{align*}
L^{-q}i^*j_*F\cong b^*(a_*F\otimes \wedge^{q} (\iota^*\mathcal I_S))&\overset{\text{PF}}\cong b^*a_*(F\otimes a^*\wedge^q \iota^*\mathcal I_S)
\overset{\ref{closedbase}}\cong d_*c^*\left(F\otimes(a^*\wedge^q \iota^*\mathcal I_S)\right)\,.
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
Let $Y,Z$ and $S$ be as above and $S'\hookrightarrow S$ another non-singular subvariety such that $S'$ contains $Y$ and intersects properly with $Z$ in $S$. We denote the intersection by $Z'=Z\cap S'$. It is again Cohen-Macaulay (see \cite[section IV B 2]{Ser}).
Furthermore, the subvarieties $Z'$ and $Y$ intersect properly in $S'$. Hence, the above lemma applies again and
\[L^{-q}i^*j'_*\mathcal O_{Z'}\cong \wedge^{q} (N_{S'}^\vee)_{|Y\cap Z}\,,\]
where $j'$ is the inclusion of $Z'$ in $X$.
\begin{lemma}\label{induced}
Let $\pi\colon j_*\mathcal O_Z\to j'_*\mathcal O_{Z'}$ be the natural surjection. Then the morphism
\[L^{-q}i^*(\pi)\colon L^{-q}i^*j_*\mathcal O_Z\cong \wedge^q (N^\vee_S)_{|Y\cap Z}\to \wedge^q (N^\vee_{S'})_{|Y\cap Z'}\cong L^{-q}i^*j'_*\mathcal O_{Z'}\]
is the one induced by the inclusion $\mathcal I_S\subset \mathcal I_{S'}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We have $\mathcal O_{Z'}\cong \mathcal O_Z\otimes_{\mathcal O_S}\mathcal O_{S'}$ and the surjection $\pi\colon \mathcal O_Z\to \mathcal O_{Z'}$ is induced by the surjection $\mathcal O_S\to\mathcal O_{S'}$. Thus we can use lemma \ref{indu}.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Partial diagonals and the standard representation}\label{diagsta}
Let $X$ be a smooth variety of dimension $d$ over $\mathbbm C$. Let $I=\{i_1<\dots<i_\ell\}\subset [n]$ with $\#I=\ell\ge2$. Then the \textit{partial diagonal} $\Delta_I$ is defined as the reduced subvariety given by
\[\Delta_I=\bigl\{ (x_1,\dots,x_n)\in X^n\mid x_i=x_j \,\forall\, i,j\in I\bigr\}\,.\]
It is a $\Stab_{\mathfrak S_n}(I)=\mathfrak S_I\times\mathfrak S_{\bar I}$-equivariant smooth subvariety of codimension $d(\ell-1)$ in $X^n$.
We denote the closed embedding by $\iota_I\colon \Delta_I\to X^n$.
The subgroup $\mathfrak S_I$ acts trivially on $\Delta_I$. Thus, the $\mathfrak S_I$-linearization of the conormal bundle $N_I^\vee$ is just a $\mathfrak S_I$-action (see subsection \ref{triv}). Since $N_I^\vee$ is locally free, this action is determined by the action on the fibers $N_I^\vee(Q)=\mathcal I_I(Q)$ over closed points $Q\in \Delta_I$.
For $\ell\in \mathbbm N$ the \textit{regular representation} $V_I$ of $\mathfrak S_I$ is the vector space $\mathbbm C^I$ with $\mathfrak S_\ell$ permuting the vectors of the standard base $(e_i\mid i\in I)$. The natural representation decomposes into the direct sum of its invariants, which form the one-dimensional vector space spanned by $\sum_{i\in I}e_i$, and the space
$\{v\in V\mid \sum_{i\in I} v_i=0\}$ spanned by the vectors $e_{i_1}-e_{i_2},e_{i_2}-e_{i_3},\dots, e_{i_{\ell-1}}-e_{i_\ell}$. The latter summand is an irreducible representation of $\mathfrak S_I$ called the \textit{standard representation} and denoted by $\rho_I$.
For $I=[\ell]$ we denote the standart representation of $\mathfrak S_I=\mathfrak S_\ell$ also by $\rho_\ell$ or simply $\rho$.
We need the following result from local algebra (see \cite[IV Proposition 22]{Ser}).
\begin{prop}\label{calg}
If $\{x_1,\dots,x_p\}$ are $p$ elements of the maximal ideal $\mathfrak m$ of a regular local ring $A$, the following three properties are equivalent:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $x_1,\dots,x_p$ is part of a regular system of parameters of $A$, i.e. of a system of parameters which generates $\mathfrak m$.
\item The images of $x_1,\dots,x_p$ in $\mathfrak m/\mathfrak m^2$ are linearly independent over $k$.
\item The local ring $A/(x_1,\dots, x_p)$ is regular and has dimension $\dim A -p$.\\
(In particular, $(x_1,\dots, x_p)$ is a prime ideal.)
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}
\begin{lemma}\label{regrep}
Let $I\subset [n]$ and $Q\in \Delta_I$ be a closed point. Considering $\mathcal I_I(Q)$ with the natural action of $\mathfrak S_I$ (see proposition \ref{Gro}) we have $\mathcal I_I(Q)\cong \rho_I^{\oplus d}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
For each closed point $P\in X$ we choose an open affine neighbourhood with coordinate ring $A(P)$. We denote the maximal ideal of $A(P)$ corresponding to $P$ by $\mathfrak m(P)$, hence $\mathcal O_{X,P}=A(P)_{\mathfrak m(P)}$. Furthermore we choose a regular system of parameters $x_1(P),\dots,x_d(P)$ of $\mathcal O_{X,P}$. By multiplying them by their denominator if necessary, we may assume that $x_1(P),\dots,x_d(P)\in\mathfrak m(P)\subset A(P)$. Let $Q=(P^1,\dots,P^n)\in X^n$. Then there is an affine open neighbourhood of $Q$ in the product
$X^n$ with coordinate ring $B(Q)=A(P^1)\otimes\dots\otimes A(P^n)$. The point $Q$ corresponds to the maximal ideal
\[\mathfrak n(Q)=\mathfrak m(P^1)\otimes A\otimes \dots \otimes A + A\otimes \mathfrak m(P^2)\otimes \dots \otimes A + \dots + A\otimes A\otimes \dots \otimes \mathfrak m(P^n)\,.\]
Since the $(x_i(P))_{i=1,\dots,d}$ generate $\mathfrak m(P)$, the family $(x_i^j(Q))_{i=1,\dots,d }^{ j=1,\dots, n}$ with
\[x_i^j(Q)=1\otimes \dots\otimes 1\otimes x_i(P^j)\otimes 1\otimes\dots\otimes 1\]
generates $\mathfrak n(Q)$. As $\mathcal O_{X^n,Q}$ is a regular local ring of dimension $d\cdot n$, this family is a regular system of parameters.
Without loss of generality we may assume that $I=[\ell]$ and consider a point $Q=(P,\dots,P,P^{\ell+1},\dots,P^n)$ of $\Delta_{[\ell]}$.
For $1\le i\le d$ and $1\le j\le \ell-1$, we set $\zeta_i^j=x_i^j(Q)- x_i^{j+1}(Q)$. Clearly, the $\zeta_i^j$ are elements of the stalk of the vanishing ideal $(\mathcal I_I)_Q\subset \mathfrak n(Q)\mathcal O_{X^n,Q}$. We denote their images
in $\mathfrak n(Q)/\mathfrak n(Q)^2$ by $\bar\zeta_i^j=\bar x_i^j(Q)-\bar x_i^{j+1}(Q)$. By \ref{calg} the vectors
$\bar x_1^1(Q),\dots ,\bar x_1^n(Q), \bar x_2^1(Q),\dots, \bar x_d^n(Q)$ form a basis of $\mathfrak n(Q)/\mathfrak n(Q)^2$.
Hence, $\bar\zeta_1^1,\dots\bar\zeta_d^{\ell-1}$ are $d(\ell-1)$ linearly independent elements in $\mathfrak n(Q)/\mathfrak n(Q)^2$. Thus, by proposition \ref{calg} the $\zeta_i^j$ generate a prime ideal in $\mathcal O_{X^n,Q}$ of height $d(\ell-1)$. It is contained in $(\mathcal I_I)_Q$ which is also prime of the same height.
Thus, \[(\mathcal I_I)_Q=(\{\zeta_i^j\mid 1\le i\le d, 1\le j\le \ell-1\})\] and the fiber $\mathcal I_I(Q)$ has $(\bar\zeta_i^j)_{i=1,\dots, d}^{j=1,\dots,\ell-1}$
as a base. Now the isomorphism $\mathcal I_I(Q)\overset\cong\to \rho^{\oplus d}$ is given by $\bar\zeta_i^j\mapsto (0, \dots, 0, e_j-e_{j+1},0,\dots,0)$.
\end{proof}
By proposition \ref{Gro} the derived dual of the structural sheaf of $\Delta_I$ in $X^n$ is cohomologically concentrated in degree $d(\ell-1)$ with
\[\mathcal H^{d(\ell-1)}((\iota_*\mathcal O_{\Delta_I})^{\mathbbm v})\cong \iota_{I*}({\wedge}^{d(\ell-1)}\iota_{I}^*\mathcal I_I)^\vee\]
equipped with the $\mathfrak S_I\times\mathfrak S_{\bar I}$-linearization which is induced by the natural linearization of $\mathcal I_I$.
\begin{lemma}\label{topwedge}
The group $\mathfrak S_I$ acts on $\mathcal H ^{d(\ell-1)}(\mathcal O_{\Delta_I}^{\mathbbm v})$ trivially if $d$ is even and alternating if $d$ is odd.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The sheaf $({\wedge}^{d(\ell-1)}\iota_{I}^*\mathcal I_I)^\vee$ is a line bundle on $\Delta_I$. Thus, the action of $\mathfrak S_I$ is determined by the action on the fibers, which are isomorphic to the representation $\wedge^{d(\ell-1)}(\rho^{\oplus d})$ (dualizing can be dropped for one-dimensional representations). It suffices to consider the action of transpositions of neighbours $\tau=(k\,,\, k+1)$ since $\mathfrak S_I$ is generated by those permutations.
As one can compute, each such $\tau$ acts as a matrix $\rho(\tau)\in \GL(\mathbbm C^{\ell-1})$ with determinant $-1$. The action of $\tau$ on $\wedge^{d(\ell-1)}(\rho^{\oplus d})$
is given by the determinant of $\rho(\tau)^{\oplus d}$. Thus the assertion follows.
\end{proof}
In the following we will always consider the case that $X$ is a surface over $\mathbbm C$, i.e $d=2$. In that case there is also a formula for the dimension of the invariants of the lower exterior powers of $\rho^{\oplus d}$.
\begin{lemma}\label{reginv}
Let $\rho$ be the standard representation of the symmetric group $\mathfrak S_\ell$ for any $\ell \in \mathbbm N$.
The dimension of the space of invariants of the exterior products of the double direct sum of the standard representation is given by
\[\dim ( \wedge^p(\rho\oplus\rho))^{\mathfrak S_\ell}=\begin{cases} 1 \quad&\text{if $0\le p\le 2(\ell-1)$ is even}\\
0 \quad&\text{else.}
\end{cases}
\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
See \cite[Lemma C.5.]{Sca1}.
\end{proof}
\begin{cor}
For $p\in \mathbbm N$ an even number and $I\subset [n]$ with $2(|I|-1)\ge p$ the sheaf $(\wedge^p N_I^\vee)^{\mathfrak S_I}=(\wedge^p \iota_I^*\mathcal I_I)^{\mathfrak S_I}$ is a line bundle on $\Delta_I$.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
By lemma \ref{regrep} and lemma \ref{reginv} all fibers of $\wedge^p\iota_I^*\mathcal I_I^{\mathfrak S_I}$ are of rank one. This implies the assertion (see e.g. \cite[II Ex. 5.8]{Har2}).
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{repres}
For every $I\subset[n]$ with $\#I=k$ the set of left cosets is given by
\[\mathfrak S_n/(\mathfrak S_I\times \overline{\mathfrak S_I})=\{\mathfrak S_{I\to J}\mid J\subset[n],\, \#J=k\}\]
where
\[\mathfrak S_{I\to J}=\{\sigma\in\mathfrak S_n\mid \sigma(I)=J\}\,.\]
The right cosets are exactly the $\mathfrak S_{J\to I}$ with $\#J=k$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The sets $\mathfrak S_{I\to J}$ are invariant under multiplication by $\mathfrak S_I\times \overline{\mathfrak S_I}$ on the right and consist of $k!(n-k)!=\#(\mathfrak S_I\times \overline{\mathfrak S_I})$ elements. Thus they are indeed left cosets.
They are disjoint for distinct $J$ and $J'$. The number of $J\subset [n]$ with $\# J= k$ is $\binom n k$. Because of \[\binom n k\cdot k!(n-k)!=n!=\#\mathfrak S_n\] all left cosets are of this form. The proof for the right cosets is analogous.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{diaginduced}
Let $X$ be a smooth surface over $\mathbbm C$. For $k-2\ge p\ge0$ let
\[t\colon L^{-2p}\iota_{[k]}^*\mathcal O_{\Delta_{[k-1]}}\cong \wedge^{2p} \iota_{[k]}^*\mathcal I_{[k-1]}\to\wedge^{2p} \iota_{[k]}^*\mathcal I_{[k]}\cong L^{-2p}\iota_{[k]}^*\mathcal O_{\Delta_{[k]}}\]
be the morphism induced by the natural surjection $\mathcal O_{\Delta_{[k-1]}}\to \mathcal O_{\Delta_{[k]}}$. We set $\sigma_k=\id_{[k]}$ and $\sigma_\ell=(\ell\,,\, \ell+1,\dots, k)$ for $\ell=1,\dots,k-1$. Then
\[T\colon [\wedge^{2p} \iota_{[k]}^*\mathcal I_{[k-1]}]^{\mathfrak S_{[k-1]}}\to [\wedge^{2p}\iota_{[k]}^*\mathcal I_{[k]}]^{\mathfrak S_{[k]}}\,,\, v\mapsto \sum_{\ell=1}^k \sigma_\ell t(v)\]
is an isomorphism.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Since both sides are line bundles on $\Delta_{[k]}$ the morphism $T$ is an isomorphism if and only if it is fiberwise. So let $P\in \Delta_{[k]}$.
We have $\sigma_\ell([k-1])=[k]\setminus\{\ell\}$ so by the last lemma the $\sigma_\ell$ form a system of representatives of $\mathfrak S_{[k]}/\mathfrak S_{[k-1]}$.
Thus for an $\mathfrak S_{[k-1]}$-invariant $v$ the element $\sum_{\ell=1}^k \sigma_\ell t(v)$ is $\mathfrak S_{[k]}$-invariant and $T$ is indeed well-defined.
Since both spaces are one-dimensional by \ref{reginv}, it suffices to show that $T(P)$ is non-zero.
Note that by proposition \ref{reginv} and lemma \ref{indu} the map $t(P)$ is given by the wedge product of the natural inclusion $\rho_{[k-1]}\to \rho_{[k]}$.
Now, that $T(P)\colon (\wedge^{2p} \rho_{[k-1]})^{\mathfrak S_{[k-1]}}\to (\wedge^{2p} \rho_{[k]})$ is indeed an isomorphism follows from
\cite[Lemma C.6. (4)]{Sca1}.
\end{proof}
\section{Extension groups of twisted tautological objects}\label{chapfour}
Throughout the rest of the text let $X$ be a smooth quasi-projective surface over the complex numbers $\mathbbm C$, $n\ge 2$ a positive integer and $X^{[n]}$ the Hilbert scheme of $n$ points on $X$. We will use the Bridgeland-King-Reid equivalence to compute the extension groups of certain objects $\mathcal E^\bullet,\mathcal F^\bullet\in \D^b(X^{[n]})$ by the formula (see corollary \ref{bkrext})
\[\Ext^i_{X^{[n]}}(\mathcal E^\bullet,\mathcal F^\bullet)\cong \mathfrak S_n\Ext^i_{X^n}(\Phi(\mathcal E^\bullet),\Phi(\mathcal F^\bullet))\,.\]
We can rewrite the right hand side as
\[
\begin{aligned}
\mathfrak S_n\Ext^i_{X^n}(\Phi(\mathcal E^\bullet),\Phi(\mathcal F^\bullet)))
&\cong R^i\glob(S^nX,[\pi_*R\sHom_{X^n}(\Phi(\mathcal E^\bullet),\Phi(\mathcal F^\bullet)]^{\mathfrak S_n})\\
&\cong \Hyp^i(S^nX,[\pi_*R\sHom_{X^n}(\Phi(\mathcal E^\bullet),\Phi(\mathcal E^\bullet)]^{\mathfrak S_n})\,.
\end{aligned}\]
The functors $\pi_*$ and $[\_]^{\mathfrak S_n}$ are indeed exact and hence need not be derived. We will first compute the inner expression $[\pi_*R\sHom_{X^n}(\Phi(\mathcal E^\bullet),\Phi(\mathcal E^\bullet))]^{\mathfrak S_n}$. We abbreviate the occurring bifunctor by
\[\ihom(\_,\_):=[\pi_*\sHom_{X^n}(\_,\_)]^{\mathfrak S_n}\]
and set $\iext^i=R^i\ihom$.
Because of the exactness of $[\_]^{\mathfrak S_n}:=[\_]^{\mathfrak S_n}\circ \pi_*$ we have
\[R\ihom(\_,\_)\simeq [R\sHom_{X^n}(\_,\_)]^{\mathfrak S_n}\,.\]
\subsection{Computation of the $\ihom$s}
\begin{lemma}\label{normalhom}
Let $X$ be a normal variety together with $U\subset M$ an open subvariety such that $\codim(X\setminus U,X)\ge 2$. Given two locally free sheaves $F$ and $G$ on $X$ and
a subsheaf $E\subset F$ with $E_{|U}=F_{|U}$ the maps $a\colon\Hom(F,G)\to \Hom(E,G)$ and $\hat a\colon\sHom(F,G)\to \sHom(E,G)$, given by restricting the domain of the morphisms, are isomorphism.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
It suffices to show that $a$ is an isomorphism. Since every open $V\subset X$ is again a normal variety with $V\setminus(U\cap V)$ of codimension at least 2, it follows by considering an open affine covering that
$\hat a$ is also an isomorphism.
We construct the inverse $b\colon\Hom(E,G)\to \Hom(F,G)$ of $a$. For a morphism $\phi\colon E\to G$ the morphism $b(\phi)$ sends $s\in F(V)$ to the unique section in $G(V)$ which restricts to $\phi(s_{|V\cap U})\in G(V\cap U)$.
\end{proof}
We denote by $\mathbbm D$ the big diagonal in $X^n$, i.e.
\[\mathbbm D=\bigcup_{1\le i<j\le n} \Delta_{ij}=\{(x_1,\dots, x_n)\mid \#\{x_1,\dots,x_n\}< n\}\subset X^n\,,\]
and by $U=X^n\setminus \mathbbm D$ its open complement in $X^n$.
\begin{prop}\label{invhom}
Let $k\in\mathbbm N$ and $E_1,\dots,E_k,F\in \Coh(X)$ be locally free sheaves. Then there are natural isomorphisms
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\ihom(\Phi(E_1^{[n]}\otimes\dots\otimes E_k^{[n]}),\mathcal O_{X^n})\simeq \ihom(C^0_{E_1}\otimes \dots\otimes C^0_{E_k},\mathcal O_{X^n})$,
\item $\ihom(\Phi(E_1^{[n]}\otimes\dots\otimes E_k^{[n]}),\Phi(F^{[n]}))\simeq \ihom(C^0_{E_1}\otimes \dots\otimes C^0_{E_k},C^0_F)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
By theorem \ref{tenstaut} we have $p_*q^*(E_1^{[n]}\otimes\dots\otimes E_k^{[n]})\simeq\Phi(E_1^{[n]}\otimes\dots\otimes E_k^{[n]})$. Moreover, $p_*q^*(\otimes_{i=1}^k E_i^{[n]})$ can be identified with the subsheaf $E_\infty^{0,0}$ of $E_0^{0,0}=C^0_{E_1}\otimes \dots\otimes C^0_{E_k}$. Since the terms $E_0^{p,q}$ of the spectral sequence are for $p\ge 1$ all supported on $\mathbbm D$, we have
\[p_*q^*(E_1^{[n]}\otimes\dots\otimes E_k^{[n]})_{|U}= (C^0_{E_1}\otimes \dots\otimes C^0_{E_k})_{|U}\,.\]
Since $X^n$ is normal and $\mathbbm D$ of codimension 2, lemma \ref{normalhom} yields the first isomorphism of the proposition (even before taking invariants). For the second one we consider an open subset $W\subset S^nX$ and a $\mathfrak S_n$-equivariant morphism
\[\phi\colon p_*q^*(E_1^{[n]}\otimes\dots\otimes E_k^{[n]})_{|\pi^{-1}W}\to C^0_{F|\pi^{-1}W}\,.\]
By remark \ref{koneinva} $\phi$ factorises over $p_*q^*F^{[n]}_{|\pi^{-1}W}$. This yields
\begin{align*}\ihom( p_*q^*(E_1^{[n]}\otimes\dots\otimes E_k^{[n]}),p_*q^*F^{[n]})&\cong\ihom( p_*q^*(E_1^{[n]}\otimes\dots\otimes E_k^{[n]}),C^0_F)\\&\cong
\ihom( C^0_{E_1}\otimes\dots\otimes C^0_{ E_k}, C^0_F)
\end{align*}
where for the second isomorphism we use again lemma \ref{normalhom}.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Vanishing of the higher $\iext^i(\Phi(F^{[n]}),\mathcal O_{X^n})$}
\begin{remark}\label{globadjoint}
Let $H\le \mathfrak S_n$ be a subgroup, $E$ a $H$-sheaf and $F$ a $\mathfrak S_n$-sheaf on $X^n$. Since $X^n$ has a covering by open affine $\mathfrak S_n$-invariant subsets, namely by $U^n$ for $U\subset X$ open and affine (lemma \ref{opencover}), the adoint property of the inflation functor globalises to a natural isomorphism
\[[\sHom(\Inf_H^{\mathfrak S_n}E, F)]^{\mathfrak S_n}\cong [\sHom(E,F)]^H\,.\]
This also gives a formula for the derived functors $R\sHom$, namely \[[R\sHom(\Inf_H^{\mathfrak S_n}E^\bullet, F^\bullet)]^{\mathfrak S_n}\simeq [R\sHom(E^\bullet,F^\bullet)]^H\] for $E^\bullet\in \D^b_H(X^n)$ and $F^\bullet\in \D^b_{\mathfrak S_n}(X^n)$. Alternatively, we can apply lemma \ref{deriveddanila} with regard to the functor $\sHom(\_, F^\bullet)$ to get the same isomorphism.
\end{remark}
\begin{lemma}
Let $F$ be a locally free sheaf on $X$. Then $[(C^p_F)^\mathbbm v]^{\mathfrak S_n}\simeq 0$ for $p>0$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Using that $C^p_F\cong\Inf_{\mathfrak S_n}^{\mathfrak S_{[p+1]}\times \mathfrak S_{\overline {[p+1]}}}F_{[p+1]}$ (remark \ref{Cinf}) and the previous remark we get $[(C^p_F)^\mathbbm v]^{\mathfrak S_n}\simeq [F_{[p+1]}^\mathbbm v]^{\mathfrak S_{[p+1]}\times \mathfrak S_{\overline {[p+1]}}}$.
By remark \ref{FI}, the equivariant Grothendieck duality for regular closed embeddings (proposition \ref{Gro}), and the fact that $F$ is locally free, we have in $\D^b_{\mathfrak S_{[p+1]}\times \mathfrak S_{\overline {[p+1]}}}(X^n)$ isomorphisms
\begin{align*}
(F_{[p+1]})^\mathbbm v&\simeq R\sHom_{X^n}\left(\iota_{[p+1]*}(\mathfrak a\otimes p^*_{[p+1]} F),\mathcal O_{X^n}\right)\\
&\simeq \iota_{[p+1]*}R\sHom_{\Delta_{[p+1]}}(\mathfrak a\otimes p^*_{[p+1]} F,\iota_{[p+1]}^!\mathcal O_{X^n})\\
&\simeq \iota_{[p+1]*}\left(\mathfrak a\otimes (p^*_{[p+1]} F)^\vee \otimes (\wedge^{2p}\iota_{[p+1]}^*\mathcal I_{[p+1]})^\vee \right)[-2p]\,.
\end{align*}
The group $\mathfrak S_{[p+1]}$ acts trivially on $p^*_{[p+1]} F$ and on $\wedge^{2p}\iota_{[p+1]}^*\mathcal I_I$ (lemma \ref{topwedge}). Thus, it acts alternating on the whole $\mathfrak a\otimes (p^*_{[p+1]} F)^\vee \otimes (\wedge^{2p}\iota_{[p+1]}^*\mathcal I_I)^\vee$ which makes the $\mathfrak S_{[p+1]}$-invariants vanish. Clearly, this implies the vanishing of the
$\mathfrak S_{[p+1]}\times \mathfrak S_{\overline {[p+1]}}$-invariants.
\end{proof}
\begin{prop}\label{Rdual}
For every locally free sheaf $F$ on $X$ there is in $\D^b(S^nX)$ a natural isomorphism $[(\Phi(F^{[n]}))^\mathbbm v]^{\mathfrak S_n}\simeq [(C^0_F)^\vee]^{\mathfrak S_n}$. In particular, all $\iext^i(\Phi(F^{[n]}),\mathcal O_{X^n})$ vanish for $i>0$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
By theorem \ref{Sca} in $\D^b_{\mathfrak S_n}(X^n)$ there is the isomorphism $\Phi(F^{[n]})\simeq C^\bullet_F$. The $\mathfrak S_n$-sheaf $C^0_F$ is locally free, hence $[(\_)^\vee]^{\mathfrak S_n}$-acyclic. For $p>0$ the terms $C^p_F$ are also $[(\_)^\vee]^{\mathfrak S_n}$-acyclic by the previous lemma. Thus, $[(\Phi(F^{[n]})^\mathbbm v]^{\mathfrak S_n}$ can be computed by applying the non derived functor $[(\_)^\vee]^{\mathfrak S_n}$ to $C^\bullet_F$.
Again by the previous lemma $[(C^p_F)^\vee]^{\mathfrak S_n}=0$ for $p>0$ and the proposition follows.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Vanishing of the higher $\iext^i(\Phi(E^{[n]}),\Phi(F^{[n]}))$}
\begin{remark}\label{part}
For $K\subset M\subset [n]$ we denote the closed embedding of the corresponding partial diagonals by $\iota_M^K\colon \Delta_M\to \Delta_K$.
For an subset $I\subset [n]$ with $|I|\ge2$ the codimension of the partial diagonal $\Delta_I=\{(x_1,\dots,x_n)\mid x_i=x_j\,\forall i,j\in I\}$ in $X^n$ is $2(|I|-1)$. For $|I|\le 1$ we set $\Delta_I:=X^n$. Let $I$ and $J$ be subsets of $[n]$. If $I\cap J=\emptyset$ the partial diagonals $\Delta_I$ and $\Delta_J$ intersect properly in $X^n=\Delta_{I\cap J}$. In this case we denote the embeddings of $\Delta_I\cap \Delta_J$ into $\Delta_I$ respectively $\Delta_J$ by $\iota_{I\cup J}^I$ respectively $\iota_{I\cup J}^J$ although the intersection does not equal $\Delta_{I\cup J}$. If $I\cap J\neq \emptyset$ we have indeed $\Delta_I\cap \Delta_J=\Delta_{I\cup J}$. Furthermore
\begin{align*}\codim(\Delta_{I\cup J},\Delta_{I\cap J})=2|(I\cup J)\setminus (I\cap J)|&=2|I\setminus (I\cap J)|+ 2| J\setminus (I\cap J)|\\&=\codim(\Delta_{I},\Delta_{I\cap J})+\codim(\Delta_{J},\Delta_{I\cap J}) \,,\end{align*}
i.e. $\Delta_I$ and $\Delta_J$ again intersect properly in $\Delta_{I\cap J}$. In summary for $I,J\subset[n]$ the diagram
\[\xymatrix{
& \Delta_I \ar^{\iota_I}[dr]\ar^{\iota_I^{I\cap J}}[d]& \\
\Delta_I\cap \Delta_J \ar^{\iota_{I\cup J}^I}[ur]\ar_{\iota_{I\cup J}^J}[dr] & \Delta_{I\cap J}\ar^{\iota_{I\cap J}}[r] & X^n\,. \\
& \Delta_J\ar^{\iota_J^{I\cap J}}[u]\ar_{\iota_J}[ur] &
} \]
fulfils the assumptions of lemma \ref{mixedint}. This yields for every Cohen-Macauley sheaf $\mathcal F$ on $\Delta_J$ and any $q\in \mathbbm Z$ the formula
\[L^{-q}\iota_I^*\iota_{J*}\mathcal F\cong \iota_{I\cup J*}^I\iota_{I\cup J}^{J*}\left(\mathcal F\otimes(\iota_J^{I\cap J*}\wedge^q N^\vee_{I\cap J})\right)\,.\]
\end{remark}
Let $E$ and $F$ be locally free sheaves on $X$. In order to compute the invariants of the higher extension sheaves we will use the spectral sequence $A$ associated to the functor $\ihom(\_,p_*q^*F^{[n]})$
given by (see e.g. \cite[Remark 2.67]{Huy})
\[A_1^{p,q}=[\sExt^q(C^{-p}_E,p_*q^*F^{[n]})]^{\mathfrak S_n}\Longrightarrow A^m= [\sExt^m(C^\bullet_E,p_*q^*F^{[n]})]^{\mathfrak S_n}\cong
[\sExt^m(\Phi(E^{[n]}),\Phi(F^{[n]})]^{\mathfrak S_n}\,.\]
The terms in the $k$-th column of $A_1$ in turn are computed by the spectral sequence $B(k)$ associated to $\ihom(C^k_E,\_)$ and given by
\[B(k)_1^{p,q}= [\sExt^q(C^{k}_E,C^p_F)]^{\mathfrak S_n}\Longrightarrow B(k)^m= [\sExt^m(C^k_E,C^\bullet_F)]^{\mathfrak S_n}\simeq
[\sExt^m(C^k_E,p_*q^*F^{[n]})]^{\mathfrak S_n}\,.\]
Here as direct summands terms of the form $\sExt^q(E_I,F_J)$ occur. For $I,J\in [n]$ with $\#I= c+1$ and $\#J=d+1$ these are $\mathfrak S_{I,J}$-equivariant sheaves where
\[\mathfrak S_{I,J}:=\Stab_{\mathfrak S_n}(I,J)=(\mathfrak S_I\times \mathfrak S_{\bar I})\cap (\mathfrak S_J\times \mathfrak S_{\bar J})= \mathfrak S_{I\setminus J}\times \mathfrak S_{J\setminus I}\times \mathfrak S_{I\cap J}\times \mathfrak S_{\overline {I\cup J}}\,.\]
In $\D^b_{\mathfrak S_{I,J}}(X^n)$ we have the isomorphisms
\begin{align*}
R\sHom_{X^n}(E_I,F_J)&\simeq E_I^\mathbbm v\otimes^L F_J\\
&\overset{\ref{Gro}}\simeq \iota_{I*}\left(p_I^*E^\vee\otimes \mathfrak a_I\otimes (\wedge^{2c}\iota_I^*\mathcal I_I)^\vee\right)\otimes^L_{X^n} \iota_{J*}(p_J^* F\otimes
\mathfrak a_J)[-2c]\\
&\overset{\text{PF}}\simeq \iota_{I_*}\left(p_I^*E^\vee\otimes \mathfrak a_I\otimes (\wedge^{2c}\iota_I^*\mathcal I_I)^\vee \otimes L\iota_I^*\iota_{J*}(p_J^* F\otimes
\mathfrak a_J)\right)[-2c]\,.
\end{align*}
We see that $R\sHom_{X^n}(E_I,F_J)$ has no cohomology in degrees greater than $2c$.
Taking the $(2c-q)$-th cohomology for $q\ge 0$ on both sides yields
\begin{align*}
&\sExt^{2c-q}(E_I,F_J)\\
&\overset{\text{lf}}\cong
\iota_{I*}\left( p_I^*E^\vee\otimes \mathfrak a_I\otimes (\wedge^{2c}\iota_I^*\mathcal I_I)^\vee\otimes L^{-q}\iota_I^*\iota_{J*}(p_J^* F\otimes
\mathfrak a_J)\right) \\
&\overset{\ref{part}}\cong \iota_{I*}\left((p_I^*E\otimes \mathfrak a_I\otimes (\wedge^{2c}\iota_{I}^*\mathcal I_{I}))^\vee\otimes \iota_{I\cup J*}^I
(\wedge^{q}N^\vee_{I\cap J|\Delta_{I}\cap\Delta_J}\otimes(p_J^* F\otimes
\mathfrak a_J)_{|\Delta_{I}\cap\Delta_J})\right)\,.\\
&\overset{\text{PF}}\cong \iota_{I\cup J*}\underbrace{\left(\iota_{I\cup J}^{I*}(p_I^*E\otimes \mathfrak a_I\otimes (\wedge^{2c}\iota_{I}^*\mathcal I_{I}))^\vee\otimes
\wedge^{q}N^\vee_{I\cap J|\Delta_{I}\cap \Delta_J}\otimes(p_J^* F\otimes
\mathfrak a_J)_{|\Delta_{I}\cap \Delta_J}\right)}\,.
\end{align*}
We abbriviate the underbraced $\mathfrak S_{I,J}$-sheaf on $\Delta_I\cap \Delta_J$ by $T^q_{I,J}$.
We have $\sExt^{2c-q}(E_I,F_J)=0$ for $q>\codim(\Delta_{I\cap J},X^n)=2(|I\cap J|-1)$.
\begin{lemma}\label{IJvanish}
Let $I,J\subset[n]$ such that $\#(I\setminus J)\ge 2$ or $\#(J\setminus I)\ge 2$. Then
\[[R\sHom_{X^n}(E_I,F_J)]^{\mathfrak S_{I,J}}\simeq 0\,.\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Since $\sExt^{2c-q}(E_I,F_J)$ is by the computation above the push-forward of the sheaf $T^q_{I,J}$, which is defined on $\Delta_{I}\cap\Delta_J$, the $\mathfrak S_{I\setminus J}\times \mathfrak S_{J\setminus I}\times \mathfrak S_{I\cap J}$-linearization of it is just an ordinary group action. Assume that $\#(I\setminus J)\ge 2$ and choose a transposition
$\tau\in \mathfrak S_{I\setminus J}$. Then $\tau$ acts by $-1$ on $\mathfrak a_I$ and trivially on all other tensor factors of $T^q_{I,J}$. Hence, it acts by $-1$ on the whole $T^q_{I,J}$ which makes the invariants vanish. The case $\#(J\setminus I)\ge 2$ is analogous.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}\label{oddvanish}
For $I\cap J\neq \emptyset$ the $\mathfrak S_{I\cap J}$-action on $T^q_{I,J}$ is given by the $\mathfrak S_{I\cap J}$-action on the factor $\wedge^{q}N^\vee_{I\cap J|\Delta_{I\cup J}}$ since $\mathfrak S_{I\cap J}$ acts alternating on two of the other tensor factors of $T^q_{I,J}$, namely on $\mathfrak a_I$ and $\mathfrak a_J$, and trivially on the remaining three. Thus, by lemma \ref{tensinv} the invariants are given by
\[[T^q_{I,J}]^{\mathfrak S_{I\cap J}}=\left(p_I^*E^\vee\otimes (\wedge^{2c}N_I)\otimes
p_J^* F \right)_{|\Delta_{I\cup J}}\otimes [\wedge^{q}N^\vee_{I\cap J|\Delta_{I\cup J}}]^{\mathfrak S_{I \cap J}}\,.\]
In particular, by the lemmas \ref{regrep} and \ref{reginv} the invariants vanish for $q$ odd.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
Let $k,p\in[n]$. We set $\mathcal P_p= \{J\subset[n]\mid \#J=p\}$. The orbits of
$\mathcal P_p$ under the action of $\mathfrak S_{[k]}\times \mathfrak S_{\overline{[k]}}$ are exactly the sets $_k\mathcal P_p^i=\{J\in \mathcal P_p\mid \#(J\cap [k])=i\}$ for $i=0,\dots,\min\{k,p\}$. A canonical choice of representatives of the orbits is
\[_kI_p^i:=\{1,\dots,i,k+1,\dots,k+p-i\}=[i]\cup[k+1,k+p-i]\in {_k\mathcal P}_p^i\,.\]
The stabilizer of $_kI_p^i$ is given by $\mathfrak S_{[k],_kI_p^i}$ (see above).
Similarly, a system of representatives of the orbits of $\mathcal P_p$ under the $\mathfrak S_{[k]}$-action is given by all the sets of the form $[i]\cup M$ with $i=0,\dots, \min\{k,p\}$ and $M\subset [k+1,n]$.
\end{remark}
\begin{lemma}
Let $E$, $F$ be locally free sheaves and $B$ the spectral sequence described above. For $k=0,\dots, n-1$ the only non-vanishing term on the 2-sheet of $B(k)$ is $B(k)^{k,0}_2$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Using remark \ref{globadjoint} and lemma \ref{deriveddanila} together with remark \ref{notrans} yields
\begin{align*}
B(k)^{p,2k-q}_1=[\sExt^{2k-q}(C^k_E,C^p_F)]^{\mathfrak S_n}&\cong [\sExt^{2k-q}(\Inf_{\mathfrak S_{[k+1]}\times \overline{\mathfrak S_{[k+1]}}}^{\mathfrak S_n} E_{[k+1]},C^p_F)]^{\mathfrak S_n}\\
&\cong [\sExt^{2k-q}(E_{[k+1]}, C^p_F)]^{\mathfrak S_{[k+1]}\times \overline {\mathfrak S_{[k+1]}}}\tag 1\\
&\cong [\sExt^{2k-q}(E_{[k+1]},\bigoplus_{I\in \mathcal P_{p+1}} F_I)]^{\mathfrak S_{[k+1]}\times \overline {\mathfrak S_{[k+1]}}}\\
&\cong \bigoplus_{i=0}^{\min\{k,p\}}[\iota_{[k+1]\cup {_kI_p^i}*}T^q_{[k+1],_kI_p^i}]^{\mathfrak S_{[k+1],{_kI_p^i}}}\tag 2\,.
\end{align*}
By lemma \ref{IJvanish} we see that $B(k)^{p,2k-q}_1$ vanishes whenever $p\notin\{ k-1,k,k+1\}$. Furthermore, $B(k)^{p,2k-q}_1$ vanishes whenever $q$ is odd by remark \ref{oddvanish}. Thus, the only non-trivial terms on the 1-level of $B(k)$ are organised in the short sequences
\[ 0\to B(k)^{k-1,2k-q}_1\to B(k)^{k,2k-q}_1\to B(k)^{k+1,2k-q}_1\to 0\]
for $q\in[2k]$ even. We first will show that these sequences are exact for $q<2k$, i.e. for $2k-q\ge 2$. By (1) they are isomorphic to the $(\mathfrak S_{k+1}\times\overline{\mathfrak S_{k+1}})$-invariants of the sequences
\begin{align*}0\to \sExt^{2k-q}(E_{[k+1]}, C^{k-1}_F)\to \sExt^{2k-q}(E_{[k+1]}, C^{k}_F)\to \sExt^{2k-q}(E_{[k+1]}, C^{k+1}_F)\to 0 \tag 3\,.\end{align*}
All sheaves in this sequences are push-forwards of sheaves on $\Delta_{[k+1]}$ so the $\mathfrak S_{k+1}$-linearization on them reduces to a $\mathfrak S_{k+1}$-action. We show that the sequence is already exact after taking the $\mathfrak S_{k+1}$-invariants.
By (2) and lemma \ref{IJvanish} the $\mathfrak S_{k+1}$-invariants of the sequence (3) are given by the sequence
\begin{align*}[T^q_{[k+1],[k]}]^{\mathfrak S_{k}}\overset \phi\to [T^q_{[k+1],[k+1]}]^{\mathfrak S_{k+1}}\oplus\bigoplus_{i=k+2}^n [T^q_{[k+1],[k]\cup \{i\}}]^{\mathfrak S_{k}}
\overset \psi\to \bigoplus_{i=k+2}^n[T^q_{[k+1],[k+1]\cup\{i\}}]^{\mathfrak S_{k+1}}\tag 4\end{align*}
where we left out the push-forwards along the closed embeddings in the notation.
We denote the components of $\phi$ and $\psi$ by
\begin{align*}\phi^0\colon [T^q_{[k+1],[k]}]^{\mathfrak S_{k}}\to [T^q_{[k+1],[k+1]}]^{\mathfrak S_{k+1}}\,&,\,\phi^i\colon [T^q_{[k+1],[k]}]^{\mathfrak S_{k}}\to [T^q_{[k+1],[k]\cup\{i\}}]^{\mathfrak S_{k}}\\ \psi^j_0\colon [T^q_{[k+1],[k+1]}]^{\mathfrak S_{k+1}}\to [T^q_{[k+1],[k+1]\cup\{j\}}]^{\mathfrak S_{k+1}}\,&,\,
\psi^j_i\colon [T^q_{[k+1],[k]\cup\{i\}}]^{\mathfrak S_{k}}\to [T^q_{[k+1],[k+1]\cup\{j\}}]^{\mathfrak S_{k+1}}\,.
\end{align*}
The direct summands occurring in (4) are of the form $[T^{q}_{I,J}]^{\mathfrak S_{I\cap J}}$ with $1\in I\cap J$.
Thus, by remark \ref{oddvanish} they are given by
\[[\iota_{I\cup J*}T^{q}_{I,J}]^{\mathfrak S_{I\cap J}}=\iota_{I\cup J*}\left((p_1^*E^\vee\otimes (\wedge^{2c}N_I)\otimes p_1^*F)_{|\Delta_{I\cup J}}\otimes(\wedge^q\iota_{I\cup J}^*\mathcal I_{I\cap J})^{\mathfrak S_{I\cap J}}\right)\,.\]
The differentials in $B(k)_1$ are induced by the differentials of the complex $C^\bullet_F$ whose components
\[\pi_{I,i}\colon F_I\cong \iota_ {I*}\mathcal O_{\Delta_I}\otimes \pr_{\min I}^*F\to \iota_{I\cup\{i\}*}\mathcal O_{\Delta_{I\cup \{i\}}}\otimes \pr_{\min I}^*F\cong F_{I\cup\{i\}}\] are given by the natural surjections $\iota_ {I*}\mathcal O_{\Delta_I}\to \iota_ {I\cup\{i\}*}\mathcal O_{\Delta_{I\cup\{i\}}}$ up to the sign $\varepsilon_{i,I\cup\{i\}}$. Thus, by \ref{induced} the differentials in the sequence (4) coincide up to the sign $\varepsilon_{i,I\cup\{i\}}$ with the maps induced by the inclusion
$\mathcal I_{J\cap I}\subset \mathcal I_{J\cap (I\cup \{i\})}$ on the factor $(\wedge^q\iota_{I\cup J}^*\mathcal I_{I\cap J})^{\mathfrak S_{I\cap J}}$.
A system of representatives of $\mathfrak S_{k+1}/\Stab_{\mathfrak S_{k+1}}([k])$ (see lemma \ref{repres}) is given by
the $\sigma_\ell$ of lemma \ref{diaginduced}. Thus, by Danila's lemma for morphisms (remark \ref{morphismdanila}) the map $\phi^0$ coincides with the morphism $T$ from lemma \ref{diaginduced} tenzorized with the identity on $(p_1^*E^\vee\otimes \wedge^{2k}N_{[k+1]} \otimes p_1^*F)$.
Thus, $\phi^0$ is an isomorphism.
This implies that $\phi$ is injective. Note that the $\psi_i^j$ are zero if $i\neq 0$ and $i\neq j$. The morphisms $\psi_j^j$ are isomorphisms by the same reason as $\phi^0$ is. Thus, $\psi$ is surjective. Moreover, we see that a local section in the kernel of $\psi$ is determined by its component in $T^q_{[k+1],[k+1]}$. On the other hand, for every given local section $s$ of $T^q_{[k+1],[k+1]}$ there is a section in the image of $\phi$ whose component in $T^q_{[k+1],[k+1]}$ equals $s$ because of $\phi^0$ being an isomorphism. Since the rows in $B(k)_1$ are complexes, this already shows that $\im(\phi)=\ker(\psi)$.
So by now we have seen that all $\ell$-th rows with $\ell> 0$ are exact on the 1-level what implies the vanishing of $B(k)^{p,\ell}_2$ for all $\ell>0$ and all $p$.
For $\ell=2k-q=0$, i.e. $q=2k$, the $(\mathfrak S_{k+1}\times\overline {\mathfrak S_{k+1}})$-invariants of the sequence (3) reduce by (2) and remark \ref{IJvanish} to the two term complex
\begin{align*}0\to [\sHom(E_{[k+1]},F_{[k+1]})]^{\mathfrak S_{[k+1]}\times \mathfrak S_{[k+2,n]}}\overset\psi\to [\sHom(E_{[k+1]},F_{[k+2]})]^{\mathfrak S_{[k+1]}\times \mathfrak S_{[k+3,n]}}\to 0\tag 5\,.\end{align*}
The fact that the other terms vanish can be seen either directly by looking at the description of $T^{2k}_{I,J}$ or using the fact that for two sheaves
$\mathcal E,\mathcal F$ on a variety which are push-forwards of locally free sheaves along closed immersions $\sHom(\mathcal E,\mathcal F)$ is non-trivial only if $\supp \mathcal E\supset \supp \mathcal F$.
The first term of (5) is naturally isomorphic to $\sHom(E,F)_{[k+1]}^{\mathfrak S_{[k+1]}\times \mathfrak S_{[k+2,n]}}$ and the second one to $\sHom(E,F)_{[k+2]}^{\mathfrak S_{[k+1]}\times \mathfrak S_{[k+3,n]}}$. Under these identifications the morphism $\psi$ is just given by restricting local sections to $\Delta_{[k+2]}$. Thus, by lemma \ref{invsur} it is surjective which makes $B(k)_2^{0,k+1}$ vanish.
The map $\psi$ is not injective because the support of its domain is larger than the support of its codomain. So indeed, $B(k)^{k,0}_2$ is the only non-trivial term on the 2-level.
\end{proof}
\begin{cor}
Let $E$, $F$ be locally free sheaves on $X$ and $k=0\dots,n-1$. Then the object $[R\sHom(C^k_E,p_*q^*F^{[n]})]^{\mathfrak S_n}$ is cohomologically concentrated in degree $k$, i.e. for $m\neq k$ \[ [\sExt^m(C^k_E,p_*q^*F^{[n]})]^{\mathfrak S_n}=0\,.\]
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
The above lemma implies in particular that $B(k)$ degenerates at the 2-level. Thus, $B(k)^{p,q}_2=B(k)^{p,q}_\infty$ for all $p,q\in\mathbbm Z$ and the only non-trivial term on the $\infty$-level is $B(k)^{k,0}_\infty$. Hence whenever $m\neq k$ we have
\[0=B(k)^m=[\sExt^m(C^k_E,p_*q^*F^{[n]})]^{\mathfrak S_n}\,.\]
\end{proof}
\begin{prop}\label{RHom}
Let $E$ and $F$ be locally free sheaves on $X$. Then $[R\sHom(\Phi(E),\Phi(F))]^{\mathfrak S_n}$ is cohomogically concentrated in degree zero and there is a natural isomorphism
\[[R\sHom(\Phi(E^{[n]}),\Phi(F^{[n]}))]^{\mathfrak S_n}\simeq [\sHom(C^0_E,C^0_F)]^{\mathfrak S_n}\,.\]
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
As mentioned above we use the spectral sequence
\[A_1^{p,q}=[\sExt^q(C^{-p}_E,p_*q^*F^{[n]})]^{\mathfrak S_n}\Longrightarrow A^m= [\sExt^m(C^\bullet_E,p_*q^*F^{[n]})]^{\mathfrak S_n}\simeq
[\sExt^m(\Phi(E^{[n]}),\Phi(F^{[n]})]^{\mathfrak S_n}\,.\]
By the above corollary the 1-sheet of $A$ is concentrated on the diagonal $p+q=0$. Thus $A^m=0$ for $m\ne 0$. This yields
\[[R\sHom(\Phi(E),\Phi(F))]^{\mathfrak S_n}\simeq [\sHom(p_*q^*(E^{[n]}),p_*q^*(F^{[n]}))]^{\mathfrak S_n} \overset{\ref{invhom}}\simeq [\sHom(C^0_E,C^0_F)]^{\mathfrak S_n}\,.\]
\end{proof}
\subsection{From tautological bundles to tautological objects}
\begin{prop}\label{RHomobj}
Let $E^\bullet, F^\bullet\in\D^b(X)$. Then there are natural isomorphisms
\begin{align*}
\left[R\sHom(\Phi((E^\bullet)^{[n]}),\Phi((F^\bullet)^{[n]})\right]^{\mathfrak S_n}&\simeq \left[R\sHom(C^0_{E^\bullet},C^0_{F\bullet}\right]^{\mathfrak S_n}\,,\\
\left[R\sHom(\Phi((E^\bullet)^{[n]}), \mathcal O_{X^n})\right]^{\mathfrak S_n}&\simeq \left[R\sHom(C^0_{E^\bullet}, \mathcal O_{X^n})\right]^{\mathfrak S_n}\,.\\
\end{align*}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
We take locally free resolutions $A^\bullet\simeq E^\bullet$ and $B^\bullet\simeq F^\bullet$ of the complexes $E^\bullet$ and $F^\bullet$.
Then $(A^\bullet)^{[n]}\simeq (E^\bullet)^{[n]}$ and also
\[\Phi((E^\bullet)^{[n]})\simeq \Phi((A^\bullet)^{[n]})\overset{\ref{Scadesc}}\simeq p_*q^*(A^{[n]})^\bullet\,.\]
Clearly, there are the same isomorphisms for $F^\bullet$ and $B^\bullet$ instead of $E^\bullet$ and $A^\bullet$.
Now, for every pair $i,j\in \mathbbm Z$ by proposition \ref{RHom} we have
\[\iext^q(p_*q^*((A^i)^{[n]}),p_*q^*( (B^j)^{[n]})=0\]
for $q\neq 0$. Thus, we can apply proposition \ref{bifun} to the situation of the bifunctor
\[\ihom(\_,\_)=[\_]^{\mathfrak S_n}\circ\pi_*\circ \sHom(\_,\_)\colon \QCoh_{\mathfrak S_n}(X^n)^\circ \times \QCoh_{\mathfrak S_n}(X^n)\to \QCoh(S^nX)\]
and obtain using the natural isomorphism of \ref{RHom}, remark \ref{natural}, and the exactness of $C^0$
\begin{align*}
\left[R\sHom(\Phi((E^\bullet)^{[n]}),\Phi((F^\bullet)^{[n]})\right]^{\mathfrak S_n}
&\simeq R\ihom(p_*q^*((A^\bullet)^{[n]}),p_*q^*((B^\bullet)^{[n]}))\\
&\simeq \ihom^\bullet((p_*q^*((A^\bullet)^{[n]}),p_*q^*((B^\bullet)^{[n]})\\
&\simeq \left[\sHom^\bullet(C^0_{A^\bullet}, C^0_{B^\bullet})\right]^{\mathfrak S_n}\\
&\overset{\text{lf}}\simeq \left[R\sHom(C^0_{A^\bullet}, C^0_{B^\bullet})\right]^{\mathfrak S_n}\\
&\simeq \left[R\sHom(C^0_{E^\bullet}, C^0_{F^\bullet})\right]^{\mathfrak S_n}\,.
\end{align*}
The second isomorphism is shown similarly using proposition \ref{Rdual}.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Determinant line bundles}
There is a homomorphism which associates to any line bundle on $X$ its associated \textit{determinant line bundle} on $X^{[n]}$ given by
\[\mathcal D\colon \Pic X\to \Pic X^{[n]}\quad ,\quad L\mapsto \mathcal D_L:= \mu^*((L^{\boxtimes n})^{\mathfrak S_n})\,.\]
Here the $\mathfrak S_n$-linearization of $L^{\boxtimes n}$ is given by the canonical isomorphisms $p_{\sigma^{-1}(i)}^*L\cong \sigma^*p_i^*L$, i.e. given by permutation of the factors.
By \cite[Theorem 2.3]{DN} the sheaf of invariants of $L^{\boxtimes n}$ is also the decent of $L^{\boxtimes n}$, i.e. $L^{\boxtimes n}\cong \pi^*((L^{\boxtimes n})^{\mathfrak S_n})$.
\begin{remark}
The functor $\mathcal D$ maps the trivial respectively the canonical line bundle to the trivial respectively the canonical line bundle, i.e.
$\mathcal D_{\mathcal O_X}\cong \mathcal O_{X^{[n]}}$ and $\mathcal D_{\omega_X}\cong \omega_{X^{[n]}}$. The assertion for the trivial line bundle is true, since the pull-back of the trivial line bundle along any morphism is the trivial line bundle and since taking the invariants of the trivial line bundle yields the trivial line bundle on the quotient by the group action. For a proof of $\mathcal D_{\omega_X}\cong \omega_{X^{[n]}}$ see \cite[Proposition 1.6]{NW}.
\end{remark}
\begin{lemma}\label{det}
Let $L$ be a line bundle on $X$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item For every $\mathcal F^\bullet\in \D^b(X^{[n]})$ there is a natural isomorphism
$\Phi(\mathcal F^\bullet\otimes \mathcal D_L)\simeq \Phi(\mathcal F^\bullet)\otimes L^{\boxtimes n}$ in $\D_{\mathfrak S_n}(X^n)$.
\item For every $\mathcal G^\bullet\in \D^b_{\mathfrak S_n}(X^n)$ there is in $\D^b(S^nX)$ a natural isomorphism \[[\pi_*(\mathcal G^\bullet\otimes L^{\boxtimes n})]^{\mathfrak S_n}\simeq
(\pi_*\mathcal G^\bullet)^{\mathfrak S_n}\otimes (\pi_*L^{\boxtimes n})^{\mathfrak S_n}\,.\]
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By the definition of the determinant line bundle and the fact that $\pi^*(L^{\boxtimes n})^{\mathfrak S_n}\cong L^{\boxtimes n}$ we have
\[q^*\mathcal D_L\cong q^*\mu^* (L^{\boxtimes n})^{\mathfrak S_n} \cong p^*\pi^*(L^{\boxtimes n})^{\mathfrak S_n}\cong p^*L^{\boxtimes n}\,.\]
Using this, we get indeed natural isomorphisms
\begin{align*}
\Phi(\mathcal F^\bullet\otimes \mathcal D_L)\simeq Rp_*q^*(\mathcal F^\bullet\otimes \mathcal D_L)\simeq Rp_*\left(q^*\mathcal F^\bullet\otimes q^*\mathcal D_L\right)&\simeq Rp_*\left(q^*\mathcal F^\bullet\otimes p^*L^{\boxtimes n} \right)\\
&\overset{\text{PF}}\simeq Rp_*q^*\mathcal F^\bullet\otimes L^{\boxtimes n}\\
&\simeq \Phi(\mathcal F^\bullet)\otimes L^{\boxtimes n}\,.
\end{align*}
This shows (1). For (2) we remember that the functor $(\_)^{\mathfrak S_n}$ on $\D^b_{\mathfrak S_n}(X^n)$ is a abbreviation of the composition $(\_)^{\mathfrak S_n}\circ \pi_*$.
Then
\begin{align*}\left[\pi_*(\mathcal G^\bullet\otimes L^{\boxtimes n})\right]^{\mathfrak S_n}\simeq \left[\pi_*(\mathcal G^\bullet\otimes \pi^*(L^{\boxtimes n})^{\mathfrak S_n})\right]^{\mathfrak S_n}
&\overset{\text{PF}}\simeq \left[\pi_*(\mathcal G^\bullet)\otimes (L^{\boxtimes n})^{\mathfrak S_n}\right]^{\mathfrak S_n}
\\&\overset{\ref{tensinv}}\simeq (\pi_*\mathcal G^\bullet)^{\mathfrak S_n}\otimes (L^{\boxtimes n})^{\mathfrak S_n}\,.
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
We call an object of the form $(E^\bullet)^{[n]}\otimes \mathcal D_L\in \D^b(X^{[n]})$ with $E^\bullet \in \D^b(X)$ and $L$ a line bundle on $X$ a \textit{twisted tautological object}.
\begin{prop}
Let $(E^\bullet)^{[n]}\otimes \mathcal D_L$ and $(F^\bullet)^{[n]}\otimes \mathcal D_M$ be twisted tautological objects. Then there are natural isomorphisms
\begin{align*}
\left[R\sHom(\Phi((E^\bullet)^{[n]}\otimes \mathcal D_L),\Phi((F^\bullet)^{[n]}\otimes \mathcal D_M))\right]^{\mathfrak S_n}&\simeq \left[R\sHom(C^0_{E^\bullet}\otimes L^{\boxtimes n},C^0_{F\bullet}\otimes M^{\boxtimes n})\right]^{\mathfrak S_n}\,,\\
\left[R\sHom((E^\bullet)^{[n]}\otimes \mathcal D_L, \mathcal D_M)\right]^{\mathfrak S_n}&\simeq \left[R\sHom(C^0_{E^\bullet}\otimes L^{\boxtimes n}, M^{\boxtimes n})\right]^{\mathfrak S_n}\,.\\
\end{align*}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
We will only show the first isomorphism since the proof of second one is very similar. We have indeed
\begin{align*}
&\left[R\sHom(\Phi((E^\bullet)^{[n]}\otimes \mathcal D_L),\Phi((F^\bullet)^{[n]}\otimes \mathcal D_M))\right]^{\mathfrak S_n}\\
&\overset{\ref{det}}\simeq \left[R\sHom(\Phi((E^\bullet)^{[n]})\otimes L^{\boxtimes n},\Phi((F^\bullet)^{[n]})\otimes M^{\boxtimes n})\right]^{\mathfrak S_n}\\
&\overset{\text{lf}}\simeq \left[\left(R\sHom(\Phi((E^\bullet)^{[n]}),\Phi((F^\bullet)^{[n]}))\otimes (L^{\boxtimes n})^\vee\otimes M^{\boxtimes n}\right)\right]^{\mathfrak S_n}\\
&\overset{\ref{det}}\simeq [R\sHom(\Phi((E^\bullet)^{[n]}),\Phi((F^\bullet)^{[n]}))]^{\mathfrak S_n}\otimes ((L^{\boxtimes n})^\vee)^{\mathfrak S_n}\otimes (M^{\boxtimes n})^{\mathfrak S_n}\\
&\overset{\ref{RHomobj}}\simeq [\sHom(C^0_{E^\bullet},C^0_{F^\bullet})]^{\mathfrak S_n}\otimes ((L^{\boxtimes n})^\vee)^{\mathfrak S_n}\otimes (M^{\boxtimes n})^{\mathfrak S_n}\\
&\overset{\ref{det}}\simeq \left[\left(\sHom(C^0_{E^\bullet},C^0_{F^\bullet})\otimes (L^{\boxtimes n})^\vee\otimes M^{\boxtimes n}\right)\right]^{\mathfrak S_n}\\
&\overset{\text{lf}}\simeq [\sHom(C^0_{E^\bullet}\otimes L^{\boxtimes n},C^0_{F^\bullet}\otimes M^{\boxtimes n})]^{\mathfrak S_n}\,.
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
\subsection{Global Ext-groups}
\begin{theorem}\label{main}
Let $X$ be a smooth quasi-projective complex surface, $n\ge 2$, $E^\bullet,F^\bullet\in \D^b(X)$, and $L,M\in \Pic X$. The extension groups of the associated twisted tautological objects are given by the following natural isomorphisms of graded vector spaces:
\begin{align*}
\Ext^*((E^\bullet)^{[n]}\otimes \mathcal D_L,(F^\bullet)^{[n]}\otimes \mathcal D_M)&\cong \begin{aligned}& \Ext^*(E^\bullet\otimes L,F^\bullet\otimes M)\otimes S^{n-1}\Ext^*(L,M)\oplus\\ &\Ext^*(E^\bullet\otimes L,M)\otimes \Ext^*(L,F^\bullet\otimes M)\otimes S^{n-2}\Ext^*(L,M),\end{aligned}\\
\Ext^*((E^\bullet)^{[n]}\otimes \mathcal D_L,\mathcal D_M)& \cong \Ext^*(E^\bullet\otimes L,M)\otimes S^{n-1}\Ext^*(L,M)\,.
\end{align*}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Using the previous proposition and the considerations at the beginning of this section, the extension groups are given by
\begin{align*} &\Ext^*\left((E^\bullet)^{[n]}\otimes \mathcal D_L,(F^\bullet)^{[n]}\otimes \mathcal D_M\right)\\
\cong&\mathfrak S_n\Ext^*\left(\Phi((E^\bullet)^{[n]}\otimes \mathcal D_L),\Phi((F^\bullet)^{[n]}\otimes \mathcal D_M)\right)\\
\cong&\Ho^*(S^nX,\left[R\sHom(\Phi((E^\bullet)^{[n]}\otimes \mathcal D_L),\Phi((F^\bullet)^{[n]}\otimes \mathcal D_M))\right]^{\mathfrak S_n})\\
\cong& \Ho^*(S^nX,\left[R\sHom(C^0_{E^\bullet}\otimes L^{\boxtimes n},C^0_{F\bullet}\otimes M^{\boxtimes n})\right]^{\mathfrak S_n})\\
\cong& \left[\Ho^*(X^n,R\sHom(C^0_{E^\bullet}\otimes L^{\boxtimes n},C^0_{F\bullet}\otimes M^{\boxtimes n}))\right]^{\mathfrak S_n}\,.
\end{align*}
Applying the adjoint property of the inflation functor for $C^0_{E^\bullet}\otimes L^{\boxtimes}\simeq \Inf_{\mathfrak S_{\overline{[1]}}}^{\mathfrak S_n} (p_1^*E\otimes L^{\boxtimes n})$ and Danilas lemma we get
\begin{align*}&\left[R\sHom(C^0_{E^\bullet}\otimes L^{\boxtimes n},C^0_{F^\bullet}\otimes M^{\boxtimes n})\right]^{\mathfrak S_n}\\
\simeq& \left[\bigoplus_{j\in[n]} R\sHom(p_1^*{E^\bullet}\otimes L^{\boxtimes n},p_j^*{F^\bullet}\otimes M^{\boxtimes n})\right]^{\overline{\mathfrak S_{[1]}}}\\
\simeq& \left[R\sHom(p_1^*{E^\bullet}\otimes L^{\boxtimes n},p_1^*{F^\bullet}\otimes M^{\boxtimes n}) \right]^{\overline{\mathfrak S_{[1]}}} \oplus
\left[R\sHom(p_1^*{E^\bullet}\otimes L^{\boxtimes n},p_2^*{F^\bullet}\otimes M^{\boxtimes n}) \right]^{\overline{\mathfrak S_{[2]}}}\,.\tag{$\ast$}
\end{align*}
Using the compatibility of the derived sheaf-Hom with pullbacks gives
\begin{align*}R\sHom(p_1^*{E^\bullet}\otimes L^{\boxtimes n},p_1^*{F^\bullet}\otimes M^{\boxtimes n})\simeq R\sHom({E^\bullet}\otimes L,{F^\bullet}\otimes M)\boxtimes \sHom( L,M)^{\boxtimes n-1}
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}&R\sHom(p_1^*{E^\bullet}\otimes L^{\boxtimes n},p_2^*{F^\bullet}\otimes M^{\boxtimes n})\\ \simeq &R\sHom({E^\bullet}\otimes L,M)\boxtimes\sHom(L,F^\bullet\otimes M)\boxtimes \sHom( L,M)^{\boxtimes n-2}\,.
\end{align*}
Now by the Künneth formula
\begin{align*}&\left[ \Ho^*\left(X^n,R\sHom({E^\bullet}\otimes L,{F^\bullet}\otimes M)\boxtimes \sHom( L,M)^{\boxtimes n-1}\right)\right]^{\overline{\mathfrak S_{[1]}}}\\
\cong&\left[ \Ho^*(R\sHom({E^\bullet}\otimes L,{F^\bullet}\otimes M))\otimes \Ho^*(\sHom( L,M))^{\otimes n-1}\right]^{\overline{\mathfrak S_{[1]}}}\\
\cong&\left[ \Ext^*({E^\bullet}\otimes L,{F^\bullet}\otimes M))\otimes \Ext^*( L,M)^{\otimes n-1}\right]^{\overline{\mathfrak S_{[1]}}}\\
\cong& \Ext^*({E^\bullet}\otimes L,{F^\bullet}\otimes M))\otimes S^{n-1}(\Ext^*( L,M))\,.
\end{align*}
Doing the same for the other direct summand in $(\ast)$ yields the result. The proof of the second formula is again similar and therefore omitted.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
The above formulas are natural in $E^\bullet$, $F^\bullet$, $L$, and $M$, in automorphisms of $X$, and also in pull-backs along open immersions $U\subset X$.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
By setting $L=M=\mathcal O_X$ we get the following formulas for non-twisted tautological objects
\begin{align*}
\Ext^*((E^\bullet)^{[n]},(F^\bullet)^{[n]})&\cong \begin{aligned}& \Ext^*(E^\bullet,F^\bullet)\otimes S^{n-1}(\Ho^*(\mathcal O_X))\oplus\\ &\Ho^*((E^\bullet)^\mathbbm v)\otimes \Ho^*(E^\bullet)\otimes S^{n-2}(\Ho^*(\mathcal O_X))\end{aligned}\\
\Ext^*((E^\bullet)^{[n]},\mathcal O_X) \cong \Ho^*(X^{[n]},((E^\bullet)^{[n]})^\mathbbm v)&\cong \Ho^*((E^\bullet)^\mathbbm v)\otimes S^{n-1}\Ho^*(\mathcal O_X)\,.
\end{align*}
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}\label{objcoh}
By the same arguments as used in this and the previous subsection we can also generalise Scala's formula for the cohomology of twisted tautological sheaves
(see formula (1.1) of the introduction) to twisted tautological objects. Namely, for every tautological object $(E^\bullet)^{[n]}\otimes \mathcal D_L$ there is a natural isomorphism of graded vector spaces
\[\Ho^*(X^{[n]}, (E^\bullet)^{[n]}\otimes \mathcal D_L)\cong \Ho^*(E^\bullet\otimes L)\otimes S^{n-1} \Ho^*(L)\,.\]
Also, since $\mathcal D_L^\vee\otimes \mathcal D_M\cong \mathcal D_{\sHom(L,M)}$ for $L,M\in\Pic(X)$, we have a formula for
\[\Ext^*(\mathcal D_L,(E^\bullet)^{[n]}\otimes \mathcal D_M)\cong \Ho^*(X^{[n]}, (E^\bullet)^{[n]}\otimes \mathcal D_{\sHom(L,M)})\,.\]
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
In the case that $X$ is projective one can also directly deduce the formula for $\Ext^*((E^\bullet)^{[n]}\otimes \mathcal D_L,\mathcal D_M)$ by Serre duality from Scala's formula in the form of the previous remark and the fact that $\mathcal D_{\omega_X}=\omega_{X^{[n]}}$.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
Using proposition \ref{invhom} we also get for $E_1,\dots, E_k, F$ locally free sheaves on $X$ formulas for
$\Ext^0(E_1^{[n]}\otimes \dots \otimes E_k^{[n]},\mathcal O_{X^{[n]}})$ as well as for $\Ext^0(E_1^{[n]}\otimes \dots \otimes E_k^{[n]},F^{[n]})$. For $\ell\in \mathbbm N$ and $M\subset \mathbbm N$ let $P(M,\ell)$ denote the set of partitions $I=\{I_1,\dots,I_\ell\}$ of the set $M$ of lenght $\ell$. Then
\[\Hom(E_1^{[n]}\otimes \dots \otimes E_k^{[n]},\mathcal O_{X^{[n]}})\cong \bigoplus_{I\in P([k],\ell),\ell\le n}\left(\bigotimes_{s=1}^\ell\Ho^0(\otimes_{i\in I_s} E_i^\vee)\otimes S^{n-\ell}\Ho^0(\mathcal O_X)\right)\]
and $\Hom(E_1^{[n]}\otimes \dots \otimes E_k^{[n]},F^{[n]})$ is isomorphic to
\[\bigoplus_{\substack{M\subset[k]\\mathcal I\in P([k]\setminus M,\ell),\ell\le n-1}}\left(\Hom(\otimes_{i\in M} E_i,F)\otimes \bigotimes_{s=1}^\ell\Ho^*(\otimes_{i\in I_s} E_i^\vee)\otimes S^{n-\ell-1}\Ho^0(\mathcal O_X)\right)\,.\]
Again, there are similar formulas for the sheaves twisted by determinant line bundles. However, these formulas can not directly be generalized to formulas for $\Ext^*$ since the corresponding $R\ihom$ objects are in general not cohomologically concentrated in degree zero for $k\ge 2$.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Spherical and $\mathbbm P^n$-objects}
Let $X$ be a smooth projective variety with canonical bundle $\omega_X$. We call an object $\mathcal E^\bullet\in \D^b(X)$ an \textit{$\omega_X$-invariant} object if $\mathcal E^\bullet\otimes \omega_X\simeq \mathcal E^\bullet$. A \textit{spherical object} in $\D^b(X)$ is an $\omega_X$-invariant object $\mathcal E^\bullet$ with the property
\[\Ext^i(\mathcal E^\bullet,\mathcal E^\bullet)=\begin{cases}
\mathbbm C \quad&\text{if $i=0,\dim(X)$,}\\
0 \quad &\text{else,}
\end{cases}\]
i.e. $\Ext^*(\mathcal E^\bullet,\mathcal E^\bullet)\cong \Ho^*(S^{\dim X}, \mathbbm C)$, where $S^n$ denotes the real $n$-sphere. A \textit{$\mathbbm P^n$-object} in the derived category $\D^b(X)$ is a $\omega_X$-invariant object $\mathcal F^\bullet$ such that there is an isomorphism of graded algebras $\Ext^*(\mathcal F^\bullet,\mathcal F^\bullet)\cong H^*(\mathbbm P^n,\mathbbm C)$, where the multiplication on the left is given by the Yoneda product and on the right by the cup product. In particular for the underlying vector spaces
\[\Ext^i(\mathcal E^\bullet,\mathcal E^\bullet)=\begin{cases}
\mathbbm C \quad&\text{if $0\le i\le 2n$ is even}\\
0 \quad &\text{if $i$ is odd}
\end{cases}\]
holds. By Serre duality the dimension of $X$ must be $2n$ as soon as $\D^b(X)$ contains a $\mathbbm P^n$-object. Spherical and $\mathbbm P^n$-objects are of interest because they induce automorphisms of $\D^b(X)$ (see \cite[chapter 8]{Huy}). For a smooth projective surface $X$ with $\omega_X=\mathcal O_X$ the canonical bundle on $X^{[n]}$ is also trivial (see remark \ref{det}). Hence, the property of being $\omega_{X^{[n]}}$-invariant is automatically satisfied for every object in $\D^b(X^{[n]})$. Thus, one could hope that there are tautological objects induced by some special objects in $\D^b(X)$ that are spherical or $\mathbbm P^n$-objects. But this is not the case by the following proposition.
\begin{prop}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Let $X$ be a smooth projective surface with trivial canonical line bundle and $n\ge 2$. Then twisted tautological objects on $X^{[n]}$ are never spherical or $\mathbbm P^n$-objects.
\item Let $X$ be a smooth projective surface and $n\ge 3$. Then twisted tautological sheaves on $X^{[n]}$ are never spherical or $\mathbbm P^n$-objects.
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Let $(E^\bullet)^{[n]}\otimes\mathcal D_L$ be a non-zero twisted tautological object on $X^{[n]}$. Then using the fact that $\sHom(L,L)\cong \mathcal O_X$ we have \[\Ext^*((E^\bullet)^{[n]}\otimes\mathcal D_L,(E^\bullet)^{[n]}\otimes\mathcal D_L)\cong \Ext^*((E^\bullet)^{[n]},(E^\bullet)^{[n]})\,.\]
Thus, we may assume $L=\mathcal O_X$. The graded vector space $\Ext^*((E^\bullet)^{[n]},(E^\bullet)^{[n]})$ is given by theorem \ref{main} by
\[\Ext^*(E^\bullet,E^\bullet)\otimes S^{n-1}\Ho^*(\mathcal O_X)\oplus \Ho^*((E^\bullet)^\mathbbm v)\otimes \Ho^*(E^\bullet)\otimes S^{n-2} \Ho^*(\mathcal O_X)\,.\]
If $\omega_X=\mathcal O_X$ we have by Serre duality $h^2(\mathcal O_X)=h^0(\mathcal O_X)=1$. The vector space $\Ext^0(E^\bullet,E^\bullet)$ has positive dimension since it contains the identity. Thus $\Ext^0(E^\bullet,E^\bullet)\otimes S^{n-1}\Ho^*(\mathcal O_X)$ contributes non-trivially to the degrees $0,2,\dots,2n-2$ of $\Ext^*((E^\bullet)^{[n]},(E^\bullet)^{[n]})$. But by Serre duality also $\Ext^2(E^\bullet, E^\bullet)$ is non-vanishing. Thus also $\Ext^2(E^\bullet,E^\bullet)\otimes S^{n-1}\Ho^*(\mathcal O_X)$ contributes non-trivially to the degrees $2,4,\dots,2n$. This yields $\ext^i((E^\bullet)^{[n]},(E^\bullet)^{[n]})\ge 2$ for $i=2,4,2n-2$ which shows that $(E^\bullet)^{[n]}\otimes\mathcal D_L$ is indeed neither a spherical nor a $\mathbbm P^n$-object.
Now let $n\ge 3$ and $E^{[n]}$ be a tautological sheaf. Extension groups of sheaves on $X$ can be non-trivial only in the degrees $0,1,2$. If $E^{[n]}$ was a spherical or a $\mathbbm P^n$-object then in particular the highest and the lowest extension groups, i.e. in dergee $0$ and $2n$, must not vanish. Since for $n\ge 3$ the term $\Ho^*(\mathcal O_X)$ occurs in both direct summands of $\Ext^*((E^\bullet)^{[n]},(E^\bullet)^{[n]})$ it follows that
$\Ho^i(\mathcal O_X)\neq 0$ for $i=0,2$. Furthermore, either $\Ext^2(E,E)$ or $(\Ext^*(E,\mathcal O_X)\otimes \Ext^*(\mathcal O_X,E))^4$ must not vanish. In both cases $\ext^4(E^{[n]},E^{[n]})\ge 2$ since also $\Ext^0(E,E)\otimes S^{n-1}\Ho^*(\mathcal O_X)$ contributes non-trivially to $\Ext^4(E^{[n]},E^{[n]})$.
\end{proof}
\section{Notations and conventions}\label{not}
\begin{itemize}
\item Given an abelian category $\mathcal A$ we will write $\cong$ for isomorphisms in $\mathcal A$ and $\simeq$ for isomorphisms in the derived category $\D(\mathcal A)$. If an object $A\in\mathcal A$ shows up on one side of the sign $\simeq$ it is considered as the complex with $A$ in degree 0 and vanishing terms elsewhere. If we want to emphasize that an isomorphism is $G$-equivariant we will sometimes write $\cong_G$ respectively $\simeq_G$.
\item For an exact functor $F\colon \mathcal A\to \mathcal B$ between abelian categories we write again $F$ for the induced functor $\D(\mathcal A)\to \D(\mathcal B)$ on the level of the derived categories. If we want to emphasize that the image of a complex $A^\bullet\in\D^b(\mathcal A)$ under $F$ is computed by applying $F\colon\mathcal A\to \mathcal B$ term-wise we write $F(A)^\bullet$ instead of $F(A^\bullet)$. We also sometimes write $F(A^\bullet)$ in formulas for object in the derived categoies when $F$ is not exact although in this case $F$ is not a functor between the derived categories. This means that we apply the functor $\Kom(F)$ to the complex $A^\bullet$ and consider it again as an object in the derived category afterwards.
\item
Let $C^\bullet\in \D^b(\mathcal A)$ for any abelian category $\mathcal A$. We write $\mathcal H^i(C^\bullet)$ for the $i$-th cohomology of a complex, i.e. $\mathcal H^i(C^\bullet)=\ker(d^i)/\im(d^{i-1})$. If $\mathcal A=\Coh(X)$ is the category of coherent sheaves on a scheme $X$, we write $\Ho^i(X,C^\bullet)$ for the $i$-th (hyper-)cohomology of the complex of sheaves, i.e. $\Ho^i(X,\_)=R^i\Gamma(X,\_)$.
We will often drop the $X$ in the notation, i.e. we write $\Ho^i(\_):=\Ho^i(X,\_)$, especially when $X$ is a fixed smooth quasi-projective surface.
\item On a scheme $X$ the sheaf-Hom functor is denoted by $\sHom_{\mathcal O_X}$, $\sHom_X$ or just $\sHom$.
We write $(\_)^\vee=\sHom(\_,\mathcal O_X)$ for the operation of taking the dual of a sheaf and $(\_)^\mathbbm v=R\sHom(\_,\mathcal O_X)$ for the derived dual.
\item All varieties are reduced and irreducible.
\item Graded vector spaces are denoted by $V^*:=\oplus_{i\in\mathbbm Z} V^i[-i]$. The symmetric power of a graded vector space is taken in the graded sense. That means that $S^nV^*$ are the coinvariants of $(V^*)^{\otimes n}$ under the $\mathfrak S_n$-action given on homogeneous vectors by
\[\sigma(u_1\otimes\dots\otimes u_k):=\varepsilon_{\sigma,p_1,\dots,p_k}(u_{\sigma^{-1}(1)}\otimes\dots\otimes u_{\sigma^{-1}(k)})\,.\]
Here the $p_i$ are the degrees of the $u_i$ and the sign $\varepsilon_{\sigma,p_1,\dots,p_k}$ is defined by setting $\varepsilon_{\tau,p_1,\dots,p_k}=(-1)^{p_i\cdot p_{i+1}}$ for the transposition $\tau=(i\,,\,i+1)$ and requiring it to be a homomorphism in $\sigma$. Since the graded vector spaces we will consider are defined over $\mathbbm C$, the coinvariants under this action coincide with the invariants under the isomorphism
\[ u_1\cdots u_n\mapsto \frac1{n!}\sum_{\sigma\in\mathfrak S_n} \varepsilon_{\sigma,p_1,\dots,p_k}(u_{\sigma^{-1}(1)}\otimes\dots\otimes u_{\sigma^{-1}(k)})\,.\]
\item For every positive integer $n\in\mathbbm N$ we set $[n]:=\{1,\dots,n\}$. For any subset $I\subset [n]$ we denote by $\bar I=[n]\setminus I$ its complement in $[n]$.
We denote by $\mathfrak S_I$ the group of permutations of the set $I$ and consider it as a subgroup of $\mathfrak S_n=\mathfrak S_{[n]}$. For better readability we sometimes write
$\overline{\mathfrak S_I}$ instead of $\mathfrak S_{\bar I}$.
\item We will often write the symbol ``PF`` above an isomorphism symbol to indicate that the isomorphism is given by the projection formula.
Also we use ``lf`` when the given isomorphism is because of some sheaf being locally free and thus a tensor product or sheaf-Hom functor needs not to be derived or commutes with taking cohomology.
\item Let $\iota\colon Z\to X$ be a closed embedding of schemes and let $F\in \QCoh(X)$ be a quasi-coherent sheaf on $X$. The symbol $F_{\mid Z}$ will sometimes denote the sheaf $\iota^*F\in \QCoh(Z)$ and at other times the sheaf $\iota_*\iota^*F\in\QCoh(X)$. The restriction morphism \[F\to F_{\mid Z}=\iota_*\iota^*F\] is the unit of the adjunction $(\iota^*, \iota_*)$. The image of a section $s\in F$ under this morphism is denoted by $s_{\mid Z}$.
\end{itemize}
\section{Yoneda products and interpretation of the results}
\subsection{Yoneda products, the Künneth isomorphism and signs}\label{yonsign}
Let $\mathcal A$ be an abelian category with enough injectives. Recall that for every $A^\bullet\in \D^-(\mathcal A)$ and $B^\bullet \in\D^+(\mathcal A)$ there are natural isomorphisms $\Ext^i(A^\bullet,B^\bullet)\cong \Hom_{\D(\mathcal A)}(A^\bullet, B^\bullet[i])$. For $A^\bullet,B^\bullet, C^\bullet\in \D^b(\mathcal A)$ the \textit{Yoneda product} is the bilinear map $\Yon$ making the following diagram commute
\[\xymatrix{
\Ext^j(B^\bullet,C^\bullet) \ar^\cong[d]& \times & \Ext^i(A^\bullet,B^\bullet)\ar^\cong[d]\ar^\Yon[r] & \Ext^{i+j}(A^\bullet,C^\bullet)\ar^\cong[d]\\
\Hom_{\D(\mathcal A)}(B^\bullet[i], C^\bullet[i+j]) & \times & \Hom_{\D(\mathcal A)}(A^\bullet, B^\bullet[i])\ar^\circ[r] & \Hom_{\D(\mathcal A)}(A^\bullet, C^\bullet[i+j])\,.
}
\]
The second and third vertical arrows are the isomorphisms mentioned and the first is the mentioned isomorphism composed with the $i$-th power of the shift functor of $\D(\mathcal A)$. The lower horizontal bilinear map is just the composition law in $\D(\mathcal A)$. In the following we will treat the vertical isomorphisms as they were identities and consequently denote the Yoneda product just by $\circ$. Considering the above products as maps on the homogeneous components we get the Yoneda product as a bilinear map of graded vector spaces
\[\Ext^*(B^\bullet,C^\bullet) \times \Ext^*(A^\bullet,B^\bullet)\overset\circ \to \Ext^*(A^\bullet,C^\bullet)\,.\]
There will occur signs because of the use of the Künneth isomorphism. Let $X,Y$ be varieties together with objects $A_1^\bullet,B_1^\bullet,C_1^\bullet\in \D^b(X)$ and $A_2^\bullet,B_2^\bullet,C_2^\bullet\in \D^b(Y)$. We consider homogeneous elements
$a_i\in \Ext^*(A_i^\bullet,B_i^\bullet)$ and $b_i\in \Ext^*(B_i^\bullet,C_i^\bullet)$ for $i=1,2$. Then via the Künneth isomorphism we can interpret the tensor products as elements of the extension groups on the product $X\times Y$ namely
\[a_1\otimes a_2\in \Ext^*(A_1^\bullet\boxtimes A_2^\bullet,B_1^\bullet\boxtimes B_2^\bullet)\,,\, b_1\otimes b_2\in \Ext^*(B_1^\bullet\boxtimes B_2^\bullet,C_1^\bullet\boxtimes C_2^\bullet)\,.\]
The Yoneda product is then given by
\[(b_1\otimes b_2)\circ (a_1\otimes a_2)=(-1)^{\deg b_2\deg a_1}(b_1a_1)\otimes (b_2a_2)\,,\]
where we omit the $\circ$ for the Yoneda products on $X$ and $Y$. The occurrence of the sign can be seen best when defining the Yoneda product using the cup product (see e.g \cite[section 10.1.1]{HL}).
To capture these signs we use the following convention: Let $a_1,\dots, a_n$ and $b_1=a_{n+1},\dots,b_n=a_{2n}$ be elements in any graded algebraic objects of degree $\deg(a_i)=p_i$. Let $T$ be a term in which all the $a_i$ and $b_i$ occur. Let
$\sigma\in\mathfrak S_{2n}$ be the permutation such that after erasing everything in $T$ besides the $a_i$ and $b_i$ we get $a_{\sigma^{-1}(1)}\dots a_{\sigma^{-1}(2n)}$. Then we set $\varepsilon(T):=\varepsilon_{\sigma,p_1,\dots,p_{2n}}$ (see section \ref{not}). Let $I$ be a finite set and for each $i\in I$ let $T_i$ be a term in which all the $a_i$ and $b_i$ occur. We define
\[\sum_{i\in I}^\bullet T_i:= \sum_{i\in I} \varepsilon(T_i)\cdot T_i\,.\]
In the following we will have such sums where $a$ and $b$ will be replaced by two other letters. Then always the first letter from the left in each summand will be the same. This letter is considered as $a$ and the other as $b$.
For example if we have $x_1,x_2,y_1,y_2$ all of odd degree then
\begin{align*}
&\sum_{\sigma,\tau\in\mathfrak S_2}^\bullet (x_{\sigma^{-1}(1)}\circ y_{\tau^{-1}(1)})\otimes (x_{\sigma^{-1}(2)}\circ y_{\tau^{-1}(2)})\\
=&-(x_1\circ y_1)\otimes(x_2\circ y_2)+ (x_1\circ y_2)\otimes(x_2\circ y_1)+ (x_2\circ y_1)\otimes(x_1\circ y_2)- (x_2\circ y_2)\otimes(x_1\circ y_1)\,.
\end{align*}
\subsection{Yoneda products for twisted tautological objects}
Let $E^\bullet,F^\bullet\in \D^b(X)$ and $L,M$ be line bundles on $X$. In the last section we computed formulas for $\Ext^*((E^\bullet)^{[n]}\otimes \mathcal D_L,\mathcal D_M)$ as well as for
$\Ext^*((E^\bullet)^{[n]}\otimes\mathcal D_L,(F^\bullet)^{[n]}\otimes \mathcal D_M)$. It was done using natural isomorphisms
\begin{align*}
\Ext^*((E^{\bullet})^{[n]}\otimes \mathcal D_L,\mathcal D_M)\cong \mathfrak S_n\Ext^*(\Phi((E^\bullet)^{[n]}\otimes \mathcal D_L),\Phi(\mathcal D_M))\cong \mathfrak S_n\Ext^*(C^0_{E^\bullet}\otimes L^{\boxtimes n},M^{\boxtimes n})\tag1
\end{align*}
respectively
\begin{align*}
\Ext^*((E^\bullet)^{[n]}\otimes \mathcal D_L,(F^\bullet)^{[n]}\otimes \mathcal D_M)&\cong \mathfrak S_n\Ext^*(\Phi((E^\bullet)^{[n]}\otimes \mathcal D_L),\Phi((F^\bullet)^{[n]}\otimes \mathcal D_M))\tag2\\&\cong \mathfrak S_n\Ext^*(C^0_{E^\bullet}\otimes L^{\boxtimes n},C^0_{F^\bullet}\otimes M^{\boxtimes n})\,.
\end{align*}
There is also a formula for $\Ext^*(\mathcal D_L,(F^\bullet)^{[n]}\otimes \mathcal D_M)$ (see remark \ref{objcoh}) using the isomorphisms
\begin{align*}
\Ext^*(\mathcal D_L,(F^\bullet)^{[n]}\otimes \mathcal D_M)\cong \mathfrak S_n\Ext^*(\Phi(\mathcal D_L),\Phi((F^\bullet)^{[n]}\otimes \mathcal D_M))\cong \mathfrak S_n\Ext^*(L^{\boxtimes n},C^0_{F^\bullet}\otimes M^{\boxtimes n})\,.\tag3
\end{align*}
Furthermore, the formula
\begin{align*}\Ext^*(\mathcal D_L,\mathcal D_M)\simeq S^n \Ext^*(L,M)\tag 4\end{align*}
can easily be proven using the isomorphisms (see lemma \ref{det})
\begin{align*}
\Ext^*(\mathcal D_L,\mathcal D_M)\cong{\mathfrak S_n}\Ext^*(\Phi(\mathcal D_L),\Phi(\mathcal D_M))\cong{\mathfrak S_n}\Ext^*(L^{\boxtimes n},M^{\boxtimes n})\,.\tag5
\end{align*}
In summary, we have formulas for the extension groups $\Ext^*(\mathcal E^\bullet,\mathcal F^\bullet)$ on $X^{[n]}$ whenever each of $\mathcal E^\bullet$ and $\mathcal F^\bullet$ is a twisted tautological object or a determinant line bundle. Clearly the Yoneda products
\[\Ext^*(\mathcal F^\bullet,\mathcal G^\bullet)\times \Ext^*(\mathcal E^\bullet,\mathcal F^\bullet)\to \Ext^{*}(\mathcal E^\bullet,\mathcal G^\bullet)\]
coincide under the Bridgeland-King-Reid equivalence with the Yoneda products
\[\mathfrak S_n\Ext^*(\Phi(\mathcal F^\bullet),\Phi(\mathcal G^\bullet))\times \mathfrak S_n\Ext^*(\Phi(\mathcal E^\bullet),\Phi(\mathcal F^\bullet))\to \mathfrak S_n\Ext^{*}(\Phi(\mathcal E^\bullet),\Phi(\mathcal G^\bullet))\]
because $\Phi$ is a functor. Now for locally free sheaves $A$ and $B$ on $X$ the isomorphism
\[[\sHom(C^0_A,C^0_B)]^{\mathfrak S_n}\overset \cong \to[\sHom(p_*q^*(A^{[n]}),p_*q^*(B^{[n]}))]^{\mathfrak S_n}\]
is given by restricting the $\mathfrak S_n$-equivariant morphisms to the subsheaf $p_*q^*(A^{[n]})$ of $C^0_A$ and observing that the restricted morphisms factorise through the subsheaf $p_*q^*(B^{[n]})$ of $C^0_B$ (see proposition \ref{invhom}). Also the isomorphisms $[\sHom(C^0_A,\mathcal O_{X^n})]^{\mathfrak S_n}\overset \cong \to[\sHom(p_*q^*(A^{[n]}),\mathcal O_{X^n})]^{\mathfrak S_n}$ and $[\sHom(\mathcal O_{X^n},C^0_B)]^{\mathfrak S_n}\overset \cong \to[\sHom(\mathcal O_{X^n},p_*q^*(B^{[n]}))]^{\mathfrak S_n}$ are given by restriction of the morphisms to subsheaves.
Now the isomorphisms on the right hand sides of (1), (2) and (3) are induced by those isomorphisms of the sheaf-Homs after choosing locally free resolutions of $E^\bullet$ and $F^\bullet$. The composition of morphisms of sheaves is compatible with restricting the morphisms to certain subsheaves. This translates into the Yoneda products between the extension groups of twisted tautological objects and determinant line bundles coinciding with the Yoneda products between the equivariant extension groups of the terms of the form $C^0_{E^\bullet}$, $L^{\boxtimes n}$, and $C^0_{E^\bullet}\otimes L^{\boxtimes n}$ under the isomorphisms in (1), (2), (3) and (5). Now using the Künneth and Danila's isomorphism we can express the Yoneda products in terms of Yoneda products in the derived category of the surface $X$ under the isomorphisms of theorem \ref{main}, remark \ref{objcoh} and (4) . We will explicitly state and prove the formula only for the case were all the objects $\mathcal E^\bullet$, $\mathcal F^\bullet$ and $\mathcal G^\bullet$ involved are twisted tautological objects.
The other seven cases can be done very similarly. For $E,F\in \D^b(X)$ and $L,M\in \Pic(X)$ we set
\[P(E,L,F,M):=\begin{aligned}&\Ext^*(E\otimes L,F\otimes M)\otimes S^{n-1}(\Ext^*(L,M))\oplus\\& \Ext^*(E\otimes L,M)\otimes \Ext^*(L,F\otimes M)\otimes S^{n-2}(\Ext^*(L,M))\,.\end{aligned}
\]
Let also be $G\in \D^b(X)$ and $N\in\Pic (X)$. We consider the elements
\begin{align*}
\binom{\phi\otimes s_2\cdots s_n}{\eta\otimes x\otimes t_3\cdots t_n}&\in P(F,M,G,N)\cong \Ext^*(F^{[n]}\otimes \mathcal D_M, G^{[n]}\otimes \mathcal D_N)\\
\binom{\phi'\otimes s'_2\cdots s'_n}{\eta'\otimes x'\otimes t'_3\cdots t'_n}&\in P(E,L,F,M)\cong \Ext^*(E^{[n]}\otimes \mathcal D_L, F^{[n]}\otimes \mathcal D_M)\,.
\end{align*}
In order to use the sign convention above we set
\[\phi=s_1\,,\, \eta=t_1\,,\, x=t_2\,,\, \phi'=s'_1\,,\, \eta'=t'_1\,,\, x'=t'_2\,.\]
and assume that all the $s_i$, $s'_i$, $t_i$ and $t'_i$ are homogeneous. Now we can compute the Yoneda product
$\binom{\phi\otimes s_2\cdots s_n}{\eta\otimes x\otimes t_3\cdots t_n}\circ\binom{\phi'\otimes s'_2\cdots s'_n}{\eta'\otimes x'\otimes t'_3\cdots t'_n}$ in
$\Ext^*(E^{[n]}\otimes \mathcal D_L, G^{[n]}\otimes \mathcal D_N)$ and express it as an element in $P(E,L,G,M)$.
\begin{prop}
The Yoneda product is given by
\begin{align*}
&\frac1{(n-1)!}\sum_{\sigma\in \mathfrak S_{[2,n]}}^\bullet (\phi\phi')\otimes(s_2 s'_{\sigma^{-1}(2)})\cdots (s_n s'_{\sigma^{-1}(n)})\\
&+\frac1{(n-2)!}\sum_{\tau\in \mathfrak S_{[3,n]}}^\bullet (x\eta')\otimes(\eta x')\cdot(t_3 t'_{\tau^{-1}(3)})\cdots (t_n t'_{\tau^{-1}(n)})\\
&\oplus\frac1{(n-1)!}\sum_{\beta\in \mathfrak S_{[2,n]}}^\bullet (\eta\phi')\otimes(x s'_{\beta^{-1}(2)})\otimes(t_3 s'_{\beta^{-1}(3)})\cdots (t_n s'_{\beta^{-1}(n)})\\
&+\frac1{(n-1)!}\sum_{\gamma\in \mathfrak S_{[2,n]}}^\bullet (s_{\gamma^{-1}(2)}\eta')\otimes(\phi x')\otimes(s_{\gamma^{-1}(3)}t'_3)\cdots (s_{\tau^{-1}(n)}t'_n)\\
&+\frac1{(n-2)!}\sum_{\substack{i=3,\dots,n\\ \alpha\in \mathfrak S_{[3,\dots,n]}}}^\bullet (t_i\eta')\otimes(x t'_{\alpha{-1}(i)})\otimes(\eta x')\cdot (t_3 t'_{\alpha^{-1}(3)})\cdots \widehat{(t_i t'_{\alpha^{-1}(i)})}\cdots(t_n t'_{\alpha^{-1}(n)})\,.
\end{align*}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
The element
$\binom{\phi\otimes s_2\cdots s_n}{\eta\otimes x\otimes t_3\cdots t_n}\in P(F,M,G,N)$
corresponds to the element
\[\frac1{(n-1)!}{\sum_{\sigma\in\mathfrak S_n}^\bullet s_{\sigma^{-1}(1)}\otimes \cdots\otimes s_{\sigma^{-1}(n)}}\oplus
\frac1{(n-2)!}
{\sum_{\tau\in\mathfrak S_n}^\bullet t_{\tau^{-1}(1)}\otimes \cdots\otimes t_{\tau^{-1}(n)}}
\]
in $\Ext^*(C^0_F\otimes M^{\boxtimes n},C^0_G\otimes N^{\boxtimes n})$. The coefficients are coming from the canonical isomorphism $S^kV\overset\cong\to S_kV$ (see section \ref{not}, note that the isomorphism of Danilas lemma does not involve such coefficients). The same holds for $\binom{\phi'\otimes s'_2\cdots s'_n}{\eta'\otimes x'\otimes t'_3\cdots t'_n}$. The summand $s_{\sigma^{-1}(1)}\otimes \cdots\otimes s_{\sigma^{-1}(n)}$ is an element of $\Ext^*(\pr_{\sigma(1)}^*F\otimes M^{\boxtimes n},\pr_{\sigma(1)}^*G\otimes N^{\boxtimes n})$ and $t_{\tau^{-1}(1)}\otimes \cdots\otimes t_{\tau^{-1}(2)}$ an element of
$\Ext^*(\pr_{\tau(1)}^*F\otimes M^{\boxtimes n},\pr_{\tau(2)}^*G\otimes N^{\boxtimes n})$. There are five types of composable pairs of the components of the classes in $\Ext^*(C^0_F\otimes M^{\boxtimes n},C^0_G\otimes N^{\boxtimes n})\times
\Ext^*(C^0_E\otimes L^{\boxtimes n},C^0_F\otimes M^{\boxtimes n})\,,$ namely
\begin{align*}
&\pr_i^*E\otimes L^{\boxtimes n}\to \pr_i^*F\otimes M^{\boxtimes n}\to\pr_i^*G\otimes N^{\boxtimes n}\,,\,\pr_i^*E\otimes L^{\boxtimes n}\to \pr_j^*F\otimes M^{\boxtimes n}\to\pr_i^*G\otimes N^{\boxtimes n}\,,\\
&\pr_i^*E\otimes L^{\boxtimes n}\to \pr_i^*F\otimes M^{\boxtimes n}\to\pr_j^*G\otimes N^{\boxtimes n}\,,\,\pr_i^*E\otimes L^{\boxtimes n}\to \pr_j^*F\otimes M^{\boxtimes n}\to\pr_j^*G\otimes N^{\boxtimes n}\,,\\ &\pr_i^*E\otimes L^{\boxtimes n}\to \pr_j^*F\otimes M^{\boxtimes n}\to\pr_k^*G\otimes N^{\boxtimes n}
\end{align*}
with $i,j,k\in [n]$ pairwise distinct. Thus, the Yoneda product in $\Ext^*(C^0_E\otimes L^{\boxtimes n},C^0_G\otimes N^{\boxtimes n})$ looks like this :
\begin{align*}
&\frac 1{(n-1)!^2}\sum_{\substack{\sigma,\sigma'\in\mathfrak S_n\\\sigma(1)=\sigma'(1)}}^\bullet \otimes_{i=1}^n(s_{\sigma^{-1}(i)} s'_{\sigma'^{-1}(i)})
+\frac 1{(n-2)!^2}\sum_{\substack{\tau,\tau'\in\mathfrak S_n\\ \tau(2)=\tau'(1),\tau(1)=\tau'(2)}}^\bullet \otimes_{i=1}^n(t_{\tau^{-1}(i)} t'_{\tau'^{-1}(i)})\\
&+\frac 1{(n-1)!(n-2)!}\sum_{\substack{\tau,\sigma'\in\mathfrak S_n\\\tau(1)=\sigma'(1)}}^\bullet \otimes_{i=1}^n(t_{\tau^{-1}(i)} s'_{\sigma'^{-1}(i)})
+\frac 1{(n-1)!(n-2)!}\sum_{\substack{\sigma,\tau'\in\mathfrak S_n\\\sigma(1)=\tau'(2)}}^\bullet \otimes_{i=1}^n(s_{\sigma^{-1}(i)} t'_{\tau'^{-1}(i)})\\
&+\frac 1{(n-2)!^2}\sum_{\substack{\tau,\tau'\in\mathfrak S_n\\\tau(1)=\tau'(2), \tau(2)\ne \tau'(1)}}^\bullet \otimes_{i=1}^n(t_{\tau^{-1}(i)} t'_{\tau'^{-1}(i)})\quad\tag 6\,.
\end{align*}
The first term of (6) is a $\mathfrak S_n$-invariant element of $\oplus_{i=1}^n\Ext^*(p_i^*E\otimes L^{\boxtimes n},p_i^*G\otimes N^{\boxtimes n})$. Danila's isomorphism is simply the projection to the first summand. Thus, it maps the first term of (6) to
\[\frac 1{(n-1)!^2}\sum_{\substack{\sigma,\sigma'\in\mathfrak S_n\\\sigma(1)=\sigma'(1)=1}}^\bullet \otimes_{i=1}^n(s_{\sigma^{-1}(i)} s'_{\sigma'^{-1}(i)})\in
\Ext^*(p_1^*E\otimes L^{\boxtimes n},p_1^*G\otimes N^{\boxtimes n})\]
Under the isomorphism $S_{n-1}\Ext^*(L,N)\overset\cong\to S^{n-1}\Ext^*(L,N)$ this element is mapped to
\[\frac1{(n-1)!}\sum_{\sigma\in\mathfrak S_{[2,n]}}^\bullet (\phi\phi')\otimes (s_2 s'_{\sigma^{-1}(2)})\cdots (s_n s'_{\sigma^{-1}(n)})\in
\Ext^*(E\otimes L,G\otimes N)\otimes S^{n-1}\Ext^*(L,N)\]
which is exactly the first term of the formula we want to prove.
Doing the same for the other four terms in (6) yields the desired element in
$P(E,L,G,M)$.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
Let $D,E,F,G\in \D^b(X)$ and $L,M,N\in \Pic X$. By remark \ref{natural} for a morphism $\phi\in \Hom_{\D^b(X)}(E,F[i])\cong \Ext^i(E,F)$ the induced morphism \[\phi^{[n]}\otimes \id_{\mathcal D_M}\in \Ext^i(E^{[n]}\otimes \mathcal D_M,F^{[n]}\otimes \mathcal D_M)\] corresponds to
\[\binom{\phi\otimes \id_{M}\cdots\id_M}0 \in P(E,M,F,M)\,.\]
For $M=\mathcal O_X$ this shows that the tautologizing functor $(\_)^{[n]}$ is faithful but not full. Let
\[\binom{\psi'\otimes s_2'\cdots s_n'}{\eta'\otimes x'\otimes t_3'\cdots t_n'}\in P(D,L,E,M)\,,\,
\binom{\psi\otimes s_2\cdots s_n}{\eta\otimes x\otimes t_3\cdots t_n}\in P(F,M,G,N)\,.
\]
Then the formula for the Yoneda product gives back the naturalness of the isomorphism in theorem \ref{main} as a special case since
\begin{align*}
\binom{\psi\otimes s_2\cdots s_n}{\eta\otimes x\otimes t_3\cdots t_n}\circ\binom{\phi\otimes \id_{M}\cdots\id_M}0&=\binom{\psi\phi\otimes s_2\cdots s_n}{\eta\phi\otimes x\otimes t_3\cdots t_n}\\
\binom{\phi\otimes \id_{M}\cdots\id_M}0 \circ\binom{\psi'\otimes s_2'\cdots s_n'}{\eta'\otimes x'\otimes t_3'\cdots t_n'}&=\binom{\phi\psi'\otimes s_2'\cdots s_n'}{\eta'\otimes \phi x'\otimes t_3'\cdots t_n'}\,.
\end{align*}
\end{remark}
|
\section{The best linear unbiased generalized statistics}
\noindent
{\bf Remark.}
To simplify notation we use Einstein summation convention then
$$
\sum_{i=1}^n \omega^i_j \rho_{ij}
=
\omega^i_j \rho_{ij}
=
w' r \,
$$
where
$$
\begin{array}{cccccccccc}
w
&
=
&
\underbrace{
\left[
\begin{array}{c}
\omega_j^{\it 1} \\
\vdots \\
\omega_j^{\it n} \\
\end{array}
\right]
}_{n \times 1} \ ,
&
r
&
=
&
\underbrace{
\left[
\begin{array}{c}
\rho_{\it 1j} \\
\vdots \\
\rho_{\it nj} \\
\end{array}
\right]
}_{n\times 1}
\end{array}
$$
are given vectors and
$$
\sum_{i=1}^n\omega^i_j\sum_{l=1}^n \rho_{il} \omega^l_j
=
\omega^i_j \rho_{il} \omega^l_j
=
w' \Lambda w \ ,
$$
where
$$
\begin{array}{ccccc}
\Lambda
&
=
&
{\underbrace{
\left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
\rho_{\it 11} & \ldots & \rho_{\it 1n} \\
\vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
\rho_{\it n1}& \ldots & \rho_{\it nn} \\
\end{array}
\right]}_{n \times n}}
\end{array}
$$
is given matrix.
Let us consider the random field $V_j;~j \in {\mathbb N}_1$
with an unknown constant mean $m$ and variance $\sigma^2$
its estimation statistics $\hat{V}_j$
and the variance of the difference $R_j=V_j-\hat{V}_j$,
where $E\{V_j\}=E\{\hat{V}_j\}=m$,
as covariance
$$
\begin{array}{ccc}
D^2\{V_j-\hat{V}_j\}
&
=
&
Cov\{(V_j-\hat{V}_j)(V_j-\hat{V}_j)\}
\\
&
=
&
Cov\{V_jV_j\}
-
Cov\{V_j\hat{V}_j\}
-
Cov\{\hat{V}_jV_j\}
+
Cov\{\hat{V}_j\hat{V}_j\}
\\
&
=
&
Cov\{V_jV_j\}
-
2Cov\{\hat{V}_jV_j\}
+
Cov\{\hat{V}_j\hat{V}_j\}
\end{array}
$$
and the linear estimation statistics (weighted variable)
$\hat{V}_j
=
\sum_{i=1}^n \omega^i_j V_i
=
\omega^i_j V_i;~j \subset i=1,\ldots,n$
at $j\ge n+1$ then
\begin{eqnarray}
D^2\{R_j\}
&
=
&
Cov\{V_jV_j\}-2Cov\{\hat{V}_jV_j\}+Cov\{\hat{V}_j\hat{V}_j\} \nonumber
\\
&
=
&
Var\{V_j\}
-2Cov\{\sum_i\omega_j^i V_i V_j\}
+
Cov\{(\sum_i\omega^i_j V_i)(\sum_i\omega^i_j V_i)\} \nonumber
\\
&
=
&
\sigma^2-2\sum_i\omega^i_j Cov\{V_i V_j\}
+
\sum_i\sum_l\omega^i_j \omega^l_j Cov\{V_i V_l\} \nonumber
\\
&
=
&
\sigma^2
-
2\sigma^2|\omega^i_j \rho_{ij}|
+
\sigma^2 |\omega^i_j \rho_{il} \omega^l_j| \nonumber
\\
&
=
&
\sigma^2
\pm 2\sigma^2\omega^i_j \rho_{ij}
\mp \sigma^2 \omega^i_j \rho_{il} \omega^l_j \ ,
\label{D}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\rho_{ij};~i=1,\ldots,n$ is given
vector of correlations and $\rho_{il};~i,l=1,\ldots,n$
is given (symmetric) matrix of correlations~(see~Appendix~\ref{sec:A}). \\
The unbiasedness constraint
(the first constraint on the estimation statistics)
$$
E\{R_j\}=E\{V_j-\hat{V}_j\}
=
E\{V_j\}-E\{\hat{V}_j\}
=
E\{V_j\}-E\{\omega^i_j V_i\}
=
m-m\sum_{i=1}^n \omega^i_j
=
0
$$
equal to
\begin{equation}
\sum_{i=1}^n \omega^i_j=
f_{\it 1i} \omega^i_j
=
\omega^i_j f_{\it i1}
=1
\label{uc}
\end{equation}
gives the first equation
$$
\begin{array}{ccccccccc}
{\underbrace{
\left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
1 & \ldots & 1
\end{array}
\right]}_{1 \times n}}
&
\cdot
&
\underbrace{
\left[
\begin{array}{c}
\omega^1_j \\
\vdots \\
\omega^n_j \\
\end{array}
\right]
}_{n \times 1}
&
=
&
{\underbrace{
\left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
\omega^1_j & \ldots & \omega^n_j
\end{array}
\right]}_{1 \times n}}
&
\cdot
&
\underbrace{
\left[
\begin{array}{c}
1 \\
\vdots \\
1 \\
\end{array}
\right]
}_{n \times 1}
&
=
&
1 \ .
\end{array}
$$
The minimization constraint
(the second constraint on the estimation statistics
-- the statistics is the best)
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial D^2\{R_j\}}{\partial \omega^i_j}
=
\pm 2\sigma^2\rho_{ij}
\mp 2\sigma^2\rho_{il}\omega^l_j
\mp 2\sigma^2f_{\it i1}\mu_j^{\it 1}
= 0 \ ,
\label{mc}
\end{equation}
where~(\ref{D})
$$
D^2\{R_j\}=\sigma^2
\pm 2\sigma^2\omega^i_j\rho_{ij}
\mp \sigma^2\omega^i_j\rho_{il} \omega^l_j
\mp 2\sigma^2\underbrace{\left(\omega^i_j f_{\it i1}
- 1\right)}_0 \mu_j^{\it 1} \ ,
$$
produces $n$ equations in $n+1$ unknowns
the kriging weights $\omega_j^i$ and a Lagrange
parameter $\mu^{\it 1}_j$
$$
\begin{array}{cccccl}
{\underbrace{
\left[
\begin{array}{cccc}
\rho_{\it 11} & \ldots & \rho_{\it 1n} & 1 \\
\vdots & \ddots & \vdots & \vdots \\
\rho_{\it n1} & \ldots & \rho_{\it nn} & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right]}_{n\times(n+1)}}
&
\cdot
&
\underbrace{
\left[
\begin{array}{c}
\omega_j^{\it 1} \\
\vdots \\
\omega_j^{\it n} \\
\mu_j^{\it 1} \\
\end{array}
\right]
}_{(n+1) \times 1}
&
=
&
\underbrace{
\left[
\begin{array}{c}
\rho_{\it 1j} \\
\vdots \\
\rho_{\it nj} \\
\end{array}
\right]
}_{n \times 1}
\end{array}
$$
this system of equations if multiplied by $\omega^i_j$
$$
\omega^i_j \rho_{il} \omega^l_j
+
\underbrace{\omega^i_j f_{\it i1}}_1 \mu^{\it 1}_j
=
\omega^i_j \rho_{ij} \ ,
$$
and substituted into
$$
\begin{array}{ccc}
D^2\{R_j\}
&
=
&
E\{[V_j-\hat{V}_j]^2\}-\underbrace{E^2\{V_j-\hat{V}_j\}}_0 \\
&
=
&
E\{[(V_j-m)-(\hat{V}_j-m)]^2\} \\
&
=
&
E\{[V_j-m]^2\}-2(E\{V_j\hat{V}_j\}-m^2)+E\{[\hat{V}_j-m]^2\} \\
&
=
&
\sigma^2
-2 \sigma^2|\omega^i_j\rho_{ij}|
+ \sigma^2|\omega^i_j\rho_{il} \omega^l_j| \\
&
=
&
\sigma^2
\pm 2 \sigma^2 \omega^i_j \rho_{ij}
\mp \sigma^2 \omega^i_j \rho_{il} \omega^l_j
\end{array}
$$
since variance of the (estimation) statistics is minimized
\begin{eqnarray}
E\{[\hat{V}_j-m]^2\}
&
=
&
Cov\{(\omega^i_j V_i)(\omega^i_j V_i)\} \nonumber
\\
&
=
&
\sum_i\sum_l\omega^i_j\omega^l_j Cov\{V_i V_l\} \nonumber
\\
&
=
&
\sigma^2|\omega^i_j \rho_{il} \omega^l_j| \nonumber
\\
&
=
&
\mp \sigma^2 \omega^i_j \rho_{il} \omega^l_j \nonumber
\\
&
=
&
\mp \sigma^2 (\omega^i_j \rho_{ij}-\mu_j^{\it 1})
\label{o}
\end{eqnarray}
gives
\begin{equation}
D^2\{R_j\}
=
E\{[V_j-\hat{V}_j]^2\}
=
E\{[(V_j-m)-(\hat{V}_j-m)]^2\}
=
\sigma^2
(1 \pm (\omega^i_j \rho_{ij}+\mu^{\it 1}_j))
\label{oo}
\end{equation}
the constraints~(\ref{uc}) and~(\ref{mc}) produce $n+1$ equations
in $n+1$ unknowns
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{cccccl}
{\underbrace{
\left[
\begin{array}{cccc}
\rho_{\it 11} & \ldots & \rho_{\it 1n} & 1 \\
\vdots & \ddots & \vdots & \vdots \\
\rho_{\it n1} & \ldots & \rho_{\it nn} & 1 \\
1 & \ldots & 1 & 0 \\
\end{array}
\right]}_{(n+1) \times (n+1)}}
&
\cdot
&
\underbrace{
\left[
\begin{array}{c}
\omega_j^{\it 1} \\
\vdots \\
\omega_j^{\it n} \\
\mu^{\it 1}_j \\
\end{array}
\right]
}_{(n+1) \times 1}
&
=
&
\underbrace{
\left[
\begin{array}{c}
\rho_{\it 1j} \\
\vdots \\
\rho_{\it nj} \\
1 \\
\end{array}
\right]
}_{(n+1) \times 1} \ .
\end{array}
\label{ke}
\end{equation}
\section{The classic best linear unbiased generalized statistics of
an unknown constant mean of the field}
\noindent
{\bf Remark.} When we consider an independent set of
the random variables $V_i;~i=1,\ldots,n$
with an unknown constant mean $m$ and variance $\sigma^2$
the best linear unbiased ordinary (estimation) statistics
$\hat{V}_j=\omega^i_j V_i$ of the field $V_j;~j \subset i=1,\ldots,n$
has the asymptotic property
\begin{equation}
\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty}
E\{[\omega^i_j V_i-m]^2\}
=
0
\label{sal}
\end{equation}
whilst for spatial dependence between random variables
(the best linear unbiased generalized statistics)
we get~(see~Appendix~\ref{sec:B})
\begin{equation}
\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty}
\lim_{j \rightarrow \infty}
E\{[\omega^i_j V_i-m]^2\}
=
0 \ .
\label{tal}
\end{equation}
Due to different asymptotic limits between~(\ref{sal}) and~(\ref{tal})
the ordinary least-squares estimator of an unknown constant mean $m$
of the field, the best linear unbiased estimator of
an unknown constant mean $m$ of the field,
can not be so easy generalized (like it was in past).
Let us constraint the best linear unbiased
generalized (estimation) statistics $\hat{V}_j=\omega^i_j V_i$
of the random field $V_j;~j \subset i=1,\ldots,n$,
when for finite $n$ and $j \rightarrow \infty$
the vector of correlations simplifies to
\begin{equation}
\underbrace{
\left[
\begin{array}{c}
\rho_{1j} \\
\vdots \\
\rho_{nj} \\
\end{array}
\right]
}_{n \times 1}
=
\xi
\underbrace{
\left[
\begin{array}{c}
1 \\
\vdots \\
1 \\
\end{array}
\right]
}_{n \times 1}
\qquad \xi \rightarrow 0^-~(\mbox{or} ~\xi \rightarrow 0^+)
\label{cv}
\end{equation}
then from~(\ref{uc})
\begin{equation}
\lim_{j \rightarrow \infty}
\omega^i_j \rho_{ij}=\xi \omega^i_j f_{\it i1} = \xi
\label{wrho}
\end{equation}
it holds~(\ref{oo})
\begin{equation}
\lim_{j \rightarrow \infty}
E\{[V_j-\omega^i_j V_i]^2\}
=
\lim_{j \rightarrow \infty}
\sigma^2
(1 \pm (\omega^i_j \rho_{ij}+\mu^{\it 1}_j))
=
\sigma^2
(1 \pm (\xi + \mu^{\it 1}_j))
\label{joo}
\end{equation}
for the co-ordinate independent statistics
of an unknown constant mean of the field $V_j$
with the constraint on~(\ref{joo})
\begin{equation}
\lim_{j \rightarrow \infty}
E\{[V_j-\omega^i_j V_i]^2\}
=
\sigma^2
=
E\{[V_j-m]^2\}
\label{tc}
\end{equation}
given by constrained
from~(\ref{joo})
\begin{equation}
\mu_j^{\it 1}=-\xi
\label{mu}
\end{equation}
and from~(\ref{cv}) the system of equations~(\ref{ke})
$$
\begin{array}{cccccl}
{\underbrace{
\left[
\begin{array}{cccc}
\rho_{\it 11} & \ldots & \rho_{\it 1n} & 1 \\
\vdots & \ddots & \vdots & \vdots \\
\rho_{\it n1} & \ldots & \rho_{\it nn} & 1 \\
1 & \ldots & 1 & 0 \\
\end{array}
\right]}_{(n+1) \times (n+1)}}
&
\cdot
&
\underbrace{
\left[
\begin{array}{c}
\omega_j^{\it 1} \\
\vdots \\
\omega_j^{\it n} \\
- \xi \\
\end{array}
\right]
}_{(n+1) \times 1}
&
=
&
\underbrace{
\left[
\begin{array}{c}
\xi \\
\vdots \\
\xi \\
1 \\
\end{array}
\right]
}_{(n+1) \times 1}
&
\end{array}
$$
equivalent to
$$
\Lambda w -\xi F = \xi F
$$
and
$$
F'w=1 \ ,
$$
where
$$
\begin{array}{cccccccccccc}
w
&
=
&
\underbrace{
\left[
\begin{array}{c}
\omega_j^{\it 1} \\
\vdots \\
\omega_j^{\it n} \\
\end{array}
\right]
}_{n \times 1} \ ,
&
F
&
=
&
\underbrace{
\left[
\begin{array}{c}
1 \\
\vdots \\
1 \\
\end{array}
\right]
}_{n \times 1}
&
,
&
\Lambda
&
=
&
\Lambda'
&
=
&
{\underbrace{
\left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
\rho_{\it 11} & \ldots & \rho_{\it 1n} \\
\vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
\rho_{\it n1} & \ldots & \rho_{\it nn} \\
\end{array}
\right]}_{n \times n}} \ ,
\end{array}
$$
with the solution
\begin{equation}
\xi=\frac{1}{2 F' \Lambda^{-1} F}
\label{xii}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
w=\frac{\Lambda^{-1}F}{F' \Lambda^{-1} F}
\end{equation}
of the classic best linear unbiased generalized statistics
for finite $n$ and $j \rightarrow \infty$ of
an unknown constant mean of the field
\begin{equation}
\lim_{j \rightarrow \infty}
w' V=\frac{F'\Lambda^{-1}V}{F'\Lambda^{-1} F} \ ,
\label{csol}
\end{equation}
where
$$
V
=
\underbrace{
\left[
\begin{array}{c}
V_1 \\
\vdots \\
V_n \\
\end{array}
\right]
}_{n \times 1} \ ,
$$
with constrained minimized variance of
the best linear unbiased generalized (estimation) statistics~(\ref{o})
as its variance~(from(\ref{wrho})~and~(\ref{mu}))
$$
\lim_{j \rightarrow \infty}
E\{[\omega^i_j V_i-m]^2\}
=
\lim_{j \rightarrow \infty}
\mp\sigma^2(\omega^i_j \rho_{ij}-\mu_j^{\it 1})
=
\mp\sigma^2 (\xi - \mu_j^{\it 1})
=
\mp\sigma^2 2\xi
$$
then~(from(\ref{xii}))
$$
\lim_{j \rightarrow \infty}
E\{[w'V-m]^2\}
=
\mp\sigma^2 2\xi
=
\frac{\mp\sigma^2}{F'\Lambda^{-1}F} \ ,
$$
with the classic generalized least-squares estimator
for finite $n$ and $j \rightarrow \infty$ of an unknown
constant mean $m$ of the field
\begin{equation}
\lim_{j \rightarrow \infty}
w' {\bf v}=\frac{F' \Lambda^{-1}{\bf v}}{F'\Lambda^{-1}F}
\label{cglse}
\end{equation}
based on observation ${\bf v}$ seen as outcome of $V$.
\section{The numerical best linear unbiased generalized statistics of
an unknown constant mean of the field}
\noindent
To remove the asymptotic limit of
the classic best linear unbiased generalized statistics
for finite $n$ and $j \rightarrow \infty$ of
an unknown constant mean $m=E\{V_j\}$ of
the field $V_j$ with the constraint~(\ref{tc})
$$
\lim_{j \rightarrow \infty}E\{[V_j-\omega^i_j V_i]^2\}
=
\sigma^2
=
E\{[V_j-m]^2\} \ ,
$$
the best linear unbiased generalized (estimation) statistic of
the field $V_j;~j \subset i=1,\ldots,n$ at finite $j \ge n+1=182+1$
$$
\hat{V}_j = \sum_{i=1}^{n=182} \omega^i_j V_i
$$
given by the kriging algorithm~(\ref{ke}) for $n=182$
$$
\begin{array}{cccccl}
\underbrace{
\left[
\begin{array}{c}
\omega_j^{\it 1} \\
\vdots \\
\omega_j^{\it n} \\
\mu^{\it 1}_j \\
\end{array}
\right]
}_{(n+1) \times 1}
&
=
{\underbrace{
\left[
\begin{array}{cccc}
\rho_{\it 11} & \ldots & \rho_{\it 1n} & 1 \\
\vdots & \ddots & \vdots & \vdots \\
\rho_{\it n1} & \ldots & \rho_{\it nn} & 1 \\
1 & \ldots & 1 & 0 \\
\end{array}
\right]}_{(n+1) \times (n+1)}}^{-1}
&
\cdot
&
\underbrace{
\left[
\begin{array}{c}
\rho_{\it 1j} \\
\vdots \\
\rho_{\it nj} \\
1 \\
\end{array}
\right]
}_{(n+1) \times 1}
\end{array}
$$
the negative correlation function with the parameter
$t=182+1,\ldots,182+139$
\begin{equation}
\rho(\Delta_{ij})=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
-1 \cdot {\displaystyle t}^{-0.62590\displaystyle [\Delta_{ij} \slash t]^2},&
\qquad \mbox{for}~~\Delta_{ij}=|i-j|> 0,\\
+1, & \qquad \mbox{for}~~\Delta_{ij}=|i-j|=0,\\
\end{array}
\right.
\label{cf}
\end{equation}
was constrained~(from~(\ref{oo}))
on computer (139 times)
for the numerical best linear unbiased generalized statistics
for finite $n$ at finite $j$ of
an unknown constant mean $m=E\{V_j\}$ of
the field $V_j$ with the third constraint of spatial statistics
\begin{equation}
E\{[V_j-\omega^i_j V_i]^2\}
=
\sigma^2
=
E\{[V_j-m]^2\}
\label{coss}
\end{equation}
equivalent to
\begin{equation}
\omega^i_j \rho_{ij}+ \mu_j^{\it 1}=0
\label{ce}
\end{equation}
with constrained minimized variance of the best linear unbiased generalized
(estimation) statistics~(\ref{o}) as its variance (see~Fig.~\ref{Fig1}).
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=12cm,height=6cm]{estvar}
\caption{\label{Fig1} Variance of
the numerical best linear unbiased generalized statistics
for finite $n$ at finite $j \ge n+1=182+1$ of
an unknown constant mean $m=E\{V_j\}$ of
the field $V_j$ in units of the variance $\sigma^2$ of
the field computed 139 times for
the negative correlation function~(\ref{cf}) with
the parameter $t=182+1,\ldots,182+139$.}
\end{figure}
Our aim was to derive
for the negative correlation function~(\ref{cf}) with
the parameter $t=182+1,\ldots,182+139$
the numerical generalized least-squares estimator
$\omega^i_j v_i$ of
an unknown constant mean $m=E\{V_j\}$ of the field $V_j$
in fact the proper best linear unbiased (generalized)
estimator of an unknown constant mean $m=E\{V_j\}$ of the field $V_j$
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=12cm,height=6cm]{xetra}
\caption{\label{Fig2} Long-lived asymmetric index profile,Xetra Dax Index from 23 X 1997 up to 10 III 2000 (600 close quotes)
the numerical generalized least-squares estimator
$\omega^i_j v_i$ of an unknown constant mean $m=E\{V_j\}$ of
the field $V_j;~j \subset i=1,\ldots,182$ (black dots) based on $v_i=v_1,\ldots,v_{182}$ is compared for the negative correlation function~(\ref{cf}) with the parameter $t=182+1,\ldots,182+139$ at
finite $j \ge n+1=182+1$ to
the classic generalized least-squares
estimator $\lim_{j \rightarrow \infty}\omega^i_j v_i$ of
an unknown constant mean $m=E\{V_j\}$ of the field $V_j$
(grey line) with the same correlation function and based on
the same sample.
The classic estimator is the first approximation of
the numerical estimator at final $j=577$ for final $t=182+139$.
The dashed vertical line represents $j=n=182$.}
\end{figure}
given at finite $j \ge n+1=182+1$
by numerical approximation to root of
the equation~(\ref{ce}).
This (co-ordinate dependent) generalized least-squares estimator
$\omega^i_j v_i$ was compared to the (co-ordinate independent)
classic generalized least-squares estimator
$\lim_{j \rightarrow \infty}\omega^i_j v_i$
of an unknown constant mean of the field~(\ref{cglse})
$$
\lim_{j \rightarrow \infty}
w'{\bf v}=\frac{F'\Lambda^{-1}{\bf v}}{F' \Lambda^{-1} F}
$$
based on the same observation
an initial amplification $v_i=v_1,\ldots,v_{182}$ of
long-lived asymmetric index profile recorded
by $600$ close quotes of Xetra Dax Index shown
in~Fig.~\ref{Fig2} then
$$
{\bf v}
=
\underbrace{
\left[
\begin{array}{c}
v_1 \\
\vdots \\
v_{182} \\
\end{array}
\right]
}_{n \times 1}
$$
with the same correlation function~(\ref{cf}).
Since the classic best linear unbiased generalized statistics
for finite $n$ and $j \rightarrow \infty$ of
an unknown constant mean $m=E\{V_j\}$ of the field $V_j$
with the constraint
$$
\lim_{j \rightarrow \infty}
E\{[V_j-\omega^i_j V_i]^2\}
=
\sigma^2
=
E\{[V_j-m]^2\} \ ,
$$
is an asymptotic disjunction for $j \rightarrow \infty$ of
the numerical best linear unbiased generalized statistics for
finite $n$ at finite $j$ of an unknown constant mean $m=E\{V_j\}$ of
the field $V_j$ with the constraint
$$
E\{[V_j-\omega^i_j V_i]^2\}
=
\sigma^2
=
E\{[V_j-m]^2\} \ ,
$$
then the correct classic generalized least-squares estimator
$\lim_{j \rightarrow \infty} \omega^i_j v_i$ of
an unknown constant mean $m$ of the field is an asymptotic
disjunction for $j \rightarrow \infty$
of the numerical generalized least-squares estimator
$\omega^i_j v_i$ of an unknowm constant mean $m$ of
the field (see~Fig.~\ref{Fig2}).
\section{Summary}
\noindent
It was shown that the (estimation) statistics of
the field $V_j; j~\subset i=1,\ldots,n$ with
an unknown constant mean $m$ and variance $\sigma^2$
$$
\hat{V}_j=\sum_{i=1}^n \omega^i_j V_i = \omega^i_j V_i
$$
that assumes -- the unbiasedness constraint~(\ref{uc})
$$
E\{V_j\}-E\{\omega^i_j V_i\}
=
0
$$
that assumes -- the minimization constraint~(\ref{mc})
$$
\frac{\partial D^2\{V_j-\omega^i_j V_j\}}{\partial \omega^i_j}
=
0
$$
given by the kriging system of equations~(\ref{ke})
$$
\begin{array}{cccccl}
{\underbrace{
\left[
\begin{array}{cccc}
\rho_{\it 11} & \ldots & \rho_{\it 1n} & 1 \\
\vdots & \ddots & \vdots & \vdots \\
\rho_{\it n1} & \ldots & \rho_{\it nn} & 1 \\
1 & \ldots & 1 & 0 \\
\end{array}
\right]}_{(n+1) \times (n+1)}}
&
\cdot
&
\underbrace{
\left[
\begin{array}{c}
\omega_j^{\it 1} \\
\vdots \\
\omega_j^{\it n} \\
\mu^{\it 1}_j \\
\end{array}
\right]
}_{(n+1) \times 1}
&
=
&
\underbrace{
\left[
\begin{array}{c}
\rho_{\it 1j} \\
\vdots \\
\rho_{\it nj} \\
1 \\
\end{array}
\right]
}_{(n+1) \times 1}
\end{array}
$$
is the best linear unbiased generalized (estimation) statistics of
random field $V_j$
with minimized variance of the statistics
\begin{equation}
E\{[\omega^i_j V_i-m]^2\}
=
\mp\sigma^2
\left( \omega^i_j \rho_{ij}- \mu^{\it 1}_j \right)
\label{o2}
\end{equation}
and (minimized)
\begin{equation}
E\{[V_j-\omega^i_j V_i]^2\}
=
\sigma^2
\left( 1 \pm \left(\omega^i_j \rho_{ij} + \mu^{\it 1}_j \right)\right)
\label{oo2}
\end{equation}
with the asymptotic property~(Appendix~\ref{sec:B})
$$
\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty}
\lim_{j \rightarrow \infty}
E\{[\omega^i_j V_i - m]^2\}=0
$$
and
$$
\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty}
\lim_{j \rightarrow \infty}
E\{[V_j-\omega^i_j V_i]^2\}
=
\sigma^2
$$
constrained once again from~(\ref{oo2}) on computer --
the third constraint of spatial statistics
$$
E\{[V_j-\omega^i_j V_i]^2\}
=
\sigma^2
=
E\{[V_j-m]^2\}
$$
is the numerical best linear unbiased generalized statistics
for finite $n$ at finite $j$ of
an unknown constant mean $m=E\{V_j\}$ of the field $V_j$ with
the numerical generalized least-squares estimator $\omega^i_j v_i$ of
an unknown constant mean of the field and its asymptotic disjunction
for $j \rightarrow \infty$ the classic generalized least-squares
estimator $\lim_{j \rightarrow \infty} \omega^i_j v_i$ of
an unknown constant mean of the field.
|
\section{MUSIC Datasets}
The first dataset is composed of 164 resimulated clusters extracted from the MareNostrum (MN) Universe. The MN Universe \citep{marenostrum_06} is a non radiative SPH cosmological simulation of a 500 Mpc {\itshape h$^{-1}$}$^3$ cubic box with WMAP1 cosmological parameters ($\Omega_{\Lambda}$= 0.7, $\Omega_M$= 0.3, $\Omega_b$ = 0.045, {\itshape h} = 0.7, $\sigma_8$=0.9 and a slope of {\itshape n} = 1 for the initial power spectrum). It contains a total of 2 $\times$ 1024$^3$ particles equally divided between dark matter and gas. We selected for resimulation a total of 82 relaxed clusters and 82 bullet-like clusters and using GADGET \citep{gadget},with 8 times more particles (m$_{DM}$ = 1.03$\times$10$^9$ {\itshape h$^{-1}$ m$_{\odot}$} and m$_{gas}$ = 1.82$\times$10$^8${\itshape h$^{-1}$ m$_{\odot}$}) and adding radiative physics ({\itshape i.e.} cooling, UV photoionization, star formation and galactic winds and SN thermal and kinetic feedbacks).
The second dataset is composed of the 282 more massive (most of them with a mass M $>$10$^{15}${\itshape h$^{-1}$} m$_{\odot}$ at {\itshape z} = 0) galaxy clusters extracted from the MultiDark (MD) simulation. The MD simulation is an ART dark matter only simulation performed by Anatoly Klypin at NAS Ames, containing about 8.6 billion particles in a (1 Gpc{\itshape h$^{-1}$})$^3$ volume that was performed using WMAP5 cosmological parameters ($\Omega_{\Lambda}$= 0.73, $\Omega_M$= 0.27, $\Omega_b$ = 0.0469, {\itshape h} = 0.7, $\sigma_8$=0.82 and {\itshape n} = 0.95). We resimulated them with 8 times more particles in a region of 6 Mpc centred around each object at z=0. We added SPH gas particles in the high resolution area and run them including radiative (as in the case of the MN dataset) and non-radiative physics. The mass resolution is m$_{DM}$ = 9.01$\times$10$^8$ {\itshape h$^{-1}$ m$_{\odot}$} and m$_{gas}$ = 1.8$\times$10$^8${\itshape h$^{-1}$ m$_{\odot}$} \citep{anatolio}. In many of the resimulation areas we often found more than one cluster. Thus, the total number of resimulated clusters we finally compiled was over 500 with M $>$ 10$^{14}$ {\itshape m$_{\odot}$}. The two datasets have now joined to form the MUSIC (MareNostrum-MUltidark SImulation of galaxy Clusters) project.
\section{Baryon properties in simulated galaxy clusters}
We analyzed some of the internal properties of the clusters. We mainly focused on the baryon properties, in order to see how relevant is the effect of overcooling on the clusters simulated with radiative physics. Overcooling is an hot topic of cluster simulations \citep{krav2005}: the huge star formation rate in the cluster center implies a star fraction larger than the observed one. We studied the behavior of a set of cluster properties (total mass, gas and star mass, baryon , star and gas fraction) at six different overdensities ranging from $\Delta$ = 200 to $\Delta$ = 2500, where $\Delta$ is the ratio between cluster density and local critical density. These two limit values correspond to an overdensity ($\Delta$ = 200) at which the cluster mass well approximates the virial mass and a value ($\Delta$ = 2500) often referred in X-ray observations allowing us to study the effect of overcooling. We also analyzed the dataset at five different redshifts (from {\itshape z} = 0 to {\itshape z} = 0.43) in order to study the effect of cluster evolution. We define the overdensity radius as the radius of the sphere within which the average density of the cluster is $\Delta$ times the critical density:
\begin{equation}
\frac{4}{3}\pi \rho_c(z)\Delta r^3_{\Delta}=M_{TOT}(r_{\Delta})
\end{equation}
The critical density is defined as {\itshape $\rho _c$(z)=3H$_0$$^2$E(z)$^2$/8$\pi$ G} depending on the assumed cosmology.
We calculated the gas fraction as {\itshape f$_{gas}$ $\equiv$ M$_{gas}$/M$_{TOT}$}; similarly, the star and baryon fraction as {\itshape f$_{star}$ $\equiv$ M$_{star}$/M$_{TOT}$} and {\itshape f$_{bar}$ $\equiv$(M$_{star}$+M$_{gas}$)/M$_{TOT}$}. Figures 1 and 2 show the baryon, gas and star fractions along the redshift for clusters of the MD dataset simulated with radiative physics at two different overdensities. In {\itshape fig.1} $\Delta$ = 500 and the mean values agree very well with observations\citep{gas}: the baryon fraction is close to the critical ratio $\Omega _b$/$\Omega _m$ as expected and the gas fraction is about twice bigger than the star fraction. In {\itshape fig.2} $\Delta$ = 2500 the effect of overcooling (when the clusters are less evolved). The radiative clusters of MN dataset show a similar behavior but, being the masses smaller than those of MD dataset, the effect of overcooling is slightly stronger and the star fraction higher. On the other hand, morphology seems not to affect the baryon properties. Non-radiative clusters are obviously not affected by overcooling and the mean gas fraction approaches the critical ratio as we move towards $\Delta$ = 200.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=250pt]{Sembolini_F_Fig1}
\caption{Baryon (squares), gas (diamonds) and star (triangles) fraction {\itshape vs} redshift at overdensity $\Delta$ = 500 of MD clusters resimulated with non-adiabatic physics}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=250pt]{Sembolini_F_Fig2}
\caption{Baryon (squares), gas (diamonds) and star (triangles) fraction {\itshape vs} redshift at overdensity $\Delta$ = 2500 of MD clusters resimulated with non-adiabatic physics}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\section{SZ scaling relations}
The integrated brightness of the thermal component of the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect (SZ) \citep{SZ70}, Y, is one of the strongest proxy to estimate the mass of galaxy clusters.Y is the integration over the solid angle subtended by the cluster $\Omega$ of the Compton-y parameter defined as the integration of the electronic pressure along the line of sight.
We studied the {\itshape Y-M} scaling relation of our simulated cluster sample to check it and compare it with other simulations, theory and observations.
Under the assumption of an isothermal model the integrated {\itshape Y} is proportional to the integral of the electron density {\itshape n$_e$}:
\begin{equation}
YD^2_A\propto T_e\int n_e dV=M_{gas}T_e=f_{gas}M_{TOT}T_e
\end{equation}
where {\itshape T$_e$} is the electronic temperature and {\itshape D$_A$} the angular distance
If we assume that cluster formation is driven by a spherically gravitational processes mainly due to the dark matter component with baryons and dark matter in hydrostatic equilibrium \citep{k1986} we find a scaling relation based on self-similarity \citep{bona2006}:
\begin{equation}
YD^2_A\propto f_{gas}M^{5/3}_{tot}E(z)^{2/3}
\end{equation}
where {\itshape E(z)} is the scale evolution. If we study this scaling relation in the log space, in the form {\itshape $\log$(Y) = A$\log$(X)+B} we expect a slope {\itshape A = 5/3 = 1.66}. To estimate Y for each cluster we built SZ maps by Compton-{\itshape y} parameter :
\begin{equation}
y \simeq \frac{k_B\sigma_T}{m_ec^2}\sum_in_{e,i}T_{e,i}W(\mid {\bf r}-{\bf r_{cdm}}\mid,h_i)
\end{equation}
where {\itshape h$_i$} is the smoothing length of the particle and {\itshape W} the particle kernel, {\itshape $\mid$r- r$_{cdm}\mid$} the position of SPH the particle respect to the centre of mass. All Y-M scaling relations, independently from physics, redshift or overdensity, showed a slope at least very close to the expected value of {\itshape A = 1.66} (see {\itshape fig.3})
\begin{figure}[ht!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=250pt]{Sembolini_F_Fig3}
\caption{{\itshape Y-M} scaling relation of MD radiative clusters at {\itshape z = 0}, $\Delta$ = 500}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Concluding, we analyzed two datasets of clusters for a total of more than 600 objects simulated with high resolution and both radiative and non-radiative physics. The effect of overcooling becomes relevant only at high overdensities and the Y-M scaling relations show a very good agreement with a self-similar model.
\bibliographystyle{asp2010}
|
\section{Introduction}
Non-radial pulsations (NRPs) are commonly found in isolated white dwarfs (WDs) of DA type, so called ZZ Ceti stars. These stars have hydrogen-rich atmospheres, and pulsations occur as the WD cools and passed through a phase of pulsational instability, detected mainly as g-modes (\citealt{2006AJ....132..831G}).
During the last decennium, similar signals, generally interpreted as non-radial WD pulsations, have also been detected in faint cataclysmic variables (CVs). A CV is a close binary system where a late-type main-sequence star looses mass to a primary white dwarf. The first CV proposed to harbour a pulsating white dwarf was GW Librae.~\cite{1998IAUS..185..321W} found rapid, periodic, and non-commensurate signals in its light curve, suggesting non-radial pulsations of the underlying white dwarf. In most CVs, the accretion energy tends to dominate the luminosity, and the white dwarf itself, shining with $M_{V} \sim$ 10 -- 13, is seldom seen. However, for some of the most intrinsically faint CVs, spectroscopy and time-series photometry can reveal signatures of the underlying white dwarf, such as broad absorption features in the spectrum, sharp eclipses, and sometimes non-radial pulsations in the light curve. These signals have now been detected in about a dozen CVs, all quiescent systems of low luminosity. Here, we call these systems \emph{GW Lib stars}, after the first discovery.~\cite{2010ApJ...710...64S} and~\cite{2009JPhCS.172a2069M} present recent reviews of this group of stars.
Accreting WDs are different from isolated ones since they are being exposed to mass transfer, giving them atmospheres of solar-composition. The white dwarfs in CVs are therefore hotter and are also found to be spinning faster compared to isolated ones (\citealt{2009ASPC..404..229S}). Studying these systems will provide important information of how the process of accretion is affecting the evolution of the white dwarf. In isolated WDs, pulsations are only observed in stars with temperatures located within a so-called \emph{instability strip} in the $\log g$ -- $T_{\text{eff}}$ plane, spanning the temperature range $T_{\text{eff}}$ = 10900 K -- 12200 K (see Figure 3 of~\citealt{2006AJ....132..831G}). However, there is no clear instability strip for the GW Lib stars (see Figure 13 of~\citealt{2010ApJ...710...64S}), and pulsations are found in systems with WD effective temperatures up to at least 15000 K.
Our theoretical understanding of the mechanism for exciting non-radial pulsations in CVs is still limited. The observed pulse amplitudes are quite variable, and in some ZZ Ceti stars this is known to be the result of the beating of two signals closely spaced in frequency, a classic and highly informative signature of non-radial pulsations. But the GW Lib stars have not yet clearly revealed this kind of behaviour (although a hint of it emerged in the V386 Ser campaign reported by~\citealt{2010ApJ...714.1702M}).
We here present time-series photometry of two more CVs which are probably members of the GW Lib class. Both systems have very low accretion luminosity, and show signatures from the white dwarf in their optical spectra. Also, both systems show double-humped orbital signals, and non-commensurate periodic signals, suggesting non-radial pulsations. One is SDSS J1457+51 which has a photometric wave suggesting an orbital period of $77.885 \pm 0.007$ minutes. The other is BW Sculptoris, with $P_{\text{orb}} = 78.22639 \pm 0.00003$ minutes. Both stars show main pulsations near 10 and 20 minutes. These rapid signals drift slightly in frequency, and may consist of several, finely spaced components. BW Sculptoris also shows a remarkable photometric variation at 87 minutes, which could be explained as a \emph{quiescent superhump}, possibly arising from a 2:1 orbital resonance in the accretion disc.
\section{SDSS J1457+51}
SDSS J1457+51 (hereafter J1457) was first identified in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey by~\cite{2005AJ....129.2386S}. They obtained spectroscopy that showed the broad absorption characteristics of a white dwarf, indicating a system of low accretion rate. The source was found to be faint ($g \approx 19.5$). Due to the double-peaked nature of the emission lines, they suggested the system to be of high inclination.
\subsection{Observations, Data Reduction and Analysis} \label{obs}
Time-resolved photometry of J1457 was obtained with the 1.3 m and 2.4 m MDM telescopes at the Kitt Peak observatory, Arizona, during April and May 2010. The star was observed during 14 nights in total, spread over 47 days. With all data coming from the same terrestrial longitude, we were not immune from aliasing problems and therefore strove to obtain the longest possible nightly time series (generally $\sim$ 4 - 7 hours). Weather conditions such as clouds, snow and full moon prevented us from obtaining times series over more than 4 consecutive nights at a time. The time resolution was in the range of 20 s -- 30 s. Table~\ref{tab:obs1} presents a log of the observations. A clear filter with a blue cutoff was used to minimise differential-extinction effects and allow for a good throughput.
The data reduction was done in real time during the observations, using standard \textsc{Iraf} routines. The data consisted of differential photometry with respect to the field star USNO A2.0:1350-08528847. The search for periodic signals was initially done for single nights separately, and Lomb-Scargle periodograms (\citealt{1982ApJ...263..835S}) were constructed. Formal flux errors were rescaled so that the $\chi^{2}_{\nu} \approx$ 1. This was done by fitting a fake light curve to the original data, composed of multiple sine waves with periods corresponding to the strongest signals found in the single-night power spectrum. Monte-Carlo simulations were performed on every peak of interest in the power spectrum to find the period and its error. In this method, the peak errors are found by randomly re-distributing the points in the light curve within their errors, a repeated number of times, and constructing a Lomb-Scargle periodogram each time. The 1-$\sigma$ error is then found by fitting a Gaussian to the output distribution of the peaks found in the periodograms. Data from several nights were then combined to allow the search for signals with lower amplitude, and also to improve the frequency resolution. Bootstrap analysis was performed to distinguish between the most likely alias, and was also used to find errors on the peaks. In this method, the sampling pattern of the data is changed by creating a mock dataset where every point from the original dataset is randomised. This is done to efficiently destroy or weaken the aliases pattern.
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{llllll}
\hline
\hline
\textbf{Date} & \textbf{HJD} & \textbf{Telescope} & \textbf{Length} \\
& (-2455000) & & (hours) \\
\hline
100414 & 301 & 1.3m & 2.30 \\
100416 & 303 & 1.3m & 7.89 \\
100417 & 304 & 1.3m & 4.32 \\
100419 & 306 & 1.3m & 4.72 \\
100424 & 311 & 1.3m & 5.42 \\
100425 & 312 & 1.3m & 7.82 \\
100503 & 320 & 1.3m & 7.92 \\
100504 & 321 & 1.3m & 8.26 \\
100506 & 323 & 1.3m & 8.40 \\
100507 & 324 & 1.3m & 3.50 \\
100508 & 325 & 1.3m & 5.47 \\
100528 & 345 & 2.4m & 4.97 \\
100529 & 346 & 2.4m & 8.11 \\
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Summary observing log for SDSS J1457+51. Data was \newline obtained at the MDM observatory during April and May 2010.}
\label{tab:obs1}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\subfigure[The mean Lomb-Scargle periodogram for J1457, from the six nights of best quality. The orbital period at 18.48 c\,d$^{-1}$ ($\omega_{\text{o}}$, 77.9 min) and its first harmonic ($2\omega_{\text{o}}$) are plotted as solid lines.]
{
\label{fig:s_avpow}
\includegraphics[width=7.75cm]{pow_best2_mean.eps}
}
\hspace{0.2cm}
\subfigure[Normalised and smoothed light curve of J1547 from one sample night. A model light-curve constructed from the four strongest periods (including $\omega_{\text{o}}$ and $2\omega_{\text{o}}$) found in Figure~\ref{fig:s_avpow}, is plotted together with the data.]
{
\label{fig:s_light}
\includegraphics[width=7.12cm]{light_fit_320.eps}
}
\caption{}
\label{fig:sub}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Light Curve and average Power Spectrum}
The mean power spectrum, averaged over the six best nights is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:s_avpow}. The 18.48 c\,d$^{-1}$ (77.9 min) and 36.97 c\,d$^{-1}$ (38.9 min) signals are almost certainly the orbital frequency ($\omega_{\text{o}}$) and its first harmonic ($2\omega_{\text{o}}$). This kind of variation at $2\omega_{\text{o}}$ is commonly seen in the orbital light curves of CVs with low accretion rates (for instance in WZ Sge; see~\citealt{2002PASP..114..721P}). We find that the signals in the range 142 c\,d$^{-1}$ -- 148 c\,d$^{-1}$ ($\approx$ 10 min) are non-commensurate with the orbital frequency. These peaks vary slightly in period and amplitude, when present at all in the nightly power spectrum. The complex structure around them indicate either an unresolved fine structure, or periods varying from night to night, and is discussed in detail below. Also, during a few nights, peaks were found at 135 c\,d$^{-1}$ (10.7 min) and 72 c\,d$^{-1}$ (20 min), which are also non-commensurate with the orbital frequency. The lower region of the power spectrum show strong peaks at 4 c\,d$^{-1}$ -- 6 c\,d$^{-1}$ (4 -- 6 hours), corresponding to the typical length of a nightly observing run. The unit c\,d$^{-1}$ is used throughout the paper since it is the natural unit for the sampling pattern of the multi-day light curves. Also, it clearly shows the natural daily alias pattern.
The average power spectrum in Figure~\ref{fig:s_avpow} has low resolution since each night is less than 8 hours long. The power spectrum of a spliced light curve spanning several nights (the coherent power spectrum) is in principle better, since the resolution is always near 0.1\,N$^{-1}$ c\,d$^{-1}$, where N is the duration in days. It does, however, make the assumption that a candidate periodic signal is constant in period, phase, and amplitude over the duration of the observation. Power spectra will be difficult or impossible to interpret correctly when this assumption is grossly violated.
Figure~\ref{fig:s_light} shows the normalised and smoothed light curve for a sample night. A model light curve constructed from the four strongest peaks found in the power spectrum that night (including both $\omega_{\text{o}}$ and $2\omega_{\text{o}}$), is plotted on top of the smoothed light curve. Peaks found at higher frequencies than 40 c\,d$^{-1}$ are not represented in the model light curve. During one of the observing nights, we obtained multicolour data and found the brightness of of the star to be V = 19.2 $\pm$ 0.2. The mean brightness on each night was constant within the measurement error of 0.03 mag. Flickering, an essentially universal feature of CV light-curves, was very low. This together with the fact that absorption lines are seen in the optical spectrum implies that the total light, 4000\,\AA\, -- \,7000\,\AA\, is dominated by the white dwarf. Measurements of the absorption line depth of the hydrogen lines indicate that probably no more than half of the total light comes from accretion processes.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\subfigure[The power spectrum of J1457 from 11 nights, showing the orbital signal $\omega_{\text{o}}$ and its first harmonic, $2\omega_{\text{o}}$. A zoom of the region around $\omega_{\text{o}}$ is plotted on top.]
{
\label{fig:s_poworb}
\includegraphics[width=7.15cm]{pow_orb_text.eps}
}
\hspace{0.2cm}
\subfigure[A model power spectrum of J1457 constructed from two sine waves at $\omega_{\text{o}}$ and $2\omega_{\text{o}}$, using the same sampling pattern as in Figure~\ref{fig:s_poworb}.]
{
\label{fig:s_poworbmod}
\includegraphics[width=7.15cm]{pow_model_orb.eps}
}
\caption{}
\label{fig:sub}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{fold18.eps}
\caption{Light curve of J1457 folded on the $\omega_{\text{o}}$ frequency, showing a double-humped orbital wave.}
\label{fig:fold18}
\end{figure}
\subsection{The Orbital Signal}
A dominant, stable feature at $\approx$ 37 c\,d$^{-1}$ (38 min) is always present in the nightly power spectra. In four of the nights, a weaker but stable signal is also present at half that frequency, $\approx$ 18.5 c\,d$^{-1}$ (78 min). We interpret these two signals as the orbital frequency and its first harmonic, $\omega_{\text{o}}$ and $2\omega_{\text{o}}$. As mentioned above, double-humped orbital waves are quite common among CVs, especially those of very low luminosity (for instance in WZ Sge and AL Com). A power spectrum composed of 11 nights, spanning 45 days, yields $\omega_{\text{o}} = 18.4888 \pm 0.0017$ c\,d$^{-1}$ and $2\omega_{\text{o}} = 36.9740 \pm 0.0005$ c\,d$^{-1}$. Errors are calculated from bootstrap simulations as described in Section~\ref{obs}.
Figure~\ref{fig:s_poworb} shows the low-frequency portion of the full 11 night power spectrum. A zoom of the region around the orbital frequency is plotted on top. A model power spectrum constructed from two artificial sinusoids at $\omega_{\text{o}}$ and $2\omega_{\text{o}}$, using the exact same sampling as for the original dataset, is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:s_poworbmod}. When comparing model versus data, we find the surrounding picket-fence pattern similar in structure and height. This implies that the orbital signal indeed maintains an essentially constant amplitude and phase. In Figure~\ref{fig:fold18}, data from all 11 nights are folded onto the orbital frequency, showing the double-humped orbital wave at $\omega_{\text{o}}$ and $2\omega_{\text{o}}$.
The lower frequency range of the power spectrum was further investigated to rule out the possibility of signals hiding in the noise (see Section~\ref{superh} for the case of BW Sculptoris). The power spectrum was cleaned from the strongest signals at $\omega_{\text{o}}$, $2\omega_{\text{o}}$ and also from the high-amplitude peaks between 4 c\,d$^{-1}$ -- 6 c\,d$^{-1}$. However, no additional peak was found in this region, or in the vicinity of the orbital period.
\begin{table*}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{lllllll}
\hline
\hline
\textbf{Star} & \textbf{Frequency} & \textbf{Period} & \textbf{Amplitude} & \textbf{Comments} \\
& (c\,d$^{-1}$) & (min) & (mmag) & \\
\hline
J1457 & $18.4888 \pm 0.0017$ & 77.92 & 12.0 & Orbital period ($\omega_{\text{o}}$) \\
& $36.9740 \pm 0.0005$ & 38.95 & 23.9 & $2\omega_{\text{o}}$ \\
& 71.9 (nightly mean error: 0.5) & 20.0 & 12.0 & NRP, low amplitude, non-stable \\
& 135.2/144.3/147.9 (nightly mean error: 0.8) & 10.7/9.9/9.7 & 3.9/12.7/7.6 & NRP, non-stable \\
\hline
BW Scl & $\sim$ 16.5 & 87.27 & $\sim$ 50 & Quiescent superhump, non-stable \\
& 18.40811 $ \pm$ 0.03 & 78.23 & 16& $\omega_{\text{o}}$ \\
& 32.98 $\pm$ 0.01 & 43.66 & $\sim$ 15& Harmonic of quiescent superhump \\
& 36.81622 $ \pm$ 0.03 & 39.11 & 55& $2\omega_{\text{o}}$ \\
& 69.55 $\pm$ 0.03 & 20.70 &$\sim$ 25& NRP, $\omega_{1}$, non-stable (amplitude from 2009)\\
& 103.55 $\pm$ 0.03 & 13.90 & $\sim$ 20& $\omega_{2}$ - $2\omega_{\text{o}}$, non-stable (amplitude from 2009) \\
& 140.37 $\pm$ 0.03 & 10.26 & $\sim$ 26& NRP, $\omega_{2}$, non-stable (amplitude from 2009) \\
& 121.99 $\pm$ 0.03 & 11.80 &$\sim$ 23.5 & $\omega_{2}$ - $\omega_{\text{o}}$, non-stable (amplitude from 2009) \\
& 153.0 $\pm$ 0.5 & 9.4 & 9.5& periodic signal (amplitude from 2001) \\
& 307.0 $\pm$ 0.5 & 4.7 & 8.5 & Harmonic of signal at 153 c\,d$^{-1}$, transient \\
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Summary of frequencies found in SDSS J1457+51 and BW Sculptoris.}
\label{tab:freq}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
\subsection{High-Frequency Power Excess}
The complex range of signals spanning 142 c\,d$^{-1}$ -- 148 c\,d$^{-1}$ ($\approx$ 10 min) moves slightly in frequency and is non-commensurate with the orbital frequency. In addition, during five of the observing nights a broad, low-amplitude peak appeared at 135 c\,d$^{-1}$ (10.7 min) along with a signal at 72 c\,d$^{-1}$ (20.0 min), neither of which are of orbital origin.
With the aim to study these signals in more detail, a coherent power spectrum was constructed from adding consecutive nights together. However, this did not produce clean signals, even though the nightly power-spectrum windows were always clean. The broadness and complexity of the signals indicate a slight shift in amplitude and frequency on the time scale of a few nights, and/or an internal fine structure unresolved by our observations. Therefore, analysis was performed on power spectra from separate nights in comparison with the overall mean power spectrum.
When combining our sparse data collected over 43 nights, there is a broad power excess around the frequencies, 135 c\,d$^{-1}$, 144 c\,d$^{-1}$ and 148 c\,d$^{-1}$. This splitting is evident also in the mean spectrum shown in Figure~\ref{fig:s_avpow}, and is always seen when combining nights from the start and the end of the campaign. When studying the nightly power-spectrum in this range, there was (in general) only one peak present at the time. However, during one observing night, three peaks were seen simultaneously at approximately these frequencies (Figure~\ref{fig:pow320}). The nightly mean error for any peak appearing at 135 c\,d$^{-1}$ -- 148 c\,d$^{-1}$, is about 0.8 c\,d$^{-1}$.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{pow_320_zoom145.eps}
\caption{Power spectrum of J1457 from one single night (HJD=2455320). Peaks were seen simultaneously at 135.6 c\,d$^{-1}$, 144.6 c\,d$^{-1}$ and 148.9 c\,d$^{-1}$.}
\label{fig:pow320}
\end{figure}
The upper two frames in Figure~\ref{fig:s_pow_best2} show the combined power spectra of the six nights of best quality. The bottom two panels show model power-spectra constructed from sine waves at the peak frequencies found in the combined six-night dataset, at 18.48 c\,d$^{-1}$ ($\omega_{\text{o}}$), 36.97 c\,d$^{-1}$ ($2\omega_{\text{o}}$), 71.9 c\,d$^{-1}$, 135.2 c\,d$^{-1}$, 144.3 c\,d$^{-1}$ and 147.9 c\,d$^{-1}$, using the same sampling pattern as the data. The model is able to re-construct the overall appearance and widths of the signals seen in the data reasonably well, indicating that there is power excess at these frequencies. If excluding any of the frequencies from the model, the data power spectrum cannot be reproduced. We note that 71.9 c\,d$^{-1}$ is about half that of 144.3 c\,d$^{-1}$, but not exactly in a 2:1 ratio, indicating that the signals are not constant in amplitude and phase (see Section~\ref{2009} for the case of BW Sculptoris). For a complete summary of the frequency analysis, see Table~\ref{tab:freq}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{pow_highfreq.eps}
\caption{The two top panels show the power spectrum of J1457 from the same set of nights shown in the mean spectrum (see Figure~\ref{fig:s_avpow}). The two bottom frames show models that was constructed from the same sampling pattern as the data. The following frequencies was included in the model; 18.48 c\,d$^{-1}$ ($\omega_{\text{o}}$), 36.97 c\,d$^{-1}$ ($2\omega_{\text{o}}$), 71.9 c\,d$^{-1}$, 135.2 c\,d$^{-1}$, 144.3 c\,d$^{-1}$ and 147.9 c\,d$^{-1}$. All main signals along with their line widths seen in the data can be reproduced fairly well by the model, indicating that there is power excess at these frequencies.}
\label{fig:s_pow_best2}
\end{figure}
\section{BW Sculptoris}
BW Sculptoris (hereafter BW Scl) is a 16th magnitude blue star which was found to
coincide with RXJ2353-0-3852 in the Rosat bright-source catalogue, and
then identified as a cataclysmic variable by~\cite{1997A&A...318..134A}.~\cite{1997A&A...324L..57A} independently discovered the star as a blue object in the Hamburg/ESO
survey for bright QSOs. These two studies established the very short
orbital period of 78 minutes. In addition to broad and doubled H and He
emission lines, BW Scl also shows very broad Balmer and Lyman absorptions,
signifying the presence of a white dwarf of modest temperature ($\sim 15000$ K;
~\citealt{2005ApJ...629..451G}). If roughly half of the visual light comes
from such a white dwarf, then the white dwarf has $V=17.3$ and $M_{V}\sim 12$,
implying a distance of only $\sim 110$ pc. This also agrees with the large
proper motion found in the USNO catalogue (105 ms$\,$yr$^{-1}$, \citealt{2004AJ....127.3060G}). These considerations (a nearby star of very short $P_{\textbf{orb}}$), and the possibility to study the underlying white dwarf, motivated us to carry out campaigns of time-series photometry nearly every year since 1999.
\subsection{Observations}
In total, BW Scl was observed for about 1000 hours spread over about 200 nights, mainly using the globally distributed telescopes of the Center for Backyard Astrophysics (CBA: \citealt{1993ApJ...417..298S, patterson_1998}). A summary observing log is presented in Table~\ref{tab:obs2}. To maximise the signal and optimise the search for periodic features, usually no filter or a very broad filter, 4000\,\AA\, --\, 7000\,\AA\,was used. Occasional runs were obtained in V and I bandpasses to provide a rough calibration, and to verify that the periodic features in the light curve are indeed broadband signals. The smaller (25 cm -- 35 cm) telescopes generally used the star GSC 8015-671 as a comparison, while the larger (91 cm) telescopes used USNO 0450-40780391, a nearby 16th magnitude star. These comparison stars can be considered to be constant. The clear and broadband filters permit only a rough calibration, but BW Scl remained within $\sim 0.3$ mag of $V=16.6 $ throughout the campaign. In terms of instrumental magnitude, limits on night-to-night variability within each season are more stringent: typically $< 0.05$ mag, and always $< 0.1$ mag. This degree of constancy is remarkable for a cataclysmic variable, and is probably due to the WD's large contribution to the light in the optical.
In order to study the periodic behaviour, we always tried to obtain photometry densely distributed in time, preferably with contribution from telescopes widely spaced in longitude (in order to solve problems associated with daily aliases). Most of the analysis below is based on long time series from stations in New Zealand, South Africa, and Chile, and hence not afflicted by aliasing problems.
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{llllll}
\hline
\hline
\textbf{Year} & \textbf{Spanned} & \textbf{Observer} & \textbf{Telescope} & \textbf{Nights} \\
& (days) & & & (hours) \\
\hline
1999 & 13 & Kemp & CTIO 91cm & 12/61\\
2000 & 38 & McCormick & Farm Cove 25cm & 7/35\\
& & Rea & Nelson 35cm & 2/9\\
2001 & 77 & Rea & " & 16/87\\
& & Kemp & CTIO 91cm & 14/84\\
& & Woudt & SAAO 76cm & 1/4\\
2002 & 0 & Kemp & " & 1/4\\
2004 & 7 & Monard & Pretoria 25cm & 7/38\\
2005 & 55 & Rea & Nelson 35cm & 16/66\\
& & Christie & Auckland 35cm & 12/48\\
& & Retter/Liu & & 6/32\\
& & Monard & Pretoria 25cm & 4/22\\
& & Moorhouse & & 3/10\\
2006 & 90 & Rea & Nelson 35cm & 26/112\\
& & Monard & Pretoria 35cm & 3/21\\
& & McCormick & Farm Cove 25cm & 5/15\\
2007 & 21 & Rea & Nelson 35cm & 7/28\\
& & Richards & Melbourne 35cm & 1/3\\
& & Allen & Blenhem 41cm & 1/3\\
2008 & 71 & Monard & Pretoria 35cm & 22/88\\
& & Rea & Nelson 35cm & 13/90\\
2009 & 50 & Rea & " & 15/94\\
& & Monard & Pretoria 35cm & 11/62\\
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Summary observing log for BW Sculptoris.}
\label{tab:obs2}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\subsection{The 1999 Campaign}
The upper frame of Figure~\ref{fig:1} shows the light curve from one night during 1999. The general appearance is typical of all nights, as well as seen in previously published light curves (\citealt{1997A&A...324L..57A, 1997A&A...318..134A}). As those papers demonstrated, a 39-minute wave is always present, with a small even-odd asymmetry suggesting that the fundamental period is actually the double, 78 minutes (confirmed by spectroscopy). The middle frame shows the 1999 double-humped orbital light curve, similar to that of J1457 (see Figure~\ref{fig:fold18} above). Study of the seasonal timings yielded a 1995 -- 2009 ephemeris:
\\\\
Orbital maximum = HJD 2,450,032.182(3) + 0.05432392(2) E.
\\\\
The average nightly power spectrum, the incoherent sum of the 11 nights of best quality, is shown in the bottom frame of Figure~\ref{fig:1}. Power excesses near 72 c\,d$^{-1}$ (20 min) and 143 c\,d$^{-1}$ (10 min) are evident. In order to study these higher-frequency signals in more detail, adjacent nights were added together, and the coherent power spectrum was constructed. However, even though the 72 c\,d$^{-1}$ and the 143 c\,d$^{-1}$ signals were always present, they were always broad, complex, and slightly variable in frequency (similar to J1457). This is usually a sign that the actual signals violate the assumptions of Fourier analysis: constancy in period, amplitude and phase.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{fig1.eps}
\caption{BW Scl in 1999. The upper frame shows an 8-hour light curve, dominated by the orbital wave. The middle frame presents the season's mean orbital light curve, showing the double-humped waveform (the feature at $2\omega_{\text{o}}$ dominates all power spectra). The lowest frame shows the mean nightly power spectrum, averaged over the 11 best nights. Significant features are labelled with their frequency in c\,d$^{-1}$ (with an average error of $\pm$ 0.7).}
\label{fig:1}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{fig2.eps}
\caption{BW Scl in 2001. The upper two frames show the mean nightly power spectrum, averaged over the 15 best nights. Features are labelled with their frequency in c\,d$^{-1}$ (with an average error of $\pm$ 0.7). The signal at 724 c\,d$^{-1}$, is likely to be caused by instrumental effects. The lowest frame shows the power spectrum of a particularly dense 12-night segment, after subtraction of the orbital waveform. A powerful signal near 16.5 c\,d$^{-1}$ is obvious, with a strong first harmonic. The formal error is $\sim$ 0.01 c\,d$^{-1}$, and each peak is about that wide. However, the power excess shows more structure and width than seen in the power-spectrum window (see Figure~\ref{fig:4} below), indicating some amplitude and/or phase modulation.}
\label{fig:2}
\end{figure}
\subsection{The 2001 Campaign}
During 2001, observatories at three longitudes in Chile, New Zealand
and South Africa, contributed with good nightly coverage of BW Scl. A very low flickering background is seen in the light curves of BW Scl, enabling detection of periodic signals as weak as $\sim 0.002$ magnitudes.
The upper frames of Figure~\ref{fig:2} shows the nightly mean power spectrum, with significant signals marked to an accuracy of 0.5 c\,d$^{-1}$. Both the orbital period and the signal at 72 c\,d$^{-1}$ (20 min) were present, along with two other signals at low frequency: a powerful signal at 16.6 c\,d$^{-1}$ (86.7 min), and a weak signal at 50.5 c\,d$^{-1}$ (28.5 min). At higher frequency, signals are detected at 153 c\,d$^{-1}$ (9.4 min), 307 c\,d$^{-1}$ (4.7 min), and 724 c\,d$^{-1}$ (2 min), though the latter is likely to be caused by instrumental effects. Many telescopes have worm gears which turn with a period of exactly 120 sidereal seconds, and this period was reported in research on many types of stars during 1960 -- 1990, i.e. during the photolectric-photometer era. CCDs are much less prone to this error. However, since 724 $\pm$ 2 c\,d$^{-1}$ corresponds to 120 sidereal seconds (to within the measurement error), we interpret the signal to be caused by this instrumental effect.
We interpret the signal at 153 c\,d$^{-1}$ as a pulsation frequency, with a significant first harmonic. Examination of individual nights showed this signal to be somewhat transient, at least in amplitude. This behaviour was seen on 7 of the 15 good-quality nights. Since the orbital frequency is known precisely, and since its photometric signature is powerful and constant, we subtracted its first harmonic (and also the second harmonic when detected) from the central 12-night time-series, prior to analysis. The resultant power spectrum at low frequency is seen in the bottom panel of Figure~\ref{fig:2}. A weak signal appears at the orbital frequency, and stronger signals at 16.34/16.64 c\,d$^{-1}$ and 32.98 c\,d$^{-1}$ (with an accuracy of $\pm\,\,0.01$ c\,d$^{-1}$). It seems likely that these are superhump signals in the quiescent light curve. Specifically, we interpret the 16.34/16.64 pair as signifying an underlying frequency of $\sim 16.5$ c\,d$^{-1}$, as such splitting can be produced by amplitude and/or phase changes. The precession frequency $\Omega$ can be expressed as $16.50 = \omega_{o} - \Omega$, where $\omega_{o}$ is the orbital frequency (implying that $32.98 = 2(\omega_{o} - \Omega)$). The precession frequency $\Omega$ is then equal to 1.9 c\,d$^{-1}$.
The primary signal near 16.5 c\,d$^{-1}$ has been seen before. It was the dominant signal reported by~\cite{1997A&A...318..134A}, but was then discounted by~\cite{1997A&A...324L..57A} as probably the result of cycle-count error. The data presented here certainly has no ambiguity in cycle count, and reveals this signal very clearly.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{fig3.eps}
\caption{ BW Scl in 2009. The top frame shows the mean nightly power spectrum, averaged over the 19 best nights. Features are labelled with their frequency in c\,d$^{-1}$ ($\pm$ 0.6). Other frames show power spectra of $\sim$ 5 day intervals with particularly dense coverage, with significant features labelled ($\pm$ 0.03). The most interesting features are the trio of weak satellites of $\omega_{2}$=140.37 c\,d$^{-1}$ (103.55 c\,d$^{-1}$ and 121.99 c\,d$^{-1}$ are displaced by exactly $\omega_{2}$ - $2\omega_{\text{o}}$ and $\omega_{2}$ - $\omega_{\text{o}}$).}
\label{fig:3}
\end{figure}
\subsection{The 2009 Campaign} \label{2009}
The year 2009 saw another intensive observing campaign on BW Scl. The upper frame of Figure~\ref{fig:3} shows the nightly power spectrum, averaged over the 19 nights of coverage. Signals near 70 c\,d$^{-1}$ (20.6 min) and 140 c\,d$^{-1}$ (10.3 min) are evident, with weaker signals near 104 c\,d$^{-1}$ (13.9 min) and 122 c\,d$^{-1}$ (11.8 min). In the three lower frames, we show intervals of particularly dense coverage, each with a nominal frequency resolution of $\pm\,\,0.04$ c\,d$^{-1}$. In these frames, the 70 c\,d$^{-1}$ and 140 c\,d$^{-1}$ signals show their variability in frequency and amplitude (similar to J1457). Such variability is characteristic of all our data. The second frame (JD 2,455,068 - 074) illustrates the following:
\begin{enumerate}
\item [1.] Although the 70 c\,d$^{-1}$ and 140 c\,d$^{-1}$ signal are related (when one moves
to slightly lower frequency, so does the other), the frequencies do not appear to be exactly in the ratio 2:1. Here, these frequencies are described as $\omega_{1}$ and $\omega_{2}$, with $\omega_{2} \sim 2\omega_{1}$.
\item [2.] The weaker signals flanking the 140 c\,d$^{-1}$ feature are displaced by exact
integer multiples of the orbital frequency. Thus the signals seen in JD 068-74 are $\omega_{1}$, $\omega_{2}$, ($\omega_{2} - \omega_{\text{o}}$) and ($\omega_{2} - 2\omega_{\text{o}}$). These orbital sidebands of $\omega_{2}$ are also visible in Figure~\ref{fig:1}, however such orbital sidebands was never seen of $\omega_{1}$. This reproduces the properties of the pulsations seen in SDSS J1507+52 (\citealt{2008PASP..120..510P}).
\end{enumerate}
\subsection{Power-Spectrum Window}
Finally, in Figure~\ref{fig:4} we show the power spectrum in the vicinity of $2\omega_{\text{o}}$, for each season. The $2\omega_{\text{o}}$ signal maintains constancy in phase and amplitude, and therefore acts effectively like a test signal whose power spectrum should be reproduced in structure by any coherent signal (constant in phase and amplitude). The central peak at exactly 36.816 c\,d$^{-1}$ (39.113 min) always dominates over its neighbours in the picket-fence pattern because of very long runs, and/or observations at several longitudes. This demonstrates that these campaigns are free from aliasing. Also, it is worth noting that peaks at frequencies greater than $2\omega_{\text{o}}$, are always slightly wider (for the single-night time series) than expected for a truly periodic signal, and always more complex (for the multiple-night time series). This is true for all our data. The underlying $\omega_{1}$ and $\omega_{2}$ signals either have an intrinsic complex structure, or vary strongly in amplitude and/or phase on short timescales (or both). In addition, the entire complex of signals near $\omega_{1}$ and $\omega_{2}$ moves in frequency by a few percent on timescales as short as $\sim10$ days.
\subsection{Superhumps in BW Scl?} \label{superh}
The obvious signal at 87 minutes in BW Scl, displaced by $\sim 11$ \% from $P_{\text{orb}}$ seen in the 2001 power spectrum (Figure~\ref{fig:2}), is a transient but repeating feature in the light curve. In our ten years of coverage, six campaigns were sufficiently extensive to reveal such a signal. This feature was always strong when it was detected, and moved slightly in frequency, even on timescales of a few days. This qualitatively describes a common superhump, which is a well-known feature in CV light-curves. However, there are three substantial differences:
\begin{enumerate}
\item [1.] Common superhumps are found in outburst states, typically near $M_{V} \sim 5$, not at quiescence when $M_{V} \sim 12$.
\item [2.] Common superhumps occur with fractional period excesses, $(P_{\text{sh}} - P_{\text{orb}})/P_{\text{orb}}$, near 3\%, not 11\%.
\item [3.] Common superhumps are more stable, wandering from a constant-period ephemeris on a timescale of 100 -- 200 cycles. The power-spectrum signal in BW Scl appears complex and broad, suggesting much lower coherence.
\end{enumerate}
A system with quiescent superhumps is a rare beast in the CV kingdom, but it is not unprecedented. In AL Com, a nearly identical signal was reported and extensively discussed by \cite{1996PASP..108..748P}. Something similar has also been reported in V455 And (\citealt{2005A&A...430..629A}), SDSS J0745+45 (\citealt{2010ApJ...710...64S}) and possibly SDSS J1238-03 (\citealt{2010ApJ...711..389A}). All these stars are period-bouncer candidates (systems that have already passed the minimum period; see Tables 3 and 5 of \citealt{2011MNRAS.tmp...27P}). These candidates were chosen due to their low donor-star mass (or low $q = M_{2}/M_{1}$). A possible account of how stars of very low $q$ might be able to manufacture quiescent superhumps has been given in~\cite{1996PASP..108..748P}, and includes the idea that a low donor mass implies a larger Roche lobe surrounding the disc. Weak tidal torques could then allow the quiescent disc to extend to the 2:1 orbital resonance, where an eccentric instability could drive a fast prograde precession (viz., at $\Omega$ = 1.9 c\,d$^{-1}$), resulting in a superhump with $\omega = \omega_{o} - \Omega$.
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=13cm]{fig4.eps}
\caption{BW Scl. Power spectra in the vicinity of $2\omega_{\text{o}}$ for the lowest frame in Figure~\ref{fig:2}, and the three lower frames in Figure~\ref{fig:3}. Since the $2\omega_{\text{o}}$ signal is essentially constant in frequency and amplitude, this is effectively the power-spectrum window for each observation. This implies that the nightly length of run and span of longitude is sufficient to exclude confusion by aliases.}
\label{fig:4}
\end{figure*}
\section{Interpretations as Non-Radial Pulsations}
Both BW Scl and J1457 are quiescent CVs of very low accretion luminosity. Their spectrum show evidence of the primary WD, as do their light curves which contain rapid, non-commensurate signals. This is the general signature of the GW Lib stars, where the periodic signals are believed to represent the non-radial pulsations of the underlying WD. However, no proof of this has ever been found, not for GW Lib or any other of the 10 -- 15 members of the class. In order to explain these signals, two other hypotheses deserve consideration: first, quasi-periodic oscillations (QPOs) arising from the accretion disc, and second, the spin frequency of a magnetic WD (intermediate-polar model).
QPOs were first discovered, and named, for a broad excess of power seen during a dwarf-nova eruption of RU Pegasi (\citealt{1977ApJ...214..144P}). Since then, they have been commonly found with periods of 10 -- 20 minutes in the high-state light-curves of many nova-like variables (reviewed by \citealt{2004PASP..116..115W}). QPOs are typically seen as very broad peaks in the power spectrum ($\delta v/v \sim 0.5$; see for instance Figure 11 and 12 in~\citealt{2002PASP..114.1364P}), and typically have modulations of 1\% -- 3\% of an accretion disc in full outburst (for a light source with $M_{V}\sim 4$). The most famous example is the 20-minute signal in TT Arietis (which belongs to the class of VY Sculptoris stars). However, VY Sculptoris stars appear to be the among the most luminous CVs. This can be compared to the faint BW Scl, where the 70/140 c\,d$^{-1}$ signals have $\delta v/v \sim 0.01$ and are $\sim 1$\% modulations of a light source with $M_{V}\sim 12$. The peaks in J1457 have slightly higher $\delta v/v$, but on both counts, the QPO hypothesis earns no applause. It would have to be an essentially new kind of accretion-disc QPO.
A white dwarf spinning with a period of 20 minutes could explain the features of the signal seen at $\sim 70/140$ c\,d$^{-1}$ in both objects, the common appearance of the first harmonic, the occasional switch to a pure first harmonic (two-pole accretion), and the orbital sidebands seen in BW Scl (from amplitude modulations, and/or reprocessing from structures fixed in the orbital frame). But this hypothesis fails to account for the shifts in frequency exhibited by the $\omega_{1}$ and $\omega_{2}$ signals (the $\sim 5$\% wandering, e.g. in the range 68 c\,d$^{-1}$ -- 73 c\,d$^{-1}$ and 135 c\,d$^{-1}$ -- 153 c\,d$^{-1}$), the fact that $\omega_{2}$ is not exactly $2\omega_{1}$, and the intrinsic breadth (or fine structure) of both signals. These are profound inconsistencies.
Such considerations drive us back to the GW Lib model. Actually, we have studied all of the 10 -- 15 known class members with time-series photometry, and the resemblances to BW Scl and J1457 are substantial:
\begin{enumerate}
\item [1.] Low-amplitude and non-commensurate periodic signals in low-$\dot{M}$ CVs.
\item [2.] Signals roughly constant over a few days, but somewhat transient in
frequency and amplitude on longer timescales.
\item [3.] Signals frequently with strong first harmonics or quasi harmonics.
\item [4.] Signals sometimes with known or suspected fine structure.
\end{enumerate}
These resemblances, and the difficulties with alternative models, seem
sufficient to accept both BW Scl and J1457 as new members of the GW Lib class.
\section{Summary}
\begin{enumerate}
\item [1.] Two more CVs of very low accretion-rates have shown rapid non-commensurate signals in quiescence, which makes them likely new members of the GW Lib class. Both J1457 and BW Scl show a complex spectrum with the main signals near 10 and 20 minutes.
\item [2.] The pulsation frequencies in both stars wander by a few percent on a timescale of days. In addition, the power-spectrum constructed from multiple-night light curves, show broad peaks, which might be due to the frequency wandering, or from intrinsic fine structure not resolved by our data (or due to a strong amplitude modulation).
\item [3.] BW Scl shows several peaks displaced from the main pulsation frequency $\omega_{2}$, by $\omega_{2} \pm \omega_{\text{o}}$ and $\omega_{2} \pm 2\omega_{\text{o}}$. Similar behaviour is evident in other GW Lib stars (SDSS J1507+52, V386 Ser and SDSS J1339+48). The origin of this phenomenon is still unknown. The rich pulsation spectrum makes BW Scl a good candidate for an intensive round-the-world time-series campaign with larger telescopes.
\item [4.] The orbital light curves of both stars show double-humped waves. From these waves, precise periods are found at $P_{\text{orb}} = 78.22639 \pm 0.00003$ minutes for BW Scl, and $77.885 \pm 0.007$ minutes for J1457. Similar systems displaying non-radial pulsations, such as SDSS J1339+4847, SDSS J0131-0901 and SDSS J0919+0857, all have orbital periods right at the same orbital period ($\approx$ 80 minutes).
\item [5.] BW Scl sometimes shows a transient wave with a period, $P_{\text{sh}} = 87.27$ minutes, which is interpreted as a quiescent superhump. It thereby joins a small group of stars who manage a superhump at quiescence, all of which are likely to have very low mass ratios. This might arise from an eccentric instability at the 2:1 resonance in the disc.
\item [6.] The white-dwarf domination of the spectra in these stars suggests great faintness of the accretion light. This signifies a very low accretion rate, and both stars are likely to be very old CVs.
\end{enumerate}
\section*{Acknowledgments}
Joe Patterson would like to acknowledge the support from NASA grant GO11621.03A, the Mt Cuba Astronomical Foundation and the NSF grant AST 0908363.
|
\section{Introduction}\label{s1}
Interacting particle systems with {\em mean field} interaction are characterized by the complete absence of geometry in the space of configurations, in the sense that the strength of the interaction between particles is independent of their mutual position. The advantage of dealing with this kind of models is that they usually are analytically tractable and it is rather simple derive their macroscopic equations. Even if the mean field hypothesis may seem too simplistic to describe physical systems, where geometry and short-range interactions are involved, mean field models have been recently applied to social sciences and finance, as in \cite{BrDu01, DPRST09, DaPTo09, DGGaLa, FrBa08, LaLi07}. \\
We briefly introduce the general framework and some of its peculiar features.
By {\em mean field} stochastic process we mean a family $x^{(N)} = (x^{(N)}(t))_{t \geq 0}$ with the following characteristics:
\begin{itemize}
\item
$x^{(N)}(t) = \left(x^{(N)}_1 (t),x^{(N)}_2 (t), \ldots, x^{(N)}_N (t)\right)$ is a Markov process with $N$ components, taking values on a given measurable space $(E,{\cal{E}})$;
\item
Consider the {\em empirical measure}
\[
\rho_N (t) := \frac{1}{N} \sum_{k=1}^N \delta_{x^{(N)}_k(t)},
\]
which is a random probability on $(E,{\cal{E}})$. Then $(\rho_N (t))_{t \geq 0}$ is a measure-valued {\em Markov} process.
\end{itemize}
Although this is by no means a {\em standard} definition of mean field model, it captures the basic features of the specific models we will consider.
\noindent
Let $(F,{\cal{F}})$ be a topological vector space, and $h: E \rightarrow F$ be a measurable function. Objects of the form
\[
\int h d\rho_N(t) = \frac{1}{N} \sum_{k=1}^N h \left(x^{(N)}_k(t)\right)
\]
are called {\em empirical averages}. In the case the flow $(\int h d\rho_N(t))_{t \geq 0}$ is a Markov process, we say $\int h d\rho_N(t)$ is an {\em order parameter}. Note that the empirical measure itself is an order parameter (taking $F=$ set of signed measures on $E$, and $h(x) = \delta_x$). Whenever possible, it is interesting to find finite dimensional order parameters, i.e. order parameters for which $F$ is finite dimensional. \\
One of the nice aspects of mean field models is that, in many interesting cases, one can prove a {\em Law of Large Numbers} (as $N \rightarrow +\infty$) for the order parameters, and characterize the deterministic limit as a solution of an ordinary differential equation. This limit is often called the {\em McKean-Vlasov} limit. In particular, the differential equation describing the limit evolution of the empirical measure, will be referred to as the {\em McKean-Vlasov equation}. This equation has the form
\[
\frac{d}{dt} q = {\cal{L}} q,
\]
where ${\cal{L}}$ is a nonlinear operator acting on signed measures on $E$ (even though other spaces may be more convenient for the analysis of ${\cal{L}}$).
\\
Our main interest is the study of the fluctuations of the order parameter around its limiting dynamics.
We can capture different features of these fluctuations depending on whether or not the time is rescaled with $N$. If time is not rescaled and we consider the evolution in a time interval $[0,T]$, with $T$ fixed, a Central Limit Theorem holds for the order parameter for all regimes; in other words, the fluctuations of the order parameter converge to a Gaussian process, which is the unique solution of a linear diffusion equation. Whenever time is rescaled in such a way $T$ goes to infinity as $N$ does, we may observe different behaviors. To avoid further complications, we assume the Markov process $x^{(N)}(t)$ has a ``nice'' {\em chaotic} initial condition: $x^{(N)}_1 (0),x^{(N)}_2 (0), \ldots, x^{(N)}_N (0)$ are i.i.d. with common law $q_0(dx)$, where $q_0$ is a stationary, locally stable solution of the McKean-Vlasov equation (the system is in {\em local} equilibrium).
\begin{itemize}
\item
{\em Subcritical regime}. Suppose $q_0$ is the {\em unique} stationary solution of the McKean-Vlasov equation, and it is {\em linearly stable} (i.e. stable for the linearized equation). Then we expect the Central Limit Theorem holds {\em uniformly in time}; in particular, this provides a Central Limit Theorem for the stationary distribution of $x^{(N)}$. Some results in this direction are shown in \cite{For09}.
\item
{\em Supercritical regime}. Suppose the set of stationary, linearly stable solutions of the McKean-Vlasov equation has cardinality greater than $1$. In this case {\em metastability} phenomena occur at a time scale exponentially growing in $N$.
\item
{\em Critical regime}. This is the case in the boundary of the subcritical regime: denoting by $\mathfrak{L}$ the linearization of ${\cal{L}}$ around $q_0$, the spectrum $\mathrm{Spec}(\mathfrak{L})$ of $\mathfrak{L}$ is contained in $\{z \in \mathbb{C}: Re(z) \leq 0\}$, but there are elements on $\mathrm{Spec}(\mathfrak{L})$ with zero real part. Under a suitable {\em time speed-up}, the elements of the corresponding eigenspaces may exhibit large and, possibly, non-normal fluctuations (see \cite{Daw83,CoEi88}).
\end{itemize}
Of course the three regimes described above do not cover in general all possibilities, since stable periodic orbits or even stranger attractors may arise. Moreover, the same model could be in different regimes depending on the values of some parameters ({\em phase transition}).
The main subject of this paper is the analysis of the dynamics of the critical fluctuations in disordered mean field models. \\
We consider a mean field model and we add a site-dependent, i.i.d. random environment, acting as an inhomogeneity in the structure of the system; we aim at analyzing the effect of the disorder in the dynamics of critical fluctuations, as compared with the homogeneous case. We deal with the Curie-Weiss and the Kuramoto models. We are not aware of similar results concerning non-equilibrium critical fluctuations in presence of disorder. Static fluctuations for the random Curie-Weiss model have been studied in \cite{MaPe91}. \\
We now give the basic ideas of how the dynamics of critical fluctuations are determined. As we mentioned above, the deterministic limiting dynamics of the order parameter is described by a nonlinear evolution operator ${\cal{L}}$. The linearization of this equation around a stationary solution gives rise to the so called linearized operator $\mathfrak{L}$. This operator is also related to the normal fluctuation of the process. At the critical point this operator has an eigenvalue with zero real part, while all other elements of the spectrum have negative real part. The eigenspace of the eigenvalue with zero real part will be called {\em critical direction}, and usually happens to have low dimension: critical phenomena involve the empirical averages corresponding to this subspace.
Thus, our analysis follow the following points.
\begin{itemize}
\item Locating the critical direction.
\item Determining the correct space-time scaling for the critical fluctuations. This requires an approximation of the time evolution of the order parameter that goes beyond the normal approximation.
\item Proving that the rescaled fluctuations vanish along non-critical directions. This will be done using the method of ``collapsing processes'' : it was developed by Comets and Eisele in \cite{CoEi88} for a geometric long-range interacting spin system and was previously applied to a homogeneous mean field spin-flip system in \cite{Sar07}.
\item Determining the limiting dynamics in the critical direction. It will be done using arguments of perturbation theory for Markov processes, which has been treated in \cite{PaStVa77}, and of tightness, applied to a suitable martingale problem.
\end{itemize}
From a qualitative point of view, our results indicate that when disorder is added, spin systems and rotators belong to two different classes of universality, which is not the case for homogeneous systems. Roughly speaking, in spin systems the fluctuations produced by the disorder always prevail in the critical regime: these fluctuations evolve in a time scale of order $N^{\frac{1}{4}}$, while the critical slowing down for homogeneous systems is $N^{\frac{1}{2}}$. For rotators, the disorder does not modify the $N^{\frac{1}{2}}$ slowing down. However, as the ``strength'' of the disorder increases, the Kuramoto model undergoes a further phase transition: for sufficiently small disorder, the dynamics of critical fluctuations converge to a nonlinear, ergodic diffusion, as in the homogeneous case; for larger disorder, the limiting diffusion loses ergodicity, and actually explodes in finite time. \\
We finally remark that in \cite{CDS10} we have analyzed the critical fluctuations for a spin system close in spirit to the Curie-Weiss model, although with a less general disorder distribution.
\section{The Random Curie-Weiss Model}\label{s2}
\subsection{Description of the Model}\label{ss1}
Let $\mathscr{S}=\{-1,+1\}$ be the spin space, and $\mu$ be an even probability on $\mathbb{R}$. Let also \mbox{$\underline{\eta}=(\eta_j)_{j=1}^N \in \mathbb{R}^N$} be a sequence of independent, identically distributed random variables, defined on some probability space $(\Omega, \mathcal{F}, P)$, and distributed according to $\mu$. They represent a random, inhomogeneous magnetic field.\\
Given a configuration $\underline{\sigma}=(\sigma_j)_{j=1}^N \in \mathscr{S}^N $ and a realization of the magnetic field $\underline{\eta}$, we define the Hamiltonian $H_N(\underline{\sigma},\underline{\eta}): \mathscr{S}^N \times \mathbb{R}^N \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ as
\begin{equation}\label{1CWG}
H_N(\underline{\sigma},\underline{\eta})=-\frac{\beta}{2N}\sum_{j,k=1}^N \sigma_j \sigma_k - \beta \sum_{j=1}^N \eta_j \sigma_j \,,
\end{equation}
where $\sigma_j$ is the spin value at site $j$, and $\eta_j$ is the local magnetic field associated with the same site. Let $\beta>0$ be the inverse temperature.
For given $\underline{\eta}$,~ $\underline{\sigma}(t)=(\sigma_j(t))_{j=1}^N$, with $t \geq 0$, is a $N$-spin system evolving as a continuous time Markov chain on $\mathscr{S}^N$, with infinitesimal generator $L_N$ acting on functions
$f:\mathscr{S}^N \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ as follows:
\begin{equation}\label{2CWG}
L_Nf(\underline{\sigma})=\sum_{j=1}^{N} e^{-\beta\sigma_j( m^{\underline{\sigma}}_{N} + \eta_j)}\nabla_j^\sigma f(\underline{\sigma}),
\end{equation}
where $\nabla_j^\sigma f(\underline{\sigma})=f(\underline{\sigma}^j)-f(\underline{\sigma})$ and the $k$-th component of $\underline{\sigma}^j$, which is the spin flip at the site $j$, is
\begin{displaymath}
\sigma^j_k=\left\{
\begin{array}{rcc}
\sigma_k & \mathrm{for} &k\neq j\\
-\sigma_k& \mathrm{for} &k= j
\end{array}
\right..
\end{displaymath}
The quantity $e^{-\beta\sigma_j( m^{\underline{\sigma}}_{N}+ \eta_j)}$ represents the jump rate of the spins, i.e. the rate at which the transition $\sigma_j\rightarrow -\sigma_j$ occurs for some $j$. The expressions \eqref{1CWG} and \eqref{2CWG} describe a system of mean field ferromagnetically coupled spins, each with its own random magnetic field and subject to Glauber dynamics. The two terms in the Hamiltonian have different effects: the first one tends to align the spins, while the second one tends to point each of them in the direction of its local field.
\begin{remark}
For every value of $\underline{\eta}$, \eqref{2CWG} has a reversible stationary distribution proportional to $\exp[-H_N(\underline{\sigma},\underline{\eta})]$.
\end{remark}
For simplicity, the initial condition $\underline{\sigma}(0)$ is such that $(\sigma_j(0),\eta_j)_{j=1}^N$ are independent and identically distributed with law $\lambda$. Note that, since the marginal law of the $\eta_j$'s is $\mu$, $\lambda$ must be of the form
\begin{equation}\label{initial}
\lambda(\sigma,d\eta) = q_0(\sigma,\eta)\mu(d\eta)
\end{equation}
with $q_0(1,\eta) + q_0(-1,\eta) = 1$, $\mu$-almost surely.
The quantity $\left(\sigma_j(t)\right)_{t \in [0,T]}$ represents the time evolution on $[0,T]$ of $j$-th spin value; it is the trajectory of the single $j$-th spin in time. The space of all these paths is $\mathcal{D}[0,T]$, which is the space of the right-continuous, piecewise-constant functions from $[0,T]$ to $\mathscr{S}$. We endow $\mathcal{D}[0,T]$ with the Skorohod topology, which provides a metric and a Borel $\sigma$-field (see ~\cite{EtKu86} for details).
\subsection{Limiting Dynamics}\label{ss2}
We now describe the dynamics of the process \eqref{2CWG}, in the limit as $N\rightarrow +\infty$, in a fixed time interval $[0,T]$. Later, the equilibrium of the limiting dynamics will be studied. These results are special cases of what shown in \cite{DaPdHo95}, so proofs are omitted. More details can also be found in \cite{Col09}.
Let $(\sigma_j [0,T])_{j=1}^N \in (\mathcal{D}[0,T])^N$ denote a path of the system in the time interval $[0,T]$, with $T$ positive and fixed. If $f: \mathscr{S} \times \mathbb{R} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$,
we are interested in the asymptotic (as $N \rightarrow +\infty$) behavior of \emph{empirical averages} of the form
\[
\frac{1}{N} \sum_{j=1}^{N} f(\sigma_j(t), \eta_j) =: \int f d\rho_N (t)\,,
\]
where $(\rho_N (t))_{t \in [0,T]}$ is the flow of \emph{empirical measures}
\[
\rho_N (t) := \frac{1}{N} \sum_{j=1}^{N} \delta_{(\sigma_j (t), \eta_j)} \,.
\]
We may think of $\rho_N:= (\rho_N(t))_{t \in [0,T]}$ as a {\em cadlag} function taking values in $\mathcal{M}_1(\mathscr{S} \times \mathbb{R})$, the space of probability measures on $\mathscr{S} \times \mathbb{R}$ endowed with the weak convergence topology, and the related Prokhorov metric, that we denote by $d_P(\, \cdot \, , \, \cdot \, )$.
The first result we state concerns the dynamics of the flow of empirical measures. We need some more notations. For a given $q: \mathscr{S} \times \mathbb{R} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$, we introduce the linear operator $\mathcal{L}_q$, acting on $f:\mathscr{S} \times \mathbb{R} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ as follows:
\[
\mathcal{L}_q f(\sigma,\eta) := \nabla^{\sigma}\left[ e^{- \beta \sigma \left( m_q + \eta\right)} f(\sigma,\eta) \right],
\]
where
\[
m_q := \int \left[ q(1,\eta) - q(-1,\eta) \right] \mu(d\eta).
\]
Given $\underline{\eta} \in \mathbb{R}^N$, we denote by $\mathcal{P}_N^{\underline{\eta}}$ the distribution on $(\mathcal{D}[0,T])^N$ of the Markov process with generator \eqref{2CWG} and initial distribution $\lambda$. We also denote by
\[
\mathcal{P}_N\left(d \underline{\sigma}[0,T],d\underline{\eta} \right) := \mathcal{P}_N^{\underline{\eta}}\left(d \underline{\sigma}[0,T]\right) \mu^{\otimes N}\left(d\underline{\eta} \right)
\]
the joint law of the process and the field.
\begin{theorem}\label{8CWG}
The nonlinear McKean-Vlasov equation
\begin{equation}\label{9CWG}
\left\{
\begin{array}{cccr}
\frac{\partial q_t (\sigma, \eta )}{\partial t} & = & \mathcal{L}_{q_t} q_t (\sigma, \eta) \\
q_0 (\sigma,\eta) & & \mbox{given in \eqref{initial}} & \\
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
admits a unique solution in $\mathcal{C}^1 \left[[0,T], \left(L^1(\mu) \right)^{\mathscr{S}}\right]$, and $q_t(\cdot,\eta)$ is probability on $\mathscr{S}$, for $\mu$-almost every $\eta$ and every $t>0$. Moreover, for every $\varepsilon >0$ there exists $C(\varepsilon) >0 $ such that
\[
\mathcal{P}_N \left( \sup_{t \in [0,T]} d_P ( \rho_N(t), q_t) > \varepsilon \right) \leq e^{-C(\varepsilon) N}
\]
for $N$ sufficiently large, where, by abuse of notations, we identify $q_t$ with the probability $q_t(\sigma,\eta) \mu(d\eta)$ on $\mathscr{S} \times \mathbb{R}$.
\end{theorem}
Thus, equation \eqref{9CWG} describes the infinite-volume dynamics of the system. Next result gives a characterization of stationary solutions of \eqref{9CWG}.
\begin{lemma}\label{11CWG}
Let $q_*: \mathscr{S} \times \mathbb{R} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$, such that $q_* (\sigma,\cdot)$ is measurable and $q_*(\cdot,\eta)$ is a probability on $\mathscr{S}$. Then $q_*$ is a stationary solution of \eqref{9CWG}, i.e. $\mathcal{L}_{q_*} q_* \equiv 0$, if and only if it is of the form
\begin{equation}\label{12CWG}
q_*(\sigma,\eta) = \frac{e^{\beta \sigma \left( m_{*} + \eta \right)}}{2 \cosh \left(\beta\left( m_{*} + \eta \right) \right)} \,,
\end{equation}
where $m_*$ satisfies the self-consistency relation
\begin{equation}\label{13CWG}
m_* = \int \left[ q_*(1,\eta) - q_*(-1,\eta) \right] \mu(d\eta).
\end{equation}
Moreover, $m_*=0$ is always a solution of \eqref{13CWG} and it is linearly (resp. neutrally) stable if and only if
\begin{equation}\label{linstabcond}
\beta \int \frac{\mu(d\eta)}{\cosh^2 (\beta \eta)} < \, (\mbox{resp. $=$}) \; 1.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{remark}
The transition between uniqueness and non-uniqueness of the solution of \eqref{13CWG} in general is not related to the change of stability for $m_*=0$. If the distribution $\mu$ is unimodal on $\mathbb{R}$, the two thresholds coincide: the paramagnetic solution is linearly stable when it is unique and unstable when it is not. In case we choose $\mu = \frac{1}{2} \left( \delta_{\eta} + \delta_{-\eta} \right)$, with $\eta>0$, the phase diagram is more complex: when \eqref{linstabcond} fails, the paramagnetic solution of \eqref{13CWG} is either unstable, and it coexists with a pair of opposite stable ferromagnetic solutions, or may recover linear stability, coexisting with a pair of unstable ferromagnetic solutions and a pair of stable ferromagnetic ones (see \cite{DaPdHo95} for details). A more general $\mu$ may give rise to arbitrarily many solutions of \eqref{13CWG}.
\end{remark}
\subsection[Dynamics of Critical Fluctuations]{Dynamics of Critical Fluctuations $\left(\beta \displaystyle{\int} \frac{\mu(d\eta)}{\cosh^2 (\beta \eta)} = 1\right)$}\label{ss3}
The results of this section are concerned with the {\em fluctuation flow}
\begin{equation}
\label{fluctflow}
\hat{\rho}_N (t) := \sqrt{N} \left[ \rho_N(t) - q_t \right],
\end{equation}
that takes values on the space of signed measures on $\mathscr{S} \times \mathbb{R}$. It is very convenient to assume that the process starts in {\em local equilibrium}, i.e. $q_0(\sigma,\eta) = q_*(\sigma,\eta)$, where $q_*(\sigma,\eta)$ is a stationary solution of \eqref{9CWG}; it should be not hard to extend all next results to a general initial condition. The proofs of all results stated here will be given in Section \ref{proofsCW}. We first state results valid for all temperatures; later, Lemma \ref{16CWG2}, Proposition \ref{CWpropcritfluct}, Theorems \ref{CWhom} and \ref{CWinhom} are restricted to the critical case.
Functions from $\mathscr{S} \times \mathbb{R}$ are all of the form $F(\sigma, \eta) = \gamma(\eta) + \sigma \phi(\eta)$. However
\[
\int \gamma(\eta) d\hat{\rho}_N (t) = \sqrt{N} \left[ \frac{1}{N} \sum_{j=1}^N \gamma(\eta_j) - \int \gamma(\eta) \mu(d\eta)\right]
\]
does not change in time, and has a Gaussian limit for every $\gamma \in L^2(\mu)$. Thus, we are only interested in the evolution of integrals of the type
\[
\int \sigma\phi(\eta) d\hat{\rho}_N (t).
\]
It is therefore natural to control the action of the generator $L_N$ on functions of $\underline{\sigma}$ and $\underline{\eta}$ of the form $\psi \left(\int \sigma\phi(\eta) d\hat{\rho}_N \right)$, with
\[
\hat{\rho}_N := \sqrt{N} \left[ \frac{1}{N} \sum_{j=1}^{N} \delta_{(\sigma_j, \eta_j)} - q_* \right].
\]
\begin{proposition}
\label{CWpropfluct}
Let $\psi:\mathbb{R}^n \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ be of class ${\cal{C}}^1$, and $\phi \in \left(L^2(\nu)\right)^n$, where $\nu$ is the measure on $\mathbb{R}$ defined by
\begin{equation}\label{CWnu}
\nu(d\eta) = \frac{\mu(d\eta)}{\cosh(\beta(m_* + \eta))} .
\end{equation}
Then
\begin{multline}\label{CWfluctuations}
L_N \psi \left(\int \sigma\phi(\eta) d\hat{\rho}_N \right) \\ = 2\sum_{i=1}^n \partial_i \psi \left(\int \sigma\phi(\eta) d\hat{\rho}_N \right) \left[ \int \sinh(\beta (m_* + \eta)) \phi_i(\eta) d\hat{\rho}_N - \int \sigma \mathfrak{L}\phi_i(\eta) d\hat{\rho}_N \right] \\ + 2 \sum_{i,j=1}^n \partial^2_{ij} \psi\left(\int \sigma\phi(\eta) d\hat{\rho}_N \right) \int \frac{\phi_i(\eta)\phi_j(\eta)}{\cosh(\beta (m_* + \eta))} \mu(d\eta) + o(1),
\end{multline}
where
\begin{equation}\label{CWlin}
\mathfrak{L} \phi_i(\eta) = \cosh (\beta (m_* + \eta)) \phi_i(\eta) - \beta \int \frac{\phi_i(\eta)}{\cosh (\beta (m_* + \eta))} \mu(d\eta) \,.
\end{equation}
Moreover the remainder $o(1)$ in (\ref{CWfluctuations}) is of the form
\begin{equation} \label{CWremform}
R_N\left(\int H(\sigma,\eta) d\hat{\rho}_N \right)
\end{equation}
where $H(\sigma,\eta)$ is the vector-valued function
\begin{multline*}
H(\sigma,\eta) = \left( \sigma\phi(\eta), \sigma, [\cosh(\beta (m_* + \eta)) - \sigma \sinh(\beta (m_* + \eta))]\phi(\eta),\right. \\ \left. [\sigma \cosh(\beta (m_* + \eta)) - \sinh(\beta (m_* + \eta))]\phi(\eta) \right),
\end{multline*}
and
\begin{equation}\label{CWrem}
\lim_{N \rightarrow +\infty} \sup_{|x|,|y|,|z|,|w| \leq M} R_N(x,y,z,w) = 0
\end{equation}
for every $M>0$.
\end{proposition}
Proposition \ref{CWpropfluct}, whose proof consists of a rather standard computation that will be sketched in Section \ref{proofsCW}, is the essential ingredient for proving a Central Limit Theorem for the empirical flow, i.e. to show that the fluctuation flow converges in law to a Gaussian process. The proof of this result requires to identify an appropriate Hilbert space for the fluctuations $\hat{\rho}_N$ (see e.g. \cite{CoEi88} for related results). Our main aim is, however, to describe large-time fluctuations at the critical points; the additional technical difficulties arising, have not allowed us to obtained the desired results under the present assumptions, in particular with no requirements on the field distribution $\mu$ (except evenness). Thus we find it preferable to make the following assumption at this point.
\begin{itemize}
\item[{\bf (F)}]
$\mu$ has {\em finite} support $\mathscr{D}$.
\end{itemize}
Under assumption {\bf (F)}, the space $L^2(\nu)$ is finite-dimensional. Together with the following simple result, this greatly simplifies the analysis of fluctuations.
\begin{lemma}\label{16CWG}
The operator $\mathfrak{L}$ defined in \eqref{CWlin} is self-adjoint in $L^2(\nu)$.
\end{lemma}
Now, for $m := |\mbox{supp}(\mu)|$, let $\varphi_0,\varphi_1,\ldots,\varphi_{m-1}$ be a complete set of eigenvectors for $\mathfrak{L}$, with eigenvalues $\lambda_0\leq \lambda_1 \leq \ldots \leq \lambda_{m-1}$. Proposition \ref{CWpropfluct}, together with the classical Corollary 8.7, in Chapter 4 of
\cite{EtKu86}, yields the following Central Limit Theorem, whose standard proof is omitted.
\begin{proposition}\label{CWCLT}
Set $X^{(N)}_i(t) := \int \sigma \varphi_i (\eta) d \hat{\rho}_N(t)$.
Then, under $\mathcal{P}_N$, $\left( X^{(N)}_i \right)_{i=0}^{m-1}$ converges in law to the Gaussian process $(X_i)_{i=0}^{m-1}$ solving the following linear stochastic differential equations
\[
dX_i(t) = \left[ \mathscr{H}_i - \lambda_i X_i(t) \right] dt + b_i \, dW_i(t)
\]
where
\vspace{.2cm}
$\bullet$
$\left(X_0(0),X_1(0),\ldots,X_{m-1}(0), \mathscr{H}_0, \mathscr{H}_1,\ldots, \mathscr{H}_{m-1} \right)$ is a centered Gaussian vector with
{\footnotesize{
\begin{multline*}
\mathrm{Cov} (X_i(0),X_j(0)) = \int \varphi_i(\eta) \varphi_j(\eta) \mu(d\eta) \\
- \int \varphi_i (\eta)\tanh(\beta (m_*+\eta)) \mu(d\eta) \int \varphi_j (\eta)\tanh(\beta (m_* + \eta)) \mu(d\eta)
\end{multline*}
\begin{multline*}
\mathrm{Cov}(\mathscr{H}_i,\mathscr{H}_j) = \int \varphi_i (\eta) \varphi_j (\eta) \sinh^2(\beta(m_* + \eta)) \mu(d\eta) \\
- \int \varphi_i (\eta)\sinh(\beta (m_* + \eta)) \mu(d\eta) \int \varphi_j (\eta)\sinh(\beta (m_* + \eta)) \mu(d\eta)
\end{multline*}
\begin{multline*}
\mathrm{Cov}(\mathscr{H}_i,X_j(0)) = \int \varphi_i (\eta) \varphi_j (\eta) \sinh(\beta (m_* + \eta))\tanh(\beta(m_* + \eta)) \mu(d\eta) \\
- \int \varphi_i (\eta) \sinh(\beta (m_* + \eta)) \mu(d\eta) \int \varphi_j (\eta)\tanh(\beta (m_* + \eta)) \mu(d\eta)
\end{multline*}}}
$\bullet$
$b_i^2 := \int \varphi_i^2(\eta) \nu(d\eta)$.
\vspace{.2cm}
$\bullet$
$(W_i)_{i=0}^{m-1}$ are independent standard Brownian motions, that are independent of the vector $\left(X_0(0),X_1(0),\ldots,X_{m-1}(0), \mathscr{H}_0, \mathscr{H}_1,\ldots, \mathscr{H}_{m-1} \right)$.
\end{proposition}
Note that the randomness of the field persists in the limiting dynamics of fluctuations, due to the correlated, constant random drifts $\mathscr{H}_i$. Observe that $\mathscr{H}_i \equiv 0 $ if $\mu = \delta_0$, i.e. when the random field is absent.
We now look more closely at fluctuations around the paramagnetic solution $m_* = 0$ at the {\em critical regime}, i.e. for those values of $\beta$ for which $\beta \int_{\mathscr{D}} \frac{\mu(d\eta)}{\cosh^2(\beta \eta)} = 1$.
\begin{lemma}\label{16CWG2}
Assume $\beta \int_{\mathscr{D}} \frac{\mu(d\eta)}{\cosh^2(\beta \eta)} = 1$ and $m_* = 0$. Then $\mathfrak{L}$ is nonnegative, and its kernel is spanned by the function $\frac{1}{\cosh(\beta \eta)}$.
\end{lemma}
In the critical regime $\beta \int_{\mathscr{D}} \frac{\mu(d\eta)}{\cosh^2(\beta \eta)} = 1$, we have $\lambda_0 = 0$, and $\lambda_i > 0$ for $i>0$ (it is actually easily shown that $\lambda_i \geq 1$ for $i>0$). It follows that the process $X_0(t)$ in Proposition \ref{CWCLT} has a variance that diverges as $t \rightarrow +\infty$. A sharper description of the large time fluctuations is obtained by considering more ``moderate" fluctuations:
\[
\tilde{\rho}_N := N^{-\frac{1}{4}} \hat{\rho}_N.
\]
The following result improves the expansion given in Proposition \ref{CWpropfluct}.
\begin{proposition}\label{CWpropcritfluct}
Under the same assumptions of Proposition \ref{CWpropfluct}, and the further conditions $\beta \int_{\mathscr{D}} \frac{\mu(d\eta)}{\cosh^2(\beta \eta)} = 1$ and $m_* = 0$, we have
\begin{multline}
\label{CWcritfluctuations}
L_N \psi \left(\int \sigma\phi(\eta) d\tilde{\rho}_N \right) = L^{(1)}\psi \\
+ 2N^{-\frac{1}{4}}\sum_{i=1}^n \partial_i \psi \left(\int \sigma\phi(\eta) d\tilde{\rho}_N \right) \int \sinh(\beta \eta) \phi_i(\eta) d\hat{\rho}_N \\ + N^{-\frac{1}{4}} L^{(2)}\psi + N^{-\frac{1}{2}} L^{(3)}\psi + o \left( N^{-\frac{1}{2}} \right),
\end{multline}
where
\begin{align*}
& L^{(1)}\psi := - 2\sum_{i=1}^n \partial_i \psi \left(\int \sigma\phi(\eta) d\tilde{\rho}_N \right) \int \sigma \mathfrak{L}\phi_i(\eta) d\tilde{\rho}_N \\
& L^{(2)}\psi := -2 \beta \sum_{i=1}^n \partial_i \psi \left(\int \sigma\phi(\eta) d\tilde{\rho}_N \right) \int \sigma d\tilde{\rho}_N \int \sigma \sinh(\beta \eta) \phi_i(\eta) d\tilde{\rho}_N \\
&L^{(3)}\psi := \sum_{i=1}^n \partial_i \psi \left(\int \sigma\phi(\eta) d\tilde{\rho}_N \right) \left[ 2 \beta \int \cosh(\beta \eta) \phi_i(\eta) d\hat{\rho}_N \int \sigma d\tilde{\rho}_N \right. \\
& \qquad \left. - \beta^2 \left( \int \sigma d\tilde{\rho}_N \right)^2 \int \sigma \cosh(\beta \eta) \phi_i(\eta) d\tilde{\rho}_N + \frac{\beta^3}{3} \int \frac{\phi_i(\eta)}{\cosh(\beta \eta)} \mu(d\eta) \left( \int \sigma d\tilde{\rho}_N \right)^3 \right] \\
& \qquad + 2 \sum_{i,j=1}^n \partial^2_{ij} \psi\left(\int \sigma\phi(\eta) d\hat{\rho}_N \right) \int \frac{\phi_i(\eta)\phi_j(\eta)}{\cosh(\beta \eta)} \mu(d\eta)
\end{align*}
Moreover the remainder $o \left( N^{-\frac{1}{2}} \right)$ in (\ref{CWcritfluctuations}) is of the form $N^{-\frac{1}{2}} R_N$ with $R_N$ satisfying (\ref{CWrem}).
\end{proposition}
Note that in Proposition \ref{CWpropcritfluct}, functions depending only on $\eta$ are still integrated with respect to $\hat{\rho}$, rather than $\tilde{\rho}$; indeed, by the standard Central Limit Theorem, those integrals with respect to $\hat{\rho}$ have a Gaussian limit under $\mathcal{P}_N$.
Proposition \ref{CWpropcritfluct} allows to deal easily with the homogeneous case $\mu = \delta_0$. Using the notations of Proposition \ref{CWCLT} we have $m=1$, $\varphi_0 \equiv 1$. Thus, using Proposition \ref{CWpropcritfluct} with $n=1$, $\phi \equiv 1$ and $\beta = \beta_c =1$, we easily observe that $L^{(1)}\psi = L^{(2)}\psi \equiv 0$, and
\[
L^{(3)}\psi = -\frac{2}{3} \left(\int \sigma d\tilde{\rho}_N\right)^3 \psi'\left(\int \sigma d\tilde{\rho}_N \right) + 2 \psi''\left(\int \sigma d\tilde{\rho}_N \right).
\]
Using convergence of generators as in Proposition \ref{CWCLT} we readily obtain the dynamics of large-time critical fluctuations for the homogeneous model. This result is a simple special case of what obtained in \cite{CoEi88}.
\begin{theorem}\label{CWhom}
Assume $\mu = \delta_0$, and $\beta = 1$. The stochastic process
\[
Y_N(t) := \int \sigma d\tilde{\rho}_N(\sqrt{N}t)
\]
converges weakly, under $\mathcal{P}_N$, to the unique solution of the stochastic differential equation
\[ \left\{
\begin{array}{l}
dY(t) = -\frac{2}{3} \, Y^3(t) \, dt + 2 \, dW(t) \\
\\
Y(0) = 0
\end{array} \right.
\]
where $W$ is a standard Brownian motion.
\end{theorem}
As we will see (proofs are in Section \ref{proofsCW}), the inhomogeneous case requires more sophisticated arguments.
\begin{definition}\label{defcollapse}
We say that a sequence of stochastic processes $(\xi_n(t))_n$, for $t\in[0,T]$, \emph{collapses to zero} if for every $\varepsilon >0$,
\[
\lim_{n\rightarrow +\infty} P \left( \sup_{t \in [0,T]} \vert \xi_n(t) \vert > \varepsilon \right) =0
\]
\end{definition}
\begin{theorem}\label{CWinhom}
Assume $m_* =0$, $\beta \int_{\mathscr{D}} \frac{\mu(d\eta)}{\cosh^2(\beta \eta)} = 1$, and, for $i=0,1,\ldots,m-1$, let
\begin{equation}\label{ordparCW}
Y_i^{(N)}(t) := \int \sigma \varphi_i (\eta) d\tilde{\rho}_N (N^{\frac{1}{4}} t),
\end{equation}
where $\varphi_0,\ldots,\varphi_{m-1}$ is the basis introduced in Proposition \ref{CWCLT}. Under $\mathcal{P}_N$ the processes $\left( Y_i^{(N)}(t) \right)_{i=1}^{m-1}$ collapse to zero, while $Y_0^{(N)}(t)$ converges in law to the process
\[
Y_0(t) := 2\mathscr{H} t,
\]
where $\mathscr{H}$ is a Gaussian random variable, with zero mean and variance $\int_{\mathscr{D}} \tanh^2(\beta \eta) \mu(d\eta)$.
\end{theorem}
Thus, the disorder has a dramatic impact on fluctuations at the critical points: fluctuations arise at a much shorter time scale ($N^{\frac{1}{4}}$ rather that $N^{\frac{1}{2}}$), and have the simple form of a linear function with random slope.
\section{The Random Kuramoto Model}\label{s3}
\subsection{Description of the Model}\label{ss4}
Let $I=[0,2\pi)$ be the one dimensional torus, and $\mu$ be an even probability on $\mathbb{R}$. Let also $\underline{\eta}=(\eta_j)_{j=1}^N \in \mathbb{R}^N$ be a sequence of independent, identically distributed random variables, defined on some probability space $(\Omega, \mathcal{F}, P)$, and distributed according to $\mu$. Given a configuration \mbox{$\underline{x}=(x_j)_{j=1}^N \in I^N$} and a realization of the random environment $\underline{\eta}$, we can define the Hamiltonian $H_N(\underline{x},\underline{\eta}): I^N \times \mathbb{R}^N \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ as
\begin{equation}\label{1Ki}
H_N(\underline{x},\underline{\eta})=-\frac{\theta}{2N}\sum_{j,k=1}^N \cos(x_k-x_j) + \omega \sum_{j=1}^N \eta_j x_j \,,
\end{equation}
where $x_j$ is the position of the rotator at site $j$ and $\omega \eta_j$, with $\omega >0$, can be interpreted as its own frequency. Let $\theta$, positive parameter, be the coupling strength.
For given $\underline{\eta}$, the stochastic process $\underline{x}(t)=(x_j(t))_{j=1}^N$, with $t \geq 0$, is a \mbox{$N$-rotator} system evolving as a Markov diffusion process on $I^N$, with infinitesimal generator $L_N$ acting on ${\cal{C}}^2$ functions
$f:I^N \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ as follows:
\begin{align}\label{2Ki}
L_Nf(\underline{x})&= \frac{1}{2} \sum_{j=1}^N\frac{\partial^2 f}{\partial x_j^2}(\underline{x})+\sum_{j=1}^N \frac{\partial H_N}{\partial x_j}(\underline{x},\underline{\eta}) \nonumber\\
&=\frac{1}{2} \sum_{j=1}^N\frac{\partial^2 f}{\partial x_j^2}(\underline{x})+\sum_{j=1}^N \left\{\omega\eta_j + \frac{\theta}{N} \sum_{k=1}^N \sin(x_k - x_j) \right\}\frac{\partial f}{\partial x_j}(\underline{x}) \,.
\end{align}
Consider the complex quantity
\begin{equation}\label{3Ki}
r_{N} e^{i \Psi_N}=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{j=1}^N e^{i x_j} \, ,
\end{equation}
where $0 \leq r_N \leq 1$ measures the phase coherence of the rotators and $\Psi_N$ measures the average phase. We can reformulate the expression of the infinitesimal generator \eqref{2Ki} in terms of \eqref{3Ki}:
\begin{equation}\label{4Ki}
L_Nf(\underline{x})= \frac{1}{2} \sum_{j=1}^N\frac{\partial^2 f}{\partial x_j^2}(\underline{x})+\sum_{j=1}^N \left\{\omega\eta_j + \theta r_N \sin(\Psi_N - x_j) \right\}\frac{\partial f}{\partial x_j}(\underline{x}) \, .
\end{equation}
The expressions \eqref{1Ki} and \eqref{4Ki} describe a system of mean field coupled rotators, each with its own frequency and subject to diffusive dynamics. The two terms in the Hamiltonian have different effects: the first one tends to synchronize the rotators, while the second one tends to make each of them rotate at its own frequency.\\
For simplicity, the initial condition $\underline{x}(0)$ is such that $(x_j(0),\eta_j)_{j=1}^N$ are independent and identically distributed with law $\lambda$. We assume $\lambda$ is of the form
\begin{equation}\label{Kinitial}
\lambda(dx,d\eta) = q_0(x,\eta) \mu(d\eta)dx
\end{equation}
with $\int_I q_0(x,\eta) \, dx = 1$, $\mu$-almost surely. The quantity $x_j(t)$ represents the time evolution on $[0,T]$ of $j$-th rotator; it is the trajectory of the single $j$-th rotator in time. The space of all these paths is $\mathcal{C}[0,T]$, which is the space of the continuous function from $[0,T]$ to $I$, endowed with the uniform topology.\\
\subsection{Limiting Dynamics}\label{ss5}
We now describe the dynamics of the process \eqref{2Ki}, in the limit as $N\rightarrow +\infty$, in a fixed time interval $[0,T]$. Later, the equilibrium of the limiting dynamics will be studied. These results are special cases of what shown in \cite{DaPdHo95}, so proofs are omitted.
Let $(x_j [0,T])_{j=1}^N \in (\mathcal{C}[0,T])^N$ denote a path of the system in the time interval $[0,T]$, with $T$ positive and fixed. If $f: I \times \mathbb{R} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$, we are interested in the asymptotic (as $N \rightarrow +\infty$) behavior of \emph{empirical averages} of the form
\[
\frac{1}{N} \sum_{j=1}^{N} f(x_j(t), \eta_j) =: \int f d\rho_N (t)\,,
\]
where $(\rho_N (t))_{t \in [0,T]}$ is the flow of \emph{empirical measures}
\[
\rho_N (t) := \frac{1}{N} \sum_{j=1}^{N} \delta_{(x_j (t), \eta_j)} \,.
\]
We may think of $\rho_N:= (\rho_N(t))_{t \in [0,T]}$ as a continuous function taking values in $\mathcal{M}_1(I \times \mathbb{R})$, the space of probability measures on $I \times \mathbb{R}$ endowed with the weak convergence topology, and the related Prokhorov metric, that we denote by $d_P(\, \cdot \, , \, \cdot \, )$.
The first result we state concerns the dynamics of the flow of empirical measures. We need some more notations. For a given $q: I \times \mathbb{R} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$, we introduce the linear operator $\mathcal{L}_q$, acting on $f: I \times \mathbb{R} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ as follows:
\begin{equation}\label{16Ki}
\mathcal{L}_q f(x,\eta)= \frac{1}{2}\frac{\partial^2 f}{\partial x^2}(x,\eta) - \frac{\partial}{\partial x} \left\{ \left[ \omega\eta + \theta r_{q} \sin(\Psi_{q} - x) \right] f(x,\eta) \right\},
\end{equation}
where
\[
r_{q} \, e^{i\Psi_{q}} := \int_I \int e^{ix} \, q(x,\eta) \, \mu(d\eta) \, dx.
\]
Given $\underline{\eta} \in \mathbb{R}^N$, we denote by $\mathcal{P}_N^{\underline{\eta}}$ the distribution on $(\mathcal{C}[0,T])^N$ of the Markov process with generator \eqref{2Ki} and initial distribution $\lambda$. We also denote by
\[
\mathcal{P}_N\left(d \underline{x}[0,T],d\underline{\eta} \right) := \mathcal{P}_N^{\underline{\eta}}\left(d \underline{x}[0,T]\right) \mu^{\otimes N}\left(d\underline{\eta} \right)
\]
the joint law of the process and the environment.
\begin{theorem}\label{8Ki}
The nonlinear McKean-Vlasov equation
\begin{equation}\label{9Ki}
\left\{
\begin{array}{cccr}
\frac{\partial q_t (x, \eta )}{\partial t} & = & \mathcal{L}_{q_t} q_t (x, \eta) \\
q_0 (x,\eta) & & \mbox{given in \eqref{Kinitial}} & \\
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
admits a unique solution in $\mathcal{C}^1 \left[[0,T], L^1(dx \otimes \mu) \right]$, and $q_t(\cdot,\eta)$ is probability on $I$, for $\mu$-almost every $\eta$ and every $t>0$. Moreover, for every $\varepsilon >0$ there exists $C(\varepsilon) >0 $ such that
\[
\mathcal{P}_N \left( \sup_{t \in [0,T]} d_P ( \rho_N(t), q_t) > \varepsilon \right) \leq e^{-C(\varepsilon) N}
\]
for $N$ sufficiently large, where, by abuse of notations, we identify $q_t$ with the probability $q_t(x,\eta) \mu(d\eta)dx$ on $I \times \mathbb{R}$.
\end{theorem}
Thus, equation \eqref{9Ki} describes the infinite-volume dynamics of the system. Since $\mu$ is symmetric and the operator $\mathcal{L}$ preserves evenness, we can suppose the average phase $\Psi_{q_t} \equiv 0$, without loss of generality. Next result gives a characterization of stationary solutions of \eqref{9Ki}.
\begin{lemma}\label{11Ki}
Let $q_*:I \times \mathbb{R} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$, such that $q_*(x, \cdot)$ is measurable and $q_*(\cdot,\eta)$ is a probability on $I$. Then $q_*$ is a stationary solution of \eqref{9Ki}, i.e. $\mathcal{L}_{q_*} q_* \equiv 0$, if and only if it is of the form
\begin{multline}\label{12Ki}
q_*(x,\eta)= (Z_*)^{-1} \cdot e^{2(\omega\eta x + \theta r_* \cos x) } \left[ e^{4\pi \omega\eta} \int_0^{2\pi} e^{-2(\omega\eta x + \theta r_* \cos x)} dx \right. \\
\left. + (1 - e^{4\pi \omega\eta}) \int_0^x e^{-2(\omega\eta y + \theta r_* \cos y)} dy\right] \,,
\end{multline}
where $Z_*$ is a normalizing factor and $r_*$ satisfies the self-consistency relation
\begin{equation}\label{13Ki}
r_* = \int_I \int e^{ix} \, q_*(x,\eta) \, \mu(d\eta) \, dx \, .
\end{equation}
Moreover, $r_*=0$ is always a solution of \eqref{13Ki} and, letting
\begin{equation}\label{Kcrtval}
\theta_c = \left[ \int \frac{\mu (d\eta)}{1 + 4 (\omega \eta)^2} \right]^{-1} \,,
\end{equation}
we have that
\begin{enumerate}
\item \label{item1} if $\mu$ is unimodal on $\mathbb{R}$, then the solution $r_*=0$ is linearly (resp. neutrally) stable if and only if $\theta < \, (\mbox{resp. $=$}) \; \theta_c \,;$
\item \label{item2} if $\mu= \frac{1}{2} (\delta_{1} + \delta_{-1})$, then the solution $r_*=0$ is linearly (resp. neutrally) stable if and only if $\theta < \, (\mbox{resp. $=$}) \; \theta_c \wedge 2 \,.$
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{remark}
The transitions uniqueness/non-uniqueness of the solution of \eqref{13Ki} and stability/instability of $r_*=0$ in general do not occur at the same threshold. It does, however, in the case \ref{item1} of the previous Lemma. The phase diagram related to the case \ref{item2} is more complicated. We refer to \cite{DaPdHo95} for further details.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
If $r_* = 0$ the stationary solution \eqref{12Ki} reduces to $q_*(x,\eta) := \frac{1}{2\pi}$.
\end{remark}
\subsection[Dynamics of Critical Fluctuations]{Dynamics of Critical Fluctuations $\left( \theta_c = \left[ \displaystyle{\int \frac{\mu (d\eta)}{1 + 4 (\omega \eta)^2}} \right]^{-1} \right)$}\label{ss6}
The results of this section are concerned with the {\em fluctuation flow}
\begin{equation}
\label{Kfluctflow}
\hat{\rho}_N (t) := \sqrt{N} \left[ \rho_N(t) - q_t \right],
\end{equation}
that takes values on the space of signed measures on $I \times \mathbb{R}$. It is very convenient to assume that the process starts in the particular {\em local equilibrium} $q_0(x,\eta) = q_*(x,\eta) = \frac{1}{2\pi}$, which is the stationary solution of \eqref{9Ki} corresponding to $r_*=0$. The proof of the Central Limit Theorem (Proposition \ref{KCLT}) should be not hard also when $q_*(x,\eta)$ is a {\em sincronous} stationary solution of \eqref{9Ki}, i.e. with $r_* \neq 0$.
The proofs of all results stated here will be given in Section \ref{proofsK}.\\
If $\phi$ is a function from $I \times \mathbb{R}$, we are interested in the evolution of integrals of the type
\[
\int \phi(x,\eta) d\hat{\rho}_N (t) \,.
\]
It is therefore natural to control the action of the generator $L_N$ on functions of $\underline{x}$ and $\eta$ of the form $\psi \left( \int \phi(x,\eta) d\hat{\rho}_N \right),$ with
\[
\hat{\rho}_N := \sqrt{N} \left[ \frac{1}{N} \sum_{j=1}^N \delta_{(x_j,\eta_j)} - q_* \right] = \sqrt{N} \left[ \frac{1}{N} \sum_{j=1}^N \delta_{(x_j,\eta_j)} - \frac{1}{2\pi} \right] .
\]
\begin{proposition}\label{Kpropfluct}
Let $\psi: \mathbb{R}^n \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ be of class $\mathcal{C}^2$, and $\phi \in (\mathcal{C}^2([0,2\pi) \times \{-1,1\}))^n$ be $2\pi$-periodic in the first argument. Then
\begin{multline*}
L_N \psi \left( \int \phi(x, \eta) d\hat{\rho}_N \right) = \sum_{i=1}^n \partial_i \psi \left( \int \phi(x, \eta) d\hat{\rho}_N \right) \bigg[ \int \mathfrak{L} \phi_i(x, \eta) d\hat{\rho}_N \\
+ \frac{\theta}{N^{\frac{1}{2}}} \int \frac{\partial \phi_i}{\partial x} (x, \eta) \sin(y-x) d\hat{\rho}_N d\hat{\rho}_N \bigg]
\end{multline*}
\vspace{-0.62cm}
\begin{multline}\label{Kfluctuations}
+ \frac{1}{2} \sum_{i,k=1}^{n} \partial_{ik}^2 \psi \left( \int \phi(x, \eta) d\hat{\rho}_N \right) \bigg[ \int \frac{\partial \phi_i}{\partial x} (x,\eta) \frac{\partial \phi_k}{\partial x} (x,\eta) dq_* \\
+ \frac{1}{N^\frac{1}{2}} \int \frac{\partial \phi_i}{\partial x} (x,\eta) \frac{\partial \phi_k}{\partial x} (x,\eta) d\hat{\rho}_N \bigg]
\end{multline}
where the operator
\begin{multline}\label{Klin}
\!\!\! \mathfrak{L}\phi(x,\eta) = \frac{1}{2} \frac{\partial^2 \phi}{\partial x^2}(x,\eta) + \omega\eta \frac{\partial \phi}{\partial x}(x,\eta) + \theta \bigg[ \cos x \int \cos y \, \phi(y,\eta)\, dq_* \\
+ \sin x \int \sin y \, \phi(y,\eta) \, dq_* \bigg]
\end{multline}
is the linearization of $\mathcal{L}$, given by \eqref{16Ki}, around the equilibrium distribution $q_*$.
\end{proposition}
Unlike the proof of Proposition \ref{CWpropfluct}, which requires an expansion of the generator, Proposition \ref{Kpropfluct} follows by the direct application of the generator; its proof is omitted. It provides the key computation for the proof of the Central Limit Theorem (Proposition \ref{KCLT} below). In order to simplify the analysis, we make the following assumption on the distribution of the random environment.
\begin{itemize}
\item[{\bf (H1)}]
$\mu= \frac{1}{2} (\delta_{1} + \delta_{-1})$
\end{itemize}
Because of the structure of the system, it is reasonable to focus on functions from $I \times \mathbb{R}$ of the forms $\phi(x,\eta) = \cos(hx)$, $\sin(hx)$, $\eta\cos(hx)$ or $\eta\sin(hx)$, for $h \geq 1$ integer, and thus on the behavior of
\[
X_h^{(1,N)}(t) := \int \cos(hx) d\hat{\rho}_N(t), \quad X_h^{(2,N)}(t) := \int \sin(hx) d\hat{\rho}_N(t),
\]
\[
X_h^{(3,N)}(t) := \int \eta \cos(hx) d\hat{\rho}_N(t) \mbox{ and } X_h^{(4,N)}(t) := \int \eta \sin(hx) d\hat{\rho}_N(t) \,.
\]
Proposition \ref{Kpropfluct}, together with the classical Corollary 8.7, in Chapter 4 of
\cite{EtKu86}, yields the following Central Limit Theorem.
\begin{proposition}\label{KCLT} Assume {\bf (H1)} holds. For $r \geq 1$, consider the following space of sequences
\[
\mathcal{H}_{-r} = \bigg\{{\bf x} = \left( x_h^{(1)}, x_h^{(2)}, x_h^{(3)}, x_h^{(4)} \right)_{h \geq 1} : \| {\bf x } \|_{-r} < +\infty \bigg\},
\]
where
\[
\| {\bf x } \|^2_{-r} :=
\sum_{h=1}^{+\infty} \frac{1}{(1+h^2)^r} \left[ \left\vert x_h^{(1)} \right\vert^2 + \left\vert x_h^{(2)} \right\vert^2
+ \left\vert x_h^{(3)} \right\vert^2 + \left\vert x_h^{(4)} \right\vert^2 \right].
\]
Under $\mathcal{P}_N$, on $\mathcal{H}_{-r}$ the process $\left(X_h^{(1,N)}, X_h^{(2,N)}, X_h^{(3,N)}, X_h^{(4,N)} \right)_{h \geq 1}$ converges in law to the Gaussian process $\left(X_h^{(1)}, X_h^{(2)}, X_h^{(3)}, X_h^{(4)} \right)_{h \geq 1}$ solving the following linear stochastic differential equations
\begin{align*}
dX_h^{(1)}(t) &= \left[ \frac{1}{2} \left( \theta \delta_{1h} - h^2 \right) X_h^{(1)}(t) -h\omega X_h^{(4)}(t) \right] dt + \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} dW_h^{(1)}(t) \\
dX_h^{(2)}(t) &= \left[ \frac{1}{2} \left( \theta \delta_{1h} - h^2 \right) X_h^{(2)}(t) +h\omega X_h^{(3)}(t) \right] dt + \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} dW_h^{(2)}(t) \\
dX_h^{(3)}(t) &= \left[ - \frac{h^2}{2} X_h^{(3)}(t) -h\omega X_h^{(2)}(t) \right] dt + \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} dW_h^{(3)}(t) \\
dX_h^{(4)}(t) &= \left[ - \frac{h^2}{2} X_h^{(4)}(t) +h\omega X_h^{(1)}(t) \right] dt + \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} dW_h^{(4)}(t)
\end{align*}
where $\delta_{1h}$ is Kronecker delta and
\vspace{.2cm}
$\bullet$
$\left(X_h^{(1)}(0), X_h^{(2)}(0), X_h^{(3)}(0), X_h^{(4)}(0) \right)_{h \geq 1}$ is a centered Gaussian vector with \mbox{$\mathrm{Cov} \left( X_h^{(i)}(0), X_k^{(j)}(0) \right) = 0$} for $i \neq j$ or $h \neq k$ and $\mathrm{Var} \left( X_h^{(i)}(0) \right) = \frac{1}{2}$ for any $i,h$.
\vspace{.2cm}
$\bullet$
$\left( W_h^{(1)}, W_h^{(2)}, W_h^{(3)}, W_h^{(4)} \right)_{h \geq 1}$ are independent standard Brownian motions, that are independent of $\left(X_h^{(1)}(0), X_h^{(2)}(0), X_h^{(3)}(0), X_h^{(4)}(0) \right)_{h \geq 1}$.
\end{proposition}
Note that the randomness of the field appears only through the parameter $\omega$ in the dynamics of fluctuations. The only source of stochasticity is due to the Brownian motions.
We now proceed to the analysis of the critical regime, i.e. for $\theta = \theta_c \wedge 2$, where $\theta_c$ is given in (\ref{Kcrtval}) and, under {\bf (H1)}, $\theta_c = 1+4 \omega^2$. We make the following further assumption.
\begin{itemize}
\item[{\bf (H2)}]
$\omega < \frac{1}{2}$.
\end{itemize}
Under assumptions {\bf (H1)-(H2)}, we have sufficient control of the spectrum of $\mathfrak{L}$, as operator in $L^2([0,2\pi) \times \{-1,1\})$. In particular, $\mathfrak{L}$ can be diagonalized in the critical regime, as stated in next Lemma.
\begin{lemma}\label{lmm:specK}
Under assumptions {\bf (H1)-(H2)}, $\ker (\mathfrak{L}) \neq 0$ if and only if $\theta = 1 + 4\omega^2.$ In this last case the spectrum of $\mathfrak{L}$ is given by
\[
\mathrm{Spec}(\mathfrak{L}) = \left\{0, -\frac{1}{2} + 2\omega^2\right\} \cup \left\{-\frac{k^2}{2} \pm i k\omega, \, k \in \mathbb{Z} \setminus \{-1,0,+1\} \right\} \,,
\]
with corresponding eigenspaces
\[
\begin{array}{rcl}
\ker (\mathfrak{L}) & = & {\mbox span}\left(v_1^{(1)},v_1^{(2)} \right) \\
Eig\left( -\frac{1}{2} + 2\omega^2 \right) & = & {\mbox span}\left(v_1^{(3)},v_1^{(4)}\right) \\
Eig\left(-\frac{k^2}{2} + i k\omega\right) & = & {\mbox span}\left(v_k^{(1)},v_k^{(2)}\right) \\
Eig\left(-\frac{k^2}{2} - i k\omega\right) & = & {\mbox span}\left(v_k^{(3)},v_k^{(4)}\right),
\end{array}
\]
where
\begin{equation}\label{basis}
\begin{array}{lll}
v_1^{(1)}(x,\eta) := \cos x - 2 \omega \eta \sin x && v_1^{(2)}(x,\eta) := \sin x + 2 \omega \eta \cos x \\
v_1^{(3)}(x,\eta) := \eta \cos x + 2 \omega \sin x && v_1^{(4)}(x,\eta) := 2 \omega \cos x - \eta \sin x \\
v_k^{(1)}(x,\eta) := \sin (kx) - i \eta \cos (kx) && v_k^{(2)}(x,\eta) := \cos (kx) + i \eta \sin (kx) \\
v_k^{(3)}(x,\eta) := \sin (kx) + i \eta \cos (kx) && v_k^{(4)}(x,\eta) := \cos (kx) - i \eta \sin (kx).
\end{array}
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
In the critical regime $\theta = \theta_c = 1 + 4\omega^2$ the variance of the processes
\[
U^{(1,N)}(t) := X_1^{(1,N)}(t) - 2 \omega X_1^{(4,N)}(t) \mbox{ and } U^{(2,N)}(t) := X_1^{(2,N)}(t) + 2 \omega X_1^{(3,N)}(t) \,,
\]
which are the fluctuations of the empirical averages corresponding to the directions generating the kernel of operator $\mathfrak{L},$ diverge as $t \to +\infty.$ A sharper description of the large time fluctuations is obtained by considering more ``moderate'' fluctuations:
\[
\tilde{\rho}_N := N^{-\frac{1}{4}} \hat{\rho}_N.
\]
We will obtain asymptotics, as $N \rightarrow +\infty$, for the signed measures $\tilde{\rho}_N(\sqrt{N} t)$. Note that these measures are completely characterized by their integrals
\begin{equation} \label{Korderpar}
V_h^{(i,N)} (t) := \int v_h^{(i)}(x,\eta) \, d \tilde{\rho}_N(\sqrt{N} t),
\end{equation}
with $h \geq1$ and $i=1,2,3,4$.
\begin{theorem}\label{Kinhom}
Assume $\theta_c = 1 + 4\omega^2$, and $\omega \leq \frac{1}{2 \sqrt{2}}$.
Under $\mathcal{P}_N$ the processes $\left( V_h^{(i,N)}(t) \right)_{h \geq 2}$, for $i=1,2,3,4,$ and $V_1^{(3,N)}(t), V_1^{(4,N)}(t)$ collapse to zero in the sense of Definition \ref{defcollapse}, while the process $\left( V_1^{(1,N)}(t), V_1^{(2,N)}(t) \right)$ converges weakly to the unique solution $\left(V^{(1)}(t), V^{(2)}(t)\right)$ of the stochastic differential equation
\[ \left\{
\begin{array}{l}
dV^{(1)}(t) = - \frac{(1+4\omega^2)^2(1-8\omega^2)}{4(1-4\omega^2)^3(1+\omega^2)} \, V^{(1)}(t) \, \left[\left( V^{(1)}(t) \right)^2 + \left( V^{(2)}(t) \right)^2 \right] \, dt + \sqrt{\frac{1+4\omega^2}{2}} \, dW^{(1)}(t)\\
\\
dV^{(2)}(t) = - \frac{(1+4\omega^2)^2(1-8\omega^2)}{4(1-4\omega^2)^3(1+\omega^2)} \, V^{(2)}(t) \, \left[\left( V^{(1)}(t) \right)^2 + \left( V^{(2)}(t) \right)^2 \right]\, dt + \sqrt{\frac{1+4\omega^2}{2}} \, dW^{(2)}(t)\\
\\
V^{(1)}(0) = V^{(2)}(0) = 0
\end{array} \right.
\]
where $W^{(1)}$ and $W^{(2)}$ are two independent standard Brownian motions. \\ In the case $ \frac{1}{2 \sqrt{2}} < \omega < \frac{1}{2}$, the process $\left(V^{(1)}(t), V^{(2)}(t)\right)$ explodes in finite time; the convergence above holds for the {\em localized} processes: for every $r>0$, the process $\left( V_1^{(1,N)}(t \wedge T_{N,r}), V_1^{(2,N)}(t \wedge T_{N,r}) \right)$ converges weakly to $\left(V^{(1)}(t \wedge T_r), V^{(2)}(t \wedge T_r)\right)$, where
\[
T_{N,r} := \inf\left\{t>0: \left( V_1^{(1,N)}(t)\right)^2 + \left(V_1^{(2,N)}(t)\right)^2 \geq r \right\}
\]
\[
T_r := \inf\left\{t>0: \left( V^{(1)}(t) \right)^2 + \left( V^{(2)}(t) \right)^2 \geq r \right\} .
\]
\end{theorem}
By Theorem \ref{Kinhom} we can derive the limiting dynamics of the critical fluctuations for the homogeneous model $\mu = \delta_0.$ They can be obtained as a particular case setting $\omega=0$.
\begin{theorem}\label{Khom}
Assume $\theta_c = 1.$ For $h \geq 1$ integer, let
\[
Y_h^{(1,N)}(t) := \int \cos(hx) d\tilde{\rho}_N(\sqrt{N}t) \mbox{ and } Y_h^{(2,N)}(t) := \int \sin(hx) d\tilde{\rho}_N(\sqrt{N}t) \,.
\]
Under $\mathcal{P}_N$ the processes $\left( Y_h^{(i,N)}(t) \right)_{h \geq 2}$, for $i=1,2,$ collapse to zero in the sense of Definition \ref{defcollapse}, while the process $\left( Y_1^{(1,N)}(t), Y_1^{(2,N)}(t) \right)$ converges weakly to the unique solution of the stochastic differential equation
\[ \left\{
\begin{array}{l}
dY^{(1)}(t) = -\frac{1}{4} \, Y^{(1)}(t) \, \left[\left( Y^{(1)}(t) \right)^2 + \left( Y^{(2)}(t) \right)^2 \right] \, dt + \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \, dW^{(1)}(t)\\
\\
dY^{(2)}(t) = -\frac{1}{4} \, Y^{(2)}(t) \, \left[ \left( Y^{(1)}(t) \right)^2 + \left( Y^{(2)}(t) \right)^2 \right]\, dt + \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \, dW^{(2)}(t)\\
\\
Y_1^{(1)}(0) = Y_1^{(2)}(0) =0
\end{array} \right.
\]
where $W^{(1)}$ and $W^{(2)}$ are two independent standard Brownian motions.
\end{theorem}
\section{Collapsing processes}\label{collapsing}
Before giving the details of the proofs of the results stated previously, we briefly present one of the key technical tool: a Lyapunov-like condition, that guarantees a rather strong form of convergence to zero of a sequence of stochastic processes. The first result (Proposition \ref{3}) we state concerns semimartingales driven by Poisson processes, whose proof can be found in the Appendix of \cite{CoEi88}. In the case where the driving noises are Brownian motions, the result takes a slightly simpler form (Proposition \ref{3cont}); its proof is a simple adaptation of the one in \cite{CoEi88}, and it is omitted.
\begin{proposition}\label{3}
Let $\{\xi_n(t)\}_{n \geq 1}$ be a sequence of positive semimartingales on a probability space $(\Omega, \mathscr{A}, \mathscr{P})$, with
\[
d\xi_n(t) = S_n(t)dt + \int_{\mathscr{Y}} f_n(t^-, y) [\Lambda_n(dt,dy) - A_n(t,dy)dt].
\]
Here, $\Lambda_n$ is a Point Process of intensity $A_n(t,dy)dt$ on $\mathbb{R}^+\times \mathscr{Y}$, where $\mathscr{Y}$ is a measurable space, and $S_n(t)$ and $f_n(t)$ are $\mathscr{A}_t$-adapted processes, if we consider $(\mathscr{A}_t)_{t\geq 0}$ a filtration on $(\Omega, \mathscr{A}, \mathscr{P})$ generated by $\Lambda_n$.\\
Let $d>1$ and $C_i$ constants independent of $n$ and $t$. Suppose $\{\kappa_n\}_{n \geq1}$, $\{\alpha_n\}_{n \geq1}$ and $\{\beta_n\}_{n \geq 1}$, increasing sequences with
\begin{equation} \label{con1}\tag{$a1$}
\kappa_n^{\frac{1}{d}}\alpha_n^{-1} \xrightarrow{n\rightarrow +\infty} 0, \, \kappa_n^{-1} \alpha_n \xrightarrow{n\rightarrow +\infty} 0, \, \kappa_n^{-1}\beta_n \xrightarrow{n\rightarrow +\infty} 0
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation} \label{con2}\tag{$a2$}
E \Big[ \Big( \xi_n(0) \Big)^d \Big] \leq C_1 \alpha_n^{-d} \qquad \mbox{for all $n$} \,.
\end{equation}
Furthermore, let $\{\tau_n\}_{n \geq 1}$ be stopping times such that for $t \in [0, \tau_n]$ and $n \geq 1$,
\begin{equation} \label{con3}\tag{$a3$}
S_n(t) \leq -\kappa_n \delta \xi_n(t) + \beta_n C_2 + C_3 \qquad \mbox{with $\delta>0$,}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation} \label{con4}\tag{$a4$}
\sup_{\omega\in\Omega, y\in\mathscr{Y}, t\leq\tau_n}\vert f_n(t,y) \vert \leq C_4 \alpha_{n}^{-1} \, ,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{con5}\tag{$a5$}
\int_{\mathscr{Y}} (f_n(t,y))^2 A_n(t,dy) \leq C_5\, .
\end{equation}
Then, for any $\varepsilon >0$, there exist $C_6>0$ and $n_0$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{3b}
\sup_{n \geq n_0} \mathscr{P} \left\{ \sup_{0 \leq t \leq T \wedge \tau_n} \xi_n (t) > C_6 \left( \kappa_n^{\frac{1}{d}} \alpha_n^{-1} \vee \alpha_n \kappa_n^{-1} \right) \right\} \leq \varepsilon \,.
\end{equation}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proposition}\label{3cont}
Let $\{\xi_n(t)\}_{n \geq 1}$ be a sequence of positive semimartingales on a probability space $(\Omega, \mathscr{A}, \mathscr{P})$, with
\[
d\xi_n(t) = S_n(t)dt + \sum_{i=1}^{m_n} f_n(t,i) dW_i(t)\,.
\]
Here, $\left(W_i \right)_{i=1}^{m_n}$ are independent standard Brownian motions which generate a filtration $\left(\mathscr{A}_t \right)_{t \geq 0}$, and $S_n(t)$ and $f_n(t,i)$ are $\mathscr{A}_t$-adapted processes.\\
Let $d>1$ and $C_i$ constants independent of $n$ and $t$. Suppose $\{\kappa_n\}_{n \geq1}$, $\{\alpha_n\}_{n \geq1}$ and $\{\beta_n\}_{n \geq 1}$, increasing sequences with
\begin{equation} \label{con1cont}\tag{$b1$}
\kappa_n^{\frac{1}{d}}\alpha_n^{-1} \xrightarrow{n\rightarrow +\infty} 0, \, \kappa_n^{-1} \alpha_n \xrightarrow{n\rightarrow +\infty} 0, \, \kappa_n^{-1}\beta_n \xrightarrow{n\rightarrow +\infty} 0
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation} \label{con2cont}\tag{$b2$}
E \Big[ \Big( \xi_n(0) \Big)^d \Big] \leq C_1 \alpha_n^{-d} \qquad \mbox{for all $n$} \,.
\end{equation}
Furthermore, let $\{\tau_n\}_{n \geq 1}$ be stopping times such that for $t \in [0, \tau_n]$ and $n \geq 1$,
\begin{equation} \label{con3cont}\tag{$b3$}
S_n(t) \leq -\kappa_n \delta \xi_n(t) + \beta_n C_2 + C_3 \qquad \mbox{with $\delta>0$,}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{con5cont}\tag{$b4$}
\sum_{i=1}^{m_n} f_n(t,i)^2 \leq C_5\, .
\end{equation}
Then, for any $\varepsilon >0$, there exist $C_6>0$ and $n_0$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{3bcont}
\sup_{n \geq n_0} \mathscr{P} \left\{ \sup_{0 \leq t \leq T \wedge \tau_n} \xi_n (t) > C_6 \left( \kappa_n^{\frac{1}{d}} \alpha_n^{-1} \vee \alpha_n \kappa_n^{-1} \right)\right\} \leq \varepsilon \,.
\end{equation}
\end{proposition}
\section{Proofs for the Random Curie-Weiss Model}\label{proofsCW}
\subsection{Preliminaries}
\paragraph{Proof of Lemma \ref{11CWG}.} An equilibrium probability density for \eqref{9CWG} must satisfy
\[
\nabla^\sigma \left[ e^{ -\beta \sigma \left( m_{q_t} + \eta \right)} q_t(\sigma,\eta)\right] = 0 \,,
\]
which is equivalent to $e^{ -\beta \sigma \left( m_{*} + \eta \right)} q_*(\sigma,\eta) = e^{ \beta \sigma \left( m_{*} + \eta \right)} q_*(-\sigma,\eta),$ where $m_*$ is defined in \eqref{13CWG}. Solving, we obtain
\[
q_*(\sigma,\eta)= e^{ \beta \sigma \left( m_{*} + \eta \right)}\,,
\]
with the normalizing constant
\[
Z_*=\int_{\mathscr{S}} e^{ \beta \sigma \left( m_{*} + \eta \right)} d\sigma = 2 \cosh \left(\beta\left( m_{*} + \eta \right) \right) \,,
\]
and the proof is complete.
\paragraph{Proof of Lemma \ref{16CWG}.} Obviously $\mathfrak{L}$ is a linear and continuous operator. We have to prove that, if $\phi_1, \phi_2 \in L^2(\nu)$, then $\int_{\mathscr{D}} \left( \mathfrak{L} \phi_1(\eta) \right) \phi_2(\eta) \nu(d\eta) = \int_{\mathscr{D}} \phi_1(\eta) \left( \mathfrak{L} \phi_2(\eta) \right) \nu(d\eta)$. Thus,
\begin{allowdisplaybreaks}
\begin{align*}
\int_{\mathscr{D}} & \left( \mathfrak{L} \phi_1(\eta) \right) \phi_2(\eta) \nu(d\eta) \\
&= \int_{\mathscr{D}} \left[ \cosh(\beta (m_* + \eta)) \phi_1(\eta) - \beta \int_{\mathscr{D}} \frac{\phi_1(\eta)}{\cosh(\beta (m_* + \eta))}\mu(d\eta) \right] \phi_2(\eta) \nu(d\eta)\\
&= \int_{\mathscr{D}} \left[ \cosh(\beta (m_* + \eta)) \phi_2(\eta) - \beta \int_{\mathscr{D}} \frac{\phi_2(\eta)}{\cosh(\beta (m_* + \eta))}\mu(d\eta) \right] \phi_1(\eta) \nu(d\eta)\\
&=\int_{\mathscr{D}} \phi_1(\eta) \left( \mathfrak{L} \phi_2(\eta) \right) \nu(d\eta)
\end{align*}
\end{allowdisplaybreaks}\\
and the proof of self-adjointness is completed.
\paragraph{Proof of Lemma \ref{16CWG2}.} To prove positivity of $\mathfrak{L}$ we have to show that if $\phi \in L^2(\nu)$, then \mbox{$\int_{\mathscr{D}} \left(\mathfrak{L} \phi(\eta) \right) \phi(\eta) \nu(d\eta) \geq 0$}. Indeed we have
\begin{allowdisplaybreaks}
\begin{align*}
\int_{\mathscr{D}} \left(\mathfrak{L} \phi(\eta) \right) \phi(\eta) \nu(d\eta) &= \int_{\mathscr{D}} \left[ \cosh(\beta \eta) \phi(\eta) - \beta \int_{\mathscr{D}} \frac{\phi(\eta)}{\cosh(\beta \eta)}\mu(d\eta) \right] \phi(\eta) \nu(d\eta)\\
&= \frac{1}{\beta} \int_{\mathscr{D}} \cosh^2(\beta\eta) \phi^2(\eta) \frac{\beta}{\cosh^2(\beta \eta)} \mu(d\eta) \\
& \qquad - \frac{1}{\beta} \left( \int_{\mathscr{D}} \cosh(\beta \eta) \phi(\eta) \frac{\beta}{\cosh^2(\beta \eta)} \mu(d\eta) \right)^2 \geq 0 \,,
\end{align*}
\end{allowdisplaybreaks}\\
where we have used Jensen's inequality for the probability \mbox{$\displaystyle{\beta}$ $ \frac{\mu(d\eta) }{\cosh^2 (\beta \eta)} $}. Moreover, equality holds true if and only if $\cosh(\beta \eta)\phi(\eta)$ is constant; therefore the null space of the operator $\mathfrak{L}$ is generated by the functions of the form $\phi(\eta)=\frac{1}{\cosh(\beta \eta)}$.
\subsection{Expansions of the Infinitesimal Generator}
\paragraph{Proof of Proposition \ref{CWpropfluct}.}
By direct computation, and Taylor expansion of $\psi$, we obtain
\begin{allowdisplaybreaks}
\begin{align*}
&L_N\psi \left(\int \sigma \phi (\eta) d\hat{\rho}_N \right)\\
&= \sum_{j=1}^N e^{-\beta \sigma_j \left( \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}} \int \sigma d\hat{\rho}_N + m_* + \eta_j\right)} \left[ \psi \left( \int \sigma \phi (\eta) d\hat{\rho}_N - \frac{2\sigma_j }{\sqrt{N}} \phi(\eta_j) \right) - \psi \left( \int \sigma \phi (\eta) d\hat{\rho}_N \right)\right] \\
&= \sum_{j=1}^N \exp \{ -\beta \sigma_j (m_* + \eta_j)\} \left[ 1 + \sum_{h=1}^3 \frac{1}{h!}\left( -\frac{\beta \sigma_j}{\sqrt{N}} \int \sigma d\hat\rho_N\right)^h + o \left( \frac{1}{N^{\frac{3}{2}}}\right) \right] \\
&\qquad \times \left[ - \frac{2\sigma_j}{\sqrt{N}} \sum_{i=1}^{n} \partial_i \psi(\cdot) \phi_i(\eta_j) + \frac{2}{N} \sum_{i,k=1}^{n} \partial^2_{ik} \psi(\cdot) \phi_i(\eta_j) \phi_k(\eta_j) +o \left( \frac{1}{N}\right)\right] \\
& = - \frac{2}{\sqrt{N}} \sum_{i=1}^n \partial_i \psi(\cdot) \left\{ \sum_{j=1}^N \phi_i(\eta_j) [\sigma_j \cosh(\beta (m_* + \eta_j)) - \sinh(\beta (m_* + \eta_j))] \right. \\
&\qquad - \frac{\beta}{\sqrt{N}} \left( \int \sigma d\hat{\rho}_N \right) \sum_{j=1}^N \phi_i(\eta_j) [\cosh(\beta (m_* + \eta_j)) - \sigma_j \sinh(\beta (m_* + \eta_j))] \\
&\qquad + \frac{\beta^2}{2N} \left( \int \sigma d\hat{\rho}_N \right)^2 \sum_{j=1}^N \phi_i(\eta_j) [\sigma_j \cosh(\beta (m_* + \eta_j)) - \sinh(\beta (m_* + \eta_j))] \\
&\qquad \left. - \frac{\beta^3}{6N^{\frac{3}{2}}} \left( \int \sigma d\hat{\rho}_N \right)^3 \sum_{j=1}^N \phi_i(\eta_j) [\cosh(\beta (m_* + \eta_j)) - \sigma_j \sinh(\beta (m_* + \eta_j))] \right\}\\
& + \frac{2}{N} \sum_{i,k=1}^n \partial_{ik}^2 \psi(\cdot) \left\{ \sum_{j=1}^N \phi_i(\eta_j) \phi_k(\eta_j) [\cosh(\beta (m_* + \eta_j)) - \sigma_j \sinh(\beta (m_* + \eta_j))] \right\} + o (1)
\end{align*}
\end{allowdisplaybreaks}\\
We now represent all the terms as integrals with respect to the measure $\hat{\rho}_N$; since
\[
\int \left[-\sigma\cosh(\beta (m_* + \eta)) + \sinh(\beta (m_* + \eta)) \right] \phi_i(\eta) q_*(d\sigma,d\eta) =0
\]
and
\[
\int \left[\cosh(\beta (m_* + \eta)) -\sigma\sinh(\beta (m_* + \eta)) \right] \phi_i(\eta) q_*(d\sigma,d\eta) = \int_{\mathscr{D}}\frac{\phi(\eta)}{\cosh(\beta (m_* + \eta))} \mu(d\eta)\,,\]
we obtain
\begin{allowdisplaybreaks}
\begin{align*}
&L_N\psi \left(\int \sigma \phi (\eta) d\hat{\rho}_N \right) \\
&= 2 \sum_{i=1}^n \partial_i \psi( \cdot) \bigg\{ - \int \sigma \left[ \cosh(\beta (m_* + \eta)) \phi_i(\eta) - \beta \int_{\mathscr{D}} \frac{\phi_i(\eta)}{\cosh(\beta (m_* + \eta))} \mu(d\eta)\right] d\hat{\rho}_N \\
&\qquad + \int \sinh(\beta (m_* + \eta)) \phi_i(\eta) d\hat{\rho}_N \\
&\qquad + \frac{\beta}{\sqrt{N}} \int \sigma d\hat{\rho}_N \int [ \cosh(\beta (m_* + \eta)) - \sigma \sinh(\beta (m_* + \eta)) ] \phi_i(\eta) d\hat{\rho}_N \\
&\qquad - \frac{\beta^2}{2N} \! \left( \int \sigma d\hat{\rho}_N \right)^2 \!\!\! \int [\sigma \cosh(\beta (m_* + \eta)) - \sinh(\beta (m_* + \eta))] \phi_i(\eta) d\hat{\rho}_N \\
&\qquad + \frac{\beta^3}{6N} \left( \int \sigma d\hat{\rho}_N \right)^3 \int_{\mathscr{D}} \frac{\phi_i(\eta)}{\cosh(\beta (m_* + \eta))} \mu(d\eta) \\
&\qquad + \frac{\beta^3}{6N^{\frac{3}{2}}} \left( \int \sigma d\hat{\rho}_N \right)^3 \int [\cosh(\beta (m_* + \eta)) - \sigma \sinh(\beta (m_* + \eta))] \phi_i(\eta) d\hat{\rho}_N \bigg\} \\
&\quad +2 \sum_{i,k=1}^n \partial_{ik}^2 \psi(\cdot) \left\{ \int_{\mathscr{D}} \frac{\phi_i(\eta)\phi_k(\eta)}{\cosh(\beta (m_* + \eta))} \mu(d\eta) \right\} + o (1) \,,
\end{align*}
\end{allowdisplaybreaks}\\
from which \eqref{CWfluctuations} follows. The fact that the remainder $o(1)$ has the form (\ref{CWremform}) and satisfies (\ref{CWrem}) is implied by the Lagrange form of the remainder of the Taylor expansions we have used.
\paragraph{Proof of Proposition \ref{CWpropcritfluct}.}
It is obtained by a simple rescaling of the last expansion of $L_N \psi\left( \int \sigma \phi(\eta)d\tilde{\rho}_N \right)$ seen in the proof of Proposition \ref{CWpropfluct}. The details are omitted.
\subsection{Collapsing Terms}\label{ssCW:Collapse}
For $N \geq 1$, $M>0$ define the family of stopping times
\[
\tau_{N}^M:=\inf_{t \geq 0} \, \bigg \{ \left \vert Y_i^{(N)}(t) \right \vert \geq M \quad \mbox{for at least a value of $i=0, \dots, m-1$} \bigg \},
\]
where the $Y_i^{(N)}$'s have been defined in (\ref{ordparCW}).
In the rest of this section, we often consider the {\em time-rescaled} infinitesimal generator $J_N=N^{\frac{1}{4}} L_N$, where $L_N$ is given by \eqref{CWcritfluctuations}.
Whenever we write
\[
J_N \psi\left(Y_0^{(N)}, Y_1^{(N)}, \ldots, Y_{m-1}^{(N)}\right)(t) \,,
\]
we mean
\[
J_N \psi\left(\int \sigma \varphi_0 d\tilde{\rho}_N, \int \sigma \varphi_1 d\tilde{\rho}_N, \dots, \int \sigma \varphi_{m-1} d\tilde{\rho}_N \right) \left\vert_{\tilde{\rho}_N = \tilde{\rho}_N \left(N^{\frac{1}{4}} t\right)}. \right.
\]
We later consider, for $j \in \mathscr{S}$ and $k \in \mathscr{D}$, the counting process $\Lambda^{\sigma}_N (j,k,t)$ which counts the number of spin flips of spins $\sigma_i$ such that $\sigma_i = j$ and $\eta_i = k$, up to time $N^{\frac{1}{4}} t$.
We consider the following semi-martingale decomposition
\begin{equation}\label{CWmartdec}
d\left(Y_i^{(N)}(t)\right)^2 = J_N \left[\left(Y_i^{(N)}\right)^2 \right](t)\,dt+d\mathcal{M}_{N,Y_i^2}^t \,,
\end{equation}
with $\mathcal{M}_{N,Y_i^2}^t$ the local martingale given by
\begin{equation} \label{CWmartterm}
\mathcal{M}_{N,Y_i^2}^t=\int_0^t\sum_{j\in\mathscr{S}, k \in \mathscr{D}} \overline{\nabla}^{(j)}\left[\left(Y_i^{(N)}(t)\right)^2 \right]\,\widetilde{\Lambda}^\sigma_N(j,k,ds) \,,
\end{equation}
where we have defined
\begin{equation}\label{32CWG}
\overline{\nabla}^{(j)}\left[\left(Y_i^{(N)}(t)\right)^2 \right] := \left( Y_i^{(N)}(t) - j \frac{2\varphi_i(k)}{N^{\frac{3}{4}}} \right)^2 - \left(Y_i^{(N)}(t) \right)^2
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{26CWG}
\widetilde{\Lambda}^\sigma_N(j,k,dt) := \Lambda^\sigma_N(j,k,dt) - \underbrace{N^{\frac{1}{4}} \left\vert A(j,k,N^{\frac{1}{4}}t) \right\vert e^{-\beta j \left(N^{-\frac{1}{4}} \int \sigma d\tilde{\rho}_N(N^{\frac{1}{4}}t) + k \right)} dt}_{:= \lambda^\sigma (j,k,t)\,dt} \,.
\end{equation}
The quantity $\widetilde{\Lambda}^{\sigma}_N(j,k,dt)$ is the difference between the point process $\Lambda^{\sigma}_N(j,k,dt)$, defined on \mbox{$\mathscr{S} \times \mathscr{D} \times \mathbb{R}^+$}, and its intensity \mbox{$\lambda^{\sigma} (j,k,t)\,dt$}.
The quantity $\left\vert A(j,k,N^{\frac{1}{4}}t) \right\vert$ indicates the number of sites $i$ that at time $N^{\frac{1}{4}} t$ have $\sigma_i = j$ and $\eta_i = k$ and it is given by
\begin{multline}\label{41CWG}
\left\vert A(j,k,N^{\frac{1}{4}}t) \right\vert = \frac{N}{4} \left[ 1 + \frac{1}{kN^{\frac{1}{4}}} \int \eta d\tilde{\rho}_N(t) + \frac{j}{N^{\frac{1}{4}}} \int \sigma d\tilde{\rho}_N(t) \right. \\
\left. + \frac{j}{k} \left( \frac{1}{N^{\frac{1}{4}}} \int \sigma \eta d\tilde{\rho}_N(t) - \int_{\mathscr{D}} \eta \tanh(\beta \eta) \mu(d\eta) \right) \right]\,.
\end{multline}
\begin{remark}
If we call $(\mathcal{A}_t)_{t\geq0}$ the filtration generated by $\Lambda^\sigma_N$, then the processes $J_N \left[ \left(Y_i^{(N)}(t) \right)^2 \right]$ and $\overline{\nabla}^{(j)} \left[ \left(Y_i^{(N)}(t) \right)^2 \right]$ are $\mathcal{A}_t-$adapted processes.
\end{remark}
For every index $i=1, \dots, m-1$, the following result holds. Note that it is stronger than the collapse of the processes $\left(Y_i^{(N)}\right)_{i=1}^{m-1}$, in the sense of Definition \ref{defcollapse}.
\begin{lemma}\label{33CWG}
Fix $d>2$, and assume the assumptions of Theorem \ref{CWinhom} are satisfied. Then, for every $\varepsilon >0$ there exist $N_0$ such that for every $M >0$ there is a constant $C_6>0$ for which
\begin{equation}\label{39CWG}
\sup_{N\geq N_{0}} P\left\{\sup_{0\leq t\leq T\wedge\tau_N^M} \left( Y_i^{(N)}(t) \right)^2 > C_{6}\,N^{-\frac{1}{8} \left( 1 - \frac{2}{d} \right)}\right\}\leq\varepsilon \,.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The main tool is Proposition \ref{3}. However, some assumptions in Proposition \ref{3} are not satisfied uniformly in the environment. We therefore will condition on the event
\[
A_K := \left\{ \underline{\eta} \in \mathscr{D}^N : \left| \int \sinh(\beta \eta) \varphi_i(\eta) d\hat{\rho}_N \right| + \left| \int \cosh(\beta \eta) \varphi_i(\eta) d\hat{\rho}_N \right| \leq K \right\}.
\]
The random field $\underline{\eta}$ is i.i.d., so it satisfies a standard Central Limit Theorem. Therefore, we can choose $K>0$ such that for every $N \geq 1$,
\[
P(A_K^c) \leq \frac{\varepsilon}{2}.
\]
Constants below are allowed to depend on $K$; this dependence is omitted.
We are left to show that, for every $M>0$ there is $C_6 >0$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{39CWGcond}
\sup_{N\geq N_{0}} P_K \left\{\sup_{0\leq t\leq T\wedge\tau_N^M} \left( Y_i^{(N)}(t) \right)^2 > C_{6}\,N^{-\frac{1}{8} \left( 1 - \frac{2}{d} \right)}\right\}\leq\frac{\varepsilon}{2} \,,
\end{equation}
where $P_K( \, \cdot \,) := P(\, \cdot \, | A_K)$. To prove (\ref{39CWGcond}) we check the conditions in Proposition \ref{3}.
\noindent
{\em Step 1}. We set $\kappa_N := N^{\frac{1}{4}}$, $\alpha_N := N^{\frac{1}{8}}$, $\beta_N \equiv 1$. Clearly
(\ref{con1}) in Proposition \ref{3} holds.
\noindent
{\em Step 2}. We check (\ref{con2}) of Proposition \ref{3}, i.e.
\begin{equation}\label{35CWG}
E\left[\left( Y_i^{(N)}(0) \right)^{2d}\right]\leq C_{1}\,N^{-\frac{d}{4}} \quad \mbox{for all $N$.}
\end{equation}
We start noticing that a Central Limit Theorem applies to the processes $\int \sigma \varphi_i (\eta) \, d\rho_N(0)$, since the random variables $(\sigma_j(0), \varphi_i(\eta_j))_{j=1}^N$ are independent; so, in the limit as $N \rightarrow +\infty$, $N^{\frac{1}{4}} Y_i^{(N)}(0)$ converges to a Gaussian random variable and, since $(\sigma_j(0) \varphi_i(\eta_j))_{j=1}^N$ are bounded random variables, there is convergence of all the moments. In particular (\ref{35CWG}) holds.
\noindent
{\em Step 3}. We check (\ref{con3}) of Proposition \ref{3}, i.e.
\begin{equation}\label{36CWG}
J_N \left[ \left( Y_i^{(N)} \right)^2 \right](t) \leq -N^{\frac{1}{4}}\delta \left( Y_i^{(N)}(t) \right)^2 +C_{2} \, ,
\end{equation}
for suitable constants $\delta,C_2 >0$, which are allowed to depend on $M$, and all \mbox{$t \in [0,\tau_N^M]$} (we recall that $\beta_N \equiv 1$). Letting $X := - \frac{\beta}{N^{\frac{1}{4}}} \int \sigma d\tilde{\rho}_N $, we write
\[
\exp[\pm X] = 1 \pm X + R_{\pm}.
\]
Using this expansion we can perform the computation as in Proposition \ref{CWpropcritfluct}, but keeping track of the remainders :
\begin{multline*}
\!\!\!\!\! \mbox{$\displaystyle{J_N\left[ \left( Y_i^{(N)} \right)^2 \right]}$}
\end{multline*}
\vspace{-0.62cm}
\begin{multline*}
= N^{\frac{1}{4}}\sum_{j=1}^N \left[\cosh(\beta \eta_j) - \sigma_j \sinh(\beta \eta_j) \right] \exp\left[- \frac{\beta}{N^{\frac{1}{4}}} \! \int \sigma d\tilde{\rho}_N \right] \\
\times \left[\left( Y_i^{(N)} - \frac{2 \sigma_j}{N^{\frac{3}{4}}} \varphi_i(\eta_j)\right)^2 - \left( Y_i^{(N)} \right)^2 \right] \end{multline*}
\vspace{-0.62cm}
\begin{multline*}
= N^{\frac{1}{4}}\sum_{j=1}^N \left[\cosh(\beta \eta_j) - \sigma_j \sinh(\beta \eta_j) \right] \left(1-\frac{\beta \sigma_j}{N^{\frac{1}{4}}} \int \sigma d\tilde{\rho}_N + R_{\sigma_j} \right) \\
\times \left[ -4Y_i^{(N)} \frac{\sigma_j \varphi_i(\eta_j)}{N^{\frac{3}{4}}} + \frac{4 \varphi_i^2(\eta_j)}{N^{\frac{3}{2}}} \right] \end{multline*}
\vspace{-0.62cm}
\begin{multline}
= -4 N^{\frac{1}{4}} Y_i^{(N)} \int \sigma \mathfrak{L} \varphi_i d\tilde{\rho}_N + 4 Y_i^{(N)} \int \sinh(\beta \eta) \varphi_i(\eta) d\hat{\rho}_N \\
- 4 Y_i^{(N)} \beta \int \sigma d\tilde{\rho}_N \int \sigma \sinh(\beta \eta) \varphi_i (\eta) d\tilde{\rho}_N \\
+ 4 Y_i^{(N)} \frac{\beta}{N^{\frac{1}{4}}}\int \sigma d\tilde{\rho}_N \int \cosh(\beta \eta) \varphi_i(\eta) d\hat{\rho}_N \\
+ \frac{4}{N^{\frac{5}{4}}} \sum_{j=1}^N\left[\cosh(\beta \eta_j) + \sigma_j \sinh(\beta \eta_j)\right] \varphi_i^2(\eta_j) \\
+ \frac{4\beta}{N^{\frac{3}{2}}}\int \sigma d\tilde{\rho}_N \sum_{j=1}^N\left[\cosh(\beta \eta_j) + \sigma_j \sinh(\beta \eta_j)\right] \sigma_j \varphi_i^2(\eta_j) \\
+ N^{\frac{1}{4}}\sum_{j=1}^N\left[\cosh(\beta \eta_j) + \sigma_j \sinh(\beta \eta_j)\right] \left[-4 Y_i^{(N)} \frac{\sigma_j \varphi_i(\eta_j)}{N^{\frac{3}{4}}} + \frac{4 \varphi_i^2(\eta_j)}{N^{\frac{3}{2}}} \right] R_{\sigma_j}. \label{expstep3}
\end{multline}
The first term of this last expression is
\[
-4 N^{\frac{1}{4}} Y_i^{(N)} \int \sigma \mathfrak{L} \varphi_i d\tilde{\rho}_N = -4 \lambda_i N^{\frac{1}{4}} \left(Y_i^{(N)}\right)^2.
\]
We are left to show that all remaining terms are bounded, for $t \in [0,\tau_N^M]$, $\underline{\eta} \in A_K$ and assuming that in (\ref{expstep3}), $\tilde{\rho}_N$ is evaluated at time $N^{\frac{1}{4}} t$. We immediately have
\[
\left| Y_i^{(N)}(t) \right| \leq M, \ \ \left| \int \sinh(\beta \eta) \varphi_i(\eta) d\hat{\rho}_N \right| + \left| \int \cosh(\beta \eta) \varphi_i(\eta) d\hat{\rho}_N \right| \leq K.
\]
All remaining terms in (\ref{expstep3}) are of the form
\[
\int \sigma f(\eta) d\tilde{\rho}_N(N^{\frac{1}{4}} t),
\]
for some real valued $f$. Since $(\varphi_h)_{h=0}^{m-1}$ form a basis for the vector space of these functions, we can write
\[
f = \sum_{h=0}^{m-1} \alpha_h \varphi_h.
\]
Thus
\[
\left|\int \sigma f(\eta) d\tilde{\rho}_N(N^{\frac{1}{4}} t) \right| \leq \sum_{h=0}^{m-1} \left|\alpha_h \right| \left| Y_h^{(N)}(t)\right| \leq CM,
\]
where $C$ depend on $m$, on the combinators $\alpha_h$, but not on $N$. As a consequence
\[
| R_{\pm}| \leq \sup\left\{ e^z: |z| \leq \frac{\beta}{N^{\frac{1}{4}}} \left| \int \sigma d\tilde{\rho}_N \right| \right\} \frac{\beta^2}{2N^{\frac{1}{2}}} \left( \int \sigma d\tilde{\rho}_N \right)^2 \leq \frac{\beta^2 M^2}{2N^{\frac{1}{2}}} e^{\beta M}.
\]
With all this, (\ref{expstep3}) implies
\[
J_N\left[ \left( Y_i^{(N)} \right)^2 \right] \leq -4 \lambda_i N^{\frac{1}{4}} \left(Y_i^{(N)}\right)^2 + C(M)
\]
for some $M$-dependent constant $C(M)$.
\noindent
{\em Step 4}. We check (\ref{con4}) of Proposition \ref{3}, i.e. (see equation (\ref{CWmartterm}))
\begin{equation}\label{37CWG}
\sup_{\omega\in\Omega, j\in\mathscr{S}, t\leq\tau_N^M} \left\vert \overline{\nabla}^{(j)} \left[\left( Y_i^{(N)}(t) \right)^2 \right] \right\vert \leq C_{4}\, N^{-\frac{1}{8}} \, .
\end{equation}
For $t\leq\tau_N^M$, we easily have
\begin{align*}
\left\vert \overline{\nabla}^{(j)}\left[ \left( Y_i^{(N)}(t) \right)^2 \right] \right\vert &= \left\vert \left[ \frac{4\varphi_i^2(k)}{N^{\frac{3}{2}}} - j \frac{4 \varphi_i(k) Y_i^{(N)} }{N^{\frac{3}{4}}} \right] \right\vert \\
& \leq \frac{4}{N^{\frac{3}{4}}} (1+M) \sup_{k \in \mathscr{D}} \{ \varphi^2_i(k) + \vert \varphi_i(k) \vert \} \leq C_4 N^{-\frac{1}{8}} \,,
\end{align*}
\noindent
{\em Step 5}. We check (\ref{con5}) of Proposition \ref{3}, i.e. (see equation (\ref{26CWG}))
\begin{equation}\label{38CWG}
\sum_{j\in\mathscr{S},k\in\mathscr{D}}\left[ \overline{\nabla}^{(j)} \left[ \left( Y_i^{(N)}(t) \right)^2 \right] \right]^2\,\lambda^{\sigma}(j,k,t) \leq C_{5}.
\end{equation}
Recalling the definitions of $\overline{\nabla}^{(j)} \left[ \left( Y_i^{(N)} (t) \right)^2 \right]$ and $\lambda(j,k,t)$, which can be found in \eqref{32CWG} and in \eqref{26CWG}, we have
\begin{multline*}
\sum_{j\in\mathscr{S},k\in\mathscr{D}}\left[ \overline{\nabla}^{(j)} \left[ \left( Y_i^{(N)}(t) \right)^2 \right] \right]^2\,\lambda^{\sigma}(j,k,t) \\
\!\!\!\! = N^{\frac{1}{4}} \sum_{j \in \mathscr{S}, k \in \mathscr{D}} \vert A(j,k,N^{\frac{1}{4}}t)\vert e^{-\beta j \left(N^{-\frac{1}{4}} \int \sigma d\tilde{\rho}_N(N^{\frac{1}{4}} t) + k \right)} \\
\times \left[ \left(Y_i^{(N)}(t) - j \frac{2\varphi_i(k)}{N^{\frac{3}{4}}} \right)^2 - \left( Y_i^{(N)}(t) \right)^2 \right]^2
\end{multline*}
Boundedness of this last expression for $t \in [0,\tau_N^M]$, $\underline{\eta} \in A_K$ follows readily by boundedness of $Y_i^{(N)}(t)$ and $\int \sigma d\tilde{\rho}_N(N^{\frac{1}{4}} t)$ (see step 3), and the fact that \mbox{$\vert A(j,k,N^{\frac{1}{4}}t)\vert \leq N$}.
\noindent
{\em Step 6}. Conclusion. It is now enough to use (\ref{3b}).
\end{proof}
The next step is to prove, for every $\epsilon >0$ and $N \geq 1$, the existence of a constant $M>0$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{CWtau}
P\left\{\tau_{N}^M\leq T \right\} \leq \epsilon \,.
\end{equation}
This fact, together with Lemma \ref{33CWG}, implies the processes $Y_1^{(N)}(t),\dots,Y_{m-1}^{(N)}(t)$ converge to zero in probability, as $N$ grows to infinity, for $t$ in the whole time interval $[0,T]$. As in (\ref{39CWGcond}), we can replace $P$ by $P_K$ for a sufficiently large $K$. The idea is to consider a martingale decomposition as in (\ref{CWmartdec}) for $\psi\left(Y_0^{(N)} \right)$, where $\psi \in {\cal{C}}^1$ has bounded first derivative, and is such that $|x|>M$ implies $\psi(x)>M$; for instance, $\psi(x) = \sqrt{1+x^2}$. We obtain
\begin{equation}\label{CWmartdec1}
\psi\left(Y_0^{(N)}(t) \right) = \psi\left(Y_0^{(N)}(0) \right) + \int_0^t J_N \psi\left(Y_0^{(N)} \right) (s) ds + \mathcal{M}^t_{N,\psi},
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}\label{CWmartterm1}
\mathcal{M}^t_{N,\psi} = \int_0^t \sum_{j \in \mathscr{S}, k \in \mathscr{D}} \left[\psi \left( Y_0^{(N)}(s) - j \frac{2 \varphi_0(k)}{N^{\frac{3}{4}}} \right) - \psi\left(Y_0^{(N)}(s) \right) \right] \widetilde{\Lambda}^\sigma_N(j,k,ds)
\end{equation}
with $\widetilde{\Lambda}^\sigma_N$ as in (\ref{26CWG}). The point now is to get bounds on $ J_N \psi\left(Y_0^{(N)}\right)$. We proceed as in (\ref{expstep3}); the only difference is in the ``gradient term'', which is now
\[
\psi \left( Y_0^{(N)}(s) - \sigma_j \frac{2 \varphi_0(\eta_j)}{N^{\frac{3}{4}}} \right) - \psi\left(Y_0^{(N)}(s) \right) = - \psi' \left(Y_0^{(N)}(s) \right)\sigma_j \frac{2 \varphi_0(\eta_j)}{N^{\frac{3}{4}}} + \mathcal{R}_N
\]
with $\mathcal{R}_N \leq \frac{C}{N^{\frac{3}{2}}}$. Proceeding as in (\ref{expstep3}), it is easily seen that
\begin{multline} \label{exptau}
\!\! J_N \psi\left(Y_0^{(N)}\right) = 2 \psi' \left(Y_0^{(N)} \right) \int \sinh(\beta \eta) \varphi_0(\eta) d\hat{\rho}_N \\ - 2 \psi' \left(Y_0^{(N)}\right) \beta \int \sigma d\tilde{\rho}_N \int \sigma \sinh(\beta \eta) \varphi_0 (\eta) d\tilde{\rho}_N + O_M\left(N^{\frac{1}{4}}\right),
\end{multline}
where $O_M\left(N^{\frac{1}{4}}\right)$ includes all term that, for $t \leq \tau_M^N$, are bounded by $\frac{C(M)}{N^{\frac{1}{4}}}$. The absolute value of the term
\[
2 \psi' \left(Y_0^{(N)} \right) \int \sinh(\beta \eta) \varphi_0(\eta) d\hat{\rho}_N
\]
is bounded by $CK$, since $ \psi'$ is bounded, and $\underline{\eta} \in A_K$. For the term
\[
- 2 \psi' \left(Y_0^{(N)}\right) \beta \int \sigma d\tilde{\rho}_N \int \sigma \sinh(\beta \eta) \varphi_0 (\eta) d\tilde{\rho}_N
\]
one should notice that $\sinh(\beta \eta) \varphi_0 (\eta)$ is orthogonal to $\varphi_0(\eta)$ in $L^2(\nu)$. This implies that $\int \sigma \sinh(\beta \eta) \varphi_0 (\eta) d\tilde{\rho}_N$ is a linear combination of $Y_1^{(N)}, Y_2^{(N)}, \ldots, Y_{m-1}^{(N)}$. Due to (\ref{39CWGcond}), we can choose a constant $C(M)$ for which this term is bounded by
\[
C(M) N^{-\frac{1}{4} \left(1-\frac{2}{d}\right)}
\]
for $t \leq \tau_M^N$, with probability greater that $1-\frac{\varepsilon}{4}$. Denote by $B_{\varepsilon}$ the event that this bound holds true. Putting all together, we have therefore proved that in $A_K \cap B_{\varepsilon}$ and $t \leq \tau_M^N$,
\[
\left| J_N \psi\left(Y_0^{(N)}\right) \right| \leq CK + \frac{C(M)}{ N^{\frac{1}{4} \left(1-\frac{2}{d}\right)}}.
\]
This means that, by (\ref{CWmartdec1}), the inequality
\[
\sup_{0\leq t \leq T\wedge\tau_{N}^M} \left\vert Y_0^{(N)}(t) \right\vert \geq M
\]
implies, for $N$ and $M$ large enough, that either
\[
\left|Y_0^{(N)}(0)\right| \geq cM
\]
or
\[
\sup_{0\leq t \leq T\wedge\tau_{N}^M} \left| \mathcal{M}^t_{N,\psi} \right| \geq cM
\]
for some $c>0$.
Thus,
\begin{allowdisplaybreaks}
\begin{align*}
\{\tau_{N}^M \leq T\}&\subseteq \bigg\{\sup_{0\leq t \leq T\wedge\tau_{N}^M} \left \{\left\vert Y_0^{(N)}(t) \right \vert, \dots, \left\vert Y_{m-1}^{(N)}(t) \right\vert \right \} \geq M\bigg\}\\
&\subseteq \bigcup_{i=1}^{m-1} \bigg\{\sup_{0\leq t \leq T\wedge\tau_{N}^M} \left\vert Y_i^{(N)}(t) \right\vert \geq M\bigg\} \cup \left\{ \left\vert Y_0^{(N)}(0) \right \vert \geq c M \right\} \cup\\
& \hspace{100pt} \cup \bigg\{\sup_{0\leq t \leq T\wedge\tau_{N}^M} \left \vert M_{N, \psi}^t \right\vert \geq cM \bigg\} \cup A_K^c \cup B_{\varepsilon}^c
\end{align*}
\end{allowdisplaybreaks}\\
and we obtain the following inequality for the probability of the interested set
\begin{allowdisplaybreaks}
\begin{multline*}
P\{\tau_{N}^M \leq T\} \leq \frac{3}{4}\varepsilon + \sum_{i=1}^{m-1} P\bigg\{\sup_{0\leq t \leq T\wedge\tau_{N}^M} \left\vert Y_i^{(N)}(t) \right\vert \geq M\bigg\} \\
+ P \left\{ \left\vert Y_0^{(N)}(0) \right \vert \geq cM \right\} + P\bigg\{\sup_{0\leq t \leq T\wedge\tau_{N}^M} \left \vert M_{N, \psi}^t \right\vert \geq cM \bigg\} \,.
\end{multline*}
\end{allowdisplaybreaks}
We estimate the three terms of the right-hand side of the inequality.
\begin{itemize}
\item For every $i=1,\dots,m-1$, thanks to \eqref{39CWG} we have
\[
P\bigg\{\sup_{0\leq t \leq T\wedge\tau_{N}^M} \left\vert Y_i^{(N)}(t) \right\vert \geq M \bigg\}\leq\frac{\varepsilon}{12} \,,
\]
where for $M$ large enough.
\item Since at time \mbox{$t=0$} the spins are distributed according to a product measure, $Y_0^{(N)}(0)$ is $N^{\frac{1}{4}}$ times the sample average of independent, bounded random variables of mean zero. Therefore, for some constant $C>0$,
\[
E \left[ \left \vert Y_0^{(N)}(0) \right \vert \right] \leq \frac{C}{N^{\frac{1}{4}}}
\]
and in the limit as $N \rightarrow +\infty$, we have convergence to zero in $L^1$ and then in probability. Therefore
\[
P \left\{ \left \vert Y_0^{(N)}(0) \right \vert \geq c M \right \} \leq \frac{\varepsilon}{12}
\]
for $N$ sufficiently large.
\item We reduce to deal with $E \left[ \left( \mathcal{M}_{N, \psi}^T \right)^2 \right]$; in fact, by Doob's maximal inequality for martingales (we refer to Chapter VII, Section 3 of ~\cite{Shi96}) we have
\[
P \left \{\sup_{0\leq t \leq T\wedge\tau_{N}^M} \left \vert \mathcal{M}_{N, \psi}^t \right \vert \geq cM \right\} \leq \frac{E \left[ \left( \mathcal{M}_{N,\psi}^T \right)^2 \right]}{(cM)^2} \,.
\]
It is therefore enough to show that $E \left[ \left( \mathcal{M}_{N,\psi}^T \right)^2 \right]$ is bounded uniformly on $N$ and $M$. By (\ref{CWmartterm1}) and since $\psi$ is Lipschitz, we have (see also (\ref{26CWG}))
\begin{equation}\label{CWmartbound}
E \left[ \left( \mathcal{M}_{N,\psi}^T \right)^2 \right] \leq \frac{C}{N^{\frac{3}{2}}} E \left[ \int_0^T \sum_{j \in \mathscr{S}, k \in \mathscr{D}} \lambda^{\sigma} (j,k,t) dt \right].
\end{equation}
Since, by (\ref{26CWG}), $ \lambda^{\sigma} (j,k,t) \leq CN^{\frac{5}{4}}$ for some constant $C$, the boundedness of $E \left[ \left( \mathcal{M}_{N,\psi}^T \right)^2 \right]$ is established, and the proof of (\ref{CWtau}) is completed.
\end{itemize}
\subsection{Identification of the Limiting Generator and Convergence}\label{ssCW:Convergence}
We are going to show that, in the limit of infinite volume and $t \in [0,T]$, the process $Y_0^{(N)}(t)$ admits a limit in distribution, that we will be able to identify.\\
First, we need to prove the tightness of the sequence $\left\{Y_0^{(N)}(t) \right\}_{N \geq 1}$. This property implies the existence of convergent subsequences. Secondly, we will verify that all the convergent subsequences have the same limit and hence also the sequence $\left\{ Y_0^{(N)}(t) \right\}_{N \geq 1}$ must converge to that limit.
\begin{lemma}\label{27CWG}
The sequence $\left \{ Y_0^{(N)}(t) \right\}_{N \geq 1}$ is tight.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Following \cite{CoEi88}, we use the following \emph{tightness criterion}:\\
a sequence of processes $\{\xi_N(t)\}_{N \geq 1}$ on $\mathcal{D}[0,T]$ is tight if
\begin{enumerate}
\item for every $\varepsilon>0$ there exists $M>0$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{T1}
\sup_{N}P\bigg\{\sup_{t\in[0,T]} \vert \xi_N(t)\vert \geq M\bigg\} \leq \varepsilon \,,
\end{equation}
\item for every $\varepsilon>0$ and $\alpha >0$ there exists $\delta > 0$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{T2}
\sup_{N}\sup_{0\leq \tau_1 \leq \tau_2 \leq (\tau_1 + \delta) \wedge T }P\{\vert \xi_N(\tau_2) - \xi_N(\tau_1) \vert \geq \alpha\} \leq \varepsilon \, ,
\end{equation}
where the second $\sup$ is over stopping times $\tau_1$ and $\tau_2$, adapted to the filtration generated by the process $\xi_N$.
\end{enumerate}
We must verify the conditions \eqref{T1} and \eqref{T2} hold. Since we have already proved that for every $\epsilon>0$ the inequality $P \{ \tau_N^M \leq T \} \leq \epsilon$ is true for $M$ sufficiently large and uniformly in $N$, it is enough to show tightness for the stopped processes
\[
\left\{ Y_0^{(N)}(t \wedge \tau_N^M) \right \}_{N \geq 1} \,.
\]
We have already shown that, for $M$ large enough
\[
P\left\{ \sup_{0\leq t \leq T\wedge\tau_{N}^M} \left\vert Y_0^{(N)}(t) \right\vert \geq M \right\} \leq \varepsilon
\]
which yields \eqref{T1}. To obtain \eqref{T2}, we notice that
\begin{equation}\label{CWti1}
\left\vert Y_0^{(N)}(\tau_2) - Y_0^{(N)}(\tau_1) \right\vert = \left\vert \int_{\tau_1}^{\tau_2} J_N \left( Y_0^{(N)}(u) \right) du + \mathcal{M}_{N, Y_0 }^{\tau_1,\tau_2} \right\vert \,,
\end{equation}
where we have denoted
\[
\mathcal{M}_{N, Y_0 }^{\tau_1,\tau_2} = -\frac{2}{N^{\frac{3}{4}}}\int_{\tau_1}^{\tau_2} \sum_{j \in \mathscr{S}, k \in \mathscr{D}} j \varphi_0(k) \, \widetilde{\Lambda}_N^\sigma(j,k,du)
\]
and $\widetilde{\Lambda}_N^\sigma$ is as in \eqref{26CWG}. As in the proof of Lemma \ref{33CWG}, one shows that both $ J_N \left( Y_0^{(N)}\right)$ and the quadratic variation of $\mathcal{M}_{N, Y_0 }^{\tau_1,\tau_2} $ are uniformly bounded in $N$, from which \eqref{T2} follows for the processes $\left\{ Y_0^{(N)}(t \wedge \tau_N^M) \right \}_{N \geq 1}$.
\end{proof}
Lemma \ref{27CWG} implies that there exist convergent subsequences for the sequence $\left\{ Y_0^{(N)}(t) \right\}_{N \geq 1}$. With abuse of notation, let $\left\{ Y_0^{(n)}(t) \right\}_{n \geq 1}$ denote one of such a subsequence and let $\psi \in \mathcal{C}_b^2$. The following decomposition holds
\begin{equation}\label{28CWG}
\psi \left( Y_0^{(n)}(t) \right) - \psi \left( Y_0^{(n)}(0) \right) = \int_0^t J_n \psi \left( Y_0^{(n)}(u) \right)du + \mathcal{M}_{n,\psi}^t \,,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{multline*}
J_n \psi \left( Y_0^{(n)}(t) \right) =2 \psi'\left( Y_0^{(n)}(t) \right) \left\{ n^{\frac{1}{4}} \int \tanh(\beta\eta) d\tilde{\rho}_n(t) \right. \\
+ \left. \beta \int \sigma d\tilde{\rho}_n(t) \int d\tilde{\rho}_n(t) - \beta \int \sigma d\tilde{\rho}_n(t) \int \sigma \tanh(\beta \eta) d\tilde{\rho}_n(t) \right\} + o_M(1).
\end{multline*}
The remainder $o_M(1)$ goes to zero as $n \rightarrow +\infty$, for $t \leq \tau_n^M$.
If we compute the limit as $n\rightarrow +\infty$, using the facts that a Central Limit Theorem applies to the term $\int \tanh(\beta\eta) d\tilde{\rho}_n(t)$, the integral $\int d\tilde{\rho}_n(t)$ is zero since $\widetilde{\rho}_n$ is a centered measure, and the process $\int \sigma \tanh(\beta \eta) d\tilde{\rho}_n(t)$ collapse since $\tanh(\beta \eta)$ and $\varphi_0(\eta) = \frac{1}{\cosh(\beta \eta)}$ are orthogonal in $L^2 \left( \nu \right)$, we have, in the sense of weak convergence of processes:
\[
J_n \psi\left( Y_0^{(n)}(t \wedge \tau_n^M) \right) \xrightarrow[\quad w \quad]{n\rightarrow +\infty} J \psi(Y_0(t\wedge \tau_n^M))
\quad \mbox{with} \quad
J \psi(Y_0(t)) = 2 \, \mathscr{H} \, \psi'(Y_0(t))
\]
and where $\mathscr{H}$ is a Gaussian random variable. Then, because of \eqref{28CWG} and \eqref{CWtau}, we obtain
\[
\mathcal{M}_{n,\psi}^t \xrightarrow[\quad w \quad]{n \rightarrow +\infty} \mathcal{M}_{\psi}^t := \psi(Y_0(t)) - \psi(Y_0(0)) - \int_0^t J \psi(Y_0(u))du \, ,\]
for $t \in [0,T]$.
We must prove the following Lemma:
\begin{lemma}\label{31CWG}
$\mathcal{M}_\psi^t$ is a martingale (with respect to $t$); in other words, for all $s,t \in [0,T]$, $s\leq t$ and for all measurable and bounded functions $g(Y_0([0,s]))$ the following identity holds:
\begin{equation}\label{29CWG}
E[ \mathcal{M}_{\psi}^t g(Y_0([0,s]))] = E[ \mathcal{M}_{\psi}^s g(Y_0([0,s]))] \,.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We begin by showing that \eqref{29CWG} follows from the fact, that will be proved later, that for every $t$ fixed,
$ \{ \mathcal{M}_{n,\psi}^t \}_{n \geq 1}$ is a uniformly integrable sequence of random variables.\\
Since $\mathcal{M}_{n,\psi}^t$ is a martingale (with respect to $t$) for every $n$, we have that for all $s,t \in [0,T]$, $s\leq t$ and for all measurable and bounded functions $g(Y_0([0,s]))$
\begin{equation}\label{CWnmartlim}
E[ \mathcal{M}_{n,\psi}^t g(Y_0([0,s]))] = E[ \mathcal{M}_{n,\psi}^s g(Y_0([0,s]))].
\end{equation}
Now, as we have seen, $\mathcal{M}_{n,\psi}^t$ and $\mathcal{M}_{n,\psi}^s$ have a weak limit; this, together with uniform integrability, imply convergence in $L^1$. Thus \eqref{29CWG} follows by taking limit in \eqref{CWnmartlim}.
\\
It remains to check that $\{ \mathcal{M}_{n,\psi}^t \}_{n \geq 1}$ is a uniformly integrable family. A sufficient condition for uniform integrability is that $\sup_n E[\vert \mathcal{M}_{n,\psi}^t \vert ^2]< +\infty$ (see again ~\cite{Shi96}). \\ This, however, is exactly what we have done already in \eqref{CWmartbound}.
\end{proof}
\paragraph{Proof of Theorem \ref{CWinhom}.}
We have shown that any weak limit of $Y_0^{(n)}(\, \cdot \,)$ solves the martingale problem with infinitesimal generator $J$, which admits a unique solution. It follows that all convergent subsequences have the same limit and so the sequence itself converges to that limit.
\section{Proofs for the Random Kuramoto Model}\label{proofsK}
Throughout this section we assume $\omega \leq \frac{1}{2 \sqrt{2}}$, even though this assumption will be relevant only starting from Section \ref{ssK:Collapse}. Whenever needed, we will comment on the necessary changes to cover the case $ \frac{1}{2 \sqrt{2}} < \omega < \frac{1}{2}$.
\subsection{Preliminaries}
\paragraph{Proof of Lemma \ref{lmm:specK}.} If $\varphi(\cdot,\cdot)$ belongs to the null space of $\mathfrak{L}$, then $\mathfrak{L} \varphi=0$. Therefore, we require that
\begin{multline}\label{31Ki}
\frac{1}{2} \frac{\partial^2 \varphi}{\partial x^2}(x,\eta) + \omega\eta \frac{\partial \varphi}{\partial x}(x,\eta) + (1+4\omega^2) \bigg[ \cos x \, \frac{1}{2\pi} \int \cos y \, \varphi(y,\varsigma) \, q_*(dy,d\varsigma) \\
+ \sin x \, \frac{1}{2\pi} \int \sin y \, \varphi(y,\varsigma) \, q_*(dy,d\varsigma) \bigg] =0 \,.
\end{multline}
We solve the ordinary differential equation \eqref{31Ki}. Having defined
\begin{equation}\label{32Ki}
A:=\frac{1}{2\pi} \int \cos y \, \varphi(y,\varsigma) \, q_*(dy,d\varsigma) \mbox{ and } B:=\frac{1}{2\pi} \int \sin y \, \varphi(y,\varsigma) \, q_*(dy,d\varsigma) \,,
\end{equation}
the solution is $\varphi(x,\eta) = 2(B - 2 A \omega \eta) \sin x + 2(A + 2 B \omega \eta ) \cos x$; this function yields a solution of \eqref{31Ki} provided that it satisfies the self-consistency relations \eqref{32Ki}, but it does for every value of $A$ and $B$. Then the two directions which generate the kernel are $\sin x + 2 \omega \eta \cos x$ and $\cos x - 2\omega\eta \sin x$.
\begin{remark}
In the case that $\theta \neq 1 + 4\omega^2$, the unique value for which the self-consistency relations in \eqref{32Ki} are satisfied is $A=B=0$, meaning that at the critical point the kernel of the operator $\mathfrak{L}$ is two-dimensional, while it is trivial for all the other values of the parameter $\theta$.
\end{remark}
The part of the statement of Lemma \ref{lmm:specK} concerning spectrum and eigenspaces is easily proved by direct computation, and the fact that the set $\{v_k^{(i)}: k \geq 1, i=1,2,3,4\}$ spans a dense subset of $L^2([0,2\pi) \times \{-1,1\})$.
\subsection{Perturbation Theory}\label{ssK:PerturbationTheory}
In the rest of the section, we often consider the \emph{time-rescaled} infinitesimal generator $J_N = \sqrt{N} L_N$, where $L_N$ is given by \eqref{Kfluctuations}. To determine the limiting generator $J$, we need to apply the first order perturbation theory. The methodology for treating a perturbation problem has been developed in the paper \cite{PaStVa77} and extends the earlier works done in \cite{Krt73, Pap77}.
It will be useful to keep in mind the following simple fact, which is just a restatement of Proposition \ref{Kpropfluct}.
\begin{proposition}\label{Kpropcritfluct}
Under the assumptions of Proposition \ref{Kpropfluct}, we have
\begin{equation} \label{Krescaledfluctuations}
J_N \psi \left( \int \phi(x,\eta) d\tilde{\rho}_N \right) = \sqrt{N} L^{(1)} \psi + N^{\frac{1}{4}} L^{(2)} \psi + L^{(3)} \psi + N^{-\frac{1}{4}} L^{(4)} \psi
\end{equation}
where
\begin{align*}
L^{(1)} \psi &:= \sum_{i=1}^n \partial_i \psi \left( \int \phi(x, \eta) d\tilde{\rho}_N \right) \int \mathfrak{L} \phi_i(x, \eta) d\tilde{\rho}_N \\
L^{(2)} \psi &:= \theta \sum_{i=1}^n \partial_i \psi \left( \int \phi(x, \eta) d\tilde{\rho}_N \right) \int \frac{\partial \phi_i}{\partial x} (x, \eta) \sin(y-x) d\tilde{\rho}_N d\tilde{\rho}_N \\
L^{(3)} \psi &:= \frac{1}{2} \sum_{i,k=1}^{n} \partial_{ik}^2 \psi \left( \int \phi(x, \eta) d\tilde{\rho}_N \right) \int \frac{\partial \phi_i}{\partial x} (x,\eta) \frac{\partial \phi_k}{\partial x} (x,\eta) dq_* \\
L^{(4)} \psi &:= \frac{1}{2} \sum_{i,k=1}^{n} \partial_{ik}^2 \psi \left( \int \phi(x, \eta) d\tilde{\rho}_N \right) \int \frac{\partial \phi_i}{\partial x} (x,\eta) \frac{\partial \phi_k}{\partial x} (x,\eta) d\tilde{\rho}_N \,.
\end{align*}
\end{proposition}
As first step (Section \ref{ssK:Collapse}) we show that for every $\phi \in {\mbox span}\left\{v_1^{(3)}, v_1^{(4)}, v_k^{(i)}: k \geq 2, i=1,2,3,4 \right\}$, the process
\[
\int \phi (x, \eta) \, d\tilde{\rho}_N(\sqrt{N}t)
\]
collapses to zero in the sense of Definition \ref{defcollapse}. We are therefore left to understand the behavior as $N \rightarrow +\infty$ of the two-dimensional process
\[
\left(V_1^{(1,N)}(t), V_1^{(2,N)}(t) \right) := \left(\int v_1^{(1)} d\tilde{\rho}_N(\sqrt{N}t), \int v_1^{(2)} d\tilde{\rho}_N(\sqrt{N}t) \right).
\]
For this reason, for $\psi \in \mathcal{C}^2(\mathbb{R}^2,\mathbb{R})$, we need to control
\[
J_N \psi\left(\int v_1^{(1)} d\tilde{\rho}_N, \int v_1^{(2)} d\tilde{\rho}_N \right).
\]
The first term in the r.h.s. of \eqref{Krescaledfluctuations} vanishes, since $v_1^{(1)}, v_1^{(2)} \in \ker(\mathfrak{L})$. In order to compensate for the second diverging term $ N^{\frac{1}{4}} L^{(2)} \psi$, one introduces a ``small'' perturbation of $\psi$ of the form
\begin{equation} \label{Kperturb}
\psi_N = \psi + N^{-\frac{1}{4}} \psi_1,
\end{equation}
for some $\psi_1$ to be chosen. We obtain
\begin{equation} \label{Kexpansion}
J_N \psi_N = N^{\frac{1}{4}}\left[ L^{(2)} \psi + L^{(1)} \psi_1 \right] + L^{(3)} \psi + L^{(2)} \psi_1 + o(1).
\end{equation}
In order to avoid divergence, $\psi_1$ should be chosen in such a way that $L^{(2)} \psi + L^{(1)} \psi_1 = 0$. At a purely formal level we are led to set
\begin{equation} \label{psi1}
\psi_1 := - \left(L^{(1)}\right)^{-1} L^{(2)} \psi \,,
\end{equation}
which gives
\begin{equation} \label{Klimgen}
J_N \psi_N \, \xrightarrow{N \rightarrow +\infty} \, \left[L^{(3)} - L^{(2)} \left(L^{(1)}\right)^{-1} L^{(2)} \right] \psi =: J \psi.
\end{equation}
The operator $J$ is therefore the candidate for the generator of the limiting process $\left( V^{(1)}, V^{(2)} \right)$. In order to make a rigorous proof out of this formal argument, the following two steps are needed:
\begin{enumerate}
\item
The operator $ \left(L^{(1)}\right)^{-1} L^{(2)}$ has to be properly defined.
\item
From the above convergence of operators one must derive weak convergence of processes.
\end{enumerate}
Step 2 will be dealt with in Section \ref{ssK:Convergence}, through standard martingale techniques. We consider now step 1. The needed computations are rather long, but follow few basic ideas, that we now illustrate. First observe that
\begin{equation} \label{pertth1}
L^{(2)} \psi\left(\int v_1^{(1)} d\tilde{\rho}_N, \int v_1^{(2)} d\tilde{\rho}_N \right) = \theta \sum_{i=1}^2 \partial_i \psi(\cdot \, , \, \cdot) \int \frac{\partial v_1^{(i)}}{\partial x} (x,\eta) \sin(y-x) d\tilde{\rho}_N d\tilde{\rho}_N.
\end{equation}
We give the details for the term $\int \frac{\partial v_1^{(1)}}{\partial x} (x,\eta) \sin(y-x) d\tilde{\rho}_N d\tilde{\rho}_N$, the other being similar. Letting
\[
V_k^{(i,N)} := \int v_k^{(i)} d\tilde{\rho}_N,
\]
by applying standard trigonometric formulas we obtain
\begin{multline} \label{pertth2}
\int \frac{\partial v_1^{(1)}}{\partial x} (x,\eta) \sin(y-x) d\tilde{\rho}_N d\tilde{\rho}_N \\ = \frac{1}{4(1-4\omega^2)} \left[\left(V_1^{(1,N)} - 2 \omega V_1^{(4,N)}\right) \left(V_2^{(2,N)}+ V_2^{(4,N)}\right) \right. \\ + \left. \left(V_1^{(2,N)} - 2 \omega V_1^{(3,N)}\right) \left(V_2^{(1,N)}+ V_2^{(3,N)}\right)\right] \\ - \frac{i \omega}{2 (1-4\omega^2)} \left[\left(V_1^{(1,N)} - 2 \omega V_1^{(4,N)}\right) \left(V_2^{(4,N)}- V_2^{(2,N)}\right) \right. \\ + \left. \left(V_1^{(2,N)} - 2 \omega V_1^{(3,N)}\right) \left(V_2^{(1,N)}- V_2^{(3,N)}\right)\right] .
\end{multline}
This means that $L^{(2)} \psi\left(\int v_1^{(1)} d\tilde{\rho}_N, \int v_1^{(2)} d\tilde{\rho}_N \right)$ is a linear combination of terms of the form
\begin{equation} \label{pertth3}
\partial_i \psi \left(\int v_1^{(1)} d\tilde{\rho}_N, \int v_1^{(2)} d\tilde{\rho}_N \right) \int v_1^{(j)} d\tilde{\rho}_N \int v_2^{(h)} d\tilde{\rho}_N ,
\end{equation}
$i=1,2$, $j,h = 1,2,3,4$. If we denote by $\lambda_k^j$ the eigenvalue of $\mathfrak{L}$ corresponding to the eigenfunction $v_k^{(j)}$, in the critical case $\theta = 1 + \omega^2$, we easily obtain
\begin{multline*}
L^{(1)} \left[\frac{1}{\lambda_1^j + \lambda_2^h} \partial_i \psi \left(\int v_1^{(1)} d\tilde{\rho}_N, \int v_1^{(2)} d\tilde{\rho}_N \right) \int v_1^{(j)} d\tilde{\rho}_N \int v_2^{(h)} d\tilde{\rho}_N \right] \\ = \partial_i \psi \left(\int v_1^{(1)} d\tilde{\rho}_N, \int v_1^{(2)} d\tilde{\rho}_N \right) \int v_1^{(j)} d\tilde{\rho}_N \int v_2^{(h)} d\tilde{\rho}_N;
\end{multline*}
this defines $\left(L^{(1)}\right)^{-1}$ for the whole expression in \eqref{pertth2}. Thus, the perturbation \eqref{psi1} is now well defined.
\noindent
A further comment is relevant. In the expression for the limiting generator in \eqref{Klimgen}, the quantity
\[
L^{(2)}\left(L^{(1)}\right)^{-1} L^{(2)}\psi
\]
appears. Moreover, we have seen that $\left(L^{(1)}\right)^{-1} L^{(2)}\psi $ is linear combination of terms as in \eqref{pertth3}. We will prove later that, when evaluated at time $\sqrt{N} t$,
\begin{itemize}
\item
the sequences of processes $ \int v_1^{(j)} d\tilde{\rho}_N$, $j=3,4$, and $ \int v_2^{(h)} d\tilde{\rho}_N$, $h=1,2,3,4$ collapse to zero;
\item
the sequences of processes $ \int v_1^{(j)} d\tilde{\rho}_N$, $j=1,2$ are {\em tight}.
\end{itemize}
In particular, the processes $\left(L^{(1)}\right)^{-1} L^{(2)}\psi$ collapse to zero. We then have to apply $L^{(2)}$ again. It is easy to show what follows.
\begin{itemize}
\item
When $\partial_i \psi \left(\int v_1^{(1)} d\tilde{\rho}_N, \int v_1^{(2)} d\tilde{\rho}_N \right) \int v_1^{(j)} d\tilde{\rho}_N \int v_2^{(h)} d\tilde{\rho}_N$ has $j=3,4$, i.e. it has ``two collapsing factors'', then
\[
L^{(2)} \left[\partial_i \psi \left(\int v_1^{(1)} d\tilde{\rho}_N, \int v_1^{(2)} d\tilde{\rho}_N \right) \int v_1^{(j)} d\tilde{\rho}_N \int v_2^{(h)} d\tilde{\rho}_N \right]
\]
is still collapsing to zero.
\item
When $j=1,2$, non collapsing terms in the expression above, arise from
\[
\partial_i \psi \left(\int v_1^{(1)} d\tilde{\rho}_N, \int v_1^{(2)} d\tilde{\rho}_N \right) \int v_1^{(j)} d\tilde{\rho}_N \int \frac{\partial v_2^{(h)}}{\partial x} (x,\eta) \sin(y-x) d\tilde{\rho}_N d\tilde{\rho}_N,
\]
since when the Prostapheresis formulas are applied to $\frac{\partial v_2^{(h)}}{\partial x} (x,\eta) \sin(y-x)$, terms of the form $ \int v_1^{(j)} d\tilde{\rho}_N \int v_1^{(l)} d\tilde{\rho}_N$, $j,l=1,2$, appear.
\end{itemize}
Carefully performing a long but straightforward calculation, one obtains the following statement.
\begin{proposition} \label{Kpropperthth}
Up to collapsing terms (as the symbol $\simeq$ is intended to mean) we have
\begin{multline*}
L^{(2)}\left(L^{(1)}\right)^{-1} L^{(2)}\psi \left(\int v_1^{(1)} d\tilde{\rho}_N, \int v_1^{(2)} d\tilde{\rho}_N \right) \\ \simeq - \frac{(1+4\omega^2)^2(1-8\omega^2)}{4(1-4\omega^2)^3(1+\omega^2)} V_1^{(1,N)}(t) \left[ \left( V_1^{(1,N)}(t) \right)^2 + \left( V_1^{(2,N)}(t) \right)^2 \right] \partial_1 \psi(\cdot, \cdot) \\ - \frac{(1+4\omega^2)^2(1-8\omega^2)}{4(1-4\omega^2)^3(1+\omega^2)} V_1^{(2,N)}(t) \left[ \left( V_1^{(1,N)}(t) \right)^2 + \left( V_1^{(2,N)}(t) \right)^2 \right] \partial_2 \psi(\cdot, \cdot),
\end{multline*}
with
\[
V_k^{(i,N)} := \int v_k^{(i)} d\tilde{\rho}_N \,.
\]
\end{proposition}
\subsection{Collapsing Processes}\label{ssK:Collapse}
From now on we always assume $\theta = 1+4\omega^2$, with $\omega < \frac{1}{2}$.
In what follows, it is more convenient to work with the following real-valued basis of $L^2([0,2\pi) \times \{-1,1\})$:
\[
\left\{ v_1^{(i)}, y_h^{(i)}: i=1,2,3,4, \, h \geq 2 \right\},
\]
where
\[
y_h^{(1)}(x,\eta) := \cos hx \ \ y_h^{(2)}(x,\eta) := \sin hx \ \ y_h^{(3)}(x,\eta) := \eta \cos hx \ \ y_h^{(4)}(x,\eta) := \eta \sin hx.
\]
We also set
\[
Y_h^{(i,N)} := \int y_h^{(i)} d\tilde{\rho}_N,
\]
and write $Y_h^{(i,N)}(t)$ for $\int y_h^{(i)} d\tilde{\rho}_N(\sqrt{N} t)$. \\
For $r \geq 1$ define
\begin{equation} \label{Knormr}
\left\| \tilde{\rho}_N \right\|^2_r := \left(V_1^{(3,N)}\right)^2 + \left(V_1^{(4,N)}\right)^2 + \sum_{i=1}^4 \sum_{h \geq 2} \frac{1}{\left(1+h^2\right)^r} \left(Y_h^{(i,N)}\right)^2.
\end{equation}
Clearly, showing that the sequences of processes $ \int v_1^{(j)} d\tilde{\rho}_N$, $j=3,4$, and $ \int v_2^{(h)} d\tilde{\rho}_N$, $h=1,2,3,4$ collapse to zero is equivalent to show that the sequences of processes $ \int v_1^{(j)} d\tilde{\rho}_N$, $j=3,4$, and $ \int y_2^{(h)} d\tilde{\rho}_N$, $h=1,2,3,4$ collapse to zero which, in turn, is implied by the fact that the sequence $\left\| \tilde{\rho}_N \right\|^2_r $ collapses to zero. All processes here are meant to be evaluated at time $\sqrt{N} t$.
For $N \geq 1$, $M >0$ define
\[
\tau_N^M := \inf_{t \geq 0} \left\{ \left\| \tilde{\rho}_N(\sqrt{N} t) \right\|^2_r \geq M \mbox{ or } \left|V_1^{(1,N)}(t)\right| \geq M \mbox{ or } \left|V_1^{(2,N)}(t)\right| \geq M\right\}.
\]
Our first result concerns collapsing of the stopped process $\left\| \tilde{\rho}_N(\sqrt{N}(t \wedge \tau_N^M) \right\|^2_r $.
\begin{lemma}\label{12Kinh}
Fix $d>2$ and $r>\frac{3}{2}$. Then, for every $\varepsilon>0$ and $M>0$, there exist $N_0 > 0$ and $C_5>0$, for which
\begin{equation}\label{18Kinh}
\sup_{N\geq N_{0}} P\left\{\sup_{0\leq t\leq T\wedge\tau_N^M}\| \tilde{\rho}_N(\sqrt{N}t) \|^2_r > C_{5} \, N^{\frac{1}{2d} - \frac{1}{4}} \right\}\leq\varepsilon \,.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We apply Proposition \ref{3cont}. We set $\kappa_N = \sqrt{N}$, $\alpha_N = N^{\frac{1}{4}}$, $\beta_N = N^{\frac{1}{4}}$. Conditions \eqref{con1cont} and \eqref{con2cont} of Proposition \ref{3cont} are easy to check. We are therefore left to check conditions \eqref{con3cont} and \eqref{con5cont}. We observe that $\left\| \tilde{\rho}_N(\sqrt{N} t) \right\|^2_r$ admits the semimartingale representation
\[
d\left\| \tilde{\rho}_N(\sqrt{N} t) \right\|^2_r = J_N \left\| \tilde{\rho}_N \right\|^2_r (\sqrt{N} t) dt + N^{\frac{1}{4}}\sum_{j=1}^N \frac{\partial}{\partial x_j} \left\| \tilde{\rho}_N \right\|^2_r dW_j(t),
\]
where $\{W_j(t) : t>0, j=1,\dots, N\}$ is a system of independent standard Brownian motions on $[0,2\pi]$. We show the following inequalities for every $t \in [0,\tau_N^M]$, which imply \eqref{con3cont} and \eqref{con5cont}:
\begin{equation} \label{Kcollaps1}
J_N \left\| \tilde{\rho}_N \right\|^2_r (\sqrt{N} t) \leq - \left(\frac{1}{2} - 2 \omega^2\right) \sqrt{N} \left\| \tilde{\rho}_N \right\|^2_r (\sqrt{N} t) + C N^{\frac{1}{4}},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation} \label{Kcollaps2}
\sqrt{N} \sum_{j=1}^N \left(\frac{\partial}{\partial x_j} \left\| \tilde{\rho}_N\right\|^2_r\right) ^2 \leq C
\end{equation}
for some constant $C$, that is allowed to depend on $M$.
\noindent
{\em Step 1: proof of \eqref{Kcollaps1}}. We use \eqref{Krescaledfluctuations}:
\begin{equation} \label{Kcollaps3}
J_N \left\| \tilde{\rho}_N \right\|^2_r = \sqrt{N} L^{(1)} \left\| \tilde{\rho}_N \right\|^2_r + N^{\frac{1}{4}} L^{(2)} \left\| \tilde{\rho}_N \right\|^2_r + L^{(3)} \left\| \tilde{\rho}_N \right\|^2_r + N^{-\frac{1}{4}} L^{(4)} \left\| \tilde{\rho}_N \right\|^2_r.
\end{equation}
We begin to deal with $L^{(1)} \left\| \tilde{\rho}_N \right\|^2_r$. Due to uniform convergence of the series defining $\left\| \tilde{\rho}_N \right\|^2_r$, we can apply $L^{(1)} $ term by term. For $i=3,4$
\begin{equation} \label{Kcollaps4}
L^{(1)}\left( \int v_1^{(i)} d\tilde{\rho}_N \right)^2 = - \left(1- 4 \omega^2\right)\left( \int v_1^{(i)} d\tilde{\rho}_N \right)^2.
\end{equation}
Also, by direct computation,
\begin{equation} \label{Kcollaps5}
L^{(1)} \sum_{i=1}^4 \left( \int y_h^{(i)} d\tilde{\rho}_N \right)^2 = -2h^2 \sum_{i=1}^4 \left( \int y_h^{(i)} d\tilde{\rho}_N \right)^2.
\end{equation}
Letting $\lambda := 1 - 4 \omega^2 >0$, by \eqref{Kcollaps4} and \eqref{Kcollaps5} we obtain
\begin{equation} \label{Kcollaps6}
L^{(1)} \left\| \tilde{\rho}_N \right\|^2_r
= - \lambda \left\| \tilde{\rho}_N \right\|^2_r
+ \sum_{h \geq 2} \frac{\lambda - 2 h^2}{\left(1+h^2\right)^r}
\sum_{i=1}^4 \left( \int y_h^{(i)} d\tilde{\rho}_N \right)^2.
\end{equation}
We now compute $L^{(2)} \left\| \tilde{\rho}_N \right\|^2_r$. A ``typical'' summand with $h \geq 2$ of the infinite sum giving $L^{(2)} \left\| \tilde{\rho}_N \right\|^2_r$, is
\[
L^{(2)} \left( \int y_h^{(i)} d\tilde{\rho}_N \right)^2 = 2(1+4\omega^2) \int y_h^{(i)} d\tilde{\rho}_N \int \frac{\partial y_h^{(i)}}{\partial x} \sin(y-x) d\tilde{\rho}_N d\tilde{\rho}_N.
\]
By using Prostapheresis formulas, one realizes that $\int y_h^{(i)} d\tilde{\rho}_N \int \frac{\partial y_h^{(i)}}{\partial x} \sin(y-x) d\tilde{\rho}_N d\tilde{\rho}_N$ is a linear combination, with uniformly bounded coefficients, of terms of the form
\begin{equation}\label{Kkeypoint}
Y_1^{(j,N)} Y_h^{(i,N)} Y_{h \pm 1}^{(l,N)} \leq Y_1^{(j,N)} \left[\left(Y_h^{(i,N)}\right)^2 + \left(Y_{h \pm 1}^{(l,N)}\right)^2\right].
\end{equation}
Summing over $h \geq 2$ and observing that, for $t \in [0,\tau_N^M]$, $Y_1^{(j,N)}(t) \leq cM$ for some constant $c$, we obtain (omitting the evaluation at $\sqrt{N} t$)
\begin{equation} \label{Kcollaps7}
L^{(2)}\left[\sum_{h \geq 2} \frac{1}{\left(1+h^2\right)^r}\sum_{i=1}^4 \left( \int y_h^{(i)} d\tilde{\rho}_N \right)^2\right] \leq C(M) \sum_{h \geq 2} \frac{1}{\left(1+h^2\right)^r}\sum_{i=1}^4
\left( \int y_h^{(i)} d\tilde{\rho}_N \right)^2,
\end{equation}
for some $M$-dependent constant $C(M)$. As far as the first two summands of $\left\| \tilde{\rho}_N \right\|^2_r$ are concerned by similar arguments a rough bound for $t \in [0,\tau_N^M]$ of the form
\begin{equation} \label{Kcollaps8}
L^{(2)}\left[\sum_{i=3,4} \left(\int v_1^{(i)} d\tilde{\rho}_N\right)^2 \right] \leq C(M)
\end{equation}
is obtained. Putting together \eqref{Kcollaps6}, \eqref{Kcollaps7} and \eqref{Kcollaps8},
\begin{align} \label{Kcollaps9}
\sqrt{N} & L^{(1)} \left\| \tilde{\rho}_N \right\|^2_r + N^{\frac{1}{4}} L^{(2)} \left\| \tilde{\rho}_N \right\|^2_r \nonumber\\
& \leq - \sqrt{N} \lambda \left\| \tilde{\rho}_N \right\|^2_r + \sqrt{N} \sum_{h \geq 2} \frac{\lambda - 2 h^2}{\left(1+h^2\right)^r} \sum_{i=1}^4 \left( \int y_h^{(i)} d\tilde{\rho}_N \right)^2 \nonumber\\
& \quad + N^{\frac{1}{4}}C(M) \sum_{h \geq 2} \frac{1}{\left(1+h^2\right)^r}\sum_{i=1}^4 \left( \int y_h^{(i)} d\tilde{\rho}_N \right)^2 + N^{\frac{1}{4}} C(M) \nonumber\\
& \leq - \sqrt{N} \lambda \left\| \tilde{\rho}_N \right\|^2_r + N^{\frac{1}{4}} C(M)
\end{align}
where the last inequality holds for $N$ sufficiently large so that
\[
\sqrt{N} \left(\lambda - 2 h^2\right) + N^{\frac{1}{4}}C(M) \leq 0
\]
for every $h \geq 2$. \\ Consider now the term $L^{(3)} \left\| \tilde{\rho}_N \right\|^2_r$. We have
\begin{multline} \label{Kcollaps10}
L^{(3)} \left\| \tilde{\rho}_N \right\|^2_r = 2 \int \left( \frac{\partial v_1^{(3)}}{\partial x} \right)^2 dq_* + 2 \int \left( \frac{\partial v_1^{(4)}}{\partial x} \right)^2 dq_* \\ + 2 \sum_{h \geq 2}\frac{1}{\left(1+h^2\right)^r} \sum_{i=1}^4 \int \left( \frac{\partial y_h^{(i)}}{\partial x} \right)^2 dq_*.
\end{multline}
By the simple bound
\[
\left( \frac{\partial y_h^{(i)}}{\partial x} \right)^2 \leq h^2,
\]
using the fact that for $r>\frac{3}{2}$
\[
\sum_{h \geq 2} \frac{h^2}{\left(1+h^2\right)^r} < +\infty,
\]
from \eqref{Kcollaps10} we get
\begin{equation} \label{Kcollaps11}
L^{(3)} \left\| \tilde{\rho}_N \right\|^2_r \leq C
\end{equation}
for some constant $C$. The treatment of the term $L^{(4)} \left\| \tilde{\rho}_N \right\|^2_r$ is quite similar, since it is obtained from \eqref{Kcollaps10} replacing $q_*$ with $\tilde{\rho}_N$. Having $\tilde{\rho}_N$ total variation $N^{\frac{1}{4}}$, we get
\begin{equation} \label{Kcollaps12}
L^{(4)} \left\| \tilde{\rho}_N \right\|^2_r \leq CN^{\frac{1}{4}}.
\end{equation}
By \eqref{Kcollaps9}, \eqref{Kcollaps11} and \eqref{Kcollaps12}, \eqref{Kcollaps1} follows.
\noindent
{\em Step 2: proof of \eqref{Kcollaps2}}. Consider the summand
\[
\left( \int y_{h}^{(i)} d\tilde{\rho}_N \right)^2
\]
of $\left\| \tilde{\rho}_N \right\|^2_r$. The summands containing $v_1^{(i)}$ are dealt with similarly. We have
\[
\frac{\partial}{\partial x_j} \left( \int y_{h}^{(i)} d\tilde{\rho}_N \right)^2 = \frac{2}{N^{\frac{3}{4}}} \left( \int y_{h}^{(i)} d\tilde{\rho}_N \right) \frac{\partial y_{h}^{(i)}}{\partial x} (x_j, \eta_j),
\]
so that
\[
\left| \frac{\partial}{\partial x_j} \left( \int y_{h}^{(i)} d\tilde{\rho}_N \right)^2 \right| \leq \frac{2 h}{N^{\frac{3}{4}}} \left| \int y_{h}^{(i)} d\tilde{\rho}_N \right|.
\]
Thus
\begin{multline*}
\left| \frac{\partial}{\partial x_j} \sum_{h \geq 2} \frac{1}{\left(1+h^2\right)^r} \sum_{i=1}^4 \left( \int y_{h}^{(i)} d\tilde{\rho}_N \right)^2 \right|
\\ \leq \frac{2}{N^{\frac{3}{4}}} \sum_{h \geq 2} \frac{h}{\left(1+h^2\right)^r} \sum_{i=1}^4 \left| \int y_{h}^{(i)} d\tilde{\rho}_N \right|
\\ \leq \frac{2C}{N^{\frac{3}{4}}} \left[\sum_{h \geq 2} \frac{1}{\left(1+h^2\right)^r} \sum_{i=1}^4 \left( \int y_{h}^{(i)} d\tilde{\rho}_N \right)^2 \right]^{\frac{1}{2}}
\end{multline*}
with $C^2 := \sum_{h} \frac{h^2}{\left(1+h^2\right)^r}$, where we have used the Cauchy-Schwartz inequality. Summing up, for $t \leq \tau_N^M$,
\[
\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial x_j} \left\| \tilde{\rho}_N\right\|^2_r\right) ^2 \leq \frac{C^2}{N^{\frac{3}{2}}}\left\| \tilde{\rho}_N\right\|^2_r \leq \frac{C^2 M}{N^{\frac{3}{2}}},
\]
from which \eqref{Kcollaps2} follows.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
For later use, we observe that the $M$-dependence of the constant $C$ in \eqref{Kcollaps1} comes form the estimates in \eqref{Kkeypoint} and \eqref{Kcollaps7}, where the factor $Y_1^{(j,N)} $ is estimated by a constant $C(M)$. If we replace such estimate with the trivial one
\[
\left|Y_1^{(j,N)} \right| \leq N^{\frac{1}{4}},
\]
we obtain the following estimate, which does not require any stopping argument:
\[
J_N \left\| \tilde{\rho}_N \right\|^2_r (\sqrt{N} t) \leq - \left(\frac{1}{2} - 2 \omega^2\right) \sqrt{N} \left\| \tilde{\rho}_N \right\|^2_r (\sqrt{N} t) + C \sqrt{N},
\]
which implies
\begin{equation}\label{Kkeypoint2}
\sup_{N \geq 1, t \geq 0} E\left[ \left\| \tilde{\rho}_N \right\|^2_r \right] < +\infty.
\end{equation}
\end{remark}
We can now prove the main result of this section, corresponding to the first part of Theorem \ref{Kinhom}.
\begin{proposition} \label{Kcollapsfull}
For every $T>0$, the sequence $\left(\left\| \tilde{\rho}_N\right\|_r (\sqrt{N} t) \right)_{t \in [0,T]}$ collapses to zero.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Given the result of Lemma \ref{12Kinh}, all we have to show is that for every $\varepsilon >0$ there exist $M,N_0 >0$ such that
\begin{equation} \label{Kcollaps13}
\sup_{N \geq N_0}P \{ \tau_N^M > T \} \leq \varepsilon.
\end{equation}
Consider the function
\[
\psi(x,y) := \sqrt{1 + x^2 + y^2}.
\]
Note that $\psi$ has uniformly bounded partial derivatives, and $\psi(x,y) \geq \min(|x|,|y|)$. We begin by observing that
\begin{multline} \label{Kcollaps14}
\left\{\tau_N^M > T \right\} \subseteq \left\{\sup_{0 \leq t \leq T \wedge \tau_N^M} \left\| \tilde{\rho}_N\right\|^2_r (\sqrt{N} t) \geq \frac{M}{2} \right\} \\
\cup \left\{\sup_{0 \leq t \leq T \wedge \tau_N^M} \psi\left(V_1^{(1,N)}(t), V_1^{(2,N)}(t)\right) \geq \frac{M}{2} \right\}.
\end{multline}
By Lemma \ref{12Kinh}, for $N$ large the probability
\[
P\left\{ \sup_{0 \leq t \leq T \wedge \tau_N^M} \left\| \tilde{\rho}_N\right\|^2_r (\sqrt{N} t) \geq \frac{M}{2} \right\}
\]
can be made arbitrarily small. Thus, \eqref{Kcollaps13} follows if we show that for every $\varepsilon >0$ there exist $M,N_0 >0$ such that
\begin{equation} \label{Kcollaps15}
\sup_{N \geq N_0}P\left\{ \sup_{0 \leq t \leq T \wedge \tau_N^M} \psi\left(V_1^{(1,N)}(t), V_1^{(2,N)}(t)\right) \geq \frac{M}{2} \right\} \leq \varepsilon \,.
\end{equation}
For the proof of \eqref{Kcollaps15} we consider the perturbation
\[
\psi_N = \psi + N^{-\frac{1}{4}} \psi_1
\]
as illustrated in Section \ref{ssK:PerturbationTheory}, with
\[
\psi_1 := - \left(L^{(1)}\right)^{-1} L^{(2)} \psi.
\]
As seen in Section \ref{ssK:PerturbationTheory}, $\psi_1$ is a linear combination of terms of the form
\[
\partial_i \psi \left(\int v_1^{(1)} d\tilde{\rho}_N, \int v_1^{(2)} d\tilde{\rho}_N \right) \int v_1^{(j)} d\tilde{\rho}_N \int v_2^{(h)} d\tilde{\rho}_N ,
\]
and therefore, up to time $\tau_N^M$, can be bounded in absolute value by some $M$-dependent constant $C(M)$. This implies that, for every given $M$ and for large enough $N$
\begin{equation} \label{Kcollaps16}
P\left\{ \sup_{0 \leq t \leq T \wedge \tau_N^M} \psi\left(V_1^{(1,N)}(t), V_1^{(2,N)}(t)\right) \geq \frac{M}{2} \right\} \leq P\left\{ \sup_{0 \leq t \leq T \wedge \tau_N^M} \psi_N\left(\cdot \right) \geq \frac{M}{3} \right\}.
\end{equation}
By abuse of notation, we write $\psi_N(t)$ in place of
\[
\psi_N\left(V_h^{(i,N)}(t): h=1,2; \, i=1,2,3,4\right).
\]
Consider the semimartingale representation
\begin{equation} \label{Kcollaps17}
\psi_N(t) = \psi_N(0) + \int_0^t J_N \psi_N (s) ds + \mathcal{M}_N(t),
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation} \label{Kcollaps18}
\mathcal{M}_N(t) = N^{\frac{1}{4}} \sum_{j=1}^N \int_0^t \frac{\partial \psi_N}{\partial x_j} (s) dW_j(s)
\end{equation}
where $\{W_j(t) : t>0, j=1,\dots, N\}$ is a system of independent standard Brownian motions on $[0,2\pi]$. We have
\begin{multline*}
P\left\{ \sup_{0 \leq t \leq T \wedge \tau_N^M} \psi_N\left(\cdot \right) \geq \frac{M}{3} \right\} \leq P\left\{ \psi_N(0) \geq \frac{M}{9} \right\} \\
+ P\left\{ \sup_{0 \leq t \leq T \wedge \tau_N^M} J_N \psi_N (t) \geq \frac{M}{9T} \right\} + P\left\{ \sup_{0 \leq t \leq T \wedge \tau_N^M} \mathcal{M}_N(t) \geq \frac{M}{9} \right\}.
\end{multline*}
The term $P\left\{\psi_N(0) \geq \frac{M}{9} \right\}$ is easy to control, since the random variables $V_h^{(i,N)}(0)$ converge to zero in probability. We are therefore left to show that the probabilities
\begin{equation} \label{Kcollaps19}
P\left\{ \sup_{0 \leq t \leq T \wedge \tau_N^M} J_N \psi_N (t) \geq \frac{M}{9T} \right\}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation} \label{Kcollaps20}
P\left\{ \sup_{0 \leq t \leq T \wedge \tau_N^M} \mathcal{M}_N(t) \geq \frac{M}{9} \right\}
\end{equation}
are small for $N$ large enough. We begin to deal with \eqref{Kcollaps19}. By \eqref{Kexpansion} and the choice of $\psi_1$, we have
\[
J_N \psi_N = L^{(3)} \psi + L^{(2)} \psi_1 + o(1),
\]
where the term $o(1)$ is bounded by $\frac{C(M)}{N^{\alpha}}$ for some $\alpha>0$. Moreover, it is easily shown that $L^{(3)} \psi$ is bounded uniformly in $N$ and $M$. To deal with $L^{(2)} \psi_1$, we use Proposition \ref{Kpropperthth}, which gives
\begin{multline}\label{Kcollaps21}
L^{(2)} \psi_1(t) \\ = - \frac{(1+4\omega^2)^2(1-8\omega^2)}{4(1-4\omega^2)^3(1+\omega^2)} V_1^{(1,N)}(t) \left[ \left( V_1^{(1,N)}(t) \right)^2 + \left( V_1^{(2,N)}(t) \right)^2 \right] \partial_1 \psi(\cdot, \cdot) \\ - \frac{(1+4\omega^2)^2(1-8\omega^2)}{4(1-4\omega^2)^3(1+\omega^2)} V_1^{(2,N)}(t) \left[ \left( V_1^{(1,N)}(t) \right)^2 + \left( V_1^{(2,N)}(t) \right)^2 \right] \partial_2 \psi(\cdot, \cdot) \\ + \mbox{ collapsing terms},
\end{multline}
where, again, the ``collapsing terms'' are bounded by $\frac{C(M)}{N^{\alpha}}$. Observing that
\[
\partial_i \psi(\cdot, \cdot) = \frac{V^{(i,N)}}{\psi(\cdot, \cdot)},
\]
and since, by assumption, $1-8\omega^2 \geq 0$, the non-collapsing part of \eqref{Kcollaps21} is nonnegative. We therefore conclude that, for $t \leq \tau_N^M$
\[
J_N \psi_N \leq C + \frac{C(M)}{N^{\alpha}}
\]
with $C$ independent of $M,N$. This implies that the probability in \eqref{Kcollaps19} is arbitrarily small for $M$ (first) and $N$ (then) sufficiently large.
\noindent
We now deal with \eqref{Kcollaps20}. By Doob's Maximal Inequality
\begin{align} \label{Kcollaps22}
P\left\{ \sup_{0 \leq t \leq T \wedge \tau_N^M} \mathcal{M}_N(t) \geq \frac{M}{9} \right\} &\leq \frac{E\left[ \left( \mathcal{M}_N(T \wedge \tau_N^M)\right)^2 \right]}{(M/9)^2} \nonumber\\
&= \frac{N^{\frac{1}{2}} \sum_{j=1}^N \int_0^{T \wedge \tau_N^M} \left(\frac{\partial \psi_N}{\partial x_j} (t) \right)^2dt}{(M/9)^2}.
\end{align}
Up to term bounded by $\frac{C(M)}{N^{\alpha}}$, we can replace $\frac{\partial \psi_N}{\partial x_j}$ with $\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial x_j}$ in \eqref{Kcollaps22}. Moreover
\begin{equation} \label{Kcollaps22bis}
\left|\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial x_j}\right| = \left| \sum_{i=1,2} \partial_i \psi \, \frac{1}{N^{\frac{3}{4}}} \frac{\partial v_1^{(i)}}{\partial x}(x_j,\eta_j) \right| \leq \frac{C}{N^{\frac{3}{4}}}
\end{equation}
for a constant $C$ independent of $M,N$. Inserting this in \eqref{Kcollaps22}, we have, for some $C,C(M)>0$,
\[
P\left\{ \sup_{0 \leq t \leq T \wedge \tau_N^M} \mathcal{M}_N(t) \geq \frac{M}{9} \right\} \leq \frac{C + \frac{C(M)}{N^{\alpha}}}{(M/9)^2},
\]
which, again, is small for $M$ (first) and $N$ (then) sufficiently large. This completes the proof.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark} \label{Kexpl}
The assumption $\omega \leq \frac{1}{2 \sqrt{2}}$ has been used in \eqref{Kcollaps21}, to obtain bounds for $J_N \psi_N $. When the processes are stopped, as in the part of Theorem \ref{Kinhom} concerning the case $\frac{1}{2 \sqrt{2}} < \omega < \frac{1}{2}$, those estimates are essentially trivial because of the uniform boundedness of the stopped processes.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Identification of the Limiting Generator and Convergence}\label{ssK:Convergence}
In this Section we complete the proof of Theorem \ref{Kinhom}. The argument follows that of Section \ref{ssCW:Convergence}, so most details are omitted.
\noindent
The candidate for the limiting generator in \eqref{Klimgen} has been obtained in Proposition \ref{Kpropperthth} for the {\em drift} part, while the diffusion part comes from the term $L^{(3)} \psi$ that, by direct computation, is shown to be equal to
\[
L^{(3)} \psi = \frac{1+\omega^2}{4} \left[ \partial^2_{11} \psi + \partial^2_{22} \psi \right].
\]
In what follows we denote by $J$ the generator of the diffusion process in Theorem \ref{Kinhom}. The proof of convergence develops along the following steps.
\noindent
{\em Step 1: tightness of the processes $V_1^{(1,N)}$ and $V_1^{(2,N)}$}. We use conditions \eqref{T1} and \eqref{T2}. Due to \eqref{Kcollaps13}, we are allowed to stop the processes at $\tau_N^M$ for some large $M$. Condition \eqref{T1} can be obtained simultaneously for $V_1^{(1,N)}$ and $V_1^{(2,N)}$ by \eqref{Kcollaps15}. In order to establish \eqref{T2} for, e.g., $V_1^{(1,N)}$, we consider the function
\[
\psi \left( V_1^{(1,N)},V_1^{(2,N)} \right) := V_1^{(1,N)},
\]
together with its perturbation $\psi_N$ as in \eqref{Kperturb} and \eqref{psi1}. Up to $o(1)$ terms, for stopping times $\tau_1 \leq \tau_2$,
\[
V_1^{(1,N)}(\tau_2) - V_1^{(1,N)}(\tau_1) \simeq \int_{\tau_1}^{\tau_2} J_N \psi_N dt + N^{\frac{1}{4}}\int_{\tau_1}^{\tau_2} \sum_{j=1}^N \frac{\partial \psi_N}{\partial x_j} dW_j(t).
\]
As in the proof of Proposition \ref{Kcollapsfull}, we find a (possibly $M$-dependent) constant $C$ such that the uniform bound
\[
\left|J_N \psi_N \right| + N^{\frac{1}{2}}\sum_{j=1}^N \left(\frac{\partial \psi_N}{\partial x_j}\right)^2 \leq C
\]
holds. This implies
\[
\sup_{\tau_1 \leq \tau_2 \leq \tau_1 + \delta} E\left[ \left|V_1^{(1,N)}(\tau_2) - V_1^{(1,N)}(\tau_1) \right| \right] \leq C \delta
\]
that, by Chebischev inequality, yields \eqref{T2} for $V_1^{(1,N)}$.
\noindent
{\em Step 2: convergence to the solution of a martingale problem}. Denote by $\left( V_1^{(1,n)},V_1^{(2,n)} \right)$ a convergent subsequence of $\left( V_1^{(1,N)},V_1^{(2,N)} \right)$. For a function $\psi: \mathbb{R}^2 \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ of class ${\cal{C}}^2$ and with bounded derivatives, denote by $\psi_n$ its perturbation as in \eqref{Kperturb} and \eqref{psi1}. Consider the martingale
\begin{equation} \label{Kmart1}
\mathcal{M}_n(t) := \psi_n(t)- \psi_n(0) - \int_0^t J_n \psi_n(s)ds = n^{\frac{1}{4}} \int_0^t \sum_{j=1}^n \frac{\partial}{\partial x_j} \psi_n(s) dW_j(s).
\end{equation}
It should be recalled that $\psi_n$ is a function of $V_1^{(i,n)},V_2^{(i,n)}$, $i=1,2,3,4$, so when we write $\psi_n(t)$ we mean that $t$ is the time at which the processes in the argument of $\psi_n$ are evaluated. Considering that:
\begin{itemize}
\item
$\psi_n \rightarrow \psi$ as $n \rightarrow +\infty$ uniformly on compact sets;
\item
the processes $V_1^{(i,n)},V_2^{(i,n)}$ admit a weak limit $V_1^{(i)},V_2^{(i)}$, which is zero for $V_1^{(i,n)}$, $i=3,4$ and $V_2^{(i,n)}$, $i=1,2,3,4$,
\end{itemize}
it follows that the process $\mathcal{M}_n(t)$ converges weakly to
\[
\mathcal{M}(t) = \psi \left( V_1^{(1)}(t), V_1^{(2)}(t) \right) - \psi \left( V_1^{(1)}(0), V_1^{(2)}(0) \right) - \int_0^t J\psi \left( V_1^{(1)}(s), V_1^{(2)}(s) \right)ds.
\]
If we show that, for each $\psi$ with the properties specified above, $\mathcal{M}(t)$ is a martingale, then we have that the limiting processes $\left( V_1^{(1)}(t), V_1^{(2)}(t) \right)$ solve the martingale problem for $J$; since uniqueness holds for this martingale problem, the proof of Theorem \ref{Kinhom} would be completed. It is therefore enough to show that $\mathcal{M}(t)$ is a martingale. Similarly to what we have done in Lemma \ref{31CWG}, it suffices to show that, for every $t >0$,
\[
\sup_n E\left[\left(\mathcal{M}_n(t)\right)^2\right] < +\infty.
\]
Note that
\[
E\left[\left(\mathcal{M}_n(t)\right)^2\right] = n^{\frac{1}{2}} \sum_{j=1}^n \int_0^t E\left[ \left( \frac{\partial}{\partial x_j} \psi_n(s)\right)^2 \right] ds.
\]
Thus, it is enough to show that, for some constant $C>0$, the inequality
\begin{equation} \label{Kmart2}
E\left[ \left( \frac{\partial}{\partial x_j} \psi_n(s)\right)^2 \right] \leq \frac{C}{n^{\frac{3}{2}}}
\end{equation}
is satisfied. \\
It should be noticed that in \eqref{Kcollaps22bis} we gave a {\em pointwise} estimate (i.e. not in mean) of this sort; that, however, holds for the {\em unperturbed} function $\psi$. In that case the difference between $\psi$ and its perturbation $\psi_n$ was estimated by a bound of the form $\frac{C(M)}{N^{\alpha}}$. But now we are not stopping the process anymore, so a little more care is needed. We recall that
\[
\psi_n = \psi + n^{-\frac{1}{4}} \psi_1.
\]
Given the bound in \eqref{Kcollaps22bis}, in order to obtain \eqref{Kmart2} it is enough to show that
\begin{equation} \label{Kmart3}
E\left[ \left( \frac{\partial}{\partial x_j} \psi_1(s)\right)^2 \right] \leq \frac{C}{n}.
\end{equation}
As seen in Section \ref{ssK:PerturbationTheory}, $\psi_1$ is a linear combination of terms of the form
\[
F := \partial_i \psi \left(\int v_1^{(1)} d\tilde{\rho}_n, \int v_1^{(2)} d\tilde{\rho}_n \right) \int v_1^{(l)} d\tilde{\rho}_n \int v_2^{(h)} d\tilde{\rho}_n,
\]
$i=1,2$, $l,h = 1,2,3,4$.
So it is enough to consider one of such terms. We have
\begin{multline*}
\frac{\partial F}{\partial x_j} = \frac{1}{n^{\frac{3}{4}}} \left[ \partial^2_{1,i} \psi \left(\int v_1^{(1)} d\tilde{\rho}_n, \int v_1^{(2)} d\tilde{\rho}_n \right) \frac{\partial}{\partial x}v_1^{(1)} (x_j,\eta_j) \int v_1^{(j)} d\tilde{\rho}_n \int v_2^{(h)} d\tilde{\rho}_n \right. \\ \left. + \partial^2_{2,i} \psi \left(\int v_1^{(1)} d\tilde{\rho}_n, \int v_1^{(2)} d\tilde{\rho}_n \right) \frac{\partial}{\partial x}v_1^{(2)} (x_j,\eta_j) \int v_1^{(j)} d\tilde{\rho}_n \int v_2^{(h)} d\tilde{\rho}_n \right. \\ + \partial_i \psi \left(\int v_1^{(1)} d\tilde{\rho}_n, \int v_1^{(2)} d\tilde{\rho}_n \right) \frac{\partial}{\partial x}v_1^{(l)} (x_j,\eta_j) \int v_2^{(h)} d\tilde{\rho}_n \\ \left. + \partial_i \psi \left(\int v_1^{(1)} d\tilde{\rho}_n, \int v_1^{(2)} d\tilde{\rho}_n \right) \frac{\partial}{\partial x}v_2^{(h)} (x_j,\eta_j) \int v_1^{(l)} d\tilde{\rho}_n \right].
\end{multline*}
Consider the first of the summands above, the others can be dealt with similarly. The factor
\[
\partial^2_{1,i} \psi \left(\int v_1^{(1)} d\tilde{\rho}_n, \int v_1^{(2)} d\tilde{\rho}_n \right) \frac{\partial}{\partial x}v_1^{(1)} (x_j,\eta_j)
\]
is uniformly bounded. Also the term
\[
\frac{1}{n^{\frac{1}{4}}} \int v_1^{(j)} d\tilde{\rho}_n
\]
is uniformly bounded.
The last factor, $\int v_2^{(h)} d\tilde{\rho}_n $, is clearly bounded in absolute value by $ \left\| \tilde{\rho}_n \right\|_r $, defined in \eqref{Knormr}. Estimating similarly all terms, one sees that
\[
E\left[\left(\frac{\partial F}{\partial x_j} \right)^2\right] \leq \frac{C}{n} E\left[ \left\| \tilde{\rho}_n \right\|^2_r \right] \leq \frac{C'}{n}
\]
for some constants $C,C'$, where we have used \eqref{Kkeypoint2}. This establishes \eqref{Kmart3}, and thus completes the proof of Theorem \ref{Kinhom}.
|
\section{Introduction}
The physics of disordered quantum systems is a very active field
of research since the 1950s, when this topic received the
fundamental contributions of Anderson and Mott~\cite{Kramer93}.
Their works showed that, in presence of disorder, even ideal
conductors undergo a phase transition towards an insulating state
due to destructive quantum interference. An ideal playground for
the investigation of quantum effects is offered by ultracold
atoms, where a controllable amount of disorder may be implemented
in many ways, e.g., by means of speckle potentials, bichromatic
lattices with incommensurate frequencies, localized impurities, or
site-resolved addressing in optical lattices. After a long search,
Anderson localization of ultracold ideal gases was finally
observed in one dimension (1D) \cite{Anderson1Dexp}, and very
recently reported also in 3D \cite{Anderson3Dexp}.
At this point it is important to stress the fundamental difference
between disordered fermionic and bosonic systems.
For fermions the crucial role is played by the Fermi energy: the
question whether a given system is a conductor or insulator
depends on whether the single particle states close to Fermi level
are localized or not. Bosons, in contrast, tend to condense in the
lowest energy state (or states). The question whether they
constitute a superfluid or an insulator reduces then to
understanding if the low-energy states are localized or not (for
more extensive discussion see for instance
\cite{Sanchez-Palencia10,Lewenstein12}).
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{fig1}
\caption{Schematic phase diagram for dirty bosons \revision{at zero temperature}
\revision{as a function of interactions ($U$) and chemical potential ($\mu$)}
containing glassy (G), superfluid (BEC), and Mott insulating (MI) phases. The
continuous and dashed lines mark respectively the
superfluid-insulator and glass-Mott transition, while the dotted
line indicates a crossover from the Lifshits glass (heavily
fragmented) to the Bose glass (extended) region. Outside of the
BEC region, the one-body density matrix $\rho({\bf r},{\bf r'})$
decays as $|{\bf r-r'}|\to \infty$. The Mott insulator lobes
appear at sufficiently strong interactions, as the inclusion
theorem guarantees that there may be no MI for $U<V$. }
\label{fig:dirtyPhaseDiag}
\end{figure}
In the past
decades there appeared an enormous literature on disordered systems, see,
e.g.,
\cite{Giamarchi88,Fisher89,Scalettar91,Damski03,Lugan07,Lugan07bis,Altman08,Pollet09,Sanchez-Palencia10,Gaul11,Lewenstein12},
although due to the complexity of the topic mathematically
rigorous results are still scarce. A great deal of work has been
done on random Schr\"{o}dinger operators, which describe single
particle behaviour, see \cite{KirschSurvey} for an excellent
survey. In the recent paper \cite{Bishop11} two of us have
provided rigorous tight bounds on the ground state energy, as well
as approximations of the ground state and excited states wave-functions for the
case of random impurity (Bernoulli) disorder in a 1D lattice.
Since in this case the shape of the low-energy states is known, there are analytical ways to estimate interaction energy and obtain rigorous results also for interacting systems.
A challenging and still open problem is the understanding of
interaction effects on disordered systems. A crucial step forward in our understanding of dirty bosonic
systems was made by Giamarchi and Schulz \cite{Giamarchi88} and
Fisher {\it et al.}~\cite{Fisher89} who conjectured that, in
presence of weak disorder, interactions give rise to an
intermediate compressible but insulating phase, the Bose glass, in
between the superfluid and the insulating strongly-interacting
phases (Tonks gas in continuous 1D systems, or Mott insulator in
lattice systems). The disputed controversy, as to whether or not
the insulating Mott phase is always surrounded by a glassy phase
was finally settled in \cite{Pollet09}, who demonstrated, using
the theorem of inclusions, that this is indeed the case for the
dirty boson system with generic bounded disorder. Experimentally,
this problem has been recently addressed in
\cite{Fallani07,Pasienski10,Gadway11}.
In the regime where disorder dominates over interactions, it was
shown instead that the ground state of the quantum fluid may be
described in terms of a qualitatively different glassy phase,
called Lifshits (or Anderson) glass \cite{Lugan07,Deissler10},
characterized by \revision{exponentially localized} and well separated "islands". The
latter may be identified with the low-lying single-particle
eigenstates residing in the regions of space where the potential
is small. As repulsive interactions are strengthened, an increasing
number of islands is populated, until their overlap becomes
sufficient to establish phase coherence and transport between
them. The gas as a whole then undergoes a phase transition towards
an extended Bose--Einstein condensate (BEC). If the gas is confined
in a lattice, for even larger interactions the repulsion between
particles becomes so strong that on-site density fluctuations
characteristic of the superfluid state become energetically
unfavourable. In this situation the gas undergoes a further
transition out of the BEC, first to the Bose glass phase and then
into the incompressible Mott state. Between the Lifshits and the
Bose glasses there is no phase transition, as both are gapless,
insulating and compressible phases, but nonetheless the two states
are qualitatively different, in the sense that in the former the
gas is \revision{fragmented} into independent and distant low-energy islands
(the Lifshits states), while the latter tends to extend over a
large portion of the available volume. The phases discussed above
are sketched in figure \ref{fig:dirtyPhaseDiag}, and their most
important properties listed in table \ref{table:states}.
\begin{table}[b]
\caption{Summary of most common phases for dirty bosons in a lattice, and
associated properties.} \label{table:states}
\begin{indented}
\item[]
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{} & Superfluid & Compressible & Gapless & \revision{Fragmented}\\ \hline\hline
\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{BEC} & Y & Y & Y & N\\ \hline \hline
Glass & Lifshits & N & Y & Y & Y \\ \cline{2-6}
& Bose & N & Y & Y & N \\ \hline \hline
\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{Mott insulator} & N & N & N & N\\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{indented}
\end{table}
In the present paper we consider disorder of Bernoulli type, i.e.,
randomly-distributed, identical and localized impurities, and we
focus on the regime of weak to intermediate interactions in
presence of such impurities. We first investigate the properties
of the ideal gas, discussing the typical size and energy of the
localized islands, and showing that the low-energy states indeed
form a so-called Lifshits tail.
We further explore interaction effects on the ground state
properties by comparing the performance of two theoretical
methods. The first one is a simple version of the multi-orbital
Hartree--Fock method (sMOHF), a variational method based on an
expansion on single-particle states. This approximation is
appropriate to describe the glassy regime where superfluidity is
suppressed by disorder~\cite{Lugan07}. More elaborate versions of
the Hartree--Fock method, that incorporate self-consistency and
allow to describe fragmentation and quantum dynamics of
interacting Bose systems can be found in \cite{Cederbaum} and
references therein. The second method is the standard
Gross--Pitaevskii (GP) approach, which \revision{generally yields
an appropriate description for every interaction strength.}
We calculate the ground state energy of the system, the associated
superfluid fraction, the fractal dimension, and introduce a new
parameter, the {\it fractional occupation}, allowing one to
discern between the Lifshits and the Bose glass. Finally, we turn
to the investigation of temperature effects in an ideal gas. Due
to the increase of kinetic energy, temperature yields effects
similar to those generated by repulsive interactions, in the sense
that the gas occupies a larger number of islands, which
increasingly overlap until the ground state covers a large amount
of the available space. Nonetheless, we will point out that there
are important differences between the two cases.
As an important result, in this paper we show that disordered
systems with Bernoulli potential allow for analytical estimates
which are very well supported by numerical simulations. These
results provided us with intuitions on how to generalize the
rigorous results of \cite{Bishop11} to non-interacting 2D systems,
and, at least partially, to interacting 1D and 2D systems. These
rigorous results go beyond the scope of the present article, and
will be published in a more appropriate mathematical physics
journal.
This paper is structured as follows. We introduce the disordered
potential under study and the relevant Hamiltonian in
Sec.~\ref{sec:model}. In Sec.~\ref{sec:noninteracting} we identify
the eigenstates of the ideal system, we numerically demonstrate
the Lifshits tail behaviour, and we discuss the ground state energy
scaling as a function of the size of the system. In Sec.
\ref{sec:interacting} we introduce the sMOHF and GP methods, and
in Sec.~\ref{sec:comparison} we compute a number of relevant
quantities for interacting systems. In Sec.~\ref{sec:temp} we
compare the effects of interactions and non-zero temperature, and
we present our conclusions in Sec. \ref{sec:conclusions}.
\section{The model}\label{sec:model}
We study the properties of a bosonic gas on disordered 1D and 2D
square lattices of linear dimension $L$. We consider disorder of
the so-called Bernoulli type, i.e., the potential on each site is
an independent random variable that assumes the value:
\begin{equation} V_i=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
V>0 & {\rm with\,probability\,} 1-p \\
0 & {\rm with\,probability\,} p \\
\end{array}
\right. \end{equation}
This kind of potential may be ideally realized by using a
two-component gas, and a species-selective lattice which deeply
traps only one of the two components
\cite{Gavish05Massignan06,Gadway11}. At sufficiently low energies,
the component which is not trapped experiences $s$-wave collisions
against localized scatterers. Alternatively, a Bernoulli disorder
may be imprinted directly on the gas exploiting single-site addressable
optical lattices \cite{SingleSite}.
The use of Bernoulli disorder is particularly appealing
because its asymptotic properties, as discussed in the next sections, become
apparent even for small lattices (e.g., with $50^D$ sites). As we show in
\ref{app:convergence}, the Bernoulli potential has actually optimal
properties of convergence. Therefore, the Bernoulli disorder is
suitable for numerical simulations and due to its simple form, it
allows for various analytical estimates.
The Hamiltonian of the interacting system we consider is then
\begin{equation} \hat{H}=-t\sum_{\langle i,j \rangle}\hat{c}_i^\dagger\hat{c}_j+\sum_i
V_i\hat{c}_i^\dagger\hat{c}_i+\hat{U}_{\rm int}, \end{equation}
where $t$ denotes the tunnelling energy, $\hat{c}_i^\dagger$ is the
creation operator of bosons on site $i$, and $\langle i,j \rangle$
denotes nearest neighbour pairs of sites. The interaction term
$\hat{U}_{\rm int}$ will be discussed later in Section
\ref{sec:interacting}.
\section{Properties of a non-interacting gas}\label{sec:noninteracting}
Let us start by discussing the properties of a non-interacting
system, and in particular look at its ground state energy, and the
density of low energy excited states.
\subsection{Ground state energy}
In a large 1D system with Bernoulli disorder, the linear size
$L_{\rm max}^{\rm (1D)}$ of the largest island of contiguous
zero-potential sites scales as $L_{\rm max}^{\rm (1D)}\propto \log
L$ \cite{Bishop11}. The proof of this fact is based on the
following simple observation. Let $l_0$ be the characteristic size
of the largest island, then $p^{l_0}$ estimates its occurrence.
The number of islands of similar size is expected to be of order of
$L$ (strictly speaking $L/\log{L}$ as we shall discuss below),
so that the probability of occurring of any one of them is
$Lp^{l_0} \to {\rm const}$ as $L\to\infty$, which indeed implies
$l_0 \simeq \log{L}/|\log(p)|$. It is then clear that the ground
state energy of the non-interacting bosonic gas in such a potential
will be bounded above by the energy of the first harmonic, i.e., a
half-sine function, of the largest island. A lower bound of the
same order was proven in \cite{Bishop11}, showing that the ground
state energy behaves asymptotically as $\pi^2/(\log L)^2$ when $L
\to \infty$.
Similarly, one can argue that in a large D-dimensional system the
ground state will be occupying the largest spherical island of
\revision{zero-potential} sites since this shape minimizes the
kinetic energy \cite{Antal95}. Its diameter can be shown to grow
as $L_{\rm max}^{\rm (D)}\propto (\log L)^{1/D}$, and therefore we
expect the energy of the ground state to scale as $E_0\propto \log
L^{-2/D}$. Again, the proof is based on the similar argument as in
the 1D case, except that one has to replace the characteristic
length $l_0$ by the volume $l_0^D$ in arbitrary dimension. The
numerical confirmation of the scaling for the 2D case is shown in
the inset of figure \ref{fig:LifshitsTailAndGroundStateScaling}.
For comparison, we plot in the same inset the ground state energy obtained from a
random-amplitude disorder (i.e., one where to each site
corresponds a random potential $V_i$, uniformly distributed in the
interval $[0,V^{'}]$). We see that the rate of convergence of the
energy for a Bernoulli distribution is quicker than for a uniform
distribution. Because of this, the potential with a Bernoulli
distribution is ideal for ground state energy convergence as well
as localization of low energy states. This may be quickly seen as
follows, while further details are given in \ref{app:convergence}.
If the potential takes value zero with a positive probability $p$,
one can define islands of zero potential as the natural locus of
the ground eigenstate. In cases where the values of the
potential are positive, even when they are arbitrarily close to
zero, the low potential islands can still be defined, using a
(volume-dependent) energy cut-off, but the contribution to energy
from such islands will in this case be larger. Accordingly, the
convergence of the ground state energy to zero will be faster in
the former case. Among the distributions which assign a fixed
probability $p$ to the zero value of the potential, the optimal
ones to work with are the Bernoulli distributions, in which some
positive value $V$ is assumed with probability $1-p$. While the
rate of convergence of the ground state energy to zero is
comparable for all such distributions, the advantage of the
Bernoulli distribution is that it localizes the low energy states
more clearly. The analysis of other potential distributions is
more complicated, because it necessitates introducing an energy
cut-off to define low potential islands. The Bernoulli potential
is also easier to work with numerically, since it requires
sampling fewer potential realizations.
Although we do not expect any of the properties discussed in the
following to depend on the specific type of bounded disorder, we
clearly see that the Bernoulli choice yields a much faster
convergence of the ground state energy to the desired asymptotic
behaviour.
\subsection{Lifshits tail}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{fig2}
\caption{Properties of non-interacting dirty bosons in 2D. Main
figure: the cumulative density of states $\mathcal N(\epsilon)$
shows a Lifshits tail (purple dashed line) given
by\ (\ref{eq:LifshitsTail}). Here we have taken a
200$\times$200 lattice, and averaged over 10 realizations. Inset:
ground state energy $E_0$ in 2D plotted versus linear size of the system
$L$; results for Bernoulli disorder are plotted in blue and scale as $\sim1/\log
L$, while results for random-amplitude disorder are plotted in orange and scale
as $\sim \log \log L/\log L$.} \label{fig:LifshitsTailAndGroundStateScaling}
\end{figure}
Since the disordered potential is chosen to be finite, the spectrum of the system is bounded from below. As a
consequence, the spectrum is expected to exhibit a so-called
Lifshits tail \cite{Lugan07,Simon85}, in the sense that
the cumulative density of states (cDOS) $\mathcal
N(\epsilon)=\int^\epsilon\mathrm{d}\epsilon'\
\mathcal{D}(\epsilon')$ behaves at low energies as
\begin{equation} \mathcal{N}(\epsilon) \sim \exp
\left[-c(\epsilon-V_{\rm min})^{-D/2}\right].
\label{eq:LifshitsTail} \end{equation}
The cDOS and the associated Lifshits tail for the considered 2D
system were obtained numerically and are shown in figure
\ref{fig:LifshitsTailAndGroundStateScaling}. The Lifshits states
lie on well-separated islands, and have almost degenerate energies
since the islands' diameters are approximately the same.
\section{Interacting case}\label{sec:interacting}
In this Section we will present two common theoretical approaches
used to describe a Bose gas with short-range interaction
potential. The first one corresponds to a simplified version of
Multi-Orbital Hartree--Fock (sMOHF) method, based on an expansion
into single-particle eigenstates. As we will see, sMOHF is
suitable to describe a weakly-interacting system, whose ground
state occupies few disconnected large islands of zero potential.
For more sophisticated version of the Hartree--Fock approach
applied to bosons, see \cite{Cederbaum}. The second method is the
standard Gross--Pitaevskii (GP) equation, which describes the
dynamics of a fully-coherent matter wave, and \revision{correctly
describes also the regime of strong interactions, where large
overlaps between the islands and self-interaction on
each island play an important role.} overlap between the islands.
Before going into details, let us estimate when the sMOHF
description based on non-interacting single particle states should
be valid. As we have discussed, this regime corresponds to the
Lifshits glass region. Let us assume that we have $\tilde r$ {\it
filled} islands of the characteristic size $l_0$, and "volume"
$l_0^D$, so that
$$\tilde rl_0^D=CL^D,$$
where the proportionality constant $C$ depends,
in general, weakly on $p$ and the density $\rho$, since it
results from the complex interplay between the kinetic and
interaction energy. In the following we will ignore this
dependence.
The Lifshits glass regime occurs then for an inter-particle
interaction coupling $g$ smaller than the characteristic value
$g_{\rm ch}$, at which the kinetic energy is comparable to the
interaction energy. An estimate of the characteristic coupling is
easily obtained by equating the kinetic energy per particle
$\simeq 1/l_0^2$, with the interaction energy $\simeq gN/\tilde
rl_0^D$. Using the above expression for $\tilde{r}$, we obtain
\begin{equation} g_{\rm ch}\simeq C/\rho l_0^2 \simeq
C(|\log{p}|)^{2/D}/\rho(|\log{L}|)^{2/D}. \label{eq:g_ch}\end{equation}
\revision{This scaling provides a good estimate of the coupling at
which the two energies depicted in figure
\ref{fig:MOHFandGPenergies} start to diverge.}
\subsection{Multi-orbital Hartree--Fock approach}
In the sMOHF treatment, the wave function is expressed in the
single particle eigenstates, and is taken to be in the product
form
\begin{equation} |\Psi\rangle=\prod_k \frac{(\hat{a}^\dagger_k)^{n_k}}{\sqrt{n_k!}
}|0\rangle, \end{equation}
where $|0\rangle$ is the vacuum of the system and $a^\dagger_k$
creates a particle in the $k$th non-interacting eigenstate
(i.e., orbital). We consider repulsive interactions of
strength $g>0$, which yield an interaction energy given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle \hat{U}_{\rm int}\rangle=\frac g 2 \int \rm{d}{\bf x} \
\hat\psi^\dagger({\bf x})\hat\psi^\dagger({\bf x})\hat\psi({\bf x})\hat\psi({\bf x})=\nonumber\\
\frac g 2 \int \rm{d}{\bf x} \sum\psi^*_{k_1}({\bf x})\psi^*_{k_2}({\bf x})\psi_{k_3}({\bf x})\psi_{k_4}({\bf x})\hat{a}^\dagger_{k_1}\hat{a}^\dagger_{k_2}\hat{a}_{k_3}\hat{a}_{k_4},
\end{eqnarray}
where the sum runs only over terms conserving number of particles,
i.e., such that $k_1+k_2=k_3+k_4$. The
diagonal terms ($\hat{a}^\dagger_{k}\hat{a}^\dagger_{k}\hat{a}_{k}\hat{a}_{k}$) contribute
a factor $\frac g 2 \sum_{k} {n}_k({n}_k-1)O_{k,k}$, where we have
defined the overlaps \mbox{$O_{k,j}=\int {\rm d}{\bf
x}|\psi_k({\bf x})|^2|\psi_j({\bf x})|^2$}.
There are two other possibilities which conserve the number of
particles: ($k_4=k_1$ and $k_3=k_2$), or ($k_4=k_2$ and
$k_3=k_1$). These two terms, called direct and exchange terms, are
equal for bosons, and their sum contributes a factor $\frac g 2
\sum_{j\neq k}2n_k n_j O_{k,j}$.
The average interaction energy reads then:
\begin{equation}
\langle \hat{U}_{\rm int}\rangle =\frac g 2 \sum_{k}\left[n_k(n_k-1)O_{k,k}+\sum_{j\neq k} 2n_kn_jO_{k,j}\right].
\end{equation}
The occupation
probabilities $n_k$ yielding the ground state may now be found by
minimizing the total energy
\begin{equation} \label{eq:total_energy} E=\sum_k n_k E_k+\langle \hat{U}_{\rm
int}\rangle, \end{equation}
subject to the constraints of normalization and positivity of all $n_k$,
\begin{equation} \label{nc} \sum_k n_k=N,\quad \forall k,\, n_k\geq 0.\end{equation}
We present the analytic solution of this problem in
\ref{app:completeSol}.
\subsection{Gross--Pitaevskii approach}
The properties of the system may be analysed also in the framework
of the usual GP equation,
\begin{equation} \label{eq:GP} \left(-\frac{\hbar^2}{2m} \triangle+V+g N
|\psi({\bf x})|^2\right)\psi({\bf x})=\mu\psi({\bf x}) \end{equation}
which describes the behaviour of an interacting Bose gas in terms
of a single-particle coherent wave-function. We find the ground
state and the chemical potential $\mu$ by imaginary time
evolution, applying an operator split method. The ground state
energy $E$ is related to $\mu$ by the formula
\begin{equation} E=\mu - \frac{gN}{2} \int \rm{d}{\bf x}\, |\psi({\bf x})|^4.\end{equation}
\section{Comparison of $\mathbf{sMOHF}$ and GP approaches}\label{sec:comparison}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{fig3}
\caption{\revision{Ground state energies obtained by sMOHF
(dashed) and GP (continuous) for various disorder densities $p$.
The value of the coupling constant at which the energies obtained
by the two methods start to diverge is estimated by equation
(\ref{eq:g_ch}).
Results obtained by averaging over 5 simulations and $V=5t$.}}
\label{fig:MOHFandGPenergies}
\end{figure}
In this Section, we present the numerical solutions of the sMOHF
and GP equations, comparing the performance of the two methods. In
particular, we discuss and compare the ground state energy, the
superfluid fraction, and the fractal dimension. \revision{As we
will see, in the regime of strong disorder (Lifshits regime) sMOHF
provides ground state energies in accord with GP. Nonetheless,
sMOHF has the advantage of being insensitive to convergence
issues, and its \revision{solution} is generally much faster than
GP. \revision{The fact that in this regime both methods agree
confirms the intuition that the particles populate low-lying
eigenstates, the Lifshits islands}. In the regime where
interactions dominate over the disorder, we will show instead that
GP provides energies which are perceptibly lower than sMOHF.}
Unless otherwise noted, the numerics presented in this section
have been obtained \revision{for a system on a 2D lattice with
$32\times32$ sites, $N_{\mathrm{part}}=10^4$ particles,
a Bernoulli potential with $V=5t$ or $V=50t$}, and we have set
$t=\hbar^2/2m=k_B=1$. Where needed, we have performed appropriate
averages to obtain results which are independent of the particular
disorder configuration.
\subsection{Energy}
In figure \ref{fig:MOHFandGPenergies} we compare the energies
obtained through the sMOHF approach with those obtained from the
GP equation as a function of the interaction strength $g$. For a
coupling constant $g$ smaller than a characteristic value $g_{\rm
ch}$, the \revision{minimization of expression
(\ref{eq:total_energy}) and the GP equation yield the same values
of energy proving that sMOHF method correctly describes the system
in this limit.}
The characteristic value $g_{\rm ch}$ is given by the interaction strength at
which the energy obtained from the sMOHF \revision{starts to differs from the
one obtained by the GP equation.} The
range of $g$ for which sMOHF approach is \revision{an equivalent
description} shrinks with increasing $p$,
as the scatterers become increasingly sparser, leaving large
regions of zero potential. The range of applicability of sMOHF
also shrinks with decreasing $V$. For values of the interaction
$g\gg g_{\rm ch}$, the disorder plays a negligible role and the
energy per particle saturates to the analytic value
$E=\overline{E}+g \rho/2$, where $\overline{E}$ is a constant that
depends on $V$ and $p$. This analytic result is recovered by the
numerical solution of the GP equation, but not by the sMOHF
approach.
\begin{figure*}
a)\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{fig4a}
b)\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{fig4b}
\caption{Superfluid fraction $\rho_{\rm sf}$ as a function of
potential density $p$ and interaction strength $g$ \revision{for
a) $V=5t$ b) $V=50t$.
}
} \label{fig:SFfraction}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Superfluid fraction}
The superfluid fraction $\rho_{\rm sf}$ may be defined in terms of
the energy change of a periodic system in response to twisted
boundary conditions along one direction. To calculate this
quantity we solve the GP equation (\ref{eq:GP}) with boundary
conditions
$\psi_{i+L,j}={\rm e}^{{\rm i} \Phi} \psi_{i,j}$, and we obtain
\begin{equation} \rho_{\rm sf}=\frac{2mL^2}{\hbar^2} \frac{E(\Phi)-E(0)}{\Phi^2}, \end{equation}
where $E(\Phi)$ is the energy per particle of a system with the
total phase shift $\Phi$. \revision{Our results are depicted in figure \ref{fig:SFfraction}.
In the regime where sMOHF provides a good description, the SF fraction
is negligible because the localized single-particle eigenstates experience an exponentially small
energy change due to the imposed phase shift.
The GP equation instead yields a perceptibly lower energy than sMOHF when the
superfluid fraction $\rho_{\rm sf}$ becomes sufficiently large ($ \rho_{\rm sf}\gtrsim 0.1$).}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{fig5}
\caption{Scaling of the logarithm of the participation number
$\log_L P$ versus the inverse of the logarithm of the lattice
size. The slope of the lines, being the logarithm of $c$, allows
for determining the fraction of space occupied by the state. Main
figure: 1D lattice of length $L$, and interaction strengths
$g=0.1$(empty) and $g=10$(filled). The potential densities are
respectively $p=0.4$(red circles) and $0.7$(blue squares). Inset:
2D lattice of linear size $L$, interaction strength $g=10$,
potential parameter $p=0.6$(green diamonds), $0.8$ (purple
triangles).}\label{fig:fracDimvsL}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Fractal dimension}
As we have discussed in the previous sections, the ground state of
a weakly-interacting fluid is localized on one or a few Lifshits
islands. When interactions start to play an important role, the
extension of the ground state increases generally until the gas
occupies all available space. In order to provide a quantitative
measure of the extension of the ground state, we calculate its
fractal dimension $d^*$ \cite{Kramer93}, and introduce here the
concept of \emph{fractional occupation} $c$.
The fractal dimension is defined as a minimum $d^{*}$ such that
\begin{equation} \lim_{L\rightarrow\infty} \frac{P}{L^{d^*}}=c,\, c>0.
\label{eq:fracdim_def}\end{equation}
Here $P=1/\int \rm{d}{\bf x} |\psi_0({\bf x})|^4=1/O_{0,0}$ is the
so-called ``participation number'' of the ground state
\cite{Kramer93}. For an extended state such as a plane wave one
finds that $P$ is proportional to the volume of the system, and
therefore the fractal dimension equals the Euclidean
dimension, $d^*= D$. For a state which is instead localized in a
volume $Q$, the participation number behaves as $Q$, and the
corresponding fractal dimension vanishes if $Q$ grows slower than
any power of $L$. For instance, the ground state of the
non-interacting system is localized on an island of volume $Q\sim
\log L$ which for all $\alpha$ grows slower then $L^{\alpha}$. So,
in general, one has $0\leq d^*\leq D$.
Analysing the results obtained from both sMOHF and GP approaches, we find
that $d^*=D$ for any $g>0$. This may be seen as follows. Assuming
that $d^*$ is bounded strictly below $D$, we see that the
interaction energy $(gN/2)\int \rm{d}{\bf x}\, |\psi_0({\bf x})|^4$ will
diverge. Physically, there is not enough space for the particles
to keep the interaction energy bounded unless they spread out
through a non-zero proportion of the whole space. If $\log_{L} P =
D - f(L)$, and $\lim_{L\to\infty} L^D/L^{d^*} = c$, then it must
be that $L^{f(L)} \to c$, so $f(L) \approx \log(c)/\log(L)$.
Numerical results confirm this behaviour in both 1D and 2D.
To show this, in figure \ref{fig:fracDimvsL} we plot $\log_L P$ as
a function of $1/\log L$ for a 1D system and a 2D system (inset).
\begin{figure*}
a)\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{fig6a}
b)\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{fig6b}
\caption{Fractional occupation $c$ of the ground state as a
function of potential density $p$ and interaction strength $g$ for
\revision{a) $V=5t$ and b) $V=50t$}. Here we have considered a 2D
lattice and $c$ was obtained by averaging over 5 potential
realizations.} \label{fig:c_vs_g_vs_p}
\end{figure*}
The quantity $c$, which takes values between 0 and 1, can be
interpreted as the fraction of space occupied by the ground state,
and we will therefore refer to it as the \emph{fractional
occupation} of the ground state. We show our results for the
fractional occupation in figure \ref{fig:c_vs_g_vs_p}.
\revision{For strong disorder ($V\gg t$)} the fractional
occupation $c$ displays at intermediate interactions a plateau at
$\sim p$. \revision{This coincides with a similar plateau in the
plot of the superfluid fraction (cf.\ figures \ref{fig:SFfraction}b and \ref{fig:c_vs_g_vs_p}b).} In
1D the explanation for such behaviour of $c$ \revision{and
$\rho_{\mathrm{sf}}$} is the following. For small $g$ the wave
function fills only a part of zero-potential space. Indeed, for
$g=0$, we have a linear operator and therefore the ground state is
approximately the wave function on the longest island of zero
potential, yielding a nearly zero $c$. For $g$ small such that
$gN/2$ is approximately $1/(\log L)^{2}$, the ground state spreads
to many of the long islands: the kinetic energy increases a little
(on the order $1/(\log L)^3$) while interaction energy decreases
by a factor $1/(\#$ of islands). As $g$ grows to be on the order
of $1$, it supports itself on all sites of zero potential save for
the shortest islands, so $c \approx p$. This is where the graphs
level off in (Fig \ref{fig:c_vs_g_vs_p}), where the ground state
does not have large norm on short islands of zero potential and
sites of $V$ potential.
For large interactions one may use the Thomas-Fermi Approximation,
cf. \cite{Lewenstein12}. Suppose we choose an ansatz such that the
wave function equals $\frac{m}{\sqrt{pL}}$ on sites of zero
potential and $\frac{\sqrt{1-m^2}}{\sqrt{qL}}$, then energy
optimizing $m$ would be $m^2 = p + \frac{pqV}{g\rho}$ and $ 1 -
m^2 = q - \frac{pqV}{g\rho}$. If $g \rho \leq p V$, then the above
ansatz is invalid, and the ground state stays exclusively on sites
of zero potential. If we compare the energy of a wave function
equal to $\frac{1}{\sqrt{pL}}$ on sites of zero potential and zero
elsewhere to a wave function that is equal to $\frac{1}{\sqrt{L}}$
everywhere, and ignore the kinetic energy terms (which we can
control by another parameter), we see that the first wave function
provides a better variational ansatz if $\frac{g\rho}{2} \leq
pV$. This means that for $g\rho \lesssim 2pV$, we are in an area
where $c \approx p$, that is, the kinetic energy and interaction
energy are balancing, but any significant support of the ground
state on the sites occupied by scatterers is too costly.
\revision{Since the wave function does not spread significantly in
this regime, also the superfluid fraction remains constant.}
\section{Comparison of temperature and interaction effects}\label{sec:temp}
In this section we turn to the analysis of the effects of
non-zero temperature in a non-interacting system. We will see
that those remind very much effects of interactions at zero
temperature, and yet are quite different.
\subsection{Single-particle density distribution}
For free boson systems, the effects of temperature may be studied
by expanding arbitrary states in the basis of
non-interacting eigenstates, in analogy with what we did to treat
the interacting case. In this approximation, the average density
of the gas reads
\begin{equation} \rho({\bf x})=L^{-D}\sum n_k |\psi_k({\bf x})|^2. \end{equation}
An approximation of a typical wave-function is then given by
\begin{equation} \psi({\bf x})=\sum \sqrt{w_k}{\rm e}^{i\phi_k}\psi_k({\bf x}), \end{equation}
where ${\rm e}^{i\phi_k}$ are random phases, and $w_k$ is a Gaussian random
variable with distribution $\mathcal{P}(w_k)=n_k^{-1}{\rm e}^{-w_k/n_k}$, such
that $\langle w_k\rangle_{\mathcal{P}}=n_k$.
The occupation factors depend on the statistics of the particles.
Identical bosons follow the Bose--Einstein distribution \begin{equation}
n_k=\frac{1}{{\rm e}^{(E_k-\mu)/T}-1}. \end{equation}
Distinguishable (or classical) particles would instead populate the
non-interacting eigenstates following a Boltzmann distribution, $n_k= {\rm
e}^{-(E_k-\mu)/T}$.
At zero temperature, only the lowest energy state will have a
non-zero population, i.e., $n_k=N\delta_{0,k}$. Non-zero
temperatures will modify the occupation probabilities,
redistributing population over the higher energy states, but we
expect that for $T\ll t$ only the lowest energy states (the
Lifshits states) will be populated.
\revision{We note here that in an interacting 2D Bose gas of finite extension one
generally expects a crossover between two qualitatively different
regimes. At very low temperatures ($T<T_C$) phase correlations in the gas decay algebraically with distance. For
temperatures larger than the critical value $T_C$ instead, phase
correlations decay exponentially with distance. This switch in the decay of correlations can be traced back to the dissociation of bound vortex-antivortex pairs at $T>T_C$. The crossover
becomes a real phase transition in an infinite system, and the
underlying mechanism goes under the name of Berezinskii-Kosterlitz-Thouless
(BKT) transition \cite{BKT}.
Our approach to finite temperatures is rather crude, and is not
well suited to describe BKT physics, which requires considering
both temperature and interactions at the same time. However, for
the range of parameters considered in this manuscript, our model
provides a qualitative, although simplified, explanation of the
complementary roles payed by temperature and interactions.
Moreover, a similar scenario to the one considered here is present
in three dimensions, where a true BEC exists at low temperatures.}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
a)\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{fig7a}
b)\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{fig7b}
c)\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{fig7c} \caption{Comparison
of temperature and interaction effects. First two rows: thermally
averaged single particle density with respectively Boltzmann (top)
and Bose (centre) statistics; from left to right, $T/t=$0, 0.1,
0.2, 0.5. \newline Bottom row: single particle density of an
interacting gas; from left to right, $g\rho/t=0,\ 0.1,\ 2,\
10.$\newline The red dots indicate the sites occupied by the
disordered scatterers. The average density is
$\rho=0.9$particles/site.}
\label{fig:temperatureAndInteractionEffects}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{fig8}
\caption{Occupations of the single particle states for the
simulations shown in columns 2,3, and 4 of
figure \ref{fig:temperatureAndInteractionEffects}. The lines are:
Boltzmann (yellow dotted), Bose (red dashed), and sMOHF (blue
continuous). Results averaged over 200 simulations.
\revision{x-axis: index labeling the single-particle state; y-axis: occupation.}}
\label{fig:occupations}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Non-zero temperature}
As temperature is raised, the cloud gets to occupy more and more
islands; when $T\lesssim V$ it will populate all unoccupied sites,
and for $T\gg V$ it will occupy even sites inhabited by
scatterers.
The averaged densities in presence of positive non-zero
temperature are shown in
figure \ref{fig:temperatureAndInteractionEffects}a) and b). While a
classical cloud quickly spreads over various low energy states, a
bosonic gas at low temperatures tends to condense in a single or
few Lifshits states. Interaction effects in a bosonic cloud at
$T=0$, instead, yield at first sight a state which very much
resembles the Boltzmann case. Even for moderate repulsive
interactions, the cloud spreads over various Lifshits states.
Effects of interactions at $T=0$ are shown in
figure \ref{fig:temperatureAndInteractionEffects}c.
The occupation probabilities $n_k$ for the three cases analysed
above (Boltzmann, Bose, and interacting) are shown in figure
\ref{fig:occupations}. Since the lowest-energy single-particle
states correspond to the localized and well separated Lifshits
states, a population distribution which is narrow in energy
corresponds to a ground state localized on one or very few
well-separated islands, the Lifshits glass. As the temperature
increases the Bose liquid tends to have a rather narrow population
distribution, while the Boltzmann and interacting distributions
quickly spread. Nonetheless, a few important differences may be
noted comparing the two latter cases, as maybe seen in
Figs.~\ref{fig:temperatureAndInteractionEffects}a and
\ref{fig:temperatureAndInteractionEffects}c. While the population
distribution for the Boltzmann case smoothly decreases, with a
long tail, the distribution for the interacting case has a local
minimum at very low $k$, while at larger $k$ goes through a
maximum and then quickly drops to zero. These features can be
understood in the following way. The eigenstates with lowest
energies tend to have higher inverse participations (overlaps),
i.e., the Lifshits states are rather concentrated on a single or
few islands while states at intermediate energies are delocalized
over the whole system. For an interacting system is therefore
preferable to occupy states indexed by states with intermediate
$k$ values, as their larger spatial extension helps to reduce the
interaction energy. At very high energies ($k\gg1$) instead the
states have again very high $O_{kk}$, since they become completely
localized on single sites, and their populations abruptly drop to
zero, as it is too costly energetically to put particles with
repulsive interactions in small regions of space.
\section{Conclusions}\label{sec:conclusions}
In this paper we have considered a bosonic lattice gas in
the presence of Bernoulli disorder, given by randomly-localized identical
scatterers. We have shown that in this case it is possible to
provide precise analytical estimates even for the interacting case.
\revision{We have compared two theoretical schemes,
the simplified multi-orbital Hartree--Fock and the Gross--Pitaevskii
approaches, showing how the first is very accurate in the glassy
regime of strong disorder, but it fails when interactions bring the system into an extended state and the
superfluid fraction reaches values $\rho_{\it sf}\gtrsim 0.1$.}
Further, we have shown analytically that the fractal dimension for
this kind of potential tends to the physical dimension of the
system. As a result, we have introduced a quantity termed
{\it fractional occupation}, which characterizes the typical
extension of the system. When the latter becomes of order $p$,
i.e., the fraction of physical space where scatterers are
absent, the system crosses over from the Lifshits to the Bose
glass. Finally, we have discussed the similarities and differences
between effects due to interaction and temperature. This
question is of fundamental importance for ongoing experiments, since in a
laboratory the two effects are often difficult to distinguish. We
hope that our results will provide new insights in the complex
route towards understanding the interplay between disorder,
interactions, and temperature in quantum mechanical systems.
\ack
\revision{We acknowledge insightful discussions with F. Cuccheti and L.
Sanchez-Palencia. Finantial support from Spanish goverment
Grants FIS2008-01236, FIS2008-00784 and Consolider Ingenio CDS2006-0019,
Catalan Goverment Grant SGR09-00343 as well as ERC- Advance Grant QUAGATUA and
ERDF (European Regional Develpment Fund) is acknowledged.
M.L also acknowleges Alexander Humbolf Foundation and Hamburg Theory Award.
J.W. and M.B. work was partially supported by the NSF grant DMS 0623941. J.S. is
supported by the Spanish Ministry of Education through the program FPU. J.W.
thanks ICFO and L. Torner for hospitality.}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{intro}
General Relativity in 3+1 dimensions does not admit static, nonsingular, asymptotically flat and topolotically trivial vacuum space-time solutions \cite{Serini:1918,Einstein:1943,Lichnerowicz:1955}. In this article, we investigate whether such configurations of the gravitation field, or \emph{gravitational geons} \cite{Wheeler:1955zz,Brill:1964zz,Sones:2005gn}, are possible \emph{on the brane} in the Randall and Sundrum model \cite{Randall:1999vf,Randall:1999ee} in which the three spatial dimensions that we experience are a 3 dimensional brane embedded in a 4+1 dimensional space-time. The effective 3+1 dimensional Einstein field equations on the brane for the Randall and Sundrum model were derived by Shiromizu, Maeda, and Sasaki \cite{Shiromizu:1999wj}.
Gravity on the brane is prevented from \emph{leaking} into the extra dimension at low energies by a negative bulk cosmological constant \cite{Maartens:2010ar}. This negative cosmological constant can be offset by a positive brane tension such that there is a zero cosmological constant on the brane. In the case of a gravitational geon solution in which no matter is present, there would nevertheless be a generally non-zero effective energy-momentum tensor induced on the brane corresponding to
\begin{equation}
^{(4)}\mathcal{E}_{\mu\nu}={\frac{1}{8\pi}}{}^{(5)}C^{\alpha}_{\beta\rho\sigma}\eta_{\alpha}\eta^{\rho}h^{\beta}_{\mu}h^{\sigma}_{\nu}
\label{introduction:14}
\end{equation}
\noindent where \begin{math}^{(4)}\mathcal{E}_{\mu\nu}\end{math} is a 4-dimensional projection of the 5-dimensional Weyl tensor \begin{math}^{(5)}C^{\alpha}_{\beta\rho\sigma}\end{math}, \begin{math}\eta_{\alpha}\end{math} is normal to the brane and \begin{math}h_{\mu\nu}=g_{\mu\nu}-\eta_{\mu}\eta_{\nu}\end{math} is the induced metric on the brane \cite{Shiromizu:1999wj,Vollick:2000jv}.
In their investigation of black holes on the brane, Dadhich, Maartens, Papadopoulos and Rezania showed that the Reissner-Nordstrom metric is an exact solution to the effective 3+1 dimensional Einstein field equations on the brane and can be interpreted as a black hole without electric charge but with a \emph{tidal charge} that arises from the solution to the Einstein field equations in 4+1 dimensions \cite{Dadhich:2000am}. They further showed that, in the induced metric for their exact black hole solution, the free gravitational field in the bulk contributes a negative effective energy density on the brane and tends to strengthen the gravitational field.
In this paper, we investigate whether the free gravitational field in the bulk modifies the gravitational field on the brane so that gravitational geons are possible on the brane. Our approach is to look at a specific static, spherically symmetric solution of the form
\begin{equation}
ds^2=-B(r)dt^2+A(r) dr^ 2+ r^2(d\theta^2 + \sin^2\theta d\phi^2) \mbox{ .}
\label{introduction:1}
\end{equation}
\noindent For this metric, the 4 dimensional Ricci scalar on the brane is given by \cite{Vollick:2000jv}
\begin{equation}
R= \frac{B''}{AB} - \frac{B'}{2AB}\left(\frac{A'}{A}+ \frac{B'}{B}\right) + \frac{2}{Ar}\left(\frac{B'}{B} - \frac{A'}{A}\right) + \frac{2}{Ar^2} - \frac{2}{r^2} \mbox{ ,}
\label{introduction:2}
\end{equation}
\noindent where the prime indicates differentiation with respect to r.
Our approach is to choose \begin{math}B(r)\end{math} and solve \begin{math}R=0\end{math} in (\ref{introduction:2}) for \begin{math}A(r)\end{math}. Substituting a solution to \begin{math}R=0\end{math} into the Einstein field equations for 3+1 dimensional general relativity gives a trace free energy-momentum tensor
\begin{equation}
T_{\mu\nu} = \frac{1}{8\pi} R_{\mu\nu} \mbox{ ,}
\label{introduction:17}
\end{equation}
\noindent that satisfies
\begin{equation}
\nabla^{\mu}{T}_{\mu\nu} = 0 \mbox{ .}
\label{introduction:18}
\end{equation}
\noindent For a vacuum solution on the brane, the projection of the 5-dimensional Weyl tensor (\ref{introduction:14}) satisfies \cite{Dadhich:2000am,Maartens:2000fg}
\begin{equation}
\nabla^{\mu}\mathcal{E}_{\mu\nu} = 0 \mbox{ ,}
\label{introduction:19}
\end{equation}
\noindent allowing us to make the correspondence \begin{math}8\pi T_{\mu\nu} = -\mathcal{E}_{\mu\nu}\end{math} and treat \begin{math}R=0\end{math} along with equations (\ref{introduction:17}) and (\ref{introduction:18}) as a closed system of equations on the brane. The effect is that (from \cite{Dadhich:2000am}) \begin{quote}\emph{"a stationary general relativity solution with trace-free energy-momentum tensor gives rise to a vacuum brane-world solution in 5-dimensional gravity."}\end{quote} Examples of other papers that use this correspondence to investigate vacuum solutions on the brane with \begin{math}R=0\end{math} (or \begin{math}R=4\Lambda\end{math} if one assumes a non-zero cosmological constant on the brane) include \cite{Vollick:2000jv,Bronnikov:2002rn,Casadio:2001jg,Molina:2010yu,Aliev:2009cg,Sheykhi:2008et}.
In this paper we will show that gravitational geons are possible on the brane.
We are not interested in space-time solutions with singularities so we examined the Kretschmann scalar for divergent behaviour in order to identify candidate space-times. The Kretschmann scalar is given by
\begin{equation}
R_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}R^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma} = 4K_1^2+8K_2^2+8K_3^2+4K_4^2
\label{introduction:8}
\end{equation}
\noindent where \cite{Bronnikov:2002rn}
\begin{equation}
K_1=\frac{1}{A}\left(\frac{B''}{2B}-\frac{(B')^2}{4B^2}-\frac{A'B'}{4AB}\right) \mbox{ ,}
\label{introduction:9}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
K_2=\frac{B'}{2ABr} \mbox{ ,}
\label{introduction:10}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
K_3=\frac{-A'}{2A^2r} \mbox{ and}
\label{introduction:11}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
K_4=\frac{A-1}{Ar^2} \mbox{ .}
\label{introduction:12}
\end{equation}
From (\ref{introduction:11}) and (\ref{introduction:12}) we must have \begin{math}\displaystyle\lim_{r \to 0}A(r) = 1 + O(r^n) \mbox{ with } n \ge 2\end{math} to avoid divergence of the Kretschmann scalar. Similarly, from (\ref{introduction:10}) it follows that \begin{math}\displaystyle \lim_{r \to 0}\frac{B'(r)}{B(r)} = O(r^m) \mbox{ with } m \ge 1\end{math}.
In this paper, we take
\begin{equation}
B(r)=1-\frac{2mr^2}{r^3+2ml^2} \mbox{ ,}
\label{introduction:13}
\end{equation}
\noindent for which \begin{math}B'(0) = 0\end{math}, \begin{math}B(0) = 1\end{math}, both \begin{math}B(r)\end{math} and \begin{math}B'(r)\end{math} are continuous for all \begin{math}r \ge 0\end{math} and \begin{math}B(r)\end{math} is Schwarzschild in the limit as \begin{math}r \to \infty\end{math}. We also consider general functions \begin{math}B(r)\end{math} in the weak field limit.
The solutions that we investigate have \begin{math}A(r)\end{math} and \begin{math}B(r)\end{math} greater than zero and finite for all \begin{math}r \ge 0\end{math}. This ensures that the spacetime will be nonsingular and without horizons.
\section{Outline of Our Approach}
For static solutions, we have \begin{math}R=0\end{math} which can be written as
\begin{equation}
A'= \frac{(2BB''r^2 - (B')^2r^2 + 4BB'r + 4B^2)A - 4B^2A^2}{Br(B'r + 4B)} \mbox{ .}
\label{approach:1}
\end{equation}
We did not find a general solution to (\ref{approach:1}) for our choice of \begin{math}B(r)\end{math}. In the absence of a general solution, our approach is as follows
\begin{itemize}
\item
Solve (\ref{approach:1}) in the weak field limit.
\item
Use directional field plots (generated using Maple) and iterative numerical analysis to discover the behaviour of \begin{math}A(r)\end{math}.
\item
Find solutions near potential singular points (i.e. at \begin{math}r=0 \mbox{ and } B'r+4B=0\end{math}) in (\ref{approach:1}) using series approximation. Specifically, we write (\ref{approach:1}) in the form
\begin{equation}
A'(r)= f(r) A(r) + g(r) A^2(r) \mbox{ .}
\label{approach:2}
\end{equation}
Letting \begin{math}F'(r) = f(r)\end{math} then (\ref{approach:2}) has the solution \cite{Bronnikov:2002rn}
\begin{equation}
A(r)= \frac{-1}{e^{-F(r)}\int{g(r)e^{F(r)}dr}} \mbox{ .}
\label{approach:3}
\end{equation}
\item
Examine the behaviour of the Kretschmann scalar \begin{math}R_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}R^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}\end{math} at potential singular points.
\end{itemize}
\section{The Weak Field Approximation}
In the weak field, taking \begin{math}B(r)=1+b(r)\end{math} and \begin{math}A(r)=1+a(r)\end{math} with \begin{math}|b(r)| << 1\end{math} and \begin{math}|a(r)|<<1\end{math}, (\ref{approach:1}) can be written as
\begin{equation}
a' \approx \frac{b''r^2 + 2b'r - 2a}{2r} \mbox{ .}
\label{weak:2}
\end{equation}
\noindent This has the solution (where \begin{math}c\end{math} is a constant of integration)
\begin{equation}
a = \frac{b'r}{2} + \frac{c}{r} \mbox{ .}
\label{weak:3}
\end{equation}
\noindent Noting that \begin{math}c=0\end{math} to ensure that \begin{math}A\end{math} is finite at \begin{math}r=0\end{math}, any choice of \begin{math}B(r)\end{math} for which \begin{math}b'r\end{math} is small for all r would give suitable geon solutions in the weak field.
For our choice of \begin{math}B(r)\end{math} this becomes
\begin{equation}
a = \frac{mr^5 - 4m^2 l^2 r^2}{(r^3 + 2m l^2)^2} \mbox{ .}
\label{weak:4}
\end{equation}
\noindent For \begin{math}r << \left(ml^2 \right)^{\frac{1}{3}}\end{math} we have \begin{math}B \approx 1 + \left( \frac{r}{l} \right)^2\end{math} and \begin{math}A \approx 1 - \left( \frac{r}{l} \right)^2\end{math}. \begin{math}A(r)\end{math} therefore satisfies the requirements that \begin{math}A(0) = 1\end{math} and \begin{math}\displaystyle\lim_{r \to 0}A(r) = 1 + O(r^n) \mbox{ with } n \ge 2\end{math}. It is worth noting that for large \begin{math}r\end{math}, \begin{math}A\end{math} differs from Schwarzschild with \begin{math}A \approx 1 + \frac{m}{r}\end{math}. Furthermore, the conditions for the weak field,
\begin{equation}
|b(r)| = \frac{2mr^2}{r^3+2ml^2} << 1 \mbox{ and}
\label{weak:5}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
|a(r)| = \left|\frac{mr^5-4m^2l^2r^2}{(r^3+2ml^2)^2}\right| << 1
\label{weak:6}
\end{equation}
\noindent are both met for \begin{math}\frac{r}{l} << 1\end{math} and for \begin{math}\frac{m}{l} << 1\end{math}. The solutions (see fig.\ref{fig:weak_A}) correspond to gravitational geons.
\section{General Behaviour}
We did not find a general solution to (\ref{approach:1}) for strong gravitational fields. We examined the behaviour of \begin{math}A(r)\end{math} using a fourth order Runge-Kutta numerical iteration. Using this method, we were unable to begin at exactly \begin{math}A(0) =1\end{math}. However, \begin{math}A \approx 1 - \left( \frac{r}{l} \right)^2\end{math} for small \begin{math}r\end{math}. Thus, if we choose an iteration length \begin{math}\Delta r\end{math} so that \begin{math}\frac{\Delta r}{l} = 10^{-5}\end{math} then \begin{math}A(\Delta r) \approx 1\end{math} to within \begin{math}10^{-10}\end{math} (independent of \begin{math}m\end{math}). Also, having made the observation from direction field plots that the solution is insensitive to small changes in the initial value of A, we chose \begin{math}\Delta r\end{math} appropriately and used \begin{math}A(\Delta r) = 1\end{math} as the starting point of the iteration.
We are interested in solutions for which both \begin{math}A(r)\end{math} and \begin{math}B(r)\end{math} are greater than zero and finite for all \begin{math}r \ge 0\end{math}. The zeros of \begin{math}B\end{math} can be determined by noting that \begin{math}B(0) = 1\end{math}, \begin{math}\displaystyle\lim_{r \to \infty} B(r) = 1\end{math} and that \begin{math}B' = 0\end{math} at \begin{math}r=(4ml^2)^{\frac{1}{2}}\end{math} where \begin{math}B\end{math} has its minimum value of \begin{math}1-\frac{1}{3}(4\frac{m}{l})^{\frac{2}{3}}\end{math}. Thus
\begin{eqnarray}
B \mbox{ has }
\cases{
\mbox{no zeros} & if $\frac{m}{l} < \frac{\sqrt{27}}{4}$ \cr
\mbox{one zero} & if $\frac{m}{l} = \frac{\sqrt{27}}{4}$ \cr
\mbox{two zeros} & if $\frac{m}{l} > \frac{\sqrt{27}}{4}$ \mbox{.}}
\label{general:10}
\end{eqnarray}
We proceeded to examine the numerical iteration of \begin{math}A(r)\end{math}. We found that it works well provided we choose \begin{math}m \mbox{ and } l\end{math} for which \begin{math}B'r+4B \ne 0\end{math} for all \begin{math}r > 0\end{math} but that it is unable to navigate instabilities in the solution otherwise. The zeros of \begin{math}B'r+4B\end{math} are found by observing that \begin{math}B'r+4B \big|_{r=0} = 4 \mbox{, } \displaystyle\lim_{r \to \infty} B'r+4B = 4\end{math} and that \begin{math}\frac{d}{dr}(B'r+4B) = 0\end{math} at \begin{math}r=(2ml^2)^{\frac{1}{3}}\end{math} where \begin{math}B'r+4B\end{math} has its minimum value of \begin{math}4-(\frac{27m}{4l})^{\frac{2}{3}}\end{math}. Thus
\begin{eqnarray}
B'r+4B \mbox{ has }
\cases{
\mbox{no zeros} & if $\frac{m}{l} < \frac{32}{27}$ \cr
\mbox{one zero} & if $\frac{m}{l} = \frac{32}{27}$ \cr
\mbox{two zeros} & if $\frac{m}{l} > \frac{32}{27}$ \mbox{.}}
\label{general:11}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent Noting that there will be choices of \begin{math}m\end{math} and \begin{math}l\end{math} for which there will be zeros of \begin{math}B'r+4B\end{math} but no zeros of \begin{math}B\end{math}, we investigated the behaviour of \begin{math}A(r)\end{math} around the zeros of \begin{math}B'r+4B\end{math}.
In general, from (\ref{approach:2}), we have
\begin{equation}
f(r)= \frac{2BB''r^2-(B')^2r^2+4BB'r+4B^2}{Br(B'r+4B)} \mbox{ and}
\label{general:2}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
g(r)= \frac{-4B}{r(B'r+4B)} \mbox{ .}
\label{general:3}
\end{equation}
\noindent Taking \begin{math}x = r-r_0\end{math} where \begin{math}B'r+4B \big|_{r=r_0}=0\end{math} we get series approximations for (\ref{general:2}) and (\ref{general:3})
\begin{equation}
f(x) = \frac{\alpha_1}{x} + \alpha_2 + \alpha_3 x +O(x^2) \mbox{ and}
\label{general:12}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
g(x) = \frac{\beta_1}{x} + \beta_2 + \beta_3 x + O(x^2) \mbox{ .}
\label{general:13}
\end{equation}
\noindent In this case, for \begin{math}\alpha_1 \notin \{0, -1, -2, ...\} \end{math}, solutions to (\ref{approach:3}) are of the form
\begin{equation}
\hspace*{-2cm} A(x)= \frac{-1}{\frac{\beta_1}{\alpha_1} - \frac{\beta_1 \alpha_2 - \beta_2 \alpha_1}{\alpha_1(\alpha_1 + 1)} x + \lambda |x|^{-\alpha_1} + O(x^2, \lambda x|x|^{-\alpha_1})} \quad \mbox{(}\lambda \mbox{ - const. of integration). }
\label{general:4}
\end{equation}
\noindent For \begin{math}\alpha_1 \in \{0, -1, -2, ...\} \end{math} we get a different solution for each choice of \begin{math}\alpha_1\end{math}. For example, choosing \begin{math}\alpha_1 = -1\end{math} gives
\begin{equation}
\hspace*{-2cm} A(x)= \frac{-1}{-\beta_1 + (\beta_2 + \beta_1 \alpha_2) x ln|x| + \beta_1 \alpha_2 x + \lambda x + O(x^2 ln|x|)} \quad \mbox{(}\lambda \mbox{ - const. of integration). }
\label{general:6}
\end{equation}
\noindent In each case, the dominant term in the denominator as \begin{math}x \to 0\end{math} results in the same outcome as (\ref{general:4}) that
\begin{eqnarray}
\displaystyle\lim_{x \to 0} A(x) =
\cases{
\frac{-\alpha_1}{\beta_1} & if $\alpha_1 \le 0$ or $\lambda = 0$ \cr
0 & if $\alpha_1 \ge 0$ and $\lambda \neq 0$ .}
\label{general:5}
\end{eqnarray}
We calculated values for \begin{math}\alpha_1 \mbox{ and } \beta_1\end{math} for each zero of \begin{math}B'r+4B\end{math} given a variety of values of \begin{math}m \mbox{ and } l\end{math} (see figs. \ref{fig:AlphasAndBetas} and \ref{fig:AlphasAndBetas2}). Having verified our results for a range of choices \begin{math}0.02 < l < 750\end{math}, we found that at each zero, the values of \begin{math}\alpha_1 \mbox{ and } \beta_1\end{math} depend on \begin{math}\frac{m}{l}\end{math} but not on \begin{math}m \mbox{ and } l\end{math} individually. Knowing that zeros of \begin{math}A(r)\end{math} correspond to singularities in the space-time, we sought to determine where \begin{math}\alpha_1 = 0\end{math} in terms of \begin{math}\frac{m}{l}\end{math}.
With \begin{math}x=r-r_0\end{math}, we have \begin{math}B'r+4B \approx x(B''r+5B')\big|_{r=r_0}\end{math} in the vicinity of each zero of \begin{math}B'r+4B\end{math} so
\begin{eqnarray}
\alpha_1&= \frac{2B''r-\frac{(B')^2r}{B}+4B'+\frac{4B}{r}}{B''r+5B'} \bigg|_{r=r_0} \nonumber \\
&=\frac{2B''r+7B'}{B''r+5B'} \bigg|_{r=r_0} \mbox{ .}
\label{general:7}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent For \begin{math}\alpha_1 = 0\end{math}, substituting in (\ref{introduction:13}), we get the following quadratic in \begin{math}r^3\end{math}
\begin{equation}
r^6 + 14ml^2r^3-24m^2l^4 = 0
\label{general:1}
\end{equation}
\noindent with one positive real root corresponding to \begin{math}r \approx (1.544ml^2)^{\frac{1}{3}}\end{math}. Substituting this into \begin{math}B'r+4B=0\end{math} yields \begin{math}\frac{m}{l} \approx 1.202\end{math}. Based on this (and again looking at figs. \ref{fig:AlphasAndBetas} and \ref{fig:AlphasAndBetas2}), we know that for solutions with \begin{math}\frac{m}{l}>\frac{32}{27}\end{math}, there will be two zeros of \begin{math}B'r+4B\end{math}, that the first will have \begin{math}\alpha_1 > 0\end{math} for \begin{math}\frac{m}{l} > 1.202\end{math} and the second will always have \begin{math}\alpha_1 > 0\end{math}.
We know that \begin{math}A' \to \pm \infty\end{math} corresponds to singular behaviour in the space-time. Differentiating (\ref{general:4}) gives
\begin{equation}
A'(x)= \frac{ - \frac{\beta_1 \alpha_2 - \beta_2 \alpha_1}{\alpha_1(\alpha_1 + 1)} - \frac{\alpha_1 \lambda |x|^{-\alpha_1}}{x} + ... }{\left(\frac{\beta_1}{\alpha_1} - \frac{\beta_1 \alpha_2 - \beta_2 \alpha_1}{\alpha_1(\alpha_1 + 1)}x + \lambda |x|^{-\alpha_1} + ...\right)^2}
\label{general:8}
\end{equation}
\begin{eqnarray}
\displaystyle\lim_{x \to 0} A'(x) =
\cases{
\frac{\alpha_1(\beta_2 \alpha_1 - \beta_1 \alpha_2)}{\beta_1^2(\alpha_1 + 1)} & if $\alpha_1 < -1$ or $\lambda = 0$ \cr
-sgn(\alpha_1 \lambda x) \infty & if $-1 < \alpha_1 < 1$ and $\lambda \neq 0$ \cr
0 & if $\alpha_1 > 1$ and $\lambda \neq 0$ .}
\label{general:9}
\end{eqnarray}
We know from (\ref{general:5}) that we need not consider \begin{math}\alpha_1 > 0\end{math} (unless \begin{math}\lambda = 0\end{math}), but the behaviour of \begin{math}A(r)\end{math} does depend on whether \begin{math}\alpha_1\end{math} is greater or less than -1 at the zeros $B'r+4B$. We therefore sought to determine where \begin{math}\alpha_1 = -1\end{math} in terms of \begin{math}\frac{m}{l}\end{math} and numerically found this corresponds to \begin{math}\frac{m}{l} \approx 1.191\end{math}.
Now we found that at each zero, the values of \begin{math}\alpha_1 \mbox{ and } \beta_1\end{math} depend on \begin{math}\frac{m}{l}\end{math} but not on \begin{math}m \mbox{ and } l\end{math} individually. That is not true of the values of \begin{math}\alpha_2 \mbox{ and } \beta_2\end{math}. However, we did determine (again verifying our results for a range of choices \begin{math}0.02 < l < 750\end{math}) that \begin{math}sgn(\alpha_2)\end{math}, \begin{math}sgn(\beta_2)\end{math} and the ratio \begin{math}\frac{\alpha_2}{\beta_2}\end{math} at each zero depends on \begin{math}\frac{m}{l}\end{math} but not on \begin{math}m \mbox{ and } l\end{math} individually. We can therefore say that the sign of \begin{math}\frac{\alpha_1(\beta_2 \alpha_1 - \beta_1 \alpha_2)}{\beta_1^2(\alpha_1 + 1)} = \frac{\alpha_1 \beta_2 \left( \alpha_1 - \beta_1 \frac{\alpha_2}{\beta_2} \right) }{\beta_1^2(\alpha_1 + 1)}\end{math} depends on \begin{math}\frac{m}{l}\end{math} but not on \begin{math}m \mbox{ and } l\end{math} individually.
Having determined how the choice of \begin{math}\frac{m}{l}\end{math} affects the behaviour of \begin{math}A\end{math} and \begin{math}A'\end{math} at each zero of \begin{math}B'r+4B\end{math}, we looked at each distinct range of \begin{math}\frac{m}{l}\end{math} values considering both \begin{math}\lambda = 0\end{math} and \begin{math}\lambda \ne 0\end{math} solutions. For each case, we sought to determine if our solution corresponds to gravitational geons.
\subsection{\texorpdfstring{$\frac{m}{l} < \frac{32}{27}$ -- Solutions correspond to gravitational geons}{m/l < 1.185}}
For these values of \begin{math}\frac{m}{l}\end{math}, $B'r+4B$ has no zeros. Consequently, all solutions with \begin{math} A(0) = 1 \end{math} correspond to gravitational geons. Choosing \begin{math} l = 1 \end{math} we confirmed the behavior of \begin{math} A \end{math} using iterative numerical analysis (see fig.\ref{fig:A_no_critical_point}). Also evident is the progression from the weak field solution for \begin{math}\frac{m}{l} << 1\end{math} (fig.\ref{fig:weak_A}) to the piecewise constructed solution for \begin{math}\frac{32}{27} < \frac{m}{l} < 1.191\end{math} (fig.\ref{fig:A_1.189}) which we discuss in the following section.
\subsection{\texorpdfstring{$\frac{32}{27} < \frac{m}{l} < 1.191$ with $\lambda = 0$ at the second zero of $B'r+4B$}{1.185 < m/l < 1.191}}
At the first zero of $B'r+4B$, \begin{math}A = \frac{-\alpha_1}{\beta_1} > 0\end{math} and \begin{math}A'=\frac{\alpha_1(\beta_2 \alpha_1 - \beta_1 \alpha_2)}{\beta_1^2(\alpha_1 + 1)} > 0\end{math} for values of $\frac{m}{l}$ in this range. There is therefore no singular behaviour and no horizon indicated at the corresponding spherical hypersurface.
At the second zero of $B'r+4B$, \begin{math}A=0\end{math} indicating singular behaviour in the space-time except when $\lambda = 0$. In that case, \begin{math}A = \frac{-\alpha_1}{\beta_1} > 0\end{math} and \begin{math}A'=\frac{\alpha_1(\beta_2 \alpha_1 - \beta_1 \alpha_2)}{\beta_1^2(\alpha_1 + 1)} > 0\end{math} at the second zero. Consequently, no singular behaviour or horizon is indicated.
Whereas our analysis of the Kretshmann scalar shows the possibility of solutions corresponding to gravitational geons with \begin{math}\lambda = 0\end{math} at the second zero, instability at each zero prevents us from confirming any particular solution using iterative methods (see fig.\ref{fig:A_direction_plot}). However, we have been able to confirm that \begin{math}\displaystyle\lim_{x \to 0} A = \frac{-\alpha_1}{\beta_1}\end{math} and \begin{math}\displaystyle\lim_{x \to 0} A' = \frac{\alpha_1(\beta_2 \alpha_1 - \beta_1 \alpha_2)}{\beta_1^2(\alpha_1 + 1)}\end{math} around each zero for each section constructed numerically (see figs. \ref{fig:A_1.189_FirstForward}, \ref{fig:A_1.189_SecondBackward}, \ref{fig:A_1.189_SecondForward}).
We piecewise constructed \begin{math}A\end{math} around each zero of \begin{math}B'r+4B\end{math} using the numerically constructed sections (see fig.\ref{fig:A_1.189}). The resulting solution is \emph{sewn together} at the spherical hypersurfaces corresponding to each zero.
The sewing together of two manifolds may induce a surface energy-momentum tensor \cite{Israel:1966rt,Misner:1973}
\begin{equation}
S_{\mu\nu} = \frac{1}{8 \pi} \left( [K_{\mu\nu}] - [K] h_{\mu\nu} \right)
\label{general:15}
\end{equation}
\noindent on the surface where they are joined. Here \begin{math}K_{\mu\nu}\end{math} is the extrinsic curvature of the surface, \begin{math}K= K^{\mu}{}_{\mu}\end{math}, \begin{math}h_{\mu\nu}\end{math} is the induced metric on the surface and \begin{math}[K_{\mu\nu}]\end{math} denotes the jump in \begin{math}K_{\mu\nu}\end{math} across the surface.
Now, \begin{math}K_{\mu\nu}\end{math} depends on the metric and its first derivatives \cite{Carroll:2004}. Given that \begin{math}A \mbox{, } B \mbox{ and } B'\end{math} are all continuous in our piecewise constructed solution, there will be a non-vanishing \begin{math}S_{\mu\nu}\end{math} only if \begin{math}A'\end{math} is discontinuous across either hypersuface corresponding to a zero of \begin{math}B'r + 4B\end{math}. Our analysis shows that \begin{math}A'\end{math} is continuous implying that \begin{math}S_{\mu\nu} = 0\end{math}.
It should be noted that there could be contributions to \begin{math}S_{\mu\nu}\end{math} from the Weyl term (\ref{introduction:14}). If that were the case, \begin{math}S_{\mu\nu} = 0\end{math} in our piecewise constructed solution would imply that there is a localized gravitational source (such as matter) at the hypersurface and the stresses contributed by each cancel one another exactly. Since the space-time off the brane is not known, it is not possible to check to see if such contributions exist.
If there are no contributions to \begin{math}S_{\mu\nu}\end{math} from the Weyl tensor, the piecewise constructed solutions correspond to gravitational geons.
\subsection{\texorpdfstring{Choices of $\frac{m}{l}$ for which no gravitational geon solutions exist}{m/l > 1.191}}
Our analysis shows that the Kretshmann scalar diverges at the spherical hypersurfaces corresponding to the zeros of $B'r+4B$ for values of $\frac{m}{l} > 1.202$. We have therefore determined that solutions that correspond to gravitational geons do not exist for these values of $\frac{m}{l}$.
In the range $1.191 < \frac{m}{l} < 1.202$, divergence of the Kretshmann scalar rules out the possibility of gravitational geon solutions, except in the special case that $\lambda = 0$ at both zeros of $B'r+4B$. However, direction field plots indicate that these solutions are inconsistent with our boundary conditions.
As discussed in the previous section, gravitational geon solutions are again ruled out by divergence of the Kretshmann scalar in the range $\frac{32}{27} < \frac{m}{l} < 1.191$, except in the special case that $\lambda = 0$ at the second zero of $B'r+4B$.
There are therefore no solutions that correspond to gravitational geons possible for $\frac{m}{l} > \frac{32}{27}$ with the exception of $\lambda = 0$ at the second zero of $B'r+4B$ for $\frac{32}{27} < \frac{m}{l} < 1.191$.
\section{Conclusion}
In this paper, we investigated a particular static, spherically symmetric 3+1 dimensional space-time for behaviour consistent with that of gravitational geons on a brane embedded in a 4+1 dimensional space-time. In the absence of a general solution, we investigated the behaviour of the space-time using a variety of methods and were able to ascertain that, for a particular set of parameter choices, gravitational geons are possible.
The significance of the result presented in this paper is that, in general, for brane-world space-times gravitational geons are possible. We investigated solutions in the weak field limit and showed that gravitational geons will exist as long as \begin{math}B'r\end{math} is small for all \begin{math}r \ge 0\end{math}. We also investigated the specific function \begin{math}B(r)=1-\frac{2mr^2}{r^3+2ml^2} \end{math} and showed that gravitational geon solutions exist for all parameter choices such that \begin{math}\frac{m}{l} < \frac{32}{27}\end{math}. These solutions include both weak field and strong field geons.
If our universe corresponds to the Randall-Sundrum model, then gravitational geons could represent a form of dark matter (this possibility has also been discussed by Sones \cite{Sones:2005gn} for quantum geons with a Klein-Gordon field).
\ack
This research was supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.
\section*{References}
|
\section{Introduction}
The realization that generalized O'Raifeartaigh (O'R) models of direct
gauge mediated supersymmetry (SUSY) breaking \cite{Giudice:1998bp} are
low energy description of dynamical supersymmetry breaking scenarios
from a strongly coupled sector, has been known for some time now.
Better understanding of this phenomenon was achieved in
\cite{Intriligator:2006dd}, which has kindled renewed interest in
these models. A typically stubborn problem of these scenarios is the
generation of gaugino masses at the leading order, even with explicit
tree level R-symmetry breaking, see \cite{Kitano:2010fa} for a recent
review of direct and semi-direct gauge mediation models. First pointed
out in \cite{Polchinski:1982an}, explicit calculations with all known
renormalizable models of direct gauge mediation have shown that
cancellations lead to zero gaugino masses at the leading order whereas
scalar masses are generally generated at two loop level. Further, the
phenomenon of gaugino mass screening \cite{ArkaniHamed:1998kj}
prevents gaugino masses being generated at the next order in the
messenger loop\footnote{However see \cite{Argurio:2010fn} for ways to
address this problem by using chiral messengers.}. This further
complicates the possibility to generate sizable gaugino masses in
direct gauge mediation models. It was finally realized in
\cite{Komargodski:2009jf} that the condition for local stability of
the supersymmetry breaking pseudomoduli direction would prevent
gaugino masses from being generated at the leading order for general
renormalizable models of direct gauge mediation. It was demonstrated
that for stable supersymmetry breaking pseudomoduli direction, the
determinant of the fermionic mass matrix for the messengers is
independent of the pseudomoduli field dependence. This leads to a
vanishing gaugino mass in the leading order which is proportional to,
$ M_g^a \propto \partial \log det(M_f)/\partial X$ where X is the
pseudomoduli field and $M_f$ is the fermionic mass matrix for the
messenger fields. The vanishing gaugino masses in direct gauge
mediation models is now understood in terms of this Komargodski-Shih
(KS) no-go theorem.
With the early data from the LHC \cite{Chatrchyan:2011zy} constraining
the SUSY spectra in general and the gluino in particular to be
relatively heavy, it has become evermore important to investigate
avenues to generate unsuppressed gaugino masses in direct gauge
mediation models of supersymmetry breaking. Recently, ways to
ameliorate this problem have been suggested in the literature
\cite{Nakai:2010th} \cite{Maru:2010yx}. In \cite{Nakai:2010th} the
discussion is based on the fact that the form of the fermionic mass
matrix for the messenger fields is not constrained by the KS theorem
for models with tachyonic directions in the scalar potential. One
would expect leading order gaugino masses to be generated is these
models. Non-canonical K\"ahler corrections can be used in these
models to lift the tachyonic directions. It has been argued that with
the non-canonical K\"ahler corrections, the effective scalar potential
of these models will not have any tachyonic direction but leading
order gaugino masses will be generated. In the present paper we make
a complementary investigation. We study the possibility to evade the
KS theorem by introducing non-renormalizable terms to models with
stable supersymmetry breaking vacuum. We consider the possibility that
these contributions introduce a holomorphic pseudomoduli dependence in
the determinant of the fermionic mass matrix for the messengers
generating leading order gaugino masses, without disturbing the vacuum
configuration.
We investigate the possibility to generate leading order gaugino
masses by introducing non-renormalizable operators in both the
superpotential and the K\"ahler potential. The most general form of
the non-canonical K\"ahler terms that can contribute to the reduced
fermionic mass matrix of the messenger fields are identified. We note
that all possible non-renormalizable superpotential terms can be
considered to be a subset of the non-canonical K\"ahler terms as far
as their contribution to the messenger mass matrices in the desired
vacuum is considered. We systematically study the viability of
generating unsuppressed gaugino masses using higher dimensional terms
that are polynomial in the fields. Though we do not specify the UV
completion of these models, they can in principle be considered to
have originated from some perturbative dynamics at higher
energy. However, we find that this class of models are unable to
generate unconstrained gaugino masses which are in general suppressed
by the high cutoff scale $(\Lambda)$ of the effective
non-renormalizable theory. The lowest order K\"ahler term which
induces nontrivial corrections to the fermionic mass matrix of the
messenger fields has a mass dimension of four. Qualitatively, we
observe that beyond this order, gaugino masses are suppressed by
$(\langle X \rangle / \Lambda)^{\delta-4}$ where $\langle X \rangle $
is the vev of the pseudomoduli field and $\delta$ is the dimension of
the operator in the K\"ahler potential. In general one expects
$\langle X \rangle \ll \Lambda,$ hence a large suppression.
Next we relax the condition of perturbative UV completion and consider
more general functions of the fields motivated by strongly coupled
supersymmetry breaking scenarios. We demonstrate that with this
generalization the condition for local stability can be explicitly
solved in the simplest cases. We obtain surprisingly simple solutions
for models of supersymmetry breaking that evade the KS theorem. This
class of models break supersymmetry at the global minimum but
generates unconstrained gaugino masses. However the condition of local
stability of the pseudomoduli direction puts severe constraints on the
functional form of the effective Goldstino-messenger terms in the
superpotential. The general class of interactions that are allowed are
very close to the UV complete theories studied in the literature.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows: In
Section~\ref{basics}, we briefly review the KS theorem within the
renormalizable setup and then lay down the framework to generalize to
non-renormalizable scenarios. In Section~\ref{rss}, we consider the
possibility to evade the KS theorem using higher dimensional operators
that are polynomial in fields. In Section~\ref{npc}, we consider the
non-polynomial generalization. Finally in section \ref{conclusion},
we conclude with some general observations.
\section{Generalization of the KS theorem}
\label{basics}
\subsection{A review of the KS theorem in the renormalizable scenario}
\label{rkst}
Consider a general O'R theory with canonical K\"ahler potential and a
renormalizable superpotential. Let the gauge singlet $X$ and
$\{\phi_a\}$ be a set of chiral superfields which constitutes the
sector that will break SUSY spontaneously. In order that the
$\{\phi_a\}$ should also act as messengers, they should be charged
under the SM gauge group. The superfield $X$ is an SM singlet and can
get a vev in the vacuum configuration to break SUSY
spontaneously. Typically $X$ represents a flat direction in the scalar
potential. With this field content, the most general renormalizable
superpotential can be written as, \begin{equation} W= f
X+{1\over2}(\lambda_{ab}X+m_{ab})\phi_a\phi_b +
{1\over6}g_{abc}\phi_a\phi_b\phi_c~. \label{rsp} \end{equation}
Here the fermionic mass matrix for the messenger fields $\{\phi_a\}$
is ${\cal{M}_F}= W_{ab}=\lambda_{ab} X + m_{ab}$, where $W_a \equiv
\partial W/\partial \phi_a .$ In general the determinant of this
matrix may be written as, \begin{equation} det({\cal{M}_F}) =
det(\lambda_{ab} X + m_{ab}) = \Sigma
C_n(\lambda,m)X^n. \label{detfermas} \end{equation} Let the roots
of the polynomial on the RHS of the above equation be defined by
$\Sigma C_n(\lambda,m)X^n|_{X\rightarrow X_0^l}=0$. At $X=X_0^l$ the
determinant of the fermionic mass matrix vanishes and a Goldstino
direction $(v)$ is defined for every root of the polynomial as
follows, \begin{equation} (\lambda_{ab} X_0^l + m_{ab})v=0.
\label{fermionmass} \end{equation}
The bosonic mass matrix for the messenger fields is given by,
\begin{equation} {\cal{M}}_B^2 = \left( \begin{array}{cc}
\cal{M}_F^*\cal{M}_F & \cal{F}^* \\ \cal{F} & \cal{M}_F\cal{M}_F^*
\end{array} \right), \end{equation} where
${\cal{F}}_{ab}=W_c^*W_{abc}.$ If the pseudomoduli direction is
locally stable everywhere then the scalar mass matrix has to be
positive semidefinite. However note that if $v$ is the Goldstino
direction defined by ${\cal{M}_F} v =0$ then it is easy to show that,
\begin{eqnarray} \left( \begin{array}{c} v \\ v^* \end{array}
\right)^{\dagger}\left( \begin{array}{cc} \cal{M}_F^*\cal{M}_F &
\cal{F}^* \\ \cal{F} & \cal{M}_F\cal{M}_F^* \end{array} \right) \left(
\begin{array}{c} v \\ v^* \end{array} \right) = v^T {\cal{F}} v + cc.
\end{eqnarray} The RHS of this equation must vanish identically if the
bosonic mass matrix is required to be positive semidefinite, otherwise
one can make the expression negative by rotating the complex phase of
$v$. We conclude that the condition of local stability of the desired
vacuum implies that for a massless Goldstino $(v)$ in the fermionic
sector there exists a flat direction in the scalar potential given by
the vector $(v~~v^*)$. An important corollary of this is,
\begin{equation} {\cal{F}}_{ab} v=f \lambda_{ab} v = 0.
\label{bosonicmass} \end{equation} Using Eq.~\ref{bosonicmass} in
Eq.~\ref{fermionmass} we find $v$ has to be a simultaneous null
eigenvector of the matrices $\lambda_{ab}$ and $m_{ab}$. This implies
that $v$ is a null eigenvector of any matrix of the form $\alpha
\lambda_{ab} + \beta m_{ab}.$ It follows that $ det({\cal{M}_F})=0$,
contradicting our original assumption that the determinant is not
identically zero. Thus we find that the assumption taken in
Eq.~\ref{detfermas} is inconsistent and we conclude that,
\begin{equation} det({\cal{M}_F}) = det(\lambda_{ab} X + m_{ab}) =
Const. \end{equation} It follows that the leading order gaugino
masses given by,
\begin{equation}
M_g^a \sim \frac{\alpha^a}{4\pi}\bar{W}_{\bar{X}}
\frac{\partial}{\partial X} \log det(M_f), \label{gauginomass}
\end{equation}
vanish. In conclusion
the KS theorem demonstrates that in renormalizable models of direct gauge
mediation with a locally stable pseudomoduli direction, gaugino masses
are not generated at the leading order.
\subsection{Non-renormalizable generalization} \label{nrg}
To study this scenario in non-renormalizable set up we first define
the desired vacuum configuration of a theory with the field content of
Section \ref{rkst}. In order to preserve the SM gauge group we should
have $\langle \phi_a \rangle = 0 ~ \forall a$. The only field that
can take a vev to spontaneously break SUSY is X. Hence we are looking
at a vacuum of the form, \begin{equation} \langle X \rangle
\rightarrow~ \mbox{undetermined}, ~~~~~~~\{\langle \phi_a \rangle =
0\} ~~~ \forall a. \label{vac} \end{equation}
We start with the general renormalizable superpotential given in
Eq.~\ref{rsp}. The superpotential is linear in X representing a flat
pseudomoduli direction in the scalar potential. We find that the two
equations $W_X =W_{\phi_i}=0$ cannot be simultaneously satisfied. At
the desired vacuum we have $\langle W_{\phi_i}\rangle = 0,\langle
W_X\rangle = f$ and SUSY is broken spontaneously. Considering that the
flat direction is locally stable everywhere the determinant of the
reduced fermionic mass matrix for the messenger fields remains
independent of the pseudomoduli field by the KS theorem implying a
zero gaugino mass at the leading order. Our objective is to introduce
an $X$ dependence into the determinant of reduced fermionic mass
matrix for the messenger fields by adding non-renormalizable terms to
a theory like this without disturbing the local stability of the SUSY
breaking vacuum. We will consider non-renormalizable terms both in
the superpotential and in the K\"ahler potential that can generate
such corrections to the mass matrices at the vacuum configuration.
We first consider non-canonical K\"ahler terms. Following the
notations of \cite{Aldrovandi:2008sc}, the messenger mass matrices for
generic non-canonical K\"ahler potential can be written as,
\begin{equation} {\cal{M}_F}^{NC} = {\cal{M}_F}^C - \Gamma^d_{ab} W_d,
\label{ncfm} \end{equation} where $\Gamma^d_{ab} W_d =(K^{d\bar{e}}
\partial_a K_{b\bar{e}}) W_d$. The bosonic mass matrix also receives
further corrections due to the non-canonical Kahler terms and can be
given as, \begin{equation} ({\cal{M}}^{NC}_B)^2 = \left(
\begin{array}{cc} {{\cal{M_F}}}^{NC} {\cal{M_F}^*}^{NC} -
\bar{W}_{\bar{a}}(R_{\bar{b}b})^{a\bar{a}} W_a & {{\cal{F}}}^{*NC} \\
{{\cal{F}}}^{NC} & {{\cal{M_F}}^*}^{NC} {\cal{M_F}}^{NC} -
\bar{W}_{\bar{a}}(R_{\bar{b}b})^{a\bar{a}} W_a \end{array} \right),
\label{bosonmm} \end{equation} where $\bar{W}_{\bar{a}}(R_{\bar{b}b})^{a\bar{a}}
W_a = \bar{W}_{\bar{a}}(K^{\bar{a}c} \partial_{\bar{b}}
\Gamma^a_{bc})W_a$ and ${{\cal{F}}}^{NC} =
\partial_{bc}(W_{a}K ^{\bar{a}a})\bar{W}_{\bar{a}}$ . Considering
that in the vacuum we can only have $W_X = \bar{W}_{\bar{X}} \neq 0,$
the nonzero components are given by, $(R_{\bar{b}b})^{X\bar{X}} \sim
K^{\bar{X}c} \partial_{\bar{b}} \Gamma^X_{bc}$ and ${{\cal{F}}}^{NC}
\sim \partial_{bc}(W_{a}K ^{\bar{X}a})\bar{W}_{\bar{X}}$ .
By inspecting Eq.~\ref{ncfm}, one can see that the new terms need to
be bilinear and holomorphic in the messenger fields in order to
contribute to the fermionic messenger mass matrices. Thus the most
general structure of the non-canonical part of the K\"ahler potential
that contributes to the fermionic mass matrices of the messenger
fields may be symbolically represented as, \begin{equation} K \supset
C_{ab} \phi_a \phi_b f(\frac{X}{\Lambda},\frac{\bar{X}}{\Lambda}) +
cc, \label{nckt} \end{equation} where $C_{ab} \neq 0 \Leftrightarrow
Q(\phi_a\phi_b) = 0$ and all other terms are zero. $Q(\hat{O})$
represents all the charges of the operator \^{O} under the SM gauge
groups.
With this form of the K\"ahler terms the curvature tensor
$\bar{W}_{\bar{a}} (R_{\bar{b}b})^{a\bar{a}} W_a = 0$. We note that
the presence of a non zero curvature tensor in the K\"ahler metric
results in new contribution to the gaugino masses. With these new
contributions it is impossible to recast the scalar and fermionic
messenger mass matrices in the form, \begin{eqnarray}
W_{eff}^{mess}&=&M_{ab}\phi_a\tilde{\phi_b} + \theta^2
F_{ab}\phi_a\tilde{\phi_b}, \nonumber
\\ {\cal{L}}_{eff}^{mess}&=&-(M_{ab}\psi_a\bar{\psi_b}+h.c.)
-(\varphi_a\tilde{\varphi_a}^*) \left( \begin{array}{cc}
MM^{\dagger} & F^*\\ F & M^{\dagger}M \end{array}
\right)\left( \begin{array}{c}
\varphi_b^*\\ \tilde{\varphi_b} \end{array}
\right). \end{eqnarray} where $\psi$ and $\varphi$ are the
fermionic and scalar component respectively, of the chiral messenger
superfield $\phi.$ This would potentially cause the generated gaugino
masses to deviate from the expression given in
Eq.~\ref{gauginomass}. This in itself is an interesting avenue to
generate leading order gaugino masses in direct gauge mediation models
and needs to be explored further. However the arguments of the KS
theorem crucially depend on the expression for the gaugino masses as
given by Eq.~\ref{gauginomass} and are not well understood in
scenarios where this is no longer true. In this paper we will be
confined to models where the curvature tensor identically vanishes.
With this choice the only new contributions to the mass matrices are
given by, \begin{eqnarray} {\cal{M_F}}^{NC} &=& {\cal{M_F}}^{C}
-C_{ab} \langle W_X\rangle f_X(\frac{X}{\Lambda},\frac{\bar
X}{{\Lambda}}), \label{fmm} \\ {\cal{F}}^{NC} &=& {\cal{F}}^C
-C_{ab} |W_X|^2 f_{X\bar X}(\frac{X}{\Lambda},\frac{\bar
X}{{\Lambda}}), \label{NCFT}
\end{eqnarray} where $ f_{x} \equiv \partial f / \partial x.$
At this stage we note that the arguments for the KS theorem used in
the canonical case are no longer applicable. We find that if $v$ is
now a simultaneous eigenvector of both ${\cal{F}}^{NC}$ and
${\cal{M_F}}^{NC}$ one cannot argue that the determinant of
${\cal{M_F}}^{NC}$ has to be identically zero everywhere. This is
because the matrix form of ${\cal{F}}^{NC}$ is in general different
from ${\cal{M_F}}^{NC}$. They also have different dependences on
$X~\mbox{and/or}~\bar X$. Some generic observations are now in order:
\begin{itemize} \item The KS argument is valid only in case of a
locally stable pseudomoduli directions i.e., for scenarios where the
reduced scalar messenger mass matrix is positive semidefinite. The
assertion that new contributions from the non-canonical Kahler
potentials can evade this argument and generate leading order gaugino
masses should be supplemented by an example by example demonstration
that these additional terms should not destabilize the scalar mass
matrix. \item Corrections to the K\"ahler terms can potentially lead
to wrong sign kinetic terms in certain region of the field space. And
this consideration puts stringent constraints on the possible form of
higher dimensional corrections that are allowed in the K\"ahler
potential. However one can assume that high energy dynamics near the
cutoff scale can fix this malady. We will ignore this consideration
with the understanding that cutoff scale is much larger than the scale
of SUSY breaking. \end{itemize}
We now turn our attention to possible non-renormalizable
superpotential terms. The most general superpotential term that
contributes to the fermionic mass matrix for the messenger fields, in
the vacuum configuration defined in Eq.~\ref{vac} is given by,
\begin{equation} \Delta W_{NR} = m \phi_{a} \phi_{b}
g(\frac{X}{\Lambda}). \label{nrsp} \end{equation} The contribution of
this term to the mass matrices in the desired vacuum configuration is
identical to the K\"ahler potential given in Eq.~\ref{nckt} with the
following identifications, \begin{equation}
f(\frac{X}{\Lambda},\frac{\bar{X}}{{\Lambda}}) =
\frac{\bar{X}}{{\Lambda}} g(\frac{X}{\Lambda}) ~~\mbox{and}~~ m~~ =
\frac{C_{ab}\langle W_X \rangle}{\Lambda}. \label{wkcor}
\end{equation} Thus we note that the most general non-renormalizable
terms that can be added to the superpotential and can contribute to
the mass matrices are a specific subset of the most general
non-canonical K\"ahler terms as far as their contribution in the
vacuum configuration is considered. It follows that a study of the
effect of non-renormalizable terms in direct gauge mediation models
can be effectively carried out by considering the non-canonical terms
in the K\"ahler potential alone.
Having made this observation it should be noted that there are
definite differences between a higher dimensional superpotential term
and a non-canonical K\"ahler term. These differences show up in the
global structure of the scalar potential specifically in the field
space regions away from the SUSY breaking vacuum.
\section{Theories with polynomial corrections} \label{rss} If we
consider a perturbative UV completion of the theories, we can expect
these effective terms to be generated by integrating out heavy states
operative at high scale. This consideration constraints the
functional form of $f$ defined in Eq.~\ref{nckt} and Eq.~\ref{nrsp} to
be a polynomial of the fields. In this section we will discuss the
possibility of evading the KS theorem to generate unconstrained
gaugino masses using such polynomial correction to the K\"ahler
potential and the superpotential.
\subsubsection*{Non-Canonical K\"ahler potentials:}
Let us consider that the function $f$ in Eq.~\ref{nckt} is a
polynomial in both $X$ and $\bar X$. Thus generically we may
write, \begin{equation} f(\frac{X}{\Lambda},\frac{\bar{X}}{{\Lambda}})
= \sum_{n\bar{n}} C^{n\bar{n}} \frac{X^n\bar{X}^{\bar
n}}{\Lambda^{n+\bar{n}}}.
\label{polyncK} \end{equation} In this case the contributions to the
matrices are of the following form, \begin{eqnarray} {\cal{M_F}}^{NC}
&=& {\cal{M_F}}^{C} -\sum_{n\bar{n}} C^{n\bar{n}}_{ab} \langle
W_X\rangle \bar{n} \frac{X^n\bar{X}^{\bar n
-1}}{\Lambda^{n+\bar{n}}},
\label{fmm1}\\ {\cal{F}}^{NC} &=&{\cal{F}}^C -\sum_{n\bar{n}}
C^{n\bar{n}}_{ab}|W_X|^2 \bar{n}n \frac{X^{n-1}\bar{X}^{\bar n
-1}}{\Lambda^{n+\bar{n}}}. \label{NCFT1} \end{eqnarray}
It is clear from Eq.~\ref{fmm1} and Eq.~\ref{NCFT1} that for the new
non-renormalizable terms to contribute we should ensure $\bar{n} \neq
0.$ We will now summarize how the individual terms contribute to the
gaugino mass and the stability condition for various choices of
$n,\bar{n}$. \begin{itemize} \item The lowest order contribution
comes from the term $\bar{n}=1,~n=0.$ In this case we find that the
new contribution is just a redefinition of the matrix
$m_{ab}\rightarrow m_{ab} -C_{ab} \langle W_X\rangle /\Lambda$. We
can now trace the arguments given in Section~\ref{rkst}
identically. This will naturally lead to the conclusion that if the
vacuum is locally stable, leading order gaugino masses will
vanish. \item The next order contribution comes when $n=1,~\bar n
=1.$ In this case we find that the contribution simply results in a
redefinition of the matrix $\lambda_{ab} \rightarrow \lambda_{ab} -
C_{ab} \langle W_X\rangle/\Lambda^2$. This again leads to the same
conclusion as in the previous case. \item At this same order we
have a non-trivial contribution given by $\bar{n}=2,~n=0$. This
contributes to the fermionic mass matrix but does not contribute to
$\cal{F}$. This cannot be modeled by redefinition of
parameters. However we make the observation that this term cannot
directly introduce a holomorphic dependence on $X$, into the
fermionic mass matrix. With the observation that $det(\lambda_{ab}
X +m_{ab})= Const,$ we expect the $det(\lambda_{ab} X +m_{ab}-
C_{ab} \langle W_X\rangle \bar{X}/\Lambda^2 ) \sim
\bar{X}X/\Lambda^2. $ This will lead to gaugino mass terms that are
suppressed by the factor $\langle \bar{X} \rangle/\Lambda$. In
general it is well known that in O'R models the one loop correction
fixes the $X$ vev near zero \cite{Dudas:2010qg}. This will certainly
be modified due to the presence of the non-canonical K\"ahler
terms. It is still expected that the vev will be generally at a
scale where $\langle X \rangle \ll \Lambda$ and thus lead to a
suppression of the generated gaugino masses. \item All higher order
non-canonical K\"ahler terms with $\bar{n}+n>2$ will in general lead
to further suppression in the gaugino mass terms of the order
$\left(\frac{\langle X
\rangle}{\Lambda}\right)^{n-1}\left(\frac{\langle \bar{X}
\rangle}{\Lambda}\right)^{\bar{n}-1}$. \end{itemize} In
conclusion we observe the generic non-canonical K\"ahler terms of
perturbative origin when added to O'R models with global SUSY breaking
can only lead to leading order gaugino masses which are suppressed by
the cutoff scale. This general observation is made without any
reference to the stability condition of the vacuum. Note that in this
class of models the determinant of the fermionic mass matrix will be a
polynomial in $X$ and therefore will have roots in the finite complex
plane. The pseudomoduli direction will in general have an instability
at the point where the determinant vanishes.
\subsubsection*{Non-Renormalizable Superpotential terms:} In
continuation of the discussion in the previous section we point out
that the most general non-renormalizable terms in the superpotential
which are polynomial in the superfields are a subset of the K\"ahler
potential defined in Eq.~\ref{polyncK}. In the phenomenologically
acceptable vacuum, the contribution to the messenger mass matrices
from these non-canonical K\"ahler terms with $\bar{n}=1$ corresponds
to the contribution from the most general non-renormalizable
superpotential term given by, \begin{equation} \Delta W = \sum_n
m^{(n)}_{ab} \phi_a\phi_b \left(\frac{X}{\Lambda}\right)^{n},
\end{equation} where $m^{(n)}$ can be read off from Eq.~\ref{wkcor}.
The limitations of such terms for $n=0,1,>1$ are similar to the ones
discussed earlier.
We make the general observation that starting with a direct gauge
mediation theory where SUSY is broken globally and the leading order
gaugino masses disappear due to the KS theorem, it is impossible to
generate them by adding non-renormalizable terms that are polynomial
in the fields, either to the superpotential or the K\"ahler potential.
\section{Theories with non-polynomial correction }\label{npc} With the
conclusion of the previous section we abandon the possibility of
circumventing the KS theorem using higher dimensional terms that are
polynomial in the superfields, possibly arising from perturbative
dynamics at high energy scales. Instead we turn our attention to terms
arising from theories with non-perturbative UV completion. Effective
low energy description of non-perturbative theories of SUSY breaking
can give rise to terms that are non-polynomial in the superfields.
The theories of dynamical SUSY breaking \cite{Witten:1981nf},
\cite{Dine:1981gu}, commonly incorporate terms that are exponential of
the superfields. In theories where gaugino condensates are utilized to
break SUSY, the exponential of the dilaton fields commonly appears
\cite{Dine:2010cv}. In retrofitted O'R models \cite{Dine:2006gm} where
the vev of the pseudomoduli is dynamically generated, we find the
effective superpotential at energies below the dynamical scale
contains terms where the pseudomoduli superfields appear in the
exponential. Non-polynomial terms arise in the effective
superpotential of SUSY theories with ISS type supersymmetry
breaking. This is essentially generated from the dual of
non-perturbative strongly coupled SQCD like theories
\cite{Seiberg:2008qj} \cite{Intriligator:2007cp}. In this class of
theories the pseudomoduli field commonly appears with negative powers
in the superpotential and the K\"ahler potential. In the present
paper our paradigm is to take a bottom up approach to the problem of
generating leading order gaugino masses in the O'R models, thus
evading the KS theorem. We will neither endeavor to construct a UV
complete theory of the hidden sector nor try to demonstrate the
ability to evade the KS theorem with non-polynomial terms in complete
generality. Rather our approach will be to investigate this as a
possibility using examples.
To keep matters simple we will look at the possibility of adding a
non-renormalizable superpotential term to theories that break
supersymmetry globally. We will consider the simplest supersymmetry
breaking scenario. Let $X$ be the Standard Model gauge singlet chiral
superfield. And $(\phi ~\tilde{\phi})$ is a vector-like\footnote{
These charged messenger superfields can be considered to fill a
complete representation of a GUT gauge group like the SU(5) required
to preserve gauge coupling unification.} pair of messenger fields
charged under the Standard Model gauge group. The simplest SUSY
breaking sector that can be constructed with this field content is
given by the following superpotential, \begin{eqnarray} W &=& -\mu^2 X
+f(X) \phi \tilde{\phi}. \label{no1} \end{eqnarray} We will assume
the that the K\"ahler potential is canonical. The condition that the
theory generates non-zero gaugino mass at leading order means that
$f(X)$ has to be a non-constant function of $X$. If we further demand
that the theory breaks supersymmetry globally, one needs to impose the
condition $f(X) \neq 0$ everywhere in the finite complex plane. Note
that this condition is far stronger than the requirement of local
stability which is enough to discuss the KS theorem.
If we insist that the superpotential is holomorphic in the entire
complex plane then $f(X)$ should also be an analytic function of $X.$
This implies that $f(X)$ is an entire function and subject to the
constraints of the Little Picard theorem. The examples of entire
functions that do not take the value of zero in the entire finite
complex plane are limited. From a phenomenological perspective a well
motivated choice would be to take $f(X) = m e^{-\frac{X}{\Lambda}}$ in
Eq.~\ref{no1}. This is the simplest entire function that is non-zero
everywhere in the finite complex plane. Thus we expect SUSY to be
broken globally in this model. In the desired vacuum the mass
matrices for the messenger fields now take the following form,
\begin{eqnarray} m_f = me^{-\frac{X}{\Lambda}} ~\mbox{and} ~ m_B^2 =
\left( \begin{array}{cc} m^2 e^{-\frac{X + X^*}{\Lambda}} &~ \frac{m
\mu^2}{\Lambda} e^{-\frac{X^*}{\Lambda}}\\ \frac{m \mu^2}{\Lambda}
e^{-\frac{X}{\Lambda}} &~ m^2 e^{-\frac{X + X^*}{\Lambda}} \end{array}
\right). \end{eqnarray} The condition for local stability of the
pseudomoduli direction now reduces to, \begin{equation} |m^2
e^{-\frac{X + X^*}{\Lambda}}| < |\frac{m \mu^2}{\Lambda}
e^{-\frac{X}{\Lambda}}|. \end{equation} As is evident, this condition
is easily violated at finite values of $X$, rendering the vacuum
unstable at that point. Typically, these instabilities leads to a
vacuum with anomalous breaking of the Standard Model gauge group. It
should be noted that this conclusion is not an artifact of the simple
form of the superpotential considered and it cannot be resolved by a
simple enlargement of the messenger sector.
\subsection{Generic solution to the local stability condition}
Finally, we abandon the constraint that $f(X)$ is analytic
everywhere. Rather we directly try to solve for condition of local
stability. Using Eq.~\ref{no1}, the scalar mass matrix for the
messenger fields is given by, \begin{equation} m_B^2 = \left(
\begin{array}{cc} |f(X)|^2 &~ -\left(\mu^2 \frac{\partial
f(X)}{\partial X} \right)^*\\ -\mu^2 \frac{\partial f(X)}{\partial X}
&|f(X)|^2 \end{array} \right). \end{equation} To establish that a
$2 \times 2$ matrix is positive definite it is enough to show that the
trace and the determinant are positive. The condition on the trace is
trivially satisfied by the above matrix. We turn our attention to the
determinant. The condition that the determinant has to be positive
implies, \begin{equation} |f(X)|^4 \ge \left|\mu^2 \frac{\partial
f(X)}{\partial X}\right|^2. \label{bounde2} \end{equation} We
consider the scenario that saturates this bound. To solve the
resulting equation we separate the real and the complex parts, giving
the relation, \begin{equation} \frac{f(X)^2}{\mu^2 ~\partial
f(X)/\partial X} = \left( \frac{f(X)^2}{\mu^2 ~\partial
f(X)/\partial X}\right)^* = e^{i\theta}. \end{equation} This
simplifies to the following differential equation, \begin{equation}
f(X)^2 = e^{i\theta} \mu^2 \frac{\partial f(X)}{\partial
X}. \end{equation} The functional form of $f(X)$ can be easily
obtained by solving the differential equation which gives
us, \begin{equation} f(X) = \frac{\mu^2 e^{i\theta}}{X +
b}. \end{equation} Note that this solution saturates the bound
given in Eq.~\ref{bounde2}. Without any loss of generality we can
choose the function to be $f(X) = m^2/X$, where $m$ is a real
constant. We observe $f(X)$ though not defined at $X=0$, is analytic
everywhere else. As long as $ \langle X \rangle \neq 0$, the theory
defined by the superpotential given in Eq.~\ref{no1} is well behaved.
To demonstrate the local stability of this theory we consider the
scalar mass matrix which now takes the following
form, \begin{equation} m_B^2 = \left( \begin{array}{cc}
\frac{m^4}{|X|^2} &~ \frac{m^2\mu^2}{(X^*)^2}
\\ \frac{m^2\mu^2}{X^2} &~ \frac{m^4}{|X|^2} \end{array} \right).
\end{equation} We note that the eigenvalues of this matrix are given
by $(m^2 - \mu^2)m^2/|X|^2$ and $(m^2 + \mu^2)m^2/|X|^2.$ Thus, for
$m^2 > \mu^2$, the eigenvalues are positive for any value of $\langle
X \rangle$ and matrix is positive definite. Therefore with this
constraint on the parameters the pseudomoduli direction is locally
stable everywhere. Importantly, we also note that $f(X)$ does not
take the value zero in the finite complex plane. This means that not
only the pseudomoduli direction is locally stable everywhere,
supersymmetry is also broken globally. It naturally satisfies all the
conditions we laid down on $f(X)$ at the beginning of this section.
Let us now investigate the global structure of the scalar potential.
The potential $V=\sum_a W_a$ where,
\begin{eqnarray} W_X &=&
-\mu^2 -m^2\phi\tilde{\phi}/X^2, \nonumber \\ W_{\phi} &=&
m^2\tilde{\phi}/X,\\ W_{\tilde{\phi}} &=& m^2\phi/X. \nonumber
\end{eqnarray} Clearly these three equations cannot be simultaneously
put to zero and supersymmetry is broken globally. Curiously the
condition $m^2 > \mu^2$ implies that there is only one global
minimum\footnote{A lower lying minimum only appears when $m^2 <
\mu^2$, in this case the minimum is at $V=(\mu^2 - m^2)m^2$.}
of the potential given by $\langle X \rangle\rightarrow
~\mbox{undetermined and }~ \langle \phi \rangle = \langle \tilde{\phi}
\rangle =0$ and $V=\mu^4$. With the single
constraint on the superpotential parameters, we not only ensure that
the desired vacuum is locally stable but also enforce it to be the
global minimum of the scalar potential.
The fermionic mass matrix for the messenger is simply given by,
\begin{equation} det(m_f) = m^2/X. \label{detme2} \end{equation}
Gaugino masses are generated at the leading order. Using
Eq.~\ref{gauginomass} and Eq.~\ref{detme2} we find that,
\begin{equation} M_a \sim \frac{\alpha_a}{4 \pi} \mu^2
\frac{1}{ \langle X \rangle}, \end{equation} which is unsuppressed by
any high scale. And unlike the minimal gauge mediation models, within
this framework the messenger masses may be in the TeV scale and
observable at the present collider experiments. This will potentially
lead to interesting phenomenological scenarios at collider
experiments.
In conclusion we note that the possibility to generate gaugino masses
at leading order through direct gauge mediation with locally stable
SUSY breaking vacuum is restricted to very specific class of models
even in its non-perturbative generalization. Crucially the
interactions of the pseudomoduli field with the messengers are
restricted to have very specific functional forms. This brings us to
the possible origin of this class of superpotentials. It is well
known that models of supersymmetry breaking with an SQCD sector
generate effective superpotentials at low energies which have the
pseudomoduli fields appearing in the denominator
\cite{Intriligator:2007cp}. However, we could not find an instance in
the literature where the effective term discussed here appears in its
exact form. To the best of our knowledge, such terms can not be
generated within the framework of the simplest non-perturbative
scenarios like the ISS.
\section{Conclusion} \label{conclusion} In this paper we have studied
the possibility of adding simple non-renormalizable terms to globally
stable SUSY breaking O'R models to evade the KS no-go theorem. This is
complementary to the study carried out in \cite{Nakai:2010th} where
unstable renormalizable theories were considered and non-canonical
K\"ahler terms were used to lift these instabilities.
Within this framework we have demonstrated that the simple higher
dimensional terms which are polynomial in the fields, and thus can
potentially be generated through perturbative dynamics at higher
scales, are not adequate to alleviate the problem of generating large
unconstrained gaugino masses. Typically we find in these models the
gaugino masses are suppressed by the high cutoff scale of the
effective theory. Further they exhibit tachyonic directions along the
pseudomoduli direction at points where the determinant of the
fermionic mass matrix vanishes.
Next we have considered non-polynomial terms that can generate
unconstrained gaugino masses without disturbing the stability of the
vacuum. In this context we have imposed a stronger constraint on the
theory, demanding that the desired SUSY breaking vacuum is the global
minimum of the scalar potential. With these restrictive constraints we
solved for the condition of local stability of the potential. We
obtain a surprisingly simple solution that satisfies all the
conditions of local and global stability and generates unsuppressed
gaugino masses at the leading order. We observe that supersymmetry
breaking models having these virtues will have a very specific form of
superpotential where the pseudomoduli field couples to messenger field
with inverse one power. This might have consequences for Goldstino
couplings and can have major cosmological impact. A systematic
discussion of these issues is beyond the mandate of this paper. The
form of the non-polynomial terms required for this is also
tantalizingly close to the ones that originate from generic
non-perturbative schemes of SUSY breaking discussed in the literature.
A more thorough study of possible non-polynomial terms described in
the literature should be carried out in the context of direct gauge
mediation models. The possibility of using them to evade the KS
theorem and generate phenomenologically viable soft SUSY breaking
spectrum needs to be carried out. In this context we also note that
the entire discussion in this paper is carried out within a framework
where the K\"ahler metric is flat i.e., the curvature tensor is
considered to be zero everywhere. Relaxation of this constraint may
lead to more phenomenologically acceptable avenues to evade the KS
theorem.
\vskip 5pt
\noindent {\bf{Acknowledgments:}}~ This work would not have been
possible without the support and guidance of St\'{e}phane Lavignac.
The work of TSR is supported by EU ITN , contract "UNILHC"
PITN-GA-2009-237920, the CEA-Eurotalent program and the Agence
Nationale de la Recherche under contract ANR 2010 BLANC 0413 01.
|
\section{Introduction}\label{sec:introduction}
In the last few decades, cosmology has become a data-driven field, where high-precision measurements of the cosmic microwave background \citep[CMB, e.g.,][]{wmap7}, weak lensing \citep[e.g.,][]{Schrabback:2010} and galaxy surveys \citep[e.g.,][]{Percival:2007} have permitted the establishment of a standard cosmological model in which the Universe is composed of 4\% baryons, 22\% dark matter and 74\% dark energy. Some major questions remain, the nature of dark matter and dark energy in particular is still not understood. Similarly, the initial conditions of the Universe are yet to be established and alternative models of gravity are still to be tested in comparison with Einstein's general relativity.
New surveys are underway with these science objectives, e.g. Planck for the CMB \citep{Planck}, DES \citep[Dark Energy Survey,][]{DES:2005}, BOSS \citep[Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey,][]{Schlegel:2007}, LSST \citep[Large Synoptic Survey Telescope,][]{LSST} and Euclid \citep{2011arXiv1110.3193L, Euclidsb} for weak lensing and the study of large-scale structure with galaxy surveys. In order to be beneficial, cosmological studies of these surveys need to use high-precision statistical methods, such as a full 3D analysis on the sky where all-sky 3D surveys are available.
Several tools have been developed to analyse data on the sphere, which is required for a 2D spherical harmonic CMB analysis \citep{igloo,igloo2,healpix:2002,gorski:2004by,glesp}. Weak lensing and galaxy survey data can also be analysed tomographically (i.e. in 2D slices), but unlike for the CMB, a full 3D spherical Fourier-Bessel analysis can also be sought \citep{Fisher:1995,Heavens:1995,heavens3d,weak3d,2011arXiv1112.3100R}. Previous 3D data analyses were on relatively small data sets \citep{Fisher:1995,Heavens:1995,Erdogdu:2006dv,Erdogdu:2005wi}, but future surveys like Euclid and LSST will provide surveys with billions of galaxies, making previous methods for calculating the 3D spectra unfeasibly time-consuming.
In Section \ref{sub:FB}, we present the theory behind the 3D Fourier-Bessel decomposition for infinite and finite continuous fields as well as the usual method for a discrete survey (e.g. galaxy survey). In section \ref{sub:3equiv}, we present two additional equivalent formulations of the spherical Fourier-Bessel decomposition, one of which is central to the 3DEX code. In Section \ref{sec:Methods Comparison}, we compare the accuracy and calculation time for the usual method used for calculating Fourier-Bessel coefficients and methods with the 3DEX code presented in this paper. In Section \ref{sec:3DEX}, we describe the 3DEX library and give examples of how to use it. In Section \ref{sec:Conclusion} we present our conclusions. We also include an appendix, where we discuss the subtleties of the Fourier-Bessel normalisation.
\section{Theory}\label{sec:theory}
\label{sec:Mathematical Approach}
\subsection{The spherical Fourier-Bessel decomposition}\label{sub:FB}
In observational cosmology, spherical coordinates (where the observer is at the origin) are a natural choice for the analysis of cosmological fields. In this system of coordinates, eigenfunctions of the Laplacian operator are products of spherical Bessel functions and spherical harmonics, i.e. functions $j_\ell (kr)Y_{\ell m}$ with eigenvalues $-k^2$. For an homogeneous three-dimensional field $f(\textbf{r}) = f(r,\theta,\phi)$ in a flat geometry, the spherical Fourier-Bessel decomposition \citep{Fisher:1995,heavens3d,weak3d} is
\begin{eqnarray}
\hspace*{-0mm} f(r,\theta,\phi) = \sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}}\int dk \sum_{\ell m} f_{\ell m}(k) k j_\ell (kr) Y_{\ell m}(\theta,\phi) ,\label{thraw1}
\end{eqnarray}
with the inverse relation
\begin{eqnarray}
f_{\ell m}(k) = \sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}} \int d^3\textbf{r}\ f(r,\theta,\phi)k j_\ell (kr)Y^{*}_{\ell m}(\theta,\phi) .\label{thraw2}
\end{eqnarray}
{Note that this decomposition uses the same notation as \cite{2011arXiv1112.3100R} and \cite{weak3d}, which is slightly different from the one used in \cite*{2011arXiv1112.0561L}.}
The coefficients may be used to calculate the 3D power spectrum $C(\ell, k)$, defined by
\begin{equation} \left< f_{\ell m}(k)f^*_{\ell' m'}(k')\right>=C(l,k) \delta_D(k-k')\delta_{\ell \ell'}\delta_{mm'},\end{equation}
a na\"\i ve estimator of which is
\begin{eqnarray}
C_\ell (k) = \frac{1}{2l+1} \sum_m |f_{\ell m}(k)|^2.
\end{eqnarray}
This can be seen as an extension of the usual 2D power spectrum $\left< f_{\ell m}f^*_{\ell' m'}\right>=C_l \delta_{\ell \ell'}\delta_{mm'}$. The latter arises from the spherical harmonic transform of a 2D field given on the sphere $f(\theta,\phi) = \sum_{\ell m}f_{\ell m}Y_{\ell m}(\theta,\phi)$.
In practice, surveys will only cover a finite amount of volume, limiting the analysis to a sphere of radius $R$. These boundary conditions lead to a discrete spectrum $\{ k_{\ell n} \}$, which is detailed in the appendices. In this paper, we assumed as a boundary condition that $f$ vanishes at $r=R$. The spherical Fourier-Bessel decomposition becomes \citep{Erdogdu:2006dv,Fisher:1995}
\begin{eqnarray}
\hspace*{-0mm}f(r,\theta,\phi) = \sum_{\ell mn} \kappa_{\ell n} f_{\ell m}(k_{\ell n}) k_{\ell n} j_\ell (k_{\ell n}r)Y_{\ell m}(\theta,\phi), \label{fbreconstr}
\end{eqnarray}
which is exact if the ranges of $\ell$,$m$ and $n$ are infinite. The Fourier-Bessel coefficients are denoted by $f_{\ell mn} = f_{\ell m}(k_{\ell n})$, and $\kappa_{\ell n}$ is the normalisation constant (see appendices for more details).
In various applications, though, the continuous field $f$ cannot be directly observed. This is notably the case in cosmology where galaxy surveys give indirect information about the underlying matter density field through their spacial positions. Note that these tracers are subject to various distortions and non-linearities, but these are not the purpose of this work. In this work we only consider linear or quasi-linear scales ($\ell< 50$, $~k<0.2 {\rm hMpc}^{-1}$).
If the only information about the field $f$ is a list of coordinates $\textbf{r}_p = (r_p,\theta_p,\phi_p)$ with $p=1,\dots,N$ (where $N$ is the number of galaxies in the latter example), the survey may be considered as a superposition of 3D Dirac deltas and each coefficient $f_{\ell mn}$ can simply be estimated with a sum \citep{Heavens:1995,Fisher:1995,Erdogdu:2006dv,cmbbox}
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde{f}(\textbf{r}) & = & \sum^N_{p=1} \delta^{(3)}(\textbf{r}-\textbf{r}_p), \\
\tilde{f}_{\ell mn} & = & \sum^N_{p=1} k_{\ell n}j_\ell (k_{\ell n}r_p)Y^{*}_{\ell m}(\theta_p,\phi_p). \label{rawestimate}
\end{eqnarray}
This formulation has been used for the analysis of shallow galaxy surveys such as the IRAS 1.2mJ survey \citep[$\sim6k$ galaxies,][]{IRAS,Fisher:1995,Heavens:1995}, and the 2MRS survey \citep[2MASS Redshift Survey, $\sim 45$k galaxies,][]{2MRS,Erdogdu:2006dv,Erdogdu:2005wi}. Since the time to calculate equation \ref{rawestimate} is proportional to $N n_{\rm max}(\ell_{\rm max}+1)^2/2$, Equation \ref{rawestimate} will become highly time-consuming when applied to larger surveys or when precise decomposition is required (large $n_{max}$ and $\ell_{max}$).
\subsection{Three equivalent formulations}\label{sub:3equiv}
In spherical coordinates, since 3D space can be viewed as an infinite series of closed shells $\Omega(r)$, the spherical Fourier-Bessel decomposition may also arise from repeated 2D spherical harmonic transforms to which spherical Bessel transforms are applied \citep{cmbbox}. Formally, the field $f$ given on each shell $\Omega(r)$ is first expanded into spherical harmonics
\begin{eqnarray}
f(r,\theta,\phi) = \sum_{\ell m} f_{\ell m}(r) Y_{\ell m}(\theta,\phi) ,\label{thdirect1}
\end{eqnarray}
for which the inversion formula gives harmonics coefficients $f_{\ell m}(r)$ depending on the radius $r$
\begin{eqnarray}
f_{\ell m}(r) = \int_{\Omega(r)} d\Omega \ f(r,\theta,\phi) Y^{*}_{\ell m}(\theta,\phi). \label{thdirect2}
\end{eqnarray}
It is then possible to perform a spherical Bessel transform
\begin{eqnarray}
f_{\ell m}(r) = \sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}} \int dk \ f_{\ell m}(k) kj_\ell (kr), \label{thdirect3}
\end{eqnarray}
leading to the final Fourier-Bessel coefficients $f_{\ell m}(k)$
\begin{eqnarray}
f_{\ell m}(k) = \sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}} \int dr \ r^2 f_{\ell m}(r) kj_\ell (kr) .\label{thdirect4}
\end{eqnarray}
This formulation hence extends the notion of 2D spherical harmonics to three-dimensional fields.
It is also possible to conceive the reverse approach, i.e. to perform the spherical Bessel transform first and subsequently expand the resulting coefficients into spherical harmonics. Formally, the $\ell$-th order spherical Bessel transform of $f$ (similar to its Hankel transform) is
\begin{eqnarray}
f(r,\theta,\phi) = \sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}} \int dk \ f_{\ell }(k,\theta,\phi) kj_\ell (kr) ,\label{threverse1}
\end{eqnarray}
for which the inversion formula gives
\begin{eqnarray}
f_\ell (k,\theta,\phi) = \sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}} \int dr \ r^2 f(r,\theta,\phi) kj_\ell (kr) .\label{threverse2}
\end{eqnarray}
The result is then expanded into spherical harmonics but with an unusual formulation since $f_\ell (k,\theta,\phi)$ and $Y_{\ell m}(\theta,\phi)$ (as well as the basis functions $j_\ell (kr)$ and $Y_{\ell m}(\theta,\phi)$) have now the $\ell$ parameter in common:
\begin{eqnarray}
f_\ell (k,\theta,\phi) = \sum_{m} f_{\ell m}(k) Y_{\ell m}(\theta,\phi) .\label{threverse3}
\end{eqnarray}
Again, using the inversion formula, we obtain the Fourier-Bessel coefficients
\begin{eqnarray}
f_{\ell m}(k) = \int_{\Omega} d\Omega \ f_\ell (k,\theta,\phi) Y^{*}_{\ell m}(\theta,\phi). \label{threverse4}
\end{eqnarray}
Due to the closed domains of shells $\Omega(r)$ and thus the relative independence of angular and radial dimensions, the \emph{raw} (equations \ref{thraw1} and \ref{thraw2}), the \emph{forward} (denoted by SHB for \emph{spherical-Harmonic-Bessel}, equations \ref{thdirect1} to \ref{thdirect4}) and the \emph{reverse} (denoted by SBH for \emph{spherical-Bessel-Harmonic}, equations \ref{threverse1} to \ref{threverse4}) methods are equivalent formulations of the spherical Fourier-Bessel decomposition of any three-dimensional field $f(r,\theta,\phi)$. This is summarised in the following schematic description of each method:
\begin{eqnarray}
\textnormal{RAW : } \ & & f(\textbf{r}) \ \xrightarrow[]{\textrm{three-dimensional integration}} \ f_{\ell m}(k)
\nonumber \\
\textnormal{SHB : } \ & & f(\textbf{r}) \ \xrightarrow[]{\textrm{SHT}} \ \ \ \ f_{\ell m}(r) \ \ \ \ \xrightarrow[]{\textrm{SBT}} \ \ f_{\ell m}(k)
\\
\textnormal{SBH : } \ & & f(\textbf{r}) \ \xrightarrow[]{\textrm{SBT}} \ \ f_{\ell }(k,\theta,\phi) \ \ \xrightarrow[]{\textrm{SHT}} \ \ f_{\ell m}(k) \nonumber.
\end{eqnarray}
Note that this section is related to the ideal case $R = \infty$, but all equations can be straightforwardly rewritten for a finite $R$ by replacing $k$ by $k_{ln}$, bounding each integral and adapting normalisation. The formulas arising from this adaptation are used in the next sections.
\subsection{Estimating Fourier-Bessel coefficients from a real survey}\label{sub:estfbd}
Although the three approaches described in \ref{sub:3equiv} are theoretically equivalent, their estimates and numerical implementations take different forms.
\subsubsection{\emph{Forward} approach (SHB)}
Estimating the $f_{\ell mn}$ coefficients using the \emph{forward} method naturally requires the radial dimension to be discretised. Indeed, the first step is to compute the spherical harmonic transform on a set of shells located at radial values $r_1, \dots, r_{N_{layers}}$. In each layer, the coefficients $f_{\ell m}(r_i)$ are estimated. Although it is possible to perform a raw estimate for the later harmonics transform, it is often advisable to use a robust 2D discretisation scheme (of $N_{pix}(i)$ pixels for the $i$-th shell) and to take advantage of the related high-performance algorithms. Angular space is hence discretised into nodes $(r_i,\theta_p,\phi_p)=(r_i,{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}_q)$ and the field is approximated on each node, giving $\tilde{f}(r_i,{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}_p)$. The spherical harmonic decomposition in the $i$-th shell becomes
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde{f}_{\ell m}(r_i) = \sum^{Npix(i)}_{p=1} \tilde{f}(r_i,{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}_p)Y^{*}_{\ell m}({\boldsymbol{\gamma}}_p),
\end{eqnarray}
and the final coefficients are obtained by performing the following spherical Bessel decomposition:
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde{f}_{\ell mn} = \sum_{i=1}^{N_{layers}}\tilde{f}_{\ell m}(r_i) k_{\ell n}j_\ell (k_{\ell n}r_i).
\end{eqnarray}
With this method, radial and angular spaces are discretised and both transforms are approximated.
\subsubsection{\emph{Reverse} approach (SBH)}
For the \emph{reverse} approach, a 2D scheme on the sphere was required as well. As previously, this scheme defines a set of $N_{pix}$ zones (pixels) related to angular nodes $\boldsymbol{\gamma}_q$. If $G_q$ denotes the points of the survey located in the solid angle corresponding to the $q$-th zone of the scheme, we perform the spherical Bessel Transform (raw estimate) in each zone
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde{f}_{\ell n}({\boldsymbol{\gamma}}_q) = \tilde{f}_\ell (k_{\ell n},{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}_q) = \sum_{p \in G_q} k_{\ell n}j_\ell (k_{\ell n}r_p), \label{revdiscr1}
\end{eqnarray}
and each of these intermediate maps is decomposed into spherical harmonic (spherical Harmonics Transform) which gives the Fourier-Bessel coefficients
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde{f}_{\ell mn} = \sum^{Npix}_{q=1} \tilde{f}_{\ell n}({\boldsymbol{\gamma}}_q)Y^{*}_{\ell m}({\boldsymbol{\gamma}}_q) \label{revdiscr2}
.\end{eqnarray}
With the reverse method, one can avoid to discretise radial space. Moreover, this one-shell pixelisation of the sky (thus based on physical solid angles) allows for a natural treatment of radial distortions (redshift, relativistic) and masking effects. Using multiple resolutions at different radial values, as would be possible with the forward method, is much more questionable. {The SHB method also proves to be a powerful tool for weighting the data prior to estimating the power spectrum. For instance, in \cite{1999MNRAS.305..527T} used a fiducial power spectrum to derive an optimal weighting operation. This operation is quite complex when using the raw Fourier-Bessel approach, whereas the SHB formulation naturally handles the dependence on $k$ of the weighting function.}
The three methods to estimate the spherical Fourier-Bessel decomposition can therefore also be expressed for a discrete 3D survey, summarised schematically below:
\begin{eqnarray}
\textnormal{RAW : } &\{\textbf{r}_p\} \xrightarrow[]{\textrm{Raw sum, best estimate of FB coefficients}} \ \tilde{f}_{\ell mn}
\nonumber \\
\textnormal{SHB : } & \{\textbf{r}_p\} \xrightarrow[]{\textrm{Approx SHT}} \ \tilde{f}_{\ell m}(r_i) \ \ \xrightarrow[]{\textrm{Approx SBT}} \ \ \tilde{f}_{\ell mn}\nonumber \\
\textnormal{SBH : } & \{\textbf{r}_p\} \xrightarrow[]{\textrm{Exact SBT}} \ \ \ \tilde{f}_{\ell n}(\boldsymbol{\gamma}_p) \ \ \xrightarrow[]{\textrm{Approx SHT}} \ \tilde{f}_{\ell mn} \nonumber.
\end{eqnarray}
Note that in practice, the range of $(l,m,n)$ is finite, which introduces an additional approximation. Here, $\ell$ and $n$ are restricted to $[0,\ell _{max}]$ and $[1,n_{max}]$ respectively. Given $\ell$, $m$ goes from $-\ell$ to $\ell$.
\section{Method comparison}
\label{sec:Methods Comparison}
\subsection{Complexity, accuracy and discretisation grids}
For a survey that probes a field by $N$ discrete points, the raw method is the natural estimate of the Fourier-Bessel coefficients. However, since each point contributes to the calculation of every coefficient $\tilde{f}_{\ell mn}$ ($\forall \ l,m,n$), computation time is proportional to $N \cdot n_{max} ( \ell _{max} + 1)^2/2$, which can be highly problematic for large surveys.
In the forward method, the repeated spherical harmonic transforms take advantage of tesselation schemes and high-performance algorithms such as those provided by HEALPix [\cite{gorski:2004by}], IGLOO [\cite{igloo}] or GLESP [\cite{glesp}]. Roughly speaking, the number of nodes to be considered is reduced from $N$ to $N_{pix}$, and the use of fast spherical harmonic transforms on these schemes significantly decreases computation time.
However, this approach requires the three-dimensional space to be divided into shells $\Omega(r_i)$. Both radial and angular dimensions are discretised, and the survey is approximated on an actual 3D grid. In practice, this approximation deteriorates the accuracy of the estimated Fourier-Bessel coefficients. Furthermore, designing a meaningful radial discretisation is a difficult task. For equal-area pixelisations, the area of each pixel on the $i$-th shell is $4\pi r_i^2/N_{pix}(i)$. With HEALPix, the $n_{side}$ angular parameter may only be increased by a factor 2, which changes the number of pixels by a factor of 4 (since $N_{pix}(i)=12 n_{side}(i)^2$). This means that pixel areas cannot be stabilised for subsequent shells as $r$ increases. Consequently, it is not possible to adapt a resolution to obtain a 3D scheme with equal-volume voxels. Extending 2D schemes to 3D is difficult and may even require a novel formalism for an equal-voxel 3D grid.
In the reverse approach, though, the use of angular 2D schemes is possible, but radial space does not need to be discretised. The points of the survey are grouped according to angular zones instead of being approximated on a 3D grid. An estimate of the spherical Bessel transform is computed in every solid angle, and the result is then expanded in spherical harmonics on the 2D spherical grid. In the final account, this method naturally leads to more accurate coefficients than the forward method and also takes advantage of high-performance 2D schemes. For these reasons, we focus on the reverse approach and its implementation, using HEALPix for the angular transform.
Finally, for both forward and reverse methods the spherical harmonics discretised basis (coefficients $Y_{\ell m}(\gamma_p)$) may be fully pre-computed and stored in external files. This is a particularly useful feature (incompatible with the original formulation of spherical Fourier-Bessel), which significantly eases and speeds up the use of these methods.
\subsection{Speed and accuracy of the Reverse Method}
To test the accuracy and speed of the reverse method compared to the raw method, we considered the high-resolution full-sky Horizon simulation \citep{Horizon}. Horizon is a N-body simulation covering a 2$h^{-1}{\rm Gpc}$ periodic box using 70 billion dark matter particles using a WMAP3 cosmology \citep{Spergel:2006hy}. A derived halo catalogue is available, which we used to calculate $f_{\ell mn}$ and $C_\ell(k_{\ell n})$ values using both methods (raw and reverse). Since we are interested only in comparing the speed of each method, we simply considered each halo to have equal weight.
We performed the raw and the reverse estimates on three `surveys' of $N=4.2\times 10^5, 3.1 \times10^6$ and $1\times 10^7$ halos, which correspond to three different depths ($z_{max}=0.1, 0.2$ and $0.3$ respectively) in the Horizon simulation. The HEALPix angular parameter is given by $n_{side}$.
The results of the accuracy and speed tests are given in Table 1. The third (fourth) column gives the percentage f coefficients for which the relative accuracy $\epsilon(f_{\ell m n})$ ($\epsilon(C_{\ell n})$) is lower than 0.3\% for given values of $n_{side}$ and $N$. We considered the intervals $(l,n) \in ([0,20],[1,20])$ and $(l,n) \in ([21,50],[21,50])$ separately, since the estimation of higher coefficients depends more on the value of $n_{side}$. We also compared computation times of the two methods by observing the ratio $T = t_{reverse}/t_{raw}$. Given a survey and a method, computation time denotes the CPU time required to compute the $k_{ln}$'s (from the Bessel functions) and the final coefficients $f_{\ell mn}$ without using pre-computed quantities. Note that we performed this analysis by distributing the calculations on five machines and simply adding the individual contributions to computation time since our method is linear with survey size. With the reverse method, though, the roots of the Bessel functions as well as the spherical harmonics may be pre-computed and stored in external files, which decreases computation time and complexity when working with 3DEX.
\begin{table}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ cccccc }
\hline
$N$ &$n_{side}$ & $\epsilon_r(f_{\ell mn}) < 0.3\%$ & $\epsilon_r(C_{\ell n}) < 0.3\%$ & T \\
& & [0,20] / [21,50] & [0,20] / [21,50] \\
\hline
4.2e5 & 512 & 87\% / 42\% & 99\% / 96\% & 8 \\
& 1024 & 95\% / 65\% & 99\% / 98\% & 4 \\
& 2048 & 99\% / 84\% & 99\% / 99\% & 2 \\
3.1e6 & 512 & 92\% / 50\% & 99\% / 95\% & 10 \\
& 1024 & 98\% / 74\% & 100\% / 100\% & 5 \\
& 2048 & 99\% / 90\% & 100\% / 100\% & 2 \\
9.7e6 & 512 & 92\% / 50\% & 100\% / 97\% & 12 \\
& 1024 & 97\% / 74\% & 100\% / 100\% & 6 \\
& 2048 & 99\% / 90\% & 100\% / 100\% & 3 \\
\hline \\
\end{tabular}
\caption{Estimation of Fourier-Bessel coefficients: comparison of the new method, the \textit{reverse} formulation (equations \ref{revdiscr1} and \ref{revdiscr2} using HEALPix discretisation) with the original, \textit{raw} formulation (equation \ref{rawestimate}). The third (fourth) column gives the percentage f coefficients for which the relative accuracy $\epsilon(f_{\ell m n})$ ($\epsilon(C_{\ell n})$) is lower than 0.3\% for given values of $n_{side}$ and $N$. T is the ratio of elapsed times of the two methods.}
\end{center}
\end{table}
The reverse method is about an order of magnitude faster than the raw method, but this depends on the choice of $n_{side}$. For $n_{side}=1024$ almost all $f_{\ell mn}$ coefficients in the range $[0,20]$ (for $\ell$ and $n$) have relative error below $1\%$, and $90\%$ have it below $0.3\%$, whereas over 99\% of $C(\ell,k_n)$ coefficients are accurate to $<0.3\%$. In the range $[20,50]$, the accuracy is somewhat degraded due to the extension of the HEALPix formalism to 3D surveys. Indeed, for data distributed on the sphere, 3D space is very sparse even for large surveys. Increasing $n_{side}$ to 1024 or 2048 strongly improves the accuracy for higher orders $\ell$. Note that comparisons for $\ell >50$ are limited by the amount of time the raw method takes.
Figures 1 and 2 show the time taken for calculations as a function of $\ell_{max}$ and $n_{max}$ (Figure 1), and as a function of number of halos (Figure 2). The boxes correspond to the raw method, the circles and diamonds to the reverse method with $n_{side}=512, 1024$ respectively. The dashed line corresponds to the general rule that the raw method scales as $N n_{max} \left(\ell_{max}+1\right)^2/2$, whereas the points are all estimated from calculations. With $\ell _{max}=n_{max}=100$ and $N=9.7e6$, the raw decomposition took a few days of calculations, whereas the reverse method only took 12 hours. {In our formalism, $k_{max}$ is determined by the choice of $R$ for the boundary condition and by the band-limit $n_{max}$ for spherical Bessel coefficients. For each multipole $\ell$ we have $k_{max}=k_{\ell n_{max}} = q_{\ell n_{max}}/R$ where $q_{\ell n_{max}}$ is the $n_{max}$-the root of the $\ell$-th spherical Bessel function. Because $R$ is usually imposed by the problem or the data, one must increase $n_{max}$ to probe smaller radial scales. In fact, a reasonable approximation (or even a simple plot) shows that $q_{\ell n} \approx (\ell + 3n)$. This observation enabled to predict which radial scales are probed and how computation time scales with $k_{max}$, given that we provide the complexity for $\ell_{max}$ and $n_{max}$.}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\hspace*{-3mm}
\includegraphics[width=9.2cm]{pics/comp_increasing_L.png}\label{fig:increasingL}
\begin{minipage}{8.2cm}\caption{Speed results (raw and reverse methods) for increasing summation limits $\ell _{max}=n_{max}$, for a survey of $N=9.7 \times 10^6$ halos. Dashed lines are the fitted complexity curves. The reverse formulation is suitable for pre-calculations and external storage of the spherical harmonics, which was not performed here but enables for additional speed improvements.}\end{minipage}
\label{fig1}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\hspace*{-3mm}
\includegraphics[width=9.2cm]{pics/comp_increasing_N.png}\label{fig:increasingN}
\begin{minipage}{8.2cm}\caption{Speed results (raw and reverse methods) for increasing survey size, for $\ell _{max}=n_{max}=30$. Dashed lines are the fitted complexity curves.}\end{minipage}
\label{fig2}
\end{figure}
One of the main advantages of the reverse method is that it is naturally suited to parallel computing because it uses HEALPix fast spherical Harmonics Transform routines. All previous tests were performed on a recent computer (i7 processor, 8Go RAM) and take advantage of OpenMP (with four threads). More advanced computing means (larger RAM and more processors) significantly decrease calculation time. For example, $\ell _{max}=n_{max}=128$ with $n_{side}=2048$ took about an hour with 128 cores and 512Go RAM, whereas computation time for the raw method was estimated to several days on the same machine. Note that the raw method is also suited to parallelisation: galaxies may be treated separately by different threads. In all experiments, we took advantage of this property and performed both \textit{raw} and \textit{reverse} decompositions with four threads to perform relevant comparisons between the two.
In terms of the power spectrum, figures 3 and 4 show the relative error between the raw and the reverse methods both in mode-mode space ($\ell - n$) and in mode-scale space ($\ell - k_{\ell n}$). For this comparison we decomposed a survey of $N= 4.2\times 10^5$ halos with $z_{max}=0.1$. Figures in mode-mode space naturally differ according to the choice of the boundary $R$ because the latter determines the discrete radial scale spectrum $\{ k_{\ell n} \}$, and hence mode $n$ computed with two different $R$'s corresponds to different $k$-scales. When comparing the results from $R=1000$ and $R=2000$ in mode-scale space, we observe that the boundary condition fixes the explored scales. The left column is thus complementary to the right column to explore higher values of $k$. Although figure \ref{fig:nspace} gives information about the final coefficients, figure 4 is hence more appropriate to see which scales are probed and with what accuracy.
In view of the $\ell - k_{\ell n}$ space, we see that no fluctuations are observed along the $k$ axis up to $k=0.03 {\rm hMpc^{-1}}$. In this range, fluctuations occur in $\ell$ space, which are accurately probed with $n_{side}=512$ until $\ell=25$ but naturally require a more precise scheme for $\ell >25$, $k>0.03 {\rm hMpc^{-1}}$ (smaller scales in physical space). In conclusion, parameter $n_{side}$ (as well as $R$) must be chosen depending on the scales one wishes to probe. Figures 3 and 4 provide accuracy results that are complementary to Table 1.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\hspace*{-9mm}\resizebox{\hsize}{!}{
\includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{pics/err_n_01_512_1000.png}
\includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{pics/err_n_01_512_2000.png}\quad}\\
\hspace*{-9mm}\resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{pics/err_n_01_1024_1000.png}
\includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{pics/err_n_01_1024_2000.png}\quad}\\
\parbox[b]{15cm}{
\caption{Relative error on the power spectrum in mode-mode space $C(l,n)$. We compare the original formulation of spherical Fourier-Bessel decomposition with the reverse formulation, testing $n_{side}=512, 1024$ (rows) and $R=1000, 2000$ (columns). Only a few zones (white spots) are outside the range $[-0.3\%,+0.3\%]$.}
\label{fig:nspace}
}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\hspace*{-9mm}\resizebox{\hsize}{!}{
\includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{pics/err_k_01_512_1000.png}
\includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{pics/err_k_01_512_2000.png}\quad}\\
\hspace*{-9mm}\resizebox{\hsize}{!}{
\includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{pics/err_k_01_1024_1000.png}
\includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{pics/err_k_01_1024_2000.png}\quad}\\
\parbox[b]{15cm}{
\caption{Relative error on the power spectrum in mode-scale space $C(l,k)$ ($k$ is in ${\rm hMpc^{-1}}$). We compare the original formulation of spherical Fourier-Bessel decomposition with the reverse formulation, testing $n_{side}=512, 1024$ (rows) and $R=1000, 2000$ (columns). Only a few zones (white spots) are outside the range $[-0.3\%,+0.3\%]$.}
\label{fig:kspace}
}
\end{figure*}
\section{The 3DEX library}
\label{sec:3DEX}
The 3DEX library requires the HEALPix package (v2.12 or later) and the CFITSIO library. 3DEX may either by installed with an HEALPix-like procedure (\textit{configure} and \textit{make} commands) or using CMake. The Fortran modules, the 3DEX dynamic library and the related executables will be created in the relevant directories (see README file for more information).
In addition to the numerical procedures required to compute Fourier-Bessel coefficients, various other routines are provided in the library, such as those converting redshift to comoving distance, computing spherical Bessel functions and their zeros, reading and writing 3D structures ($f_{lmn}$ and $C_{ln}$), or reconstructing radial maps from Fourier-Bessel coefficients.
Three executable programmes are generated:
\begin{itemize}
\item \textit{survey2almn} performs the spherical Fourier-Bessel decomposition (reverse method) of a discrete survey with input parameters $l_{max}$, $n_{max}$, $r$ and $n_{side}$. Outputs are the $f_{lmn}$ coefficients and the power spectrum.
\item \textit{survey2almn\_interactive} is very similar to the previous programme, but converts redshift values into comoving distance before performing the spherical Fourier-Bessel decomposition. In particular, the routine takes a .txt file as input, taking into account parameters on the cosmology and on the decomposition.
\item \textit{almn2rmap} extracts the $f_{lmn}$ coefficients from a FITS file and reconstructs the field (HEALPix map) at a given radius. Inputs are the resolution, the radius and summation limits $l_{max}$ and $n_{max}$, which allows one to reconstruct several maps at different scales and resolutions.
\end{itemize}
The corresponding calls are given by the examples below. \\
{\tt $>$ survey2almn survey\_thetaphir.dat almn.fits cln.fits 20 20 256 2000.0},\\
where survey\_thetaphir.dat is a survey with columns representing $\theta, \phi, r$, and the keywords correspond to values of $\ell, n, n_{side}, R$. The output is both the coefficient values (almn.fis) and the Fourier-Bessel spectrum (cln.fits).\\
{\tt $>$ survey2almn\_interactive parameters.txt},\\
where parameters.txt is an external file containing input parameters for the survey and the cosmology (which allows for more flexible use). Finally, for the map reconstruction, we can use:\\
{\tt $>$ almn2rmap almn.fits map.fits 400.0 256 10 10 2000.0},\\
where the keywords correspond to $r_{max}$, $n_{side}$, $\ell$, $n$, $R$.
\section{Conclusion}
\label{sec:Conclusion}
High-precision cosmology from galaxy and weak lensing surveys will require the analysis of 3D data in spherical coordinates, a situation for which spherical Fourier-Bessel decomposition is most suited. Current methods will be inadequate for future planned cosmological surveys, which will provide for example galaxy surveys with billions of galaxies, compared to millions today.
We have reviewed the \emph{forward} or SHB (spherical Harmonic-Bessel) formalism of the spherical Fourier-Bessel decomposition which first calculates the tangential, then the radial decomposition. We also introduced the \emph{reverse} or SBH (spherical Bessel Harmonic) formalism that inverses this order. Only the latter approach can take advantage of existing fast codes for the calculation of tangential modes. (To do the same, the former would require a a new voxelisation scheme.)
We presented a public code 3DEX (3D EXpansions) for the fast calculation of Fourier-Bessel coefficients and spectra, which uses the HEALPix pixelisation scheme for calculating the tangential modes. The 3DEX code is based on the \emph{reverse}/SBH formulation of the Fourier-Bessel decomposition.
We tested the 3DEX code on linear and quasi-linear scales ($\ell<50$ and $k_{\ell n}<0.2{\rm hMpc^{-1}}$) using the Horizon halo simulation for redshifts $z<0.3$. For $n_{side} =1024$ the 3DEX method for calculating the power spectrum $C(\ell,k)$ is accurate to 0.3\% on these scales.
For surveys with $<10$ million galaxies, computation time is reduced by a factor 4-12 depending on the desired scales and accuracy. For larger surveys the gain in time will be even greater. Finally, the use of the 3DEX code is not restricted to cosmological calculations, and can be used in any other discipline that requires a spherical Fourier-Bessel analysis of 3D data.
\begin{acknowledgements}
The authors are grateful to Ofer Lahav, Pirin Erdo\u{g}du and Fran\c cois Lanusse for useful discussions regarding the spherical Fourier-Bessel theory, as well as to Romain Teyssier and Nicolas Clerc for access and help using the Horizon simulation. The authors thank Yves Revaz for computational help at EPFL. The 3DEX library uses Healpix software \citep{healpix:2002,gorski:2004by}. This work is supported by the European Research Council grant SparseAstro (ERC-228261). This research is in part supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF).
\end{acknowledgements}
|
\section{Introduction}
It is a common occurence that sets of geometric objects themselves
carry some kind of geometric structure. A classical example for this is
the set of all conformal structures on a given compact surface. Riemann
discovered that this set, the ``space'' of conformal structures,
can be described by a finite number of parameters
called {\it moduli}. The corresponding {\it parameter} or {\it moduli space} turned
out to be a very interesting geometric object in itself
whose study is the subject of Teichm\"uller theory.
On a more basic level, one can consider spaces consisting of objects
of elementary geometry like (shapes of) polyhedra in Euclidean space.
Thurston \cite{T} found that in this case, the corresponding moduli space
carries the structure of a complex hyperbolic manifold, and he established
a link with sets of triangulations of the 2-sphere.
Bavard and Ghys \cite{BG92} considered sets of polygons in the Euclidean
plane. Fix a compact convex polygon $P$ with $n\geq3$ edges and let
${\cal P}(P)$ be the space of convex polygons with $n$ edges parallel to
those of $P$. The elements of ${\cal P}(P)$ are then determined by the distances of the lines
containing the edges from the origin, which gives $n$ parameters. Following [Thu98],
Bavard and Ghys proved that on the space of parameters, the area
of the polygons in ${\cal P}(P)$ is a quadratic form, and they computed its signature.
The kernel of the corresponding bilinear form has dimension 2
(due to the fact that area is invariant under translations), and there is only one
positive direction. Hence, up to the kernel, one gets a Lorentzian signature.
As a consequence, the set of elements of ${\cal P}(P)$ with area equal to one,
considered up to translations, can be identified with a subset of the
hyperbolic space $\mathbb{H}^{n-3}$. This subset turns out to be
a hyperbolic convex polyhedron of a special kind: it is a simplex with the property
that each hyperplane containing a facet meets orthogonally all but two hyperplanes containing
the other facets. Such simplices are called {\it hyperbolic orthoschemes}.
The dihedral angles of the orthoscheme can be computed from the angles of
$P$, and \cite{BG92} contains a list of convex polygons $P$ such that the orthoscheme
obtained from $P$ is of Coxeter type, i.e. has acute angles of the form $\pi/k$,
$k\in\mathbb{N}$. This list was previously known \cite{ImHof2,ImHof1}, but it appeared it
was incomplete \cite{F}.
In this paper we consider a class of non-compact plane polygons whose moduli
space is a {\it spherical} orthoscheme. These polygons, the $t$-convex polygons
introduced in Section~\ref{sec:tcvxe}, are best described not in terms of the Euclidean geometry
on $\mathbb{R}^2$, but as subsets of the Lorentz plane. Instead of the area we will
consider a suitably defined coarea that turns out to be a positive definite
quadratic form on the parameter space, an $n$-dimensional vector space.
Restricting to coarea one we obtain a subset of the unit sphere in that
parameter space, and this subset is shown to be a spherical orthoscheme.
Moreover, any spherical orthoschem can be obtained in this way.
It is amusing that in \cite{BG92} Euclidean polygons led to Lorentz metrics
and hyperbolic orthoschemes, while in the present paper Lorentzian
polygons give rise to Euclidean metrics and spherical orthoschemes.
The author does not know if there is a way to obtain {\it Euclidean}
orthoschemes from spaces of plane convex polygons.
\section{Background on the Lorentz plane}
Recall that the {\it Lorentz plane} is $\mathbb{R}^2$ equipped with the
{\it Lorentz inner product}, that is the bilinear form $\langle \binom{x_1}{x_2} ,\binom{y_1}{y_2} \rangle_1=x_1y_1-x_2y_2. $
A non-zero vector $v$ can be \emph{space-like}
($\langle v,v\rangle_1>0$), \emph{time-like} ($\langle v,v\rangle_1<0$) or \emph{light-like}
($\langle v,v\rangle_1=0$).
The set of time-like vectors
has two connected components, and we denote the upper one, the set of
\emph{future} time-like vectors, by
$${\mathcal F}:=\{x\in{\mathbb R}^2\vert \langle x,x\rangle_1<0, x_2>0 \}. $$
The set of unit future time-like vectors is
$${\mathbb H}:=\{x\in {\mathbb R}^2| \langle x,x\rangle_1=-1, x_2>0 \},$$
which will be the analog of the circle in the Euclidean plane, see Figure~\ref{fig:futcon}.
In higher dimension, the generalization of ${\mathbb H}$ together with its induced metric is a model of the hyperbolic space,
in the same way that
the unit sphere for the Euclidean metric with its induced metric is a model of the round sphere.
In particular, if the angle between two unit vectors in the Euclidean plane is seen as
the distance between the two corresponding points on the circle,
the \emph{(Lorentzian) angle} between two future time-like vectors $x$ and $y$ is the unique $\varphi> 0$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:angle}
\cosh \varphi=-\frac{ \langle x,y \rangle_1}{\sqrt{\langle x,x\rangle_1\langle y,y\rangle_1}}
\end{equation}
(see \cite[(3.1.7)]{Rat06} for the existence of $\varphi$).
The angle $\varphi$ is the distance on ${\mathbb H}$ (for the induced metric) between $x/\sqrt{-\langle x,x\rangle_1}$
and $y/\sqrt{-\langle y,y\rangle_1}$.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{future_cone.jpg}
\caption{The cone ${\mathcal F}$ of future time-like vectors and
the curve ${\mathbb H}$ of unit future time-like vectors.\label{fig:futcon}
}
\end{figure}
${\mathcal F}$ and ${\mathbb H}$ are globally invariant under the action of the linear isometries of the Lorentzian plane, called
\emph{hyperbolic translations}:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:hyp trans}H_{t}:= \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\cosh t & \sinh t \\
\sinh t & \cosh t
\end{array}
\right), t\in{\mathbb R}.\end{equation}
In all the paper we fix a positive $t$.
We denote by $<H_t>$ the free group
spanned by $H_t$.
\section{$t$-convex polygons}\label{sec:tcvxe}
Let $a\in{\mathcal F}$. We will denote by
\begin{equation*}\label{eq def affine}
a^{\bot}:=\{x\in{\mathbb R}^{2}| \langle x,a\rangle_1=\langle a,a\rangle_1 \}
\end{equation*}
the line
that passes through $a$ and is parallel to the $1$-dimensional subspace
orthogonal to $a$ under $\langle \cdot,\cdot\rangle_1$.
\begin{definition}\label{def:gen}
Let $(\eta_1,\ldots,\eta_n)$, $n\geq 1$, be pairwise distinct unit future time-like vectors in the Lorentzian plane
(i.e.~$\eta_i\in{\mathbb H}$),
and let $h_1,\ldots,h_n$ be positive numbers.
A \emph{$t$-convex polygon} $P$ is the intersection of the half-planes
bounded by the lines
$$(H_t^k (h_i\eta_i))^{\bot}, \forall k\in\mathbb{Z}, \forall i=1,\ldots,n.$$
The half-planes are chosen such that the vectors $\eta_i$ are inward pointing.
The positive numbers $h_i$ are the \emph{support numbers} of $P$.
\end{definition}
A $t$-convex polygon is called \emph{elementary} if it is defined by a single
future time-like vector $\eta$ and a positive number $h$. Note that
for each $k$, $(H_t^k (h\eta))^{\bot}$ is tangent
to $h{\mathbb H}$ (the upper hyperbola with radius $h$).
Hence a $t$-convex polygon is the intersection of
a finite number of elementary $t$-convex polygons.
\begin{example}\label{ex}{\rm
Let $t_0=\sinh^{-1}(1)$, so
$$H_{t_0}:= \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\sqrt{2} & 1 \\
1 & \sqrt{2}
\end{array}
\right).$$ Let us denote by $P_1$ the elementary $t_0$-convex polygon defined by the vector
$\eta= \binom{0}{1} $ and the number $h=1$, see Figure~\ref{a}.
The elementary $t_0$-convex polygon $P_2$ of Figure~\ref{b} is obtained
from $p_1$ by a slightly change of $\eta$ and $h$. Their intersection forms
the $t_0$-convex polygon of Figure~\ref{c}.
}
\end{example}
\begin{figure}[htp]
\centering
\subfloat[A part of the $t_0$-convex polygon $P_1$. For the Lorentzian metric, all the edges have equal length and all the
angles between edges are equal.]{\label{a}\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{polygone_fuchsien.jpg} } \\
\subfloat[A part of the $t_0$-convex polygon $P_2$. For the Lorentzian metric, all the edges have equal length and all the
angles between edges are equal.]{\label{b}\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{polygone_fuchsien_2.jpg} }\\
\subfloat[A part of the $t_0$-convex polygon obtained as the intersection of $P_1$
and $P_2$.]{\label{c}\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{polygone_fuchsien_3.jpg}}
\caption{To Example~\ref{ex}.}
\label{fig:polygon}
\end{figure}
\begin{lemma}
A $t$-convex polygon $P$ is a proper convex subset of ${\mathbb R}^2$ contained in ${\mathcal F}$,
bounded by a polygonal line with a countable number of sides, and globally
invariant under the action of
$<H_t>$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The group invariance is clear from the definition.
$P$ is the intersection of a finite number of elementary $t$-convex polygons,
so we only have to check the other properties in the elementary case.
Actually the only non-immediate one is that an elementary $t$-convex polygon
is contained in ${\mathcal F}$.
Let us consider an elementary $t$-convex polygon made from a single future time-like vector $\eta$
and a number $h$.
Without
loss of generality, consider that $h=1$.
Let $u=H^k_t(\eta)$ and $v=H^{k'}_t(\eta)$ and let $x$ be the intersection between
$u^{\bot}$ and $v^{\bot}$. As $\langle x,u \rangle_1=\langle x,v\rangle_1=-1$, $x$ is orthogonal to
$u-v$, which is a space-like vector (compute its norm with the help of \eqref{eq:angle}). Hence $x$ is time-like, and as $u^{\bot}$ and $v^{\bot}$ never meet the
past cone, $x$ is future. It is easy to deduce that the $t$-convex polygon is contained in ${\mathcal F}$.
\end{proof}
Note that as a convex surface, a $t$-convex polygon can also be
a $t'$-convex polygon (for example it is also invariant under the action of any subgroup of $<H_t>$), but
we will only consider the action of a given $<H_t>$.
Given a $t$-convex polygon $P$, we will require that
the set of elementary $t$-convex polygons such that their intersection gives $P$ is minimal, i.e~each
$\eta_i$ is the inward unit normal of a genuine edge $e_i$ of $P$.
The edge at the left (resp. right) of $e_i$ is denoted by $e_{i-1}$ (resp. $e_{i+1}$).
Let $p_i$ be the foot of the perpendicular from the origin to the line containing $e_i$
(in particular, $p_i=h_i\eta_i$).
Let $p_{ii+1}$ be the vertex between
$e_i$ and $e_{i+1}$. We denote by $h_{ii+1}$ (resp. $h_{ii-1}$) the signed distance
from $p_i$ to $p_{ii+1}$ (resp. from $p_i$ to $p_{i-1i}$): it is non negative if $p_i$ is on the same side of $e_{i+1}$ (resp. $e_{i-1}$) as $P$.
The angle between $\eta_i$ and $\eta_{i+1}$ is denoted by $\varphi_i$.
See Figure~\ref{fig:notations}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{notationsb.jpg}
\caption{Notations for a $t$-convex polygon.
\label{fig:notations}
}
\end{figure}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:longmink}
With the notations introduced above,
\begin{equation}\label{eq: supp num mink}
h_{ii+1}=\frac{h_i\cosh \varphi_{i}-h_{i+1}}{\sinh \varphi_{i}},
h_{ii-1}=\frac{h_i\cosh \varphi_{i-1}-h_{i-1}}{\sinh \varphi_{i-1}}.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By definition, $h_{ii+1}$ is non negative when
$\langle p_i-p_{i+1},\eta_{i+1}\rangle_1\leq 0$,
i.e.$$-(h_{i+1}-h_i\cosh \varphi_{i})\geq 0.$$
Hence
$$h_{ii+1}= -\frac{h_{i+1}-h_i\cosh \varphi_{i}}{|h_{i+1}-h_i\cosh \varphi_{i}|}\sqrt{\langle p_{ii+1}-p_i,p_{ii+1}-p_i\rangle_1}. $$
Up to an orientation and time orientation preserving linear isometry, one can take $\eta_i=\left(0 \atop 1 \right)$.
In particular $p_i=\left(0 \atop h_i \right)$ and $(p_{ii+1})_2=h_i$ hence
$$\langle p_{ii+1}-p_i,p_{ii+1}-p_i\rangle_1=(p_{ii+1})_1^2.$$
We also have
$\eta_{i+1}=\left(\sinh \varphi_{i} \atop \cosh \varphi_{i} \right)$, and as
$\langle p_{ii+1},\eta_{i+1}\rangle_1=-h_{i+1}$
we get $$ (p_{ii+1})_1=\frac{-h_{i+1}+h_i\cosh\varphi_{i}}{\sinh \varphi_{i}}.$$
The proof for $h_{ii-1}$ is similar, considering $\eta_{i-1}=\left(-\sinh \varphi_{i} \atop \cosh \varphi_{i} \right)$.
\end{proof}
\section{The cone of support vectors}
Let $P$ be a $t$-convex polygon. Choose an edge and denote its inward unit normal by $\eta_1$.
We denote the inward unit normal of the edge on the right by $\eta_2$, and so on until
$\eta_{n+1}=H_t(\eta_1)$. The edges with normals $\eta_1,\ldots,\eta_n$ are the
\emph{fundamental edges} of $P$. Note that with this labeling, if $\varphi_i$ is the angle between $\eta_i$
and $\eta_{i+1}$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:somme angle}
\varphi_{1}+\varphi_{2}+\cdots+\varphi_{n}=t.
\end{equation}
The number $h_i(P)$ is the support number of the edge with normal $\eta_i$,
and $h(P)=(h_1(P),\ldots,h_n(P))$ is the \emph{support vector} of $P$.
So $P$ is identified with a vector of ${\mathbb R}^n$, in such a way that
$\eta_1,\ldots,\eta_n$ are in bijection with the standard basis of $\mathbb{R}^n$.
Of course $P$ is uniquely determined by its support vector.
\begin{definition} Choose $\eta\in{\mathbb H}$ and
let $\varphi_{1},\varphi_{2},\cdots,\varphi_{n}$ be positive numbers satisfying
\eqref{eq:somme angle}. The \emph{cone of support vectors}
$\overline{\P}(\varphi_{1},\varphi_{2},\ldots,\varphi_{n})$
is the set of support vectors of $t$-convex polygons with inward unit normals
$\eta_1=\eta$, $\eta_{i+1}=H_{\varphi_i}(\eta_i)$.
\end{definition}
A priori the definition of $\overline{\P}$ depends not only on the angles
$\varphi_i$ but also on the choice of $\eta$. Actually choosing another starting $\eta'\in{\mathbb H}$,
the hyperbolic translation from $\eta$ to $\eta'$ gives a linear isomorphism between the
two resulting sets of support vectors. Hence $\overline{\P}(\varphi_{1},\varphi_{2},\ldots,\varphi_{n})$
could be defined as the set of $t$-convex polygons with ordered angles $(\varphi_{1},\varphi_{2},\ldots,\varphi_{n})$
up to hyperbolic translations.
Note also that if $s$ is a cyclic permutation, then $\overline{\P}(\varphi_{s(1)},\ldots,\varphi_{s(n)})$
is the same as $\overline{\P}(\varphi_{1},\ldots,\varphi_{n})$.
It is possible to prove that
$\overline{\P}(\varphi_{1},\varphi_{2},\ldots,\varphi_{n})$ is a convex polyhedral cone
with non-empty interior
in ${\mathbb R}^n$, but this will be easier after a suitable metrization of ${\mathbb R}^n$, that is the subject of the next section.
\section{Coarea}\label{sec:coarea}
\begin{definition} Let $P\in \overline{\P}(\varphi_{1},\varphi_{2},\ldots,\varphi_{n})$.
The \emph{coarea} of $P$ is
$$\operatorname{coarea}(P)=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=1}^n h_i(P) \ell_i(P)$$
where the sum is on the fundamental edges, and $\ell_i(P)=h_{ii-1}(P)+h_{ii+1}(P)$ is the length of the
$i$th fundamental edge (hence positive).
\end{definition}
Geometrically
$\operatorname{coarea}(P)$ is the area (in the sense of the Lebesgue measure)
of a fundamental domain for the action of $H_t$ on the complement of $P$ in ${\mathcal F}$.
The main point is that hyperbolic translations \eqref{eq:hyp trans} have determinant $1$, so they preserve the
area, which is then independent of the choice of the fundamental domain, see Figure~\ref{fig:polygonaire}.
Moreover the area of a triangle with a space-like edge $e$ of length $l$ and $0$ as a vertex has
area $\frac{1}{2}lh$, if $h$ is the Lorentzian distance between $0$ and the line containing $e$.
(To see this, perform a hyperbolic translation such that $e$ is horizontal and compute the area.)
Note that the coarea depends not only on the polygonal line $P$ but also on the group
$<H_t>$, so it would be more precise to speak about ``$t$-coarea'',
but as the group is fixed from the beginning, no confusion is possible.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{polygone_fuchsien_aire.jpg}
\caption{The two shaded regions have the same area. This area is the coarea of the
polygon.
\label{fig:polygonaire}
}
\end{figure}
For a given cone of support vectors, the coarea can be formally extended
to ${\mathbb R}^n$ with the help of \eqref{eq: supp num mink}: for $h\in{\mathbb R}^n$,
$$\operatorname{coarea}(h)=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=1}^n h_i \ell_i(h)$$
with
\begin{equation}\label{li}\ell_i(h):=\frac{h_i\cosh \varphi_{i-1}-h_{i-1}}{\sinh \varphi_{i-1}}
+h_i \frac{h_i\cosh \varphi_{i}-h_{i+1}}{\sinh \varphi_{i}}.\end{equation}
If $n=1$, there is only one angle between the unit inward normal $\eta$
and its image under $H_t$, which is equal to $t$, and
$\operatorname{coarea}(h)=h^2\frac{\cosh t -1}{\sinh t}. $
If $n\geq 2$, we introduce the \emph{mixed-coarea}
$$\operatorname{coarea}(h,k)=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=1}^n h_i \frac{k_i\cosh \varphi_{i-1}-k_{i-1}}{\sinh \varphi_{i-1}}
+h_i \frac{k_i\cosh \varphi_{i}-k_{i+1}}{\sinh \varphi_{i}},$$
which is the polarization of the $\operatorname{coarea}$. Actually, it is
clearly a bilinear form, and
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{2}
\begin{equation}\label{eq: mui}
\operatorname{coarea}(\eta_k,\eta_j)=\left\{
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & \mbox{if } & 2\leq \vert j-k\vert\leq n+1 \\
\displaystyle{ -\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{\sinh\varphi_{k-1}}} & \mbox{if} & j=k-1 \\
\displaystyle{-\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{\sinh\varphi_{k}}}& \mbox{if} & j=k+1 \\
\displaystyle{\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\cosh \varphi_{k-1}}{\sinh\varphi_{k-1}}+\frac{\cosh\varphi_k}{\sinh\varphi_{k}}\right)}& \mbox{if} & j=k
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
so $\operatorname{coarea}$ is symmetric. We also obtain the following key result.
\begin{proposition}
The symmetric bilinear form $\operatorname{coarea}$ is positive definite.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
As $\cosh \varphi_{k}>1$, the matrix
$(\operatorname{coarea}(u_k,u_j))_{kj}$ is strictly diagonally dominant, and symmetric with positive diagonal entries, hence positive definite, see for example \cite[1.22]{Var00}.
\end{proof}
The Cauchy--Schwarz inequality
applied to support vectors of $t$-convex polygons gives the following \emph{reversed Minkowski inequality}:
\begin{corollary} Let $P,Q$ be $t$-convex polygons with parallel edges. Then
$$\operatorname{coarea}(P,Q)^2\leq \operatorname{coarea}(P)\operatorname{coarea}(Q),$$
with equality if and only if $P$ and $Q$ are homothetic: $\exists \lambda>0, \forall i, h_i(P)=\lambda h_i(Q)$.
\end{corollary}
\section{Spherical orthoschemes}
$\overline{\P}(\varphi_{1},\varphi_{2},\ldots,\varphi_{n})$ is clearly a cone in ${\mathbb R}^n$.
Moreover it is the set of vectors of positive edge lengths, for the edge lengths defined by \eqref{li}.
From the definition of the coaera, for $h\in{\mathbb R}^n$, $2 \operatorname{coarea}(\eta_i,h)=\ell_i(h)$, so
$\eta_i$ is an inward normal vector to the
facet of $\overline{\P}$ defined by $\ell_i=0$. So $\overline{\P}$ is polyhedral, and it is convex
because the $\eta_i$ form a basis of ${\mathbb R}^n$.
Let us denote by $\P(\varphi_{1},\varphi_{2},\ldots,\varphi_{n})$
the intersection of $\overline{\P}(\varphi_{1},\varphi_{2},\ldots,\varphi_{n})$
with the unit sphere of $({\mathbb R}^n,\operatorname{coarea})$ (i.e.~the set of support vectors of $t$-convex polygons with
coarea one). It follows that $\P$ is a spherical simplex.
If $n=1$, $\P$ is a point on a line, so from now on assume that $n>1$.
When $n=2$, $\P$ is an arc on the unit circle with length $\theta$ satisfying
$$\cos\theta=\frac{\sinh\varphi_{2}}{\sinh(\varphi_1+\varphi_2)}.$$
When $n=3$, $\P$ is a spherical triangle with acute inner angles, whose cosines are
given by:
\begin{equation}\label{formcos}-\frac{\operatorname{coarea}(\eta_k,\eta_{k+1})}{\sqrt{\operatorname{coarea}(\eta_k,\eta_k)}\sqrt{\operatorname{coarea}(\eta_{k+1},\eta_{k+1})}}=\sqrt{\frac{\sinh \varphi_{k-1}\sinh\varphi_{k+1}}{\sinh(\varphi_{k-1}+\varphi_{k})
\sinh(\varphi_{k}+\varphi_{k+1})}}.\end{equation}
When $n\geq 3$, from \eqref{eq: mui} we see that each facet
has an acute interior dihedral angle with exactly two other facets, and is orthogonal to the other facets.
Such spherical simplexes are called \emph{acute spherical orthoschemes}. See \cite[5]{Deb90} for the history and main properties
of these very particular simplexes. Note that there are no spherical Coxeter orthoschemes, because the Coxeter diagram of a
spherical orthoscheme must be a cycle, and there
is no cycle in the list of Coxeter diagrams of spherical Coxeter simplexes.
The list can be found for example in \cite{Rat06}.
Let us denote by $U_k$ the line through $p_k$ (so the angle between $U_k$ and $U_{k+1}$ is $\varphi_k$), and by
$\lambda$ the cross ratio $[U_{k-1},U_k,U_{k+1},U_{k+2}]$, namely if $u_{k-1},u_k,u_{k+1},u_{k+2}$
are the intersections of the lines $U_i$ with any line not passing through zero and endowed with coordinates then
(see \cite{Ber})
$$\lambda=[U_{k-1},U_k,U_{k+1},U_{k+2}]=\frac{u_{k+1}-u_{k-1}}{u_{k+1}-u_k}\frac{u_{k+2}-u_k}{u_{k+2}-u_{k-1}}.$$
We have the formula (see \cite{PY})
$$\frac{\sinh \varphi_{k-1}\sinh\varphi_{k+1}}{\sinh(\varphi_{k-1}+\varphi_{k})
\sinh(\varphi_{k}+\varphi_{k+1})}=\frac{\lambda-1}{\lambda}=[U_{k-1},U_{k+2},U_k,U_{k+1}]. $$
From a given $n$-dimensional acute spherical orthoscheme $O$ we can find angles (positive real numbers) $(\varphi_{1},\varphi_{2},\ldots,\varphi_{n})$
such that $\P(\varphi_{1},\varphi_{2},\ldots,\varphi_{n})$ is isometric to $O$.
Let $0<A<1$ be the square of the cosine of an acute dihedral angle of $O$.
We have first to find ordered time-like lines $U_1,U_2,U_3,U_4$ such that
$[U_1,U_2,U_3,U_4]=\frac{1}{1-A}$, i.e.~we have to prove that the cross-ratio of the lines can reach any
value $>1$. Choose arbitrary distinct ordered time-like $U_1,U_2, U_4$. If $U_3=U_4$ then $[U_1,U_2,U_3,U_4]=1$, and if $U_3=U_2$ then $[U_1,U_2,U_3,U_4]=+\infty$, so by continuity
any given value $>1$ can be reached for a suitable $U_3$ between $U_2$ and $U_4$.
$U_1,U_2,U_3,U_4$ give angles $\varphi_1,\varphi_2,\varphi_3$.
Now the other $\varphi_k$ are easily obtained as follows.
Given the next dihedral angle of $O$ (they can be ordered by ordering the unit normals to $O$, see \cite{Deb90}),
the square of its cosine should be equal to
$$\frac{\sinh \varphi_{2}\sinh\varphi_{4}}{\sinh(\varphi_{2}+\varphi_{3})
\sinh(\varphi_{3}+\varphi_{4})}
$$
and $\varphi_2,\varphi_3$ are known, so we get $\varphi_4$. And so on.
\section{Spherical cone-manifolds}
Let $n>2$ and consider the orthoscheme $\P=\P(\varphi_1,\ldots,\varphi_n)$.
A facet of $\P$ is isometric to the space of $t$-convex polygons with $\eta_1,\ldots,\hat{\eta_i},\ldots,\eta_n$ ($\hat{\eta_i}$ means that $\eta_i$ is deleted from the list)
as normals to the fundamental edges. The angles between the normals are
$\varphi_1,\ldots,\varphi_{i-2},\varphi_{i-1}+\varphi_{i},\varphi_{i+1},\ldots,\varphi_n$.
This orthoscheme is also isometric to a facet of the orthoscheme $\P'$ obtained
by permuting $\varphi_{i-1}$ and $\varphi_i$ in the list of angles. Hence we can glue $\P$ and $\P'$
isometrically
along this common facet.
We denote by ${\mathcal C}(\varphi_1,\ldots,\varphi_n)$ the $(n-1)$-dimensional spherical cone-manifold obtained by gluing
in this way all the $(n-1)!$ orthoschemes obtained by permutations of the list $\varphi_1,\ldots,\varphi_n$, up to cyclic permutations.
When $n=3$, ${\mathcal C}(\varphi_1,\varphi_2,\varphi_3)$ is isometric to a spherical cone-metric on the sphere with
three conical singularities, with cone-angles $<\pi$, obtained by gluing two isometric spherical triangles along corresponding edges.
Let $n\geq 4$. Around the codimension 2 face of ${\mathcal C}$ isometric to
$$N:=\mathcal{C}(\varphi_1,\ldots,\varphi_k+\varphi_{k+1},\ldots,\varphi_j+\varphi_{j+1},\ldots,\varphi_{n+3}) $$
are glued four orthoschemes, corresponding to the four ways of ordering $(\varphi_k,\varphi_{k+1})$ and $(\varphi_j,\varphi_{j+1}).$
As the dihedral angle of each orthoscheme at such codimension $2$ face is $\pi/2$, the total angle around $N$
in ${\mathcal C}$ is $2\pi$. Hence metrically $N$ is actually not a singular set.
Around the codimension 2 face of ${\mathcal C}$ isometric to
$$S:={\mathcal C}(\varphi_1,\ldots,\varphi_k+\varphi_{k+1}+\varphi_{k+2},\ldots,\varphi_{n+3}) $$
are glued six orthoschemes corresponding to the six ways of ordering $(\varphi_k,\varphi_{k+1},\varphi_{k+2})$.
Let $\Theta$ be the cone-angle around $S$.
It is the sum of the dihedral angles of the six orthoschemes glued around it. As formula~\eqref{formcos}
is symmetric for two variables, $\Theta$ is two times the sum of three different dihedral angles. A direct computation
gives ($k=1$ in the formula)
$$\cos(\Theta/2)=\textstyle
\frac{\sinh\varphi_1\sinh\varphi_2\sinh\varphi_3-\sinh(\varphi_1+\varphi_2+\varphi_3)(\sinh\varphi_1\sinh\varphi_2+
\sinh\varphi_2\sinh\varphi_3+\sinh\varphi_3\sinh\varphi_1)}{\sinh(\varphi_1+\varphi_2)\sinh(\varphi_2+\varphi_3)\sinh(\varphi_3+\varphi_1)}. $$
During the computation we used that
$$\sinh(a+b)\sinh(b+c)-\sinh a \sinh c=\sinh b\sinh(a+b+c) $$
which can be checked with
$\frac{1}{2}\left(\cosh(x+y)-\cosh(x-y) \right)=\sinh x\sinh y$. The analogous formula in the Euclidean convex polygons case
was obtained in \cite{kojimaal1}.
For example when $\varphi_i=\varphi \;\forall i$, we have
$$\cos(\Theta /2)=-\frac{2\cosh(\varphi)^2+\sinh(\varphi)^2}{2\cosh(\varphi)^3}. $$
The function on the right-hand side is a bijection from the positive numbers to $]-1,0[$, hence all
the $\Theta\in ]2\pi,3\pi[$ (the dihedral angle $\theta\in ]\pi/3,\pi/2[$) are uniquely reached.
In particular ${\mathcal C}$ is not an orbifold.
The cone-manifold ${\mathcal C}$ comes with an isometric involution which consists of reversing the order of the angles
$(\varphi_1,\ldots,\varphi_n)$.
\section{Higher dimensional generalization}\label{sec:gen}
The generalization of $t$-convex polygons to higher dimensional Minkowski spaces is as follows.
Let us consider the $d$-dimensional hyperbolic space ${\mathbb H}^d$ as a pseudo-sphere in the $d+1$-dimensional
Minkowski space $M^{d+1}$, and let $\Gamma$ be a discrete group of linear isometry of $M^{d+1}$ such that
${\mathbb H}^d/\Gamma$ is a compact hyperbolic manifold. A $\Gamma$-convex polyhedron is,
given $\eta_1,\ldots,\eta_n\in{\mathbb H}^d$ and positive numbers $h_1,\ldots,h_n$, the intersection of the
future sides of the space-like hyperplanes $(\gamma(h_i\eta_i))^{\bot}$ $\forall i, \forall \gamma\in\Gamma$.
The mixed-coarea is generalized as a ``mixed covolume''. For details and computation of the signature,
see \cite{FF}. Actually for a given set of $\eta_i$, many combinatorial types may appear, and one has to restrict
to type cones (cones of polyhedra with parallel facets and same combinatorics). It should be
interesting to investigate the kind of spherical polytopes that appear.
Another related question is to look at the quadratic form given by the face area
of the polyhedra (in a fundamental domain) and its relations
with the moduli spaces of flat metric with conical singularities of negative curvature on compact
surfaces of genus $>1$
(the quotient of the boundary of a $\Gamma$-convex
polyhedron is isometric to such a metric).
The analogous questions in the convex polytopes case are the subject of \cite{FI}. The moduli space of
flat metrics on the sphere was studied in \cite{T}.
\section*{Acknowledgement}
The author thanks anonymous referee and Haruko Nishi who helped to imporve the redaction of the present text.
Up to trivial changes, the introduction was written by an anonymous referee.
The polygons introduced in the present paper are very particular cases of objects studied in
\cite{FF} and \cite{FV}.
Work supported by the ANR GR Analysis-Geometry.
|
\section{Introduction}
Magnetic domain walls (DWs) have attracted a lot of attention as important elements
of new magnetoelectronic devices \cite{allwood05,chappert07,klaui08}.
In particular, it was demonstrated recently that they can be used in a
new type of memory device (the racetrack memory) effectively controlled by an electric
current \cite{parkin08,parkin10}. On the other hand, the DW
can be viewed as a kind of local imperfection in an ordered magnetic
system, like an impurity or defect. The substantial difference is that DWs can
move and therefore they can be relatively easily put into motion by an external
field or electric current, and also by an interaction between them.
A great amount of theoretical and experimental work
was dedicated to studying the resistance of
DWs, the current-induced spin torque, the dynamics of DW motion, and other effects
related to a single DW strongly coupled to the electron system
\cite{Marrows2005,klaui08,sedlmayr11a}.
When the density of DWs
increases, it is important to include into these considerations the effects of their
interaction. It has already been demonstrated \cite{sedlmayr09,sedlmayr20101419,sedlmayrpssb,sedlmayr11}
that an electric current in a magnetic
wire with DWs influences the DW interaction, so that by using a current the DW coupling
can be controlled, and the dynamics of strongly coupled DWs can be affected.
In this work we consider in detail the indirect exchange coupling between the DWs in
equilibrium. Essentially, the analysis of such interaction is the first necessary step
to understand the basic mechanisms of DW interactions.
\section{Model}
Let us consider the following Hamiltonian, describing an electron gas coupled by exchange energy $M$ to
a textured magnetization which changes its orientation at each DW:
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{1}
H=-\frac{\Delta }{2m}-M\mbox{\boldmath$\sigma$} \cdot {\bf n}({\bf r}),
\end{eqnarray}
where the unit vector ${\bf n}({\bf r})$ determines the magnetization orientation, $m$ is the carrier effective mass,
and we take units with $\hbar=1$.
We assume the ferromagnetic wire (or ribbon) to be orientated along the $x$ axis and
consider two DWs, labeled as 1 and 2.
For definiteness, we also assume that at $x\to - \infty $ and $x\to +\infty $
the magnetization is along unit vector ${\bf n_0}=(0,\, 0,\, 1)$,
and within each of the DWs the vector ${\bf n}$ is rotated
by an angle $\pi $ around the unit vector ${\bf t}_i$, where the index $i=1,2$ refers
to DW 1 or 2. We focus here on the case of transverse DWs, the results for a vortex DW should look qualitatively similar.
Thus, the dependence of ${\bf n}(x)$ within DWs 1 and 2 is described as
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{2}
&&{\bf n}_1(x)=e^{i\varphi _1\, {\bf t}_1\cdot {\bf L}}\, {\bf n}_0,
\hskip0.5cm
{\bf n}_2(x)=-e^{i\varphi _2\, {\bf t}_2\cdot {\bf L}}\, {\bf n}_0,
\end{eqnarray}
where ${\bf L}$ is the matrix of moment $L=1$
and $\varphi _i(x)$ changes from 0 to $\pi $ when $x$ crosses the $i$-th DW.
Correspondingly, the transformation of the spinor wave function $\psi $ to
the local frame with the magnetization along the axis $z$ is
$\psi \to \hat{T}\psi =e^{\frac{i\varphi }2\, {\bf t}_i\cdot \mbox{\boldmath$\sigma$} }\, \psi $.
The location $x_i$ and the vector ${\bf t}_i$ determine the DW state.
Note that for the electron motion the DW can be always considered as static
even for DWs moving along the wire.
We use this transformation to the local frame \cite{kor,tatara,dugaev1},
in which the vector ${\bf n}_i$ of each DW is oriented in the same direction
along the global axis $z$. After this transformation the electron gas
is in the homogeneous magnetization $M$ but there appears the gauge potential
related to the local transformation,
$A_i(x)=i(\varphi '_i/2)\, ({\bf t}_i\cdot \mbox{\boldmath$\sigma$} )$.
We assume the DW width $\lambda$ to be much larger than the electron wavelength
at the Fermi surface, $k_F\lambda\gg 1$,
which is the typical condition for metallic ferromagnets. Then the transformed Hamiltonian is (summing over $i$)
\begin{eqnarray}
H&=&\frac{k_y^2+k_z^2}{2m}
-\frac{\hat{p}_x^2}{2m}-M\sigma _z
-\left[\frac{\beta_i}{2} {\bf t}_i\cdot \mbox{\boldmath$\sigma$} \, \hat{p}_x+\textrm{h.c.}\right] ,\label{4}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\beta_i (x)=\varphi'(x-x_i)/2m$, $\hat{p}_x=-i\partial/\partial x$
and $x_i$ is the point where the $i$-th DW is located.
The exchange interaction energy can be found using a RKKY approach
with the DW-induced perturbation localized in the vicinity of the points
$x_1=0$ and $x_2=R$. Using Eq.~(3) we find
\begin{eqnarray}
\nonumber
E_{int}
=\sigma_{cs}\, {\rm Re}\, {\rm Tr}
\int \frac{d^2k}{(2\pi )^2}\, \frac{d\varepsilon }{2\pi }\;
dx'\, dx''\, \beta _1(x')\, \beta _2(x'')\,
\nonumber \\ \times
({\bf t}_1\cdot \mbox{\boldmath$\sigma$} )\,
\frac{dG_{k\varepsilon }(x'-x'')}{dx'}\,
({\bf t}_2\cdot \mbox{\boldmath$\sigma$} )\,
\frac{dG_{k\varepsilon }(x''-x')}{dx''} ,
\label{7}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\sigma_{cs}$ is the cross-section of the DW and
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{8a}
G_{k\varepsilon }(x)
=\int _{-\infty }^{\infty }\frac{dk_x}{2\pi }\, e^{ik_xx}\, {\rm diag }
\left(G_{\vec{k}\varepsilon \uparrow }\, ,G_{\vec{k}\varepsilon \downarrow }
\right)
\end{eqnarray}
is the Green function of electrons in a homogeneous magnetization field: $G^{-1}_{\vec{k}\varepsilon \sigma }=\varepsilon-\varepsilon_{k\sigma}-k_x^2/2m+\mu+i\delta\sgn(\varepsilon)$, where $\mu$ is the chemical potential.
We also denoted $\varepsilon _k=(k_y^2+k_z^2)/2m$ and
$\varepsilon_{k\uparrow ,\downarrow }=\varepsilon _k\mp M$.
Now we take
$k_\sigma =+\sqrt{2m(\varepsilon -\varepsilon _{k\sigma }+\mu )
+i\delta \, {\rm sgn}\, \varepsilon }$.
Then defining $\xi_{k\sigma}=\varepsilon _{k\sigma }-\mu$ we have the conditions that if $\varepsilon-\xi_{k\sigma}>0$ and $\varepsilon<0$ then $k_\sigma$ lies in the lower half-plane, otherwise it lies in the upper half plane. This allows us to directly calculate $G_{k\varepsilon }(x)$.
Calculating the Green functions and their derivatives
in coordinate representation and
substituting them into Eqn.~(\ref{7}) we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{8b}
E_{int}
&=&-\sigma_{cs}m^2\, {\rm Re}\, {\rm Tr}\int \frac{d^2k}{(2\pi )^2}\,
\frac{d\varepsilon }{2\pi }\,
dx'\, dx''\,
\nonumber\\
&&\times \beta _1(x')\, \beta _2(x'')\,
({\bf t}_1\cdot \mbox{\boldmath$\sigma$}) \,
\mathbf{P}\,
({\bf t}_2\cdot \mbox{\boldmath$\sigma$}) \,
\mathbf{P} ,
\end{eqnarray}
where we denoted
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{8c}
\mathbf{P}&=&{\rm diag }\big(f_{k\uparrow}
e^{ik_\uparrow (x''-x')
+(1-f_{k\uparrow})e^{ik_\uparrow (x''-x')\sgn(\varepsilon)},
\nonumber\\&& f_{k\downarrow}e^{-ik_\downarrow (x'-x'')}+(1-f_{k\downarrow})
e^{-ik_\downarrow (x'-x'')\sgn(\varepsilon)}\big)\hskip0.2c
\end{eqnarray}
and $f_{k\sigma }\equiv f(\varepsilon _{k\sigma })$ is the Fermi-Dirac function
at $T\to 0$.
The traces over the matrices can be performed immediately. Assuming that the first
DW points into the $y$-axis, then we can take
${\bf t}_1=\hat{x}$ and ${\bf t}_2=\hat{x}\cos\theta +\hat{y}\sin \theta $, so
that $\theta$ is the angle between the two domain wall polarizations.
At $T=0$ this yields
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{10}
&&{\rm Tr}\, ({\bf t}_1\cdot\mbox{\boldmath$\sigma$})\, \mathbf{P} \,
({\bf t}_2\cdot \mbox{\boldmath$\sigma$})\,\mathbf{P}
=2\cos(\theta)
\nonumber \\
&&\qquad\times
\big[f_{k\uparrow}e^{-i(x'-x'')(k_\uparrow+k_\downarrow)}
+e^{-i(x'-x'')(k_\uparrow+k_\downarrow{\rm sgn}\, \varepsilon) }
\nonumber \\
&&\qquad+(1-f_{k\downarrow})e^{-i(x'-x'')(k_\uparrow
+k_\downarrow) {\rm sgn}\, \varepsilon}\big] .
\end{eqnarray}
For the $\beta $ function we use
$\beta_1(x)=\sech(x/L)/2mL$, then
we can calculate the integrals over $dx'$ and $dx''$ using
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{beta1}
&&\int dx'\, \beta_i (x')\, e^{\mp ikx'}
=\frac{\pi}{2m}\sech \frac{\pi Lk}2\, e^{\pm ikR_i}
\end{eqnarray}
for $i={1,2}$ and $R_1=0$, $R_2=R$. Now we can switch the $k$-integrals to polar coordinates and perform the angular integral,
and then substituting $\varepsilon'=k^2/2m$ and
rescaling $\epsilon=\varepsilon-\varepsilon'+\mu$ we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
E_{int}(\theta,R)
=-\frac{m\sigma_{cs}\cos \theta }{32}\, {\rm Re}\bigg[
\int_0^{\infty} d\varepsilon' \int_{M}^\infty
d\epsilon \, e^{iRk_1}
\nonumber\\ \times
\sech^2 \frac{\pi L(k_1+k_2)}2\,
\left( e^{iRk_2}
+e^{iRk_2\sgn(\epsilon+\varepsilon'-\mu)}\right)\\ +2M
\int_{M}^\infty
d\epsilon \, e^{iR(k_1+k_2)}
\sech^2 \frac{\pi L(k_1+k_2)}2\bigg] ,\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where $k_{1,2} =\sqrt{2m(\epsilon\pm M)}$.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics*[width=0.42\textwidth]{Energy3.eps}
\caption[Energy]{The interaction energy as a function of inter DW distance $R$, for $\lambda=10\lambda_F$ and two different angles between the DWs. See text for details.}
\label{energy3}
\end{figure}
The dependence of the exchange interaction on the distance for the two
polarization angles $\theta $ is shown in Fig.~\ref{energy3}.
Here we use the following parameters: the Fermi wavelength
$\lambda_F=0.367$~nm, $M=36$~meV, $\sigma_{cs}=20\times 20$~nm${}^2$, and $\lambda=10\lambda_F$.
The magnitude of the interaction depends strongly and non-monotonically on the DW
width, $\lambda$, and the magnetization strength, $M$. They are related
by the strengths of the anisotropy and the exchange energy in the material.
Halving the width of the DW to $\lambda=5\lambda_F$, we already
see a much larger effect, see Fig.~\ref{energy2}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics*[width=0.42\textwidth]{Energy2.eps}
\caption[Energy]{The interaction energy as a function of inter DW distance $R$,
for $\theta=\pi/4$ and $\lambda=5\lambda_F$. See text for details.}\label{energy2}
\end{figure}
The obtained results show that the interaction of two DWs is long-ranged and strongly
oscillating.
The particular behaviour around $R\approx4\lambda$ is caused by the change of sign of the envelope function of the energy. I.e.~the envelope function is also not a monotonic function of $R$.
But the most important is that the DW interaction depends on both the
distance between the walls and the DW polarization determined by the angle
$\theta$. It means that if we put DWs
located at a certain distance $R$, which corresponds to the energy-favorable
collinear mutual polarization of DWs,
then there is another location very close in $R$ with the anti-collinear orientation of DWs,
with almost the same energy. Considering the energy of the system as a function
of distance $R$, we find the correspondence to a classical ``particle'' in the
oscillating potential profile, so that the neighboring positions of this particle
in the minima of the potential
describe the up and down states of one of the DWs with respect to the other one.
As the amplitude of interaction increases with decreasing $R$ at small
distances (see Figs.~1 and 2), the DWs are effectively attracted to each other.
One can assume that one of the DWs is not moving (e.g., due to pinning). Let us assume that the
classical particle representing the other DW is located in one of the potential minima.
If the distance between the minima is small, the particle can tunnel through the barrier,
so that the other DW can be presented as a delocalized quantum particle.
The Hamiltonian which describes it, has the form
$H=t\sum _i(c^\dag _{i\sigma }\sigma ^x_{\sigma \sigma '}c_{i+1,\sigma '}+h.c.)$
where spin up and down states correspond to the collinear and anti-collinear
orientations of the second DW with respect to the first one.
Classically, if we consider a series of DWs pinned at a specific distance from each other,
$R^*$, inside a wire then the total energy of the system is given by an XY-model
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{13}
E=-\sum_i\left[J_1\cos(\theta_{i+1}-\theta_i)
+J_2\cos(\theta_{i+2}-\theta_i)\right] ,
\end{eqnarray}
where only the nearest neighbour and next nearest neighbour interactions are included.
Then we have
$J_1=-E_{int}(0,R^*)$ and
$J_2=-E_{int}(0,2R^*)$.
In general we can have $J_1$ and $J_2$ as either negative or positive and either
$|J_1|>|J_2|$ or $|J_2|>|J_1|$. There are several possible set-ups admitting a simple
solution.
If $|J_1|\gg|J_2|$ then we have either an antiferromagnet:
$\theta_{i+1}-\theta_i=\pi$ (for $J_1<0$), or a ferromagnetic arrangement
$\theta_{i+1}-\theta_i=0$ (for $J_1>0$). If we take $J_1\to 0$ then we get two
sublattices with either AFM or FM arrangements depending on the sign of $J_2$.
If we have $2J_2<J_1$ and $2J_2<-J_1$, i.e. $J_2<0$ and $|2J_2|>|J_1|$, then the
model is minimized by $\cos[\theta_{i+1}-\theta_i]=-J_1/2J_2$. In this case
we obtain a spiral structure of the DW orientations through the wire, see figurte \ref{spiral}.
Experimentally, similar spiral structures have been already observed \cite{PhysRevLett.93.117205,PhysRevLett.103.157201}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics*[width=0.5\textwidth]{spiral.eps}
\caption[Sppiral]{A schematic of the spiral structure of the DWs for $J_2<0$ and $|2J_2|>|J_1|$, the configuration of three of the DWs is shown. $\theta=\theta_{i+1}-\theta_i=\cos^{-1}[-J_1/2J_2]$. The DW orientation, defined at the centre of the DW, and the bulk magnetization are shown.}\label{spiral}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusion}
In summary we have found that there exists an RKKY-like electron mediated interaction
between DWs in a ferromagnetic sample that is long-range and oscillating. This interaction
remains, \emph{independent} of any current flowing through the system, in addition to previously
found results for current mediated interactions in nanowires.
\begin{acknowledgement}
This work is partly supported by FCT Grant No.~PTDC/FIS/70843/2006 in Portugal, by the DFG contract BE
2161/5-1, and by the Graduate School of MAINZ (MATCOR).
J.B.~acknowledges financial support by Stanford Pulse Institute and
Stanford Institute for Material and Energy Science.
\end{acknowledgement}
\providecommand{\WileyBibTextsc}{}
\let\textsc\WileyBibTextsc
\providecommand{\othercit}{}
\providecommand{\jr}[1]{#1}
\providecommand{\etal}{~et~al.}
|
\section{Introduction}
While the initial mass function of stars is well measured, the
initial stellar multiplicity remains largely
unconstrained \citep{duchene07}. Determining multiplicity among field
stars well after
the formation process has ended is itself a
challenging problem: close binaries are often unresolvable,
gravitational boundedness is difficult to confirm,
and background stars are ever-present
interlopers \citep{raghavan10}.
During the formation and subsequent evolution, dynamical
interactions influence initial companion separations and decrease multiplicity.
Observing the initial protostellar multiplicity in situ is challenging
for similar reasons with the added complication that young protostars
are dim and heavily obscured by dust and gas. However, recent
interferometric instruments such as the Combined Array for Research in
Millimeter-wave Astronomy (CARMA) and the Atacama Large
Millimeter/submillimeter
Array (ALMA) are revolutionizing the ability to probe the earliest
stages of cores on scales of a few arcseconds or less. This presents
an opportunity to observe core substructure, protostellar disks, and young companions.
There are two main theories of binary star formation. In the disk
fragmentation scenario, massive protostellar accretion disks become
Toomre unstable and fragment into one or more close companions
\citep{ARS89, bonnell94}. In the
turbulent fragmentation scenario, turbulent perturbations within a single
prestellar core or filament
individually collapse to form separate stars with wide separations
\citep{goodwin04, fisher04, goodwin07}.
Numerical and analytic arguments indicate that disk instability should
be quite common in high-mass star formation
\citep{kratter06, kratter08}. However radiation feedback significantly
reduces the fragmentation of disks around low-mass stars, resulting in few low-mass
multiple star systems \citep{cai08, Offner09, bate09}. The
multiple systems
that do form are the result of turbulent fragmentation and have initial
separations of $\sim$1000 AU \citep{offner10}.
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[height=6.2cm, width=14cm]{fig0.eps}
\caption{Single dish observation of 1.1 mm flux in mJy per pixel (0.13'') of a binary protostellar system
formed via turbulent fragmentation, where the system is placed at
250 pc. Left: Perfect resolution simulation
data. Center: Image convolved with a 5'' beam. Right: Image convolved with a 31'' beam. The
image extent is 80'' across at a distance of 250 pc. Crosses mark the
protostar positions. Contours indicate 30\%, 50\%, 70\% and 90\% of the
image maximum. }
\label{singledish}
\end{figure*}
The enhanced capabilities and sub-arcsecond resolution of ALMA will
make it possible to test both
scenarios of binary formation and map protostellar accretion disks
down to
AU size scales.
Several authors have used interferometric observations to look
for young companions of Class 0 objects (e.g., \citealt{looney00,jorgensen07,
maury10}). However, they arrive at somewhat different conclusions: \citet{looney00} find that
all their targeted embedded objects have companions, while
\citet{maury10} find only one tentative companion in a sample of
five Class 0 sources. Likewise, \citet{jorgensen07} identified only
one candidate previously unknown companion.
Using continuum emission, it is possible in principle to detect
companions forming as a result of turbulent fragmentation at even earlier times.
For example, \citet{schnee10} use CARMA to observe 3mm continuum emission from 11 starless
cores in the Perseus molecular cloud at 5" resolution.
They
found that the cores had no conspicuous substructure. This could be
due to several possibilities. The cores may be too young or may never go on to form an
individual star much less a wide multiple system. Turbulent
fragmentation may be very uncommon. Or turbulent fragmentation may be
ongoing in the cores, but beyond the observable limits of CARMA. We
investigate the third possibility here.
If cores, such as those investigated by \citet{schnee10}, actually
contain young protostars,
it might be possible to
observe fragmentation at shorter wavelengths. Indeed,
a number of very cold cores thought to be
starless have since been found to contain protostars \citep{enoch10, dunham11,
pineda11}. However, in the case of L1451, the presence of a
protostar, potentially still in the ``first core'' gas stage, was
ultimately identified by
outflow activity rather than by thermal emission. This
reinforces the point that source identification is
challenging, and it requires instruments with high sensitivity and
resolution
to characterize core structure and identify young companions.
In this Letter, we use the CASA software package to synthetically
observe binaries forming due to turbulent fragmentation in
the numerical simulations of \citet{Offner09}.
By following the evolution of such pairs beginning in the
prestellar core stage, we can make predictions about the feasibility of
observing such fragmentation in dust continuum and constraining stellar multiplicity at
the earliest stage of star formation.
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[height=9.0cm, width=17cm]{fig2_sm.eps}
\caption{Comparison of simulations and CARMA synthetic observation
for fragmenting cores at three different times. Left: Simulation data
with perfect resolution in 1.1mm flux (Log mJy beam$^{-1}$). Color scale
is the same as in Figure 1. Right: CARMA
observation of each core at 3mm emission including Gaussian
$\sigma_{\rm S}$ noise assuming a distance of 250 pc in mJy beam$^{-1}$. Contours indicate 30\%, 50\%, 70\% and 90\% of the
maximum flux. The CARMA beamsize is indicated by the hatched ovals.
\label{carma} }
\end{figure*}
\section{Numerical Simulations and Methods}
The molecular cloud simulations we observe in this letter are those presented in
\citet{Offner09}. Since \citet{Offner09} fully describe the calculations,
we include only a brief overview here. The calculations are performed
using the ORION adaptive mesh refinement code including driven
large-scale turbulence, self-gravity, and flux-limited diffusion
radiative transfer. Forming stars are modeled by sink particles with a sub-grid stellar evolution
model. These are inserted in regions of the flow that exceed the maximum
grid resolution. In practice, since protostellar winds are not included, these particles
give an upper limit on the stellar mass. The cloud domain size is 0.65 pc across with a minimum cell
size of 32 AU.
In our analysis, we focus on several typical systems out of the
approximately 10 close pairs that form over the course of the
simulation. Since the systems form self-consistently from the
turbulent gas, the
fragmentation history and stellar masses are not predetermined.
We use the ``simdata" task in the Common
Astronomy Software Applications (CASA)
package\footnote{http://casa.nrao.edu}
to produce synthetic interferometric observations of the starless and
protostellar systems. Using simdata, the model cloud was placed at
the RA and Dec of the Perseus molecular cloud.
For the CASA input, we require maps of the cores in
units of flux. Converting between simulated column density and
continuum flux is straight-forward for optically thin emission. Assuming a constant dust
temperature, $T_D$, the flux at a given frequency, $\nu$, can related
to the column density by:
\begin{equation}
S_{\nu} = \Sigma B_{\nu}(T_D) \kappa_{\lambda} \Omega_b, \label{dust}
\end{equation}
where $B_{\nu}(T_D)$ is the Planck function evaluated at the dust
temperature, $\kappa_{\lambda}$ is the dust opacity, $\Omega_b$ is the
beam solid angle and $\Sigma$ is the
gas column density per pixel (e.g., \citealt{enoch06}). The opacities for 1.1 mm and 3 mm are
$\kappa_{1.1} = 0.0114$ cm$^{2}$ g$^{-1}$ and $\kappa_{3} = 0.00169$
cm$^{2}$ g$^{-1}$ \citep{ossen94}. The simulations assume that the dust and gas
are well-coupled, which is a reasonable approximation for
densities $> 10^4$ cm$^{-3}$ \citep{goldsmith78}. Thus, we adopt $T_{D}= 10$ K, the
simulation gas temperature, which is also a lower limit for the dust
temperature in Perseus \citep{schnee09}.
Once
protostars form, they heat their environment to
mean temperatures of 15-20 K and result in higher emission.
Producing synthetic single dish observations of the
simulations is a straight-forward
application of equation \ref{dust}. Finite resolution can then be imposed by
convolving the flux map with a circular Gaussian beam.
\section{Synthetic Observations}
For the purpose of comparison, we first present synthetic single dish
observations of the fragmenting cores. We then produce
interferometric observations mimicing the specifications of CARMA and
ALMA. Finally, we investigate the influence of noise
and distance on structure detection.
\subsection{Single Dish Observations}
Observations that map out entire molecular clouds and identify star-forming cores often use single dish continuum data.
However, with beam resolutions of tens
of arcseconds, resolving core substructure in even nearby clouds is
impossible.
Figure \ref{singledish} shows a protostellar system forming
in a dense core with 0'' (i.e., perfect), 5'' and 31''
resolution. The two peaks are distinct with 5'' resolution, although
the fainter peak may not be apparent depending upon sensitivity and
noise levels. At 31'', a resolution comparable to SCUBA (850 $\mu$m)
and Bolocam (1.1 mm), only a single peak is apparent.
Interferometers, such as CARMA, are able to achieve this 5'' scale, but
can only probe a fixed window of scales. Since larger scale
information is resolved out, target fluxes may also be reduced by 90\% or
more relative to single dish observations.
Figure \ref{singledish}
illustrates that cores forming wide protobinary companions {\it may} be
observable with current interferometer technology.
\subsection{CARMA Observations}
We produce synthetic observations to compare with the CARMA observations of
\citet{schnee10}. In order to make a truly similar comparison, we reproduce their
observing procedures and conditions as closely as possible. Our observations have a 2.8 GHz
bandwidth centered at 102 GHz, and we adopt the CARMA D-array
configuration and an integration time of 100 seconds with a total time
of 8 hours. Unless otherwise stated,
we assume the systems are 250 pc away: the distance of the Perseus
molecular cloud. The pixel size of the simulated map is 0.13'', and the synthesized beam
is ~5''.
We add synthetic
Gaussian noise with $\sigma_{\rm S} = 0.7 $ mJy beam$^{-1}$, comparable to
that of the \citet{schnee10} observations.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{fig3.eps}
\caption{Comparison of early science (ES) and full science (FS) ALMA
configurations for Core 1 (left) at $t_1$ and Core 3 (right)
at $t_3$ assuming a distance of 250 pc. Color scale indicates flux in
mJy beam$^{-1}$. The top two panels are observed with
the early science (ES) extended configuration; the bottom two panels are
observed in one example full science (FS) configuration. White contours indicate 30\%, 50\%, 70\% and 90\% of the
maximum flux. Orange contours indicate 10\% of the maximum flux. The ALMA beamsize is indicated by the hatched ovals.
\label{alma} }
\vspace{-0.4cm}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[height=11cm, width=7cm]{fig4.eps}
\caption{Synthetic observation combining data from ALMA FS with ALMA compact
array for Core 1 (top) at $t_1$ and Core 3 (bottom) at $t_3$.
Contours indicate fluxes with values 10\% (orange), 30\%, 50\%, 70\% and 90\% of the
maximum. The effective beamsize is indicated by the hatched oval. The
observations assume 100s integration time and two hours of observing
with each configuration.
\label{aca} }
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{carma} shows synthetic CARMA observations of three separate
cores undergoing turbulent fragmentation at three different times. The
simulation data seen in 1.1 mm emission is plotted for
comparison.
At the first time all
three cores are starless. However, each shows some evidence of
collapse and
fragmentation at perfect resolution. The second row illustrates that fragmentation proceeds on the
order of 10-20 kyr, which is a relatively short time compared to the
typical $\sim$100 kyr dynamical time of cores. If the core exists in a
quasi-steady state for some time before undergoing collapse (e.g., \citealt{broderick}), then the
likelihood of catching any particular starless core in the act of
fragmenting may be small.
Such short timescales for
observing close companions are consistent with those found by
\citet{stamatellos11}, who synthetically observed massive fragmenting disks.
The probability is reduced further since not
all cores (may) experience fragmentation on $\sim$ 1000 AU scales.
At the earliest times, interferometric observations do not clearly
show fragmentation. The second fragment in Core 1 becomes more
apparent over time, but is nearly invisible in the starless
phase. However, the low level detections do appear similar in size and separation to some
of the lower flux contours apparent in maps of Perbo45 and Perbo58 by \citet{schnee10}.
In contrast, all of the filamentary structure in the starless Cores 2 and 3
is resolved out.
These results are consistent with the core observations of
\citet{schnee10}, who find that most starless cores that have
bright 1.1mm emission in single dish maps are undetected in 3mm
interferometric maps. This also confirms
that additional filamentary structure may be removed by the
interferometric technique.
The synthetic observations show that at later times the
protostars and companions become brighter. Due to the factor of 10
difference in opacity, the over-densities will be significantly
brighter in 1.1mm, which will increase the signal to noise.
This
suggests that widely separated protostellar companions should be
relatively apparent at high resolution (e.g., \citealt{merrill10}).
However, the length of the window in which fragmentation occurs is still problematic if secondaries
migrate to shorter separations or are unbound on short timescales.
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[height=6.5cm, width=15cm]{fig5.eps}
\caption{Left: Simulated 3mm CARMA observation of Core 1 at
$t_1$ observed at a distance of 250 pc
with 2$\sigma_{\rm S}$ noise. Center: Simulated 3mm CARMA observation of Core 1 observed at a distance of 500 pc
with 1$\sigma$ noise. Right: Simulated 3mm full science ALMA
observation of Core 1 observed at a distance of 500 pc.
Color scale shows flux in mJy beam$^{-1}$.
Contours indicate fluxes with values 30\%, 50\%, 70\% and 90\% of the
maximum. The beamsize is indicated by the hatched ovals.
\label{noise} }
\end{figure*}
\subsection{ALMA Predictions}
ALMA, which will have 66 reconfigurable antennas, sub-arcsecond angular resolution and sensitivity
to wavelengths from 3mm to 300 $\mu$m, will
significantly expand observational capabilities. Although currently only
partially completed, the ALMA early science program allows
reduced observations with 16 12m operational antennas. Figure
\ref{alma} shows simulated observations of Core 1 and Core 3 comparing
the ALMA early science Cycle 0 extended
configuration and the ALMA full science configuration 10. We adopt
configuration 10 in the ALMA full science library in simdata since it
is a representative intermediate configuration.
Each observation
assumes a 100 second integration time and a total time of 2 hours.
We add thermal noise to the simulated ALMA images using simdata,
assuming that the precipitable water vapor (PWV) during the
observations is 2.8mm (appropriate for Band 3 ALMA observations) and a
bandwidth of 8 GHz. ALMA maps were cleaned until a threshold of 3
times the rms thermal noise in the map was reached. The pixel size,
as for the CARMA simulations, is 0.13'', and the early science and
full science synthesized
beam sizes are $\sim$3'' and 1.5'', respectively.
Figure \ref{alma} illustrates that ALMA better resolves the primary
peak morphology. A secondary peak in Core 1 is marginally shown by contours with 10\% of
the maximum flux. However, the filamentary structure of Core 3 is not visible.
The early science configuration sensitivity to
substructure is otherwise similar to that of CARMA with four times
the observing time. The ALMA full
science configuration detects the Core 3 filament with some suggestion
of further fragmentation. This highlights the difficulty of imaging
structure and fragmentation even with ALMA's superior resolution.
It is possible to increase the range of recoverable
spatial scales by combining data from antenna
configurations with different baselines.
The size of the ALMA 12-meter antennas prohibit them from being placed
within 15 meters of one another, which limits the maximum resolvable
spatial scale. To permit a greater range of observations,
the completed ALMA site will include a
second smaller array, the Atacama Compact Array (ACA), comprised of
four 12-meter and 12 7-meter antennas.
Here, we combine the higher spatial
resolution synthetic data of the intermediate FS main array configuration with
synthetic data from the 7-meter ACA antennas. Figure \ref{aca} shows a simulated observation
of two cores where the visibilities from FS
and ACA have been added and
then deconvolved using the CASA CLEAN subroutine. The appearance of filamentary structure
and core substructure is significantly improved compared to the
single configuration data in Figures \ref{carma} and \ref{alma}.
\subsection{Noise and Resolution Limitations}
Object distance and observation sensitivity are both critical to
mapping
core structure. Figure \ref{noise} shows Core 1 with
increased noise and source distance.
At our fiducial noise and resolution (see Figures
\ref{carma} and
\ref{alma}) both increased noise and distance eliminate any
detection with CARMA. At a distance of 500 pc, the secondary peak is
also undetected with the ALMA full science configuration. However, the primary
peak is reliably detected. This implies
that fragmentation at later times, such as that illustrated in Core 1 at 50 kyr and
Core 3 at $\ge 9$ kyr, would be readily observable.
\section{Conclusions}
In this Letter we
produce synthetic observations of fragmenting starless and protostellar cores.
We show that
interferometric observations of starless cores by CARMA should be
predominantly featureless at early stages. In fact, structure may be
apparent only within a short period, $\sim 10$kyr, of the formation of a protostar.
This may account for some of the
apparent lack of substructure in starless cores noted by
\citet{schnee10}. We find that wide protostellar
companions with separations of $\sim 1000$AU should be
detectable. The confidence of the secondary detection depends upon
the source age, resolution, and signal-to-noise, which may partially explain the
differing results of \citet{looney00}, \citet{jorgensen07}, and \citet{maury10}. ALMA's
enhanced capabilities
improve the detection of core morphology, so that it
may be possible to detect substructure at earlier times. Filamentary
structure is more difficult to detect than peakiness, and
interferometry, especially at high resolution, significantly reduces the
presence and extent of filaments. However, we find that it is possible
to recover missing structure by combining ALMA Full Science data with
data from the Atacama Compact Array.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
This research has
been supported by the NSF through grants AST-0901055 (SSRO) and
AST-0908159 (AAG) and the Harvard College Program for Research in Science and Engineering (JC).
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{i}
The presently accepted standard cosmological model based on a cosmological constant $\Lambda $ and on Cold Dark Matter (CDM)
particles as the two dominant components of the Universe has proved to be extremely successful in describing the overall evolution and the structural properties
of the Cosmos on large scales. Ever improving datasets have allowed in the last decade to tightly constrain the properties of Dark Energy
(DE) at low redshifts and to show that the observed accelerated expansion of the Universe \citep[][]{Riess_etal_1998,Perlmutter_etal_1999,Schmidt_etal_1998} is driven by some field with an equation of state
extremely close to $w_{\rm DE} = -1$ at the present epoch \citep[see e.g.][]{wmap7,Percival_etal_2001,Percival_etal_2010,Reid_etal_2010}. Furthermore, the success of the CDM paradigm
in explaining the formation and the statistical properties of the large-scale structures observed in the Universe has been
strongly supported by the parallel improvement of observational surveys and numerical simulations.
Nevertheless, the extreme fine-tuning of the cosmological constant value required to fit the data on the background evolution
of the Universe
poses a serious naturalness problem to the model \citep[][]{Weinberg_1988} and represents the main motivation
for the investigation of alternative scenarios. Additionally, a significant number of astrophysical observations at small scales
seem to show discrepancies with respect to the predictions of the $\Lambda $CDM model. These range from the low number
of detected luminous satellites in galactic-size CDM halos (the ``satellite problem" \cite{Navarro_Frenk_White_1995,BoylanKolchin_Bullock_Kaplinghat_2011}, but see also
e.g. \cite{Koposov_etal_2009} for a possible explanation),
to the observed low baryon fraction in galaxy clusters \citep[][]{Ettori_2003,LaRoque_etal_2006}, the large peculiar
velocities detected in the bulk motion of galaxies \citep[][]{Watkins_etal_2009} or in systems of colliding
galaxy clusters as the ``Bullet Cluster" \citep[][]{Lee_Komatsu_2010}, to the shallow observed density profiles
of CDM halos (the so-called ``cusp-core" problem) of dwarf galaxies \citep[][]{Moore_1994,Flores_Primack_1994}, spiral galaxies \citep[][]{Salucci_Burkert_2000,Salucci_2000}, and galaxy clusters \citep[][]{Sand_etal_2002,Newman_etal_2009}.
In the present paper, we will consider the latter problem in relation to the observed dynamical properties of spiral galaxies
and discuss the impact that some specific alternative cosmological scenarios might have on this issue.
In fact, based on the shortcomings of the $\Lambda $CDM cosmology concerning both its fundamental nature and
its observational properties at small scales, a significant number of alternative models have been proposed in recent years,
ranging from DE scenarios based on the dynamical evolution of a classical scalar field as for the case of {\em quintessence} \citep[][]{Wetterich_1988,Ratra_Peebles_1988,Ferreira_Joyce_1998} or {\em k-essence} \citep[][]{kessence}, to specific modifications of General Relativity at cosmological scales \citep[][]{Hu_Sawicki_2007}, to Warm Dark Matter (WDM) scenarios \citep[][]{Colin_AvilaReese_Valenzuela_2000,Bode_Ostriker_Turok_2001}.
A particularly interesting class of alternative models is given by interacting DE scenarios \citep[][]{Wetterich_1995,Amendola_2000}, where a direct exchange of energy-momentum between the DE field and massive particles takes place. Such models might
provide early scaling solutions for the DE density thereby alleviating the fine-tuning issues of the cosmological constant.
Additionally, they predict the existence of a fifth-force between massive particles coupled to the DE field, which determines
significant and potentially observable effects on the growth of cosmic structures \citep[see e.g.][]{Pettorino_Baccigalupi_2008,
Baldi_etal_2010,Baldi_Pettorino_2011} and is therefore likely to have a direct impact
on the small scale failures of the $\Lambda $CDM scenario. However, the phenomenology of coupled DE models (cDE)
has been shown to be extremely diverse depending on the nature of the interaction \citep[][]{Baldi_2011a} and
while providing a fully viable alternative to $\Lambda $CDM for a wide range of realizations,
it might
in some specific cases also significantly worsen the problems of the $\Lambda $CDM scenario on small scales while being still
in full agreement with background observables. This provides a direct way to strongly constrain the parameter space
of cDE models and represents the main focus of the present work. More specifically, we aim at quantifying the impact that a steeply
growing coupling between DE and CDM particles has on the predicted rotation curves of luminous spiral galaxies based on an NFW density profile,
due to the change induced by the interaction on the normalization of the Concentration-Mass relation of their host DM halos. The latter effect
has been investigated through numerical N-body simulations of structure formation both for the case of a constant
\citep[][]{Baldi_etal_2010} and a time-dependent \citep[][]{Baldi_2011a} interaction strength, and we seek here a direct
comparison of these results with observational data from galaxy rotation curves. This will allow us to rule out some
specific realizations of the cDE scenario based on rotation curves data only.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section~\ref{models} we summarize the main features of cDE models
and we highlight the specific scenarios considered in the present work. In Section~\ref{mass_modeling}
we discuss how we model the mass distribution within spiral galaxies and how the velocity profiles are derived
based on the structural properties of the host CDM halo. In Section~\ref{constraints} we provide constraints
on the cDE models under investigation from our sample of galaxy rotation curves, while in Section~\ref{concl}
we discuss our findings and draw our conclusions.
\section{Coupled Dark Energy models and Simulations}
\label{models}
Coupled DE models are based on the dynamical evolution of a classical scalar field $\phi $ whose energy density $\rho _{\phi }\equiv \dot{\phi }^{2}/2 + V(\phi )$
evolves in time according to the dynamic equation:
\begin{equation}
\label{klein_gordon}
\ddot{\phi } + 3H\dot{\phi } +\frac{dV}{d\phi } = \sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}\beta _{c}(\phi ) \frac{\rho _{c}}{M_{Pl}} \,,
\end{equation}
that includes on the right-hand side a source term for the exchange of energy-momentum with a different cosmic fluid of density $\rho _{c}$.
In Eq.~\ref{klein_gordon}, an overdot indicates a derivative with respect to the cosmic time $t$,
$H\equiv \dot{a}/a$ is the Hubble function, $M_{\rm Pl}\equiv 1/\sqrt{8\pi G}$ is the reduced Planck Mass,
$V(\phi )$ is the scalar field self-interaction potential,
and the coupling function $\beta _{c}(\phi )$ defines the strength of the DE interaction.
For the purpose of the present paper, the fluid coupled with the DE scalar field will be always assumed to be represented by CDM particles, although
cDE models with interactions to massive neutrinos have also been proposed as a possible solution to the cosmic coincidence problem \citep[see {\rm e.g.$\,$}][]{Amendola_Baldi_Wetterich_2008,Baldi_etal_2011a}.
In order to preserve General Covariance, Eq.~\ref{klein_gordon} requires the presence of an analogous interaction term also in the CDM continuity equation,
which reads:
\begin{equation}
\label{continuity_cdm}
\dot{\rho }_{c} + 3H\rho _{c} = -\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}\beta _{c}(\phi )\frac{\rho _{c}\dot{\phi }}{M_{Pl}} \,,
\end{equation}
while the remaining continuity equations for the baryonic and relativistic components of the universe are unaffected as the coupling involves only DE and CDM:
\begin{eqnarray}
\dot{\rho }_{b} + 3H\rho _{b} &=& 0 \,, \\
\dot{\rho }_{r} + 4H\rho _{r} &=& 0\,.
\end{eqnarray}
As a consequence of the interaction, and assuming the conservation of the CDM particle number, Eq.~\ref{continuity_cdm} implies a time evolution of the
CDM particle mass due to the dynamic nature of the DE scalar field, according to the equation:
\begin{equation}
\label{mass_variation}
m_{c}(a) = m_{c}(a_{0})e^{-\sqrt{2/3}\int \beta _{c}(\phi )d\phi /M_{Pl}} \,,
\end{equation}
where $a_{0}$ is the cosmic scale factor at the present time.
The cosmological dynamics of the system allows for scaling solutions during matter domination that feature an Early Dark Energy component, thereby alleviating
the fine-tuning problems of the cosmological constant. Such scaling solutions have been identified analytically for the case of constant coupling functions $\beta _{c}(\phi )=\beta _{c} = {\rm const.}$, and numerically for the case of variable couplings $\beta _{c}(\phi )$ considered in the present work , and
are known as the ``$\phi $-{\em Matter Dominated Epoch}" \citep[or $\phi $MDE, see ][]{Amendola_2000} and the ``Growing-$\phi $-{\em Matter Dominated Epoch}"
\citep[or G-$\phi $MDE, see ][]{Baldi_2011a}, respectively.
However, if the coupling exhibits a very steep growth in time (as for the case of the specific models discussed in this work) the
early DE scaling is absent and the model is therefore indistinguishable from $\Lambda $CDM at the background level \citep[see again ][]{Baldi_2011a}.
At the linear perturbations level, the growth of density perturbations is modified by the interaction between DE and CDM through the appearance of two new terms that directly depend on the DE-CDM coupling in the
perturbed linear equations. The dynamic equation for linear CDM density perturbations
in the Newtonian gauge and in Fourier space is in fact modified from its standard form and reads \citep[see {\rm e.g.$\,$}][for a full derivation of the linear perturbation equations in cDE models]{Amendola_2000,Amendola_2004,Pettorino_Baccigalupi_2008,Baldi_etal_2010}:
\begin{equation}
\label{gf_cdm}
\ddot{\delta }_{c} = -2H\left[ 1 - \beta _{c}(\phi )\frac{\dot{\phi }}{H\sqrt{6}}\right] \dot{\delta }_{c} + 4\pi G \left[ \rho _{b}\delta _{b} + \rho _{c}\delta _{c}\left( 1 + \frac{4}{3}\beta_{c} ^{2}(\phi )\right) \right] \,,
\end{equation}
where the overdensity $\delta _{b,c}$ of baryons and DM is defined as $\delta _{b,c}\equiv \delta \rho _{b,c}/\rho_{b,c}$\,.
The additional contribution appearing in the first term on the right hand side of Eq.~(\ref{gf_cdm}) is an extra friction associated with
momentum conservation in cDE models \citep[see {\rm e.g.$\,$} ][for a discussion on the effects of the friction term]{Baldi_2011b} while
the additional term in the second squared bracket
includes the effect of the fifth-force mediated by the DE scalar field for CDM density perturbations. Qualitatively, while the fifth-force term is always attractive
and accelerates the growth of density perturbations for any value of the coupling $\beta _{c}$ and for any dynamic evolution of the DE scalar field $\phi $,
the friction term enhances the growth only when $\beta _{c}\dot{\phi } > 0$, while it slows down the evolution of perturbations when $\beta _{c}\dot{\phi } <0$.
Although in the present work we will be interested in specific cDE models for which the former condition always holds, a change in sing of the friction term
can have particularly interesting effects on structure formation processes, especially at high redshifts \citep[][]{Baldi_2011c,Tarrant_etal_2011}.
Furthermore, even for the case of cDE models with always positive values of $\beta _{c}(\phi )\dot{\phi }$, the friction term has been shown to determine a
suppression of the growth of density perturbations once these become nonlinear, due to the presence of non-radial velocities \citep[][]{Baldi_etal_2010,Baldi_2011b}.
In the present work, we will focus on cDE models with an exponential self-interaction potential and with variable couplings in the form of a power of the
cosmic scale factor $a$:
\begin{equation}
\beta _{c}(\phi (a)) \equiv \beta _{0}a^{\beta _{1}}
\end{equation}
that have been proposed and studied by \citep[][]{Baldi_2011a}. In particular, we will consider two of the models discussed in \citep[][]{Baldi_2011a}, featuring
a rapidly growing coupling function with $(\beta _{0},\beta _{1}) = (0.5,2)$ and $(0.75,3)$, named ``EXP010a2" and ``EXP015a3", respectively. Such models have been shown to be fully consistent
with present cosmological data on the background expansion history and cluster number counts, while determining a significant increase of the
small-scale matter power only at very low redshifts. In the present paper, we are seeking for observational constraints on this specific class of models
based only on the observation of rotation curves of luminous spiral galaxies, without invoking any additional observational data.
We will base our analysis on the numerical results of \citep[][]{Baldi_2011a}, that made use of the specific modification of \cite{Baldi_etal_2010} of the
widely used parallel N-body code {\small GADGET} \citep[][]{gadget-2} to run high-resolution hydrodynamical N-body simulations of a series of cDE models with variable coupling,
including the EXP010a2 and EXP015a3 models under investigation here. Such modified numerical code includes all the specific effects related to the DE-CDM interaction that have been
briefly discussed above, and allows to follow the evolution of a cosmological volume of the universe in the context of different models with a
common normalization of the basic cosmological parameters, and to compare the individual and statistical properties of collapsed objects forming in each
scenario. In particular, we will consider here the results of hydrodynamical N-body simulations within a periodic cosmological box of $80$ comoving Mpc$/h$
aside filled with $512^{3}$ CDM and $512^{3}$ gas particles, for a mass resolution of $2.41 \times 10^{8}$ M$_{\odot }/h$ and $4.82 \times 10^{7}$ M$_{\odot }/h$,
respectively, and a spatial resolution of $3.5$ kpc$/h$. By comparing the outcomes of such simulations, \cite{Baldi_2011a} found that -- differently
from standard cDE scenarios with constant coupling -- variable coupling models might determine in some specific realizations a significant increase of the normalization of the ``concentration {\em vs.}
Mass" (c-M) relation for collapsed virialized objects (see Fig.~\ref{fig:concentration}).
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{./concentrations_ratio_vmax_020.eps}
\caption{The ratio of the halo concentration in cDE models with respect to the standard $\Lambda $CDM scenario as a function of the halo virial mass $M_{200}$, as obtained from the N-body simulations of \cite{Baldi_2011a}. The curves represent the Mean (solid) and the Median (dashed) concentration within each of the four logarithmic mass bins in which the sample has been subdivided.}
\label{fig:concentration}
\end{figure}
In particular, this happens for models where the coupling steeply grows at low redshifts as it is the case for
couplings scaling as a positive power of the scale factor, due to the absence in such models of a G-$\phi $-MDE phase \citep[see ][for a detailed discussion
of this effect]{Baldi_2011a}. An overall increase of the normalization in the c-M relation might have a significant impact on the predicted rotation curves for luminous spiral galaxies
and provide a powerful way to strongly constrain the parameter space for this class of cDE models. More specifically, an increase by a factor of $\sim 1.85$
\citep[as predicted by][for the model EXP015a3]{Baldi_2011a} of the expected average concentration of CDM halos in the mass range
of a few $\times 10^{12}$ M$_{\odot }/h$ will clearly exacerbate the marginal tension of observed rotation curves with the predicted radial mass distribution
of a Navarro-Frenk-White \citep[NFW][]{Navarro_Frenk_White_1995} density profile in $\Lambda $CDM, known as the ``cusp-core" problem, thereby providing a direct way to
constrain the model using only galaxy rotation curves data and without resorting on any additional observational dataset.
In this paper we will adopt the outcomes of \citep[][]{Baldi_2011a}, where simulations were normalized in order to have the same amplitude of linear density perturbations
at $z=0$, {\rm i.e.$\,$} all cosmological models were normalized to the same value of $\sigma _{8}(z=0)$. Recently, a new set of very large N-body simulations for cDE
models \citep[the {\small CoDECS} project, see][]{CoDECS} has been released, featuring a different choice for the power spectrum normalization with a common
amplitude of density perturbations at the redshift of CMB, $z_{\rm CMB}\approx 1100$. The choice to consider the numerical results of \citep[][]{Baldi_2011a} instead of
\citep[][]{CoDECS} for our analysis should be considered ``conservative" as a high-$z$ normalization of density perturbations is expected to result in an even stronger increase of halo
concentration at a fixed mass for the same cosmological model.
\section{Mass modelling the Spiral's Rotation Curves}
\label{mass_modeling}
In spiral galaxies the presence of a large amount of unseen matter, distributed very differently from the stellar and HI gas disks, is well established from their non-keplerian rotation curves (\cite{Rubin_Ford_Thonnard_1980,Bosma_1981}, an innovative review on this issue can be found in \cite{Salucci_FrigerioMartins_Lapi_2011}). A massive dark component, becoming progressively more important at increasing radii and decreasing galaxy luminosity is present in any galaxy \citep[][]{Persic_Salucci_1988}. This evidence relies on the fact that rotation curves (RCs) of spiral galaxies suitably measure their total gravitational potential \citep[see e.g.][]{Ratnam_Salucci_2000,Yegorova_Salucci_2007}. More precisely, high-quality RCs measure the spiral's circular velocity $V(r) $, i.e. the rotational equilibrium velocity implied by their underlying mass distribution. In each galaxy, the former is related to the total gravitational potential $\phi _{\rm tot}$,
which is the sum of four distinct mass components: a spherical stellar bulge ($B$), a Dark Matter halo ($DM$), a stellar disk ($*$) and a gaseous disc ($HI$).
Such relation follows the equation:
\begin{equation}
\label{RCs}
V^2(r)=V^2_B + V^2_{DM}+V^2_*+V^2_{HI}= r\frac{d}{dr}\phi_{tot} \,.
\end{equation}
where $\phi_{\rm tot}=\phi_{B}+ \phi_{DM}+\phi_*+\phi_{HI}$.
It is therefore possible to equal the observed circular velocity, i.e the LHS of Eq.~\ref{RCs}, with the velocity model given by the RHS of Eq.~\ref{RCs},
thereby inferring the radial profile of the total gravitational potential. More specifically, this is obtained by means of the Poisson equation from the surface/spatial densities of the various mass components.
\subsection{The Baryonic contribution}
The surface density of the stellar disk $\Sigma_*(r)$ is obtained from the observed surface brightness, once we assume a radially constant stellar mass-to-light ratio \citep[see][]{Portinari_Salucci_2010}. It is generally found \citep[see e.g.][]{Freeman_1970} that this quantity follows the relation:
\begin{equation}
\Sigma_{*}(r)=\frac{M_{D}}{2 \pi R_{D}^{2}}\: e^{-r/R_{D}}
\end{equation}
where $M_D$ is the disk mass and $R_D$ is the disk scale length; therefore, for the RC we get a contribution:
\begin{equation}
V_{*}^{2}(r)=\frac{G M_{D}}{2R_{D}} x^{2}B\left(\frac{x}{2}\right)
\end{equation}
from the stellar disk, where $x\equiv r/R_{D}$, $G$ is the gravitational constant, and $B=I_{0}K_{0}-I_{1}K_{1}$ is a combination of Bessel functions.
The contribution of the gaseous disk to the RC, $V^2_{HI}$, can be directly derived from the HI surface brightness; however, for the high-luminosity spirals we consider here, this contribution is always negligible \citep[see e.g.][]{Bosma_1981}. Moreover, although spirals can have a non-negligible bulge velocity component,
this results virtually indistinguishable from that of the exponential disk \citep[see][]{Persic_Salucci_Ashman_1993} for the determination of the DM structural mass parameters via RC fitting.
\subsection {The phenomenology of RCs of Spirals}
The systematical study of the spiral RCs has highlighted their universal character, with the galaxy magnitude $M_{I}$ playing the role of an additional characteristic parameter
identifying specific galaxies along a universal behavior of the RC \citep[][]{Persic_Salucci_Stel_1996,Salucci_etal_2007}. This has led to the concept of ``Universal Rotation Curve'' (URC), i.e. a function $V_{URC}(r/R_D,M_{I})$ of radius (in units of the disk length scale, $r/R_D$) and of galaxy magnitude ($M_{I}$) that well reproduces the RC of any object of known $M_{I}$ and $R_D$ \citep[see][]{Persic_Salucci_Stel_1996}. In detail, \cite{Persic_Salucci_Stel_1996} assigned each of their 900 individual RCs of spirals extended out to $R_{opt} \simeq 3 R_D $ to the corresponding magnitude bin among the 11 bins in which the whole spiral $I$-band magnitude range $M_{I}\in \left[ -24.3,-16.3\right] $ was divided.
The RCs of the objects in each luminosity bin were finally averaged in radial bins of width $0.1 R_{opt} $. This led to a family of synthetic coadded RCs
$V_{coadd}(r/R_D,M_I)$ \citep[see e.g. Fig.~1 of][]{Persic_Salucci_Stel_1996}. A similar result was obtained by \cite{Catinella_Giovanelli_Haynes_2006}. These coadded RCs result regular, smooth and with a very small intrinsic variance. Additional data, including very extended RCs and the virial velocities $V_{vir}\equiv (G M_{vir}/R_{vir})^{1/2}$ \citep[see][]{Shankar_etal_2006}, allowed to extend the coadded RC out to the galaxies virial radii \citep[][]{Shankar_etal_2006,Salucci_etal_2007}.
With such a general prescription, all kinematical data were fit by the same analytical function $V_{URC}(r/R_D,M_{I})$ \citep[see again][]{Salucci_etal_2007}.
Further evidence that the URC does represent the general RC of any spiral of any luminosity was provided by \citep[][]{Catinella_Giovanelli_Haynes_2006}.
In this paper we are concerned with RCs of high-luminosity spirals, as their DM halos correspond to the smallest objects
for which the simulations by \cite{Baldi_2011a} provide a reliable estimation of the halo structural parameters. As a matter of fact, we aim to compare the URC relative to the top-luminosity spiral objects -- i.e. to objects with $M_I \leq -23$ \citep[see the two last panels in Fig.~1 of][]{Persic_Salucci_Stel_1996} -- with the prediction of some specific mass models.
The former is plotted in Fig.~\ref{RC} as black filled circles, with error bars that include also the variance detected object by object in the 56 RCs of \cite{Persic_Salucci_Stel_1996} and the 30 of \cite{Yegorova_etal_2011}, i.e. of the available samples of high luminosity spiral RCs. More specifically, the data points in Fig.~\ref{RC} show a {\it typical} circular velocity profile of a ``very big" spiral, $M_I =-23.0$ and consequently with $R_D=7.3 $ kpc, $V(R_{opt})=235 km/s $ \citep[see][although no result in the present paper depends on these numbers and exactly the same result would arise if we had used anyone of the available individual RC of high luminosity spira as all of them are, for the present aim, indistinguishable from the adopted one]{Salucci_etal_2007}.
Obviously, any successful mass model must be capable to reproduce these data.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{./RC.eps}
\caption{Circular rotation velocity for the case of a standard $\Lambda $CDM concentration {\em vs.} Mass relation (black solid line) and for the two cDE models under investigation, EXP010a2 (red solid line) and EXP015a3 (green solid line), compared to the URC at $M_{I} = -23$ (black points with error bars).}
\label{RC}
\end{figure}
\subsection{The velocity profile in $\Lambda$CDM halos}
It is well known that numerical simulations performed in the $\Lambda$CDM scenario lead to virialized halos of Dark Matter with a very specific density and velocity profile, called the NFW profile \citep[][]{Navarro_Frenk_White_1995}:
\begin{equation}
\rho_{NFW}(r) = \frac{\rho_s}{(r/r_s)\left(1+r/r_s\right)^2}\,.
\label{eq:nfw}
\end{equation}
In Eq.~(\ref{eq:nfw}) $r_s$ is a characteristic scale radius and $\rho_s$ is the corresponding density. We remind that for the virial radius $R_{vir}$ and halo mass $M_{vir}$ and the mean universal density $\rho_u$ we have:
$M_{vir} \simeq 100 \rho_u R_{vir}^3$.
Furthermore, $r_s$ and $R_{vir}$ are found to be related within a reasonable scatter according to the equation \citep[][]{Klypin_TrujilloGomez_Primack_2011}:
\begin{equation}
\label{concentration_eq}
c = R_{vir} / r_s \simeq 9.7 \left( \frac{M_{vir}}{10^{12}M_{\odot}} \right)^{-0.13}\,.
\end{equation}
Although other mildly different density profiles and/or $c$ vs. $M_{vir} $ relations have been proposed, adopting Eq.~(\ref{concentration_eq}) as the standard $\Lambda $CDM concentration does not affect the outcomes of the present work.
Since they emerged in N-body simulations, the cuspy NFW density profiles have been in tension with those detected around dwarf spirals \citep[][]{Moore_1994},
giving rise to the so called ``cusp-core" problem. Later, e.g. in \cite{Salucci_Walter_Borriello_2003} and \citep{Gentile_etal_2004}, a suitable investigation of a number of proper test-cases was performed by means of a careful analysis of 2D, high-quality, extended, regular, and symmetric RCs for spiral galaxies.
It is well known that in these objects the NFW halo predictions and kinematical data are found in strong disagreement in several aspects. In fact, the stellar disk + NFW halo mass model (NFWD)
{\it i)} fits very poorly a significant number of RCs; {\it ii) } often requires an implausibly low stellar mass-to-light ratio and/or {\it iii)} an unphysical high halo mass and/or {\it iv)} an implausible value for the concentration parameter $c$ \citep[see e.g.][]{Spekkens_Giovanelli_Haynes_2005,Gentile_etal_2004,Gentile_etal_2005,Gentile_etal_2007,Spano_etal_2007,deBlok_etal_2008,deNaray_McGaugh_deBlok_2008}.
Up to now, the failure of the NFW velocity profiles is very evident in low luminosity galaxies, as their steep RCs cannot be accounted for by a NFWD velocity profile. Noticeably, instead, for the most luminous objects as large spiral galaxies, their flattish RCs can be still (marginally) reproduced also by a NFWD mass model. As an example, the RCs of the luminous spirals MW and M31 can be well fitted also by a NFWD mass model \citep[][]{Chemin_Carignan_Foster_2009}.
\ \\
The $\Lambda $CDM scenario might generically account for the ``cusp-core" tension described above if some physical process, related to the galaxy formation process itself, erased the previously formed cosmological cusp. A rather common approach is therefore to assume a $\Lambda $CDM scenario and to explain the observed RCs postulating that some process has transformed the originally sharp halo density profiles into the observed shallow ones. Consequently, any process or scenario in which $\Lambda $CDM halos get a {\it more} pronounced cusp with respect to the standard case should be disregarded.
In fact, given the present possible tension between $\Lambda $CDM halos predictions and actual observations, it is possible to rule out or tightly constrain any scenario that further worsens the discrepancy. In other words, any reasonable process beyond the adiabatic formation of CDM halos in $\Lambda $CDM we want to invoke must erase the central cusp and not make it more pronounced.
\section {Constraining cDE models with RCs of High-Luminosity Spirals}
\label{constraints}
\begin{figure}
\label{chi2}
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{./chi2.eps}
\caption{Values of $\chi _{\rm red}^{2}$of the best-fit mass models for different assumptions on the concentration parameter $c/c_{\Lambda }$. Standard NFW models correspond to $ c/c_{\Lambda}=1$. The $\chi _{\rm red}^{2}$ values for the two cDE models
discussed in the present work are shown by a red (EXP010a2) and a green (EXP015a3) dot. The latter model provides a very poor fit
to the data, as shown by the large $\chi _{\rm red}^{2}$ value.}
\end{figure}
In Fig.~\ref{RC} we plot (as black points) the synthetic RC of spiral galaxies of $M_I \sim -23$ from 1 kpc, their typical innermost radius with reliable individual measurements, to 330 kpc (their typical virial radius). It is worth to recall here that the cored halo + Freeman Disk model (not discussed here) perfectly fits these data by passing all the data points within their error bars \citep[][]{Salucci_etal_2007}.
It is also not surprising that the NFWD model with the standard concentration relation (\ref{concentration_eq}) fits the same data in a quite satisfactory way (black line in Fig.~\ref{RC} and black filled circle in Fig.~\ref{chi2} where the resulting reduced chi-squared $\chi^{2}_{\rm red}$ is shown). In fact, so far in the literature there are no cases in which the flattish individual RCs of high-luminosity spiral galaxies can be unambiguously modeled exclusively by a cored DM distribution as it occurs for the steeper RCs of lower luminosity objects.
Let us now investigate the case -- as for the cDE scenarios with a steep growth in time of the coupling function $\beta _{c}$ \citep[][]{Baldi_2011a} --
in which the emerging dark matter halos have a NFW density profile with a value for the concentration parameter significantly higher with respect to
what prescribed by Eq.~(\ref{concentration_eq}) for halos of this mass
For instance, we can consider concentration values as found in N-body simulations for the EXP010a2 and EXP015a3 models
investigated in the present work (see Fig.~\ref{concentrations}), which at masses of the order of a few $\times 10^{12}M_{\odot }$
are given by:
\begin{eqnarray}
{\rm EXP010a2}\qquad c &\approx &1.3 \cdot c_{\Lambda }\,, \\
{\rm EXP015a3}\qquad c &\approx & 1.85 \cdot c_{\Lambda }\,,
\end{eqnarray}
where $c_{\Lambda }$ is the standard value of the concentration predicted by $\Lambda $CDM simulations and consistent with Eq.~\ref{concentration_eq}.
With these values of the concentration parameter, we can now attempt fitting the reference RCs of high-luminosity spirals shown in Fig.~\ref{RC} with a NFWD mass model for NFW DM halos of different concentration, and test the quality of the fit
with the reduced chi-squared $\chi _{\rm red}^{2}$ defined as:
\begin{equation}
\chi _{\rm red}^{2} \equiv \frac{1}{N-2} \sum_{1}^{N} \frac{V_{\rm URC}-V_{\rm mod}}{0.0175 \cdot V_{\rm URC}^{2}} \,,
\end{equation}
where N=19, the quantity in the denominator is the observational error of $V_{\rm URC}$ and $V_{\rm mod}$ is the velocity model under investigation.
For a standard $\Lambda $CDM model, corresponding to $c/c_{\Lambda }=1$, the best fit parameters are
$M_{vir }=1.1 \times 10 ^{13} M_\odot$, $M_D=5.1 \times 10^{11} M_\odot$ with a reduced chi-squared of $\chi^2_{\rm red}\sim 1$.
The fit appears instead clearly unsuccessful (see the green line in Fig.~\ref{RC} and the green point in Fig.~\ref{chi2})
for the most extreme cDE case EXP015a3, corresponding to the parameters $(\beta _{0},\beta _{1})=(0.75,3)$.
The best fit values of the parameters for this model are $M_{vir }=6 \times 10 ^{12} M_\odot$, $M_D=2.6 \times 10^{11} M_\odot$, but the fit results extremely poor with a reduced chi-squared of $\chi^2_{\rm red}\sim 7.5$.
On the other hand, the fit is not significantly worse than in the standard $\Lambda $CDM case for the other, less extreme cDE scenario
discussed in this work, EXP010a2, with $(\beta _{0},\beta _{1})=(0.5,2)$, for which the best fit parameters are $M_{vir}=8.7 \times 10 ^{12} M_\odot$, $M_D=4.1 \times 10^{11} M_\odot$ with a $\chi^2_{\rm red}\sim 1.7$.
Let us stress here that the fitting uncertainty in the the two structural parameters is large but not relevant here. In the former case,
no model can fit the data in a satisfactory way.
More in general, let us consider DM halos with a NFW profile but with a c-M relation different from the standard $\Lambda $CDM case,
i.e. $c/c_{\Lambda }$ ranging from $c/c_{\Lambda } = 0.8$, leading to a marginally shallower density profile, to $c/c_{\Lambda } = 2$, i.e. a significantly more concentrated DM halo.
We attempt in these cases a NFWD modeling of the reference RC. The result is clear (see Fig.~\ref{chi2}): at a value of $c/c_{\Lambda } \,\lower2truept\hbox{${>\atop\hbox{\raise4truept\hbox{$\sim$}}}$}\, 1.8$ the fit becomes very problematic and even flat RCs rule out a NFW halo with such a high concentration.
\section{Discussion and Conclusions}
\label{concl}
In the $\Lambda $CDM framework, DM virialized halos are characterized by a cuspy density distribution that is certainly not seen in the halos around dwarf spiral galaxies and that might be absent also in high-luminosity spiral galaxies.
Some alternative cosmological models, motivated by the need to address the fundamental problems of the cosmological
constant, as e.g. some specific models of interaction between Dark Energy and Dark Matter
can modify the typical concentration of DM halos as a function f halo mass, both reducing it or increasing it
depending on the specific form of the DE self-interaction potential and of the coupling function.
However, while the reduction of halo concentration, when it occurs, is in general quite modest for presently
viable cDE models, some specific scenarios can
lead to DM halos that are significantly more concentrated than the standard $\Lambda $CDM ones. As a consequence of this, also the rotation curves of high-luminosity spiral galaxies as obtained from the Universal Rotation Curve or from the kinematics of numerous suitable objects, cannot be reproduced in a satisfactory way by a mass model that accounts for the effect of enhanced concentration in interacting DE cosmologies.
In the present work, we have investigated the impact that these specific realizations of the interacting DE scenario have on the rotation curves of luminous spiral galaxies.
More specifically, we have restricted our analysis to a particular class of coupled DE scenarios characterized by a steep growth
in time of the interaction strength, parametrized as a positive power of the cosmic scale factor. Such models have been shown
to be in full agreement with present constraints on the background evolution of the Universe, as they do not feature the typical
early DE scaling of other coupled DE scenarios like e.g. models with a constant or a more slowly evolving coupling function. The
background evolution of the models investigated in this work is in fact practically indistinguishable from the standard $\Lambda $CDM
cosmology.
Furthermore, the impact of these alternative cosmologies on the statistical properties of large scale structures is confined at very low redshifts, which makes it problematic to test the models via e.g. weak lensing measurements.
However, as mentioned above, a series of high-resolution hydrodynamical N-body simulations for this specific class of interacting DE cosmologies have
recently shown that the fast growth of the coupling strength determines a significant increase of the normalization of the concentration {\em vs.} Mass relation for CDM halos at low redshifts, thereby allowing for a direct test of the models through dynamical probes
in collapsed structures. In the present study we have therefore considered the effect that an average higher halo concentration
at halo masses in the range of luminous spirals -- consistent with the results of N-body simulations for two specific realizations of coupled DE models -- determines on the rotation curve of the galaxy, and compared the inferred circular velocity with real data,
namely with the Universal Rotation Curve that for our purpose well represents the typical circular velocity of spirals.
While the standard $\Lambda $CDM value of the halo concentration provides a marginally acceptable fit to the data, the increase
of the concentration due to the interaction between DE and DM for the specific models investigated in this work determines
a significantly worse fit and exacerbates the problem of the central Dark Matter cusps in galactic halos.
In particular, our results show that for the most extreme of our coupled DE scenarios the
best fit mass modeling has a reduced chi-squared of $\chi _{\rm red}^{2} \approx 7.5$,
thereby allowing to rule out the model.
The other model under investigation, which features a smaller present value and a shallower growth in time of the coupling function,
shows instead a still marginally acceptable fit to the data.
We can therefore conclude that the nonlinear effects of an interaction between DE and CDM provide a direct
way to constrain the evolution of the coupling function, and that the parameter space of coupled DE models can be
constrained by means of direct observations of the dynamical properties of galaxies. Furthermore, since the problem of
the central cuspiness of DM halos is mostly severe for faint and low-mass objects, we argue that a detailed investigation
of the effects of coupled DE models on the halo concentration at a lower mass range than allowed by the present
resolution of our simulations might result in tighter constraints on the coupled DE parameter space.
It is also important to stress here that a large fraction of the parameter space of coupled DE cosmologies does not result
at all in an enhancement of halo concentrations, with a large number of models even showing a slight decrease of the
concentrations over a wide range of masses. These realizations of the coupled DE scenario, not discussed in the present work,
are clearly not affected by our constraints and should still be considered as viable alternatives to the $\Lambda $CDM paradigm.
Nevertheless, our results show for the first time that it is possible to constrain the properties of Dark Energy also through
the dynamical features of luminous galaxies.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
MB acknowledges support by
the DFG Cluster of Excellence ``Origin and Structure of the Universe''
and by the TRR33 Transregio Collaborative Research
Network on the ``Dark Universe''. MB also wants to acknowledge SISSA
and the HPC-Europa2 visiting grant nr. 589 for financial support
during his visits at SISSA.
\bibliographystyle{JHEP}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{intro}
Different experimental \cite{Muhlschlegel2005}-\cite{Neubrech2008} and purely theoretical \cite{Aizpurua2005}-\cite{Alu2008} investigations have shown that metallic nanorods act as standing-wave resonators for localized plasmon resonances in the optical regime, thus exhibiting geometrical half-wavelength resonances with spectral positions depending mainly on the length of the rods. This particular type of so-called ``optical nanoantennas'' have raised the prospect of significant improvements in fields such as photodetection \cite{Knight2011}, field-enhanced spectroscopy \cite{Ming2009} or control of emission direction in single-molecule light sources \cite{Taminiau2008}.
Generally speaking, most of device-oriented studies are focused on nanoantennas operating at the dipole-like resonance. However, structures with a high aspect ratio may support additional resonances that have usually been the subject of a more fundamental research work. Hence, several authors have already elucidated the scaling properties of high-order longitudinal modes, as well as their dependence on shape, size, orientation and dielectric environment by means of diverse approaches and techniques \cite{Payne2006,Khlebtsov2007}, \cite{Ghenuche2008}-\cite{Wei2010}. Nevertheless, a relevant issue has yet to be addressed for multi-resonant nanoantennas, that is the emergence of asymmetric line profiles in single-particle extinction or scattering spectra. Interestingly, such a feature seems to go almost unnoticed for the nanoplasmonics community, despite being apparent in some previous references \cite{Payne2006,Khlebtsov2007,Chau2009,Wei2010}. In fact, to the best of our knowledge, the only explicit report on the occurrence of Fano-like asymmetric line shapes in the scattering spectra of a single silver nanorod can be found in a recent paper by Reed {\it et al.} \cite{Reed2011}, though the emphasis is put on dimer structures therein.
In this work, we show that these asymmetric line profiles can be easily understood in terms of the so-called Fano-like interference between localized plasmon resonances that has been recently reported for a variety of coupled metal nanoparticles \cite{Miroshnichenko2010}-\cite{Gallinet2011}. Being more precise, we present a simplified analytical model that describes spectral features of a single rod-shaped nanoantenna in terms of Fano-like interference. Contrary to the common assumption that interference does not play any role in total scattering or extinction of a single metallic surface, we find a good agreement with numerical results, which are attained through the separation of variables (SVM), finite element (FEM) and surface integral equation (SIEM) methods (see \ref{calcu} for a succinct description of calculation techniques). Furthermore, we make use of explicit expressions for light scattering by spheroids to conclude that not only spectral but also spatial overlap (i.e. non-orthogonality) between interacting modes underlies the emergence of such single-rod resonances. This points out the need of being extremely cautious when applying the premises of standard Mie theory to particles that significantly depart from sphericity.
\section{Single metallic nanorods acting as half-wave nanoantennas}
\subsection{Fano-like interference of longitudinal plasmon resonances}
Let us begin by briefly reviewing the basics of light scattering by a single metallic nanorod with dielectric function $\varepsilon_m$ that is surrounded by a medium with constant permittivity $\varepsilon_d$: On the assumption that rod diameter $D$ is much smaller than its total length $L$, the electromagnetic response to $p$-polarized light impinging perpendicular to the long side is fully governed by longitudinal modes. The fundamental resonance $\lambda_{res}^{(1)}$ can thus be described as a dipolar excitation of charges at the rod surface, with its wavelength exhibiting a linear dependence on $L$ , $\lambda_{res}^{(1)} \propto 2L$. For a perfectly conducting material of negligible thickness, $\lambda_{res}^{(1)}$ is precisely equal to $2L$, whereas $\lambda_{res}^{(1)}\gg 2L$ at optical frequencies \cite{Khlebtsov2007,Novotny2007,Bryant2008}. As rod length increases, additional resonances may appear. Following Khlebtsov and Khlebtsov \cite{Khlebtsov2007}, we assume the position of any longitudinal resonance to be described by the following approximate scaling law
\begin{equation}
\lambda_{res}^{(n)} \approx B_0 +B_1 \frac{L}{nD}
\label{scaling}
\end{equation}
where $n$ is an odd integer and $B_0, B_1$ are coefficients that depend on the actual geometry and dielectric environment of the system and have to be determined from linear regression. With respect to $B_0, B_1$, we also have to notice that, although not used in this paper, explicit expressions can be obtained within the framework of Novotny's model for effective wavelength scaling at optical antennas \cite{Novotny2007}.
As mentioned in the previous section, the interaction of adjacent resonances has been found to be compatible with a Fano-like interference model \cite{Ropers2005},\cite{Lukyanchuk2010}-\cite{Fan2010}, where the lower resonance plays the role of continuum in canonical Fano line shape \cite{Fano1961}. Given that light scattering by a rod of finite length cannot be treated in a closed form within the framework of standard Mie theory \cite{BHBook}, we assume a heuristic line shape for the first approach. Hence,
\begin{equation}
Q_{sca} \approx |f(\omega)|^2\label{lineshape}
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
f(\omega)\equiv A(\omega)+F\bra{[}{4}\frac{b_1}{(\omega-\omega_1)+i b_1}+\frac{q b_3}{(\omega-\omega_3)+i b_3}\bra{]}{4}\label{lineshape2}
\end{equation}
where $A(\omega)$ is a slowly varying amplitude and $F$ stands for the complex amplitude of the fundamental resonance, which is described in terms of its real central frequency $\omega_1$ and spectral width $b_1$. Dimensionless real parameter $q$ modulates the interaction with the adjacent plasmon resonance (analogously defined by $\omega_3$ and $b_3$), thus governing the line shape asymmetry.
\begin{figure}
\flushright
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{Figure1.pdf}\\
\caption{(a) Calculated scattering efficiency as a function of wavelength for a single Ag spheroid surrounded by glass ($\varepsilon_d=2.25$). Incident field is $p$-polarized and impinges perpendicular to the rotation axis of the spheroid. Different curves correspond to increasing values of $L$, whereas $D$ is set to 30 nm for all calculations. (b) Linear scaling of resonant wavelengths in panel (a) as a function of normalized aspect ratio $L/nD$. Dashed line marks the best fit to Eq. \eref{scaling}.}\label{Qscavsvlan}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Prolate spheroidal nanorods}
From the computational point of view, the shape of half-wave nanoantennas is usually modeled by a right circular cylinder with either flat or hemispherical ends (spherocylinder). However, we have found the prolate spheroid to be the most convenient geometry to start with, because of the following reasons: (i) Previous works \cite{Asano1975,Voshchinnikov1993} on the basis of SVM have provided us with a very efficient approach to calculate extinction, scattering and absorption cross-sections even for very elongated nanoantennas; (ii) In addition to its low numerical cost, such a theoretical framework also makes apparent the origin of unexpected asymmetry in line profiles, as detailed hereafter; (iii) Prolate spheroids are not only of academic interest, as they accurately describe the so-called nanorice structures \cite{Wei2010,Wang2006}.
In \fref{Qscavsvlan} we present the calculated scattering efficiency $Q_{sca}$ for a single silver spheroid surrounded by glass ($\varepsilon_d=2.25$) under the assumption that incident field is $p$-polarized and impinges perpendicular to the long side of the rod. Different curves correspond to increasing values of total length $L$ within the $[100,400]$ nm range, whereas the polar diameter $D$ is set to 30 nm for all calculations. As can be seen, the position of resonances increases linearly with $L$ and such displacement is fairly well described by \eref{scaling} (see \fref{Qscavsvlan}(b)). For $L/D \gtrsim 5$, the peaks arising from resonances with $n=1$ and $n=3$ are clearly apparent, as it is the asymmetry of the line shape between them.
\begin{figure}
\flushright
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{Figure2.pdf}\\
\caption{Calculated scattering efficiency (solid line) as a function of photon energy for a single Ag spheroid ($L=340$ nm; $D= 30$ nm) in $\varepsilon_d=2.25$. Incident field is $p$-polarized and impinges perpendicular to the rotation axis of the spheroid. Dashed line renders the best-fitting curve to Eq. \eref{lineshape}. Obtained values of $\omega_1,\omega_3$ and $q$ are also shown. Lower right inset panel depicts the obtained values of $q$ for every $L$ in \fref{Qscavsvlan}.}\label{QscavseV}
\end{figure}
In order to test out our approach, let us take a closer look to the curve corresponding to 340 nm-long spheroid. \Fref{QscavseV} renders the calculated scattering efficiency as a function of energy and its best-fitting curve to \eref{lineshape}. It may be seen that our heuristic Fano-like line shape agrees very well with the full electromagnetic calculation. Besides, the obtained value $q=0.82324$ is consistent with asymmetric profiles being described by $|q| \approx 1$ \cite{Miroshnichenko2010}. Such an agreement extends to the whole range of rod lengths in \fref{Qscavsvlan}, as summarized in the inset panel (See \ref{fitt2fano}).
\begin{figure}
\flushright
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{Figure3.pdf}\\
\caption{(a) Calculated $Q_{sca}$ as a function of photon energy for a single Ag spheroid ($L=340$ nm; $D= 30$ nm) surrounded by $\varepsilon_d=2.25$. Incident field is $p$-polarized and impinges with angle $\alpha$ with respect to the rotation axis. Different curves correspond to decreasing values of $\alpha$. The intensities of ``odd'' peaks as a function of $\alpha$ are presented at lower left inset panel. (b) Comparison between calculated $Q_{sca}$ and its best-fitting curve to Eq. \eref{lineshape3} for $\alpha=45^\mathrm{o}$. Obtained values of $\omega_1,\omega_2,\omega_3$ and $q$ are also shown. Upper right inset panel depicts the obtained values of $q$ for every $\alpha$ in (a).}\label{obliki}
\end{figure}
For the case of oblique incidence (i.e. if the angle $\alpha$ between the incident light vector $\mathbf{k}_{inc}$ and the rotation axis of the spheroid is not equal to $90^\mathrm{o}$), ``even'' modes become accessible \cite{Payne2006,Khlebtsov2007, Wei2010} and should therefore be incorporated to our analysis. Different curves in \ref{obliki}(a) correspond to the calculated $Q_{sca}$ for decreasing values of $\alpha$ and the same geometry, polarization and dielectric environment as in \fref{QscavseV}. Logarithmic scale is used for optimal visualization of less intense features. As can be seen, the oblique line shapes differ quite little from that for normal incidence at the vicinity of resonances with labels $n=1,3$, except from that the intensities of ``odd'' peaks exhibit a linear dependence with $\sin^2 \alpha$ (see lower left inset panel). However, an extra resonance develops just on top of base line at $\omega \approx 1.045$ eV. Given that it is located within the $[\omega_1,\omega_3]$ range, we label it as $n=2$. This new peak reaches its maximum for $\alpha=45^\mathrm{o}$ and seems to be symmetrical with respect to its central frequency. Hence, we can conjecture that symmetry precludes interference between longitudinal modes with different parity, so that only an additive term accounts for the contribution of this resonance to $Q_{sca}$,
\begin{equation}
Q_{sca}(\omega,\alpha \neq 90^\mathrm{o}) \approx |f(\omega)|^2+\frac{|F_2|^2 b_2^2}{b_2^2+(\omega-\omega_2)^2}\label{lineshape3}
\end{equation}
\noindent where $F_2,\omega_2,b_2 $ are the complex amplitude, the central frequency, and the spectral width of the resonance with label $n=2$, respectively.
Comparison between calculated $Q_{sca}(\omega,\alpha=45^\mathrm{o})$ and its best-fitting curve to \eref{lineshape3} in \fref{obliki}(b) confirms our hypothesis of the lack of interaction between ``odd'' and ``even'' resonances. As summarized in the upper right inset panel, the only effect of oblique incidence (aside from the emergence of a new peak!) is the already mentioned global quenching of $Q_{sca}(\omega_{res}^{(1),(3)})$ (i.e.,the intensities of ``odd'' peaks) and therefore that of $q$. Being the understanding of line shape asymmetry the main goal of our work, we do not discuss on oblique incidence any further, except for the detailed description of the dependence of different parameters on $\alpha$ that is presented in \ref{fitt2fano}. However, we have to point out that inter-parity coupling may be allowed for a symmetry-broken configuration, such as depositing the nanospheroid onto a dielectric substrate, as recently proposed for the nanocube geometry \cite{Zhang2011}. In fact, we can easily envisage that the two different intra- and inter-parity mechanisms' operating simultaneously opens a very interesting scenario that certainly warrants further investigation.
Going beyond heuristic description brings us up against the actual meaning of \eref{lineshape2}. From a formal point of view, it is clear that $f(\omega)$ plays the role of effective polarizability in a somehow generalized Rayleigh-Gans theory for nonspherical particles. Nevertheless, there is still the concern of how to explain the emergence of asymmetry in line profiles. As previously mentioned, Fano resonances require an observable that is sensitive to interference, but standard Mie theory predicts the total scattering by a single metallic surface to be proportional to the mere sum of intensities.
Such a discrepancy can be easily explained for the case of prolate spheroidal particles by means of the SVM formalism. According to Reference \cite{Voshchinnikov1993}, the scattering efficiency of a prolate spheroid for $p$-polarized light impinging at normal incidence is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\fl Q_{sca}=\frac{4}{L D \,k_d^2} \bra{\{}{4} 2\sum_{l=1}^{\infty}|b_l^{(d)}|^2 N_{1l}^2 (c_d)+\mathrm{Re} \sum_{l=1}^{\infty}\sum_{m=l}^{\infty}\sum_{n=m}^{\infty}\mathit{i}^{\ n-l}\bra{[}{3}k_d^2\, a_{ml}^{(d)}\Big(a_{mn}^{(d)}\Big)^*\omega_{ln}^{(m)}(c_d,c_d) +{}\nonumber\\
+\ \mathit{i} k_d \bra{(}{3}b_{ml}^{(d)}\Big(a_{mn}^{(d)}\Big)^*\kappa_{ln}^{(m)}(c_d,c_d)-a_{ml}^{(d)}\Big(b_{mn}^{(d)}\Big)^*\kappa_{nl}^{(m)}(c_d,c_d)\bra{)}{3}+{} \label{Qscaspher}\\
+\ b_{ml}^{(d)}\Big(b_{mn}^{(d)}\Big)^*\tau_{ln}^{(m)}(c_d,c_d)\bra{]}{3}N_{ml}(c_d)N_{mn}(c_d)\bra{\}}{4}\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Without entering into further details, let us say that $\kappa_{ln}^{(m)}$, $\tau_{ln}^{(m)}$ and $\omega_{ln}^{(m)}$ are different integrals of the normalized prolate angular spheroidal wave functions with normalization coefficients $N_{ij}(c_d)$, where $c_d=k_d/2\ \sqrt{L^2-D^2}$, $k_d=\sqrt{\varepsilon_d}\ 2 \pi/ \lambda$ and $\lambda$ is the wavelength of incoming (or outgoing) radiation. More importantly, $a_{ij}^{(d)}$ and $b_l^{(d)}$, $b_{ij}^{(d)}$ represent the expansion coefficients of the azimuthal components of scattered electric and magnetic fields respectively. Single or double subscript marks whether the expansion accounts for the axisymmetric (i.e. the one that does not depend on the azimuthal angle) or non-axisymmetric (i.e. azimuth-dependent) part of the corresponding field. For the axisymmetric part, the introduction of Debye's potential representation of vector fields (i.e. the potentials that solve the light scattering problem for spheres) leads to the term following the curly bracket in \eref{Qscaspher}, which closely resembles Mie's result. However, a proper representation of the non-axisymmetric part of the electromagnetic fields requires a combination of Debye's potential with that used to deal with
light scattering by an infinitely long cylinder, namely Hertz's \cite{Voshchinnikov2000}. Hence double-subscript interference terms arise in $Q_{sca}$, thus providing a mathematical description for the interaction between adjacent resonances in prolate spheroids. Note that such interference terms are not negligible only if the interacting fields are non-orthogonal, that is, spatial overlap between interfering plasmon modes is required for Fano-like interference.
Although Eq. \eref{Qscaspher} is only valid for spheroids, we conjecture the underlying sphere-like vs. cylinder-like interference mechanism to operate for any single nanoantenna with a similar geometry. In order to determine if there is any real substance in our guess, we present in \fref{comparageom} the calculated scattering efficiency for a single 550x30 nm Ag nanoantenna embedded in $\varepsilon_d=2.25$ assuming three different geometries: a circular cylinder with flat ends, a spherocylinder and a prolate spheroid. Numerical values are obtained from either FEM or SVM. Logarithmic scale is used for the sake of a better comparison. As can be seen, the three curves can be fitted to Eq. \eref{lineshape} even for the case of a flat-ended cylinder, although only a modest $q \approx 0.15 $ is obtained for such a high aspect ratio. Hemispherical ends result in more than a 30 percent increase of asymmetry parameter, which rises to its maximum value of $q \approx 0.92$ for prolate spheroidal geometry, where spherical and cylindrical features interact in the most efficient way. These results are consistent with our previous formal discussion on potential theory and point out the subtle balance of different contributions to light scattering.
\begin{figure}
\flushright
\includegraphics[width=0.84\textwidth]{Figure4.pdf}\\
\caption{Calculated scattering efficiency as a function of photon energy for a single Ag nanorod ($L=550$ nm; $D= 30$ nm) surrounded by glass ($\varepsilon_d=2.25$). Incident field is $p$-polarized and impinges perpendicular to the rotation axis. Black, red, and blue curves correspond to flat-ended cylinder, spherocylinder and prolate spheroid, respectively. Open symbols render the best-fitting curves. Obtained values of $q$ are also shown.}\label{comparageom}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Spherocylinder-shaped nanorods}
In \fref{spherocyl} we present a separate plot of scattering efficiency as a function of photon energy for the spherocylinder-shaped nanorod in \fref{comparageom}. As already mentioned, the asymmetric line profile can be fitted to \eref{lineshape} (dashed line). The obtained $q=0.20294$ accounts for the moderate interaction between adjacent resonances located at $\omega_{res}^{(1)}=0.45563$ eV and $\omega_{res}^{(3)}=1.19918$ eV. Please notice that spectral features at $\omega \gtrsim 1.7 $ eV suggest the need to include subsequent resonances in \eref{lineshape2}, although that refinement is beyond the scope of our present work. Inset panels at the right hand side show the calculated $Q_{sca}$ curves (upper) and their corresponding $q$ values (lower) for different rods with $D=30$ nm and $L$ within the $[340,550]$ nm range. As expected, the interaction between adjacent resonances is significantly lower than that of prolate spheroids with the same $L,D$ parameters. (Details on fitting are presented in \ref{fitt2fano}.)
The normalized electric near-field distribution in the $xz$ plane at most significant values of photon energy is presented in the three panels at the left hand side of \fref{spherocyl}. Leaving aside the typical $n$-node quasi-standing-wave patterns at $\omega_{res}^{(1)}$ and $\omega_{res}^{(3)}$, let us concentrate on the plot for $\omega=1.12139$ eV. Given that $Q_{sca}$ reaches its local minimum within at this precise value, we expect some destructive interference to appear in spatial domain. Such interference pattern can be noticed for the field distribution inside the volume of the rod, which is limited by dashed lines. For the sake of clarity, we present in the bottom panel the line profiles at $x=0$ (dotted lines on contour plots). In short, for $\omega=\omega_{min}$, interference cancels a significant part of the field intensity that is present at the zones marked by descending arrows for $\omega=\omega_{res}^{(3)}$. On the other hand, field intensity at the central part of the rod (ascending arrow) for $\omega=\omega_{min}$ is slightly enhanced with respect to that for $\omega=\omega_{res}^{(3)}$, thus resembling the field pattern corresponding to $\omega=\omega_{res}^{(1)}$.
\begin{figure}
\flushright
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{Figure5a.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{Figure5b.pdf}
\caption{Calculated scattering efficiency as a function of photon energy for a single silver spherocylinder ($L=550$ nm; $D= 30$ nm) surrounded by $\varepsilon_d=2.25$. Incident field is $p$-polarized and impinges perpendicular to the long side of the rod. Dashed line renders the best-fitting curve to \ref{lineshape}. Inset panels at the right hand side show the calculated $Q_{sca}$ curves (upper) and their corresponding $q$ values (lower) for different rods with $D=30$ nm and $L$ within the $[340,550]$ nm range.The normalized electric near-field distribution in the $xz$ plane at most significant values of photon energy is presented in the three panels at the left hand side. Line profiles at $x=0$ are shown in the bottom panel.}\label{spherocyl}
\end{figure}
\subsection{The simplest case: a rectangular nanowire}
For a better understanding of the elusive spatial overlap between modes, we now consider light scattering by an infinitely long rectangular nanowire with large aspect ratio, which seems to be the simplest geometry that clearly shows such behavior. In \fref{nanowire} we plot the scattering efficiency (blue curve) and the near-field amplitude (black curve) at normal incidence calculated using SIEM for a silver rectangular nanowire with $L=600$ nm and $D=10$ nm surrounded by $\varepsilon_d=1$. Near-field amplitude is now evaluated 3 nm outside the end of the nanowire and normalized to the incident field at this point. However, the two curves are then re-normalized to unity to more clearly show their spectral shift. Such a change in the position of maxima, which has recently been explained in terms of driven and damped harmonic oscillators \cite{Zuloaga2011}, will be relevant for our discussion.
\begin{figure}
\flushright
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figure6.pdf}
\caption{Calculated scattering efficiency (blue) and near-field amplitude (black) as a function of wavelength for a single Ag nanowire ($L=600$ nm, $D= 10$ nm) surrounded by $\varepsilon_d=1$. Incident field is $p$-polarized and impinges perpendicular to the $xy$ plane. The spectra have been normalized to unity. Inset panels show the calculated $\mathrm{Re}[E_z^{near}/E_z^{inc}]$ along the nanowire (solid) as well as its fitting to \ref{foursin} for $x \in [-L/2,+L/2]$ (dash-dotted), evaluated at the three most significant wavelengths in spectrum. Vertical dashed lines mark the limits of the nanowire.}\label{nanowire}
\end{figure}
In this simple geometry, the very broad dipole-like resonance in $Q_{sca}$ at $\lambda \approx 1500$ nm is more similar to the ``canonical'' Fano continuum than those in the previous configurations and therefore provides a strong spectral overlap with the narrower $3\lambda/2$-mode. With respect to spatial overlap between different longitudinal plasmon resonances, we find that it can be monitored by means of the real part of the normal component of electric field (i.e. $E_z^{near}$ in \fref{nanowire}), which is directly proportional to surface charge distribution. Given that, in the electrostatic limit, surface charge distribution can be approximated by a sum of sinusoidal functions with argument an integer multiple of $\pi x/L$, we finally arrive to the following expression
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{Re} [E_z^{near}/E_z^{inc}](x) \approx \sum_{n=2k+1}^N A_{n} \sin \bra{[}{3} \frac{n \pi x}{ L}\bra{]}{3}\label{foursin}
\end{equation}
for which the set of coefficients $\{A_{n}\}$ can be straightforwardly determined from Fourier analysis.
According to this approximation, we expect surface charge distributions at the maxima of near-field amplitude (and not of scattering efficiency!) to have a net dipolar moment and therefore to exhibit a pattern with an odd number of nodes and charges of opposite sign at its ends. Surface charge distribution will gradually modify as wavelength varies and adjacent resonances come into play. In fact, somewhere within the intermediate region, destructive interference between modes reduces near-field amplitude to a minimum, as can be seen in \fref{nanowire}. In order to quantify such features we find it useful to define the following auxiliary magnitudes: as a measure of the contribution of $n$-resonance at a given wavelength, we introduce its relative weight as
\begin{equation}
f_{n} \equiv \frac{\displaystyle A_{n}^2}{\displaystyle \sum_{m}A_{m}^2}\label{fval}
\end{equation}
which will vary from $f_{n} \approx 1$ in the vicinity of $n$-maximum to $f_{n} \approx 0$ as the charge reaches its subsequent resonance. Additionally, we take the right hand member of \eref{foursin} as the measure of surface charge at $x=+L/2$:
\begin{equation}
\Delta_{\sigma} \equiv\sum_{n=2k+1}^N (-1)^{(n-1)/2} A_n \approx \mathrm{Re} [E_z^{near}/E_z^{inc}]_{x= +L/2}\label{Delta}
\end{equation}
Inset panels in \fref{nanowire} show the calculated $\mathrm{Re}[E_z^{near}/E_z^{inc}]$ along the nanowire (solid) as well as its Fourier series up to $N=11$ for $x \in [-L/2,+L/2]$ (dash-dotted), evaluated at the three most significant wavelengths in spectrum: At $\lambda=1993 $ nm, surface charge exhibits a typical dipole-like distribution that is in good agreement with the obtained $f_1= 0.8304,f_3=0.08887$, whereas $f_{\Sigma}\equiv \sum_{n>3}f_{n}=0.08075$ accounts for the rest of contributions. A similar behavior can be found at $\lambda=700 $ nm, but longitudinal mode with $n=3$ now plays the main role and the values of $f_1,f_3$ are almost interchanged, namely $0.0785,0.8279$. For the relative minimum of near-field amplitude at $\lambda=939$ nm, the situation is completely different. Although obtained values of $f_1, f_3,f_{\Sigma}$ are not too different of those at $\lambda=1993$ nm (see \tref{tbl:fval}), the field profile resembles that of $\lambda=700$ nm. However, surface charge reduces drastically at the ends of the nanowire, which is consistent with the expected minimum in dipolar moment. In fact, the obtained $\Delta_{\sigma}=0.01947$ is two orders of magnitude less than those for $\lambda=1993, 700$ nm (see last row in \ref{tbl:fval}) and nearly approaches to the condition of complete destructive interference at $x= \pm L/2$ in \eref{foursin}, which is given by $\Delta_{\sigma}=0$. We find this direct evidence of spatial overlap between interfering plasmon modes to confirm the consistency of our Fano-like model when applied to a generic nanorod geometry.
\begin{table}
\caption{\label{tbl:fval}Obtained values of $f_1,f_3,f_{\Sigma},\Delta_{\sigma}$ for inset panels in \fref{nanowire}.}
\begin{indented}
\item[]\begin{tabular}{@{}llll}
\br
& $\lambda=1993$ nm & $\lambda=939$ nm & $\lambda=700$ nm \\
\mr
$f_1$ & 0.8304 & 0.7289 & 0.0785\\
$f_3$ & 0.08887 & 0.2196 & 0.8279\\
$f_{\Sigma}$ & 0.08075 & 0.05148 & 0.09362 \\
$ \Delta_{\sigma}$ & 3.8737 & 0.01947 & 1.95\\
\br
\end{tabular}
\end{indented}
\end{table}
\section{Conclusions}
In conclusion, the emergence of asymmetric line profiles in the total scattering spectra of single metallic nanorods acting as half-wave nanoantennas is explained in terms of Fano-like interference between adjacent, odd-order plasmon resonances. Such a feature can be understood as originated from the interplay between the different contributions that properly describe the non-axisymmetric part of the scattered field. Our analytical and numerical results show that Fano resonances can be excited on diverse geometries (elongated nanospheroids, nanorods and nanowires), provided that interacting modes overlap not only in energy but also spatially (non-orthogonality). This finding makes single-particle nanoantennas especially suitable for a wealth of applications where the sharp, environment-sensitive Fano-like spectral profile can be crucial \cite{Yanik2011}. Moreover, the underlying mechanism of the resulting Fano resonances has far reaching implications in exploring other single nanoparticle configurations designed for specific applications.
\ack The research presented in this paper is supported by the Spanish ``Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovaci\'on'' (projects Consolider-Ingenio EMET CSD2008-00066 and NANOPLAS FIS2009-11264) and the ``Comunidad de Madrid'' (MICROSERES network S2009/TIC-1476). R. Paniagua-Dom\'{\i}nguez acknowledges support from CSIC through a JAE-Pre grant. The authors also acknowledge Prof. N. V. Voshchinnikov for kindly providing an updated version of SVM code and some practical indications about its usage.
|
\section{Introduction}
Since most stochastic differential equations (SDEs) can not be
solved explicitly, numerical methods have become essential.
Recently, there is extensive literature in investigating the strong
convergence, weak convergence or sample path convergence of
numerical schemes for SDEs, e.g., in \cite{g98} for SDEs with a
monotone condition, in \cite{hk05,jwy09,PB10} for SDEs with jumps,
in \cite{hu96, jwy09,KP00,ms03} for stochastic differential delay
equations (SDDEs)
and in \cite{hk05,hms02} for SDEs with a one-side Lipschitz
condition. For the comprehensive monographs on numerical approximate
methods of SDEs, we can also refer to \cite{KP99,PB10,S97}. Although
the results on convergence of Euler-Maruyama (EM) schemes are
substantial, there are limited ones on convergence rate under
weaker conditions than global Lipschitz condition and linear growth
condition. For example, a recent work in \cite{gr11}
reveals the convergence rate of EM schemes for a class
of SDEs under a H\"older condition, and, with local Lipschitz
constants satisfying a logarithm growth condition, \cite{ym08} and
\cite{bbmy11,jwy09} discuss the convergence rate of EM approximate
methods for SDEs and stochastic functional differential equations
with jumps, respectively. We should also point out that the strong
convergence of EM schemes for SDDEs is, in general, discussed under
a linear growth condition or bounded moments of analytic and
numerical solutions, e.g., \cite{jwy09,KP00,ms03}, and that the
convergence rate \cite{bbmy11,jwy09} is also revealed under a linear
growth condition.
To further motivate our work, we first consider an SDDE on
$\mathbb{R}$
\begin{equation}\label{eq35}
\text{\rm{d}}} \def\bb{\beta} \def\aa{\alpha} \def\D{\scr D X(t)=\{aX(t)+bX^3(t-\tau)\}\text{\rm{d}}} \def\bb{\beta} \def\aa{\alpha} \def\D{\scr D t+cX^2(t-\tau)\text{\rm{d}}} \def\bb{\beta} \def\aa{\alpha} \def\D{\scr D W(t),
\end{equation}
where $a,b,c\in\mathbb{R}, \tau>0$, are constant, and $W(t)$ is a
scalar Brownian motion. It is easy to observe that both the drfit
coefficient and the diffusion coefficient are {\it highly nonlinear}
especially with respect to the delay arguments. Therefore, the
existing convergence results, e.g., \cite{jwy09,KP00,ms03}, can not
cover Eq. \eqref{eq35}, and the convergence rate of the
corresponding EM scheme can not also be revealed by the techniques
of \cite{bbmy11,jwy09} as we have explained in the end of the last
paragraph. On the other hand, our work is also enlightened by the
recent work in \cite{gr11} such that consider SDE on $\mathbb{R}$
\begin{equation*}
\text{\rm{d}}} \def\bb{\beta} \def\aa{\alpha} \def\D{\scr D X(t)=\{f(t,X(t))+g(t,X(t))\}\text{\rm{d}}} \def\bb{\beta} \def\aa{\alpha} \def\D{\scr D t+\sigma(t,X(t))\text{\rm{d}}} \def\bb{\beta} \def\aa{\alpha} \def\D{\scr D W(t),
\end{equation*}
and discuss the convergence rate of the associated EM method, where
$g$ is H\"older continuous, of {\it linear growth, and monotone
decreasing with respect to the second variable}.
Motivated by the previous literature, in this paper we not only
study the strong convergence of EM schemes for a class of SDDEs,
which may be {\it highly nonlinear} with respect to the delay
variables, but also reveal the {\it convergence rate} of the
corresponding EM numerical methods. The rest of the
paper are organized as follows: under highly nonlinear growth
conditions with respect to the delay arguments, in Section 2 we
reveal the convergence rate of EM schemes for SDDEs driven by
Brownian motion is $\frac{1}{2}$, while in Section 3 we show that it
is best to use the mean-square convergence for the pure jump case,
and that the rate of mean-square convergence is close to
$\frac{1}{2}$.
\section{Convergence Rate for Brownian Motion Case}
For integer $n>0$, let
$(\mathbb{R}^n,\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle,|\cdot|)$ be the Euclidean
space and $\|A\|:=\sqrt{\mbox{trace}(A^*A)}$ the Hilbert-Schmidt
norm for a matrix $A$, where $A^*$ is its transpose. Let $W(t)$ be
an $m$-dimensional Brownian motion defined on some complete
probability space $(\Omega,\mathcal {F},\mathbb{P},\{\mathcal
{F}_t\}_{t\geq0})$. Throughout the paper, $C>0$ denotes a generic
constant whose values may change from lines to lines.
For fixed $T>0$, in this section we consider SDDE on $\mathbb{R}^n$
\begin{equation}\label{eq1}
\begin{split}
\text{\rm{d}}} \def\bb{\beta} \def\aa{\alpha} \def\D{\scr D X(t)&=b(X(t),X(t-\tau))\text{\rm{d}}} \def\bb{\beta} \def\aa{\alpha} \def\D{\scr D t+\sigma (X(t),X(t-\tau))\text{\rm{d}}} \def\bb{\beta} \def\aa{\alpha} \def\D{\scr D W(t), \ \
t\in[0,T]
\end{split}
\end{equation}
with initial data $X(\theta)=\xi(\theta),\theta\in[-\tau,0]$.
To guarantee the existence and uniqueness of solution we introduce
the following conditions. Let
$V_i:\mathbb{R}^n\times\mathbb{R}^n\rightarrow\mathbb{R}_+$ such
that
\begin{equation}\label{eq19}
V_i(x,y)\leq K_i(1+|x|^{q_i}+|y|^{q_i}),\ \ \ i=1,2
\end{equation}
for some $K_i>0, q_i\geq1$ and arbitrary $x,y\in\mathbb{R}^n$. We
further assume that
\begin{enumerate}
\item[\textmd{(A1)}] $b:\mathbb{R}^n\times\mathbb{R}^n\rightarrow
\mathbb{R}^n$ and there exists $L_1>0$ such that
\begin{equation*}
|b(x_1,y_1)-b(x_2,y_2)|\leq L_1|x_1-x_2|+V_1(y_1,y_2)|y_1-y_2|
\end{equation*}
for $x_i,y_i\in \mathbb{R}^n,i=1,2$;
\item[\textmd{(A2)}] $\sigma:\mathbb{R}^n\times\mathbb{R}^n\rightarrow
\mathbb{R}^{n\times m}$ and there exists $L_2>0$ such that
\begin{equation*}
\|\sigma(x_1,y_1)-\sigma(x_2,y_2)\|\leq
L_2|x_1-x_2|+V_2(y_1,y_2)|y_1-y_2|
\end{equation*}
for $x_i,y_i\in \mathbb{R}^n,i=1,2$,
\end{enumerate}
We now introduce an EM method for Eq. \eqref{eq1}. Without loss of
generality, we may assume that there exist sufficiently large
integers $N,M>0$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{eq27}
\triangle:=\frac{\tau}{N}=\frac{T}{M}\in(0,1).
\end{equation}
Define a continuous EM scheme associated with Eq. \eqref{eq1}
\begin{equation}\label{eq20}
\begin{split}
\text{\rm{d}}} \def\bb{\beta} \def\aa{\alpha} \def\D{\scr D Y(t)&=b(\bar{Y}(t),\bar{Y}(t-\tau))\text{\rm{d}}} \def\bb{\beta} \def\aa{\alpha} \def\D{\scr D t+\sigma
(\bar{Y}(t),\bar{Y}(t-\tau))\text{\rm{d}}} \def\bb{\beta} \def\aa{\alpha} \def\D{\scr D W(t),
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $\bar{Y}(t):=Y(k\triangle)$ for $
t\in[k\triangle,(k+1)\triangle), k=0,1,\cdots,M-1$, and
$\bar{Y}(\theta)=\xi(\theta),\theta\in[-\tau,0]$.
\begin{rem}
Clearly, if $b$ and $\sigma$ are globally Lipschitzian, then $b$ and $\sigma$ are satisfied with $(A1)$ and $(A2)$. On the other hand, we
remark that $b$ and $\sigma$ may be {\it highly nonlinear} with
respect to the delay variables. There are many such examples which
are covered by $(A1)-(A2)$. For example, for Eq. \eqref{eq35} it is
trivial to see that $b(x,y)=ax+by^3$, $\sigma(x,y)=cy^2$, and
$(A1)-(A2)$ hold by choosing $V_1(x,y)=\frac{3|b|}{2}(x^2+y^2)$ and
$ V_2(x,y)=|c|(|x|+|y|)$. In fact, the examples, where the drift
coefficient and the diffusion coefficient are polynomial of degree
$d\geq1$ with regard to the delay variables, are included in
our framework.
\end{rem}
\begin{lem}\label{lemma1.1}
{\rm Assume that $(A1)$ and $(A2)$ hold. Then, for any initial data
$\xi\in C^b_{\mathcal {F}_0}([-\tau,0];\mathbb{R}^n)$, Eq.
\eqref{eq1} admits a unique global strong solution $X(t),
t\in[0,T]$. Moreover, for any $p\geq2$ there exists $C>0$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{eq3}
\mathbb{E}\Big(\sup_{0\leq t\leq
T}|X(t)|^p\Big)\vee\mathbb{E}\Big(\sup_{0\leq t\leq
T}|Y(t)|^p\Big)\leq C,
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{eq9}
\mathbb{E}|Y(t)-\bar{Y}(t)|^p\leq C\triangle^{\frac{p}{2}}.
\end{equation}
}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Note that Eq. \eqref{eq1} has a unique local solution due to the
fact that both $b$ and $\sigma$ are locally Lipschitzian. To verify
that Eq. \eqref{eq1} admits a unique global solution on time
interval $[0,T]$, it is sufficient to show that
\begin{equation}\label{eq14}
\mathbb{E}\Big(\sup_{0\leq t\leq T}|X(t)|^p\Big)\leq C,\ \ \ p\geq2.
\end{equation}
By a straightforward computation, we can deduce from $(A1),(A2)$
and \eqref{eq19} that
\begin{equation}\label{eq16}
|b(x,y)|\leq C(1+|x|+|y|+|y|^{q_1+1}), \ \ \ x,y\in\mathbb{R}^n,
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{eq17}
\|\sigma(x,y)\|\leq C(1+|x|+|y|+|y|^{q_2+1}), \ \ \
x,y\in\mathbb{R}^n.
\end{equation}
Set $\gamma_1:=q_1+1$ and $\gamma_2:=q_2+1$. To show \eqref{eq14},
by \eqref{eq16} and \eqref{eq17}, the H\"older inequality and the
Burkhold-Davis-Gundy inequality, we have that for any $p\geq2$ and
$t\in[0,T]$
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\mathbb{E}\Big(\sup_{0\leq s\leq t}|X(s)|^p\Big)&\leq
3^{p-1}\Big\{|\xi(0)|^p+\mathbb{E}\Big(\sup_{0\leq s\leq t}\Big|\int_0^sb(X(r),X(r-\tau))\text{\rm{d}}} \def\bb{\beta} \def\aa{\alpha} \def\D{\scr D r\Big|^p\Big)\\
&\quad+\mathbb{E}\Big(\sup_{0\leq s\leq t}\Big|\int_0^s\sigma(X(r),X(r-\tau))\text{\rm{d}}} \def\bb{\beta} \def\aa{\alpha} \def\D{\scr D W(r)\Big|^p\Big)\Big\}\\
&\leq
C\Big\{1+\mathbb{E}\int_0^t(|b(X(s),X(s-\tau))|^p+\|\sigma(X(s),X(s-\tau))\|^p)\text{\rm{d}}} \def\bb{\beta} \def\aa{\alpha} \def\D{\scr D
s\Big\}\\
&\leq C\Big\{1+\mathbb{E}\int_0^t|X(s)|^p\text{\rm{d}}} \def\bb{\beta} \def\aa{\alpha} \def\D{\scr D
s+\mathbb{E}\int_0^t(|X(s-\tau)|^{p\gamma_1}+|X(s-\tau)|^{p\gamma_2})\text{\rm{d}}} \def\bb{\beta} \def\aa{\alpha} \def\D{\scr D
s\Big\},
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
where we have also used the Young inequality in the last step.
This, together with the
Gronwall inequality, yields that for $t\in[0,T]$ and $p\geq2$
\begin{equation}\label{eq13}
\mathbb{E}\Big(\sup_{0\leq s\leq t}|X(s)|^p\Big)\leq
C\Big\{1+\mathbb{E}\int_0^t(|X(s-\tau)|^{p\gamma_1}+|X(s-\tau)|^{p\gamma_2})\text{\rm{d}}} \def\bb{\beta} \def\aa{\alpha} \def\D{\scr D
s\Big\}.
\end{equation}
The following argument is similar to that of \cite[Theorem
2.1]{wmc09}, however we give a detailed proof, which will also be used in the proof of Theorem \ref{Th2} below. Let
$\beta:=\gamma_1\vee\gamma_2$, and
\begin{equation*}
p_i:=([T/\tau]+2-i)p\beta^{[T/\tau]+1-i}, \ \ \
i=1,2,\cdots,[T/\tau]+1,
\end{equation*}
where $[a]$ denotes the integer part of real number $a$. Thus, due
to $\beta\geq1$ and $p\geq2$, it is easy to see that $p_i\geq2$ such
that
\begin{equation*}
p_{i+1}\beta<p_i \mbox{ and } p_{[T/\tau]+1}=p, \ \ \
i=1,2,\cdots,[T/\tau].
\end{equation*}
By \eqref{eq13}, together with $\xi\in C^b_{\mathcal
{F}_0}([-\tau,0];\mathbb{R}^n)$, we obtain that
\begin{equation*}
\mathbb{E}\Big(\sup_{0\leq s\leq \tau}|X(s)|^{p_1}\Big)\leq C,
\end{equation*}
which, combining \eqref{eq13} with the H\"older inequality, further
leads to
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\mathbb{E}\Big(\sup_{0\leq s\leq 2\tau}|X(s)|^{p_2}\Big)&\leq
C\Big\{1+\mathbb{E}\int_0^{2\tau}(|X(s-\tau)|^{p_2\gamma_1}+|X(s-\tau)|^{p_2\gamma_2})\text{\rm{d}}} \def\bb{\beta} \def\aa{\alpha} \def\D{\scr D
s\Big\}\\
&\leq
C\Big\{1+\int_0^{\tau}\Big((\mathbb{E}|X(s)|^{p_1})^{\frac{p_2\gamma_1}{p_1}}+(\mathbb{E}|X(s)|^{p_1})^{\frac{p_2\gamma_2}{p_1}}\Big)\text{\rm{d}}} \def\bb{\beta} \def\aa{\alpha} \def\D{\scr D
s\Big\}\\
&\leq C.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
Repeating the previous procedures gives \eqref{eq14} and
$\mathbb{E}\Big(\sup_{0\leq t\leq T}|Y(t)|^p\Big)\leq C$. Finally,
the statement \eqref{eq9} can also be obtained by taking into
account the H\"older inequality, the Burkhold-Davis-Gundy inequality
and \eqref{eq3}.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}
{\rm Lemma \ref{lemma1.1} gives a new result on existence and
uniqueness of solutions to SDDEs on finite-time interval, where the
coefficients may be polynomial of any degree $d\geq1$ with regard to
the delay variables. }
\end{rem}
We can now state our main result, which not only shows the strong
convergence of EM scheme associated with Eq. \eqref{eq1} but also
reveals its convergence rate, although the drift coefficient and
the diffusion coefficient may be highly nonlinear with respect to
the delay arguments.
\begin{thm}\label{Th2}
{\rm Under $(A1)$ and $(A2)$, for any $p\geq2$ there exits $C>0$
such that
\begin{equation*}
\mathbb{E}\Big(\sup\limits_{0\leq s\leq T}|X(s)-Y(s)|^p\Big)\leq
C\triangle^{\frac{p}{2}},
\end{equation*}
that is, the rate of convergence of EM scheme \eqref{eq20} is
$\frac{1}{2}$. }
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
The argument is motivated by that of \cite[Theorem 2.1]{gr11}. For
fixed $\delta>1$ and arbitrary $\epsilon\in(0,1)$, there exists a
continuous nonnegative function $\psi_{\delta\epsilon}(x),x\geq0$,
with support $[\epsilon/\delta,\epsilon]$, such that
\begin{equation*}
\int_{\epsilon/\delta}^{\epsilon}\psi_{\delta\epsilon}(x)\text{\rm{d}}} \def\bb{\beta} \def\aa{\alpha} \def\D{\scr D x=1
\mbox{ and }\psi_{\delta\epsilon}(x)\leq\frac{2}{x\ln \delta},\ \
x>0.
\end{equation*}
Define
\begin{equation*}
\phi_{\delta\epsilon}(x):=\int_0^{x}\int_0^y\psi_{\delta\epsilon}(z)\text{\rm{d}}} \def\bb{\beta} \def\aa{\alpha} \def\D{\scr D
z\text{\rm{d}}} \def\bb{\beta} \def\aa{\alpha} \def\D{\scr D y,\ \ \ \ x>0.
\end{equation*}
Then $\phi_{\delta\epsilon}\in C^2(\mathbb{R}_+;\mathbb{R}_+)$
possesses the following properties:
\begin{equation}\label{eq4}
x-\epsilon\leq\phi_{\delta\epsilon}(x)\leq x, \ \ \ \ \ \ x>0,
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{eq5}
0\leq\phi'_{\delta\epsilon}(x)\leq1, \ \ \
\phi''_{\delta\epsilon}(x)\leq\frac{2}{x\ln\delta}{\bf1}_{[\epsilon/\delta,\epsilon]}(x),
\ \ \ x>0.
\end{equation}
Define
\begin{equation}\label{eq21}
V_{\delta\epsilon}(x):=\phi_{\delta\epsilon}(|x|), \ \ \
x\in\mathbb{R}^n.
\end{equation}
By the definition of $\phi_{\delta\epsilon}$, it is trivial to note
that $V_{\delta\epsilon}\in C^2(\mathbb{R}^n;\mathbb{R}_+)$. For any
$x\in\mathbb{R}^n$ set
\begin{equation*}
(V_{\delta\epsilon})_x(x):=\Big(\frac{\partial
V_{\delta\epsilon}(x)}{\partial x_1},\cdots,\frac{\partial
V_{\delta\epsilon}(x)}{\partial x_n}\Big) \mbox{ and }
(V_{\delta\epsilon})_{xx}(x):=\Big(\frac{\partial^2
V_{\delta\epsilon}(x)}{\partial x_i\partial x_j}\Big)_{n\times n}.
\end{equation*}
We then have
\begin{equation*}
\frac{\partial V_{\delta\epsilon}(x)}{\partial
x_i}=\phi'_{\delta\epsilon}(|x|)\frac{x_i}{|x|} \mbox{ and
}\frac{\partial^2 V_{\delta\epsilon}(x)}{\partial x_i\partial
x_j}=\phi'_{\delta\epsilon}(|x|)(\delta_{ij}|x|^2-x_ix_j)|x|^{-3}+\phi''_{\delta\epsilon}(|x|)x_ix_j|x|^{-2},
\end{equation*}
for $x\in\mathbb{R}^n$, $i=1,2,\cdots,n$, where $\delta_{ij}=1$
if $i=j$ or otherwise $0$, and
\begin{equation}\label{eq6}
0\leq|(V_{\delta\epsilon})_x(x)|\leq1 \mbox{ and }
\|(V_{\delta\epsilon})_{xx}(x)\|\leq
2n\Big(1+\frac{1}{\ln\delta}\Big)\frac{1}{|x|}{\bf1}_{[\epsilon/\delta,\epsilon]}(|x|),\
x\in\mathbb{R}^n.
\end{equation}
For any $t\in[0,T]$, let
\begin{equation*}
Z(t):=X(t)-Y(t),\ \ \ \bar{Z}(t):=Y(t)-\bar{Y}(t)\ \mbox{ and }\
\tilde{Z}(t):=(X(t),\bar{Y}(t))\in\mathbb{R}^{2n}.
\end{equation*}
Application of the It\^o formula yields that
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
V_{\delta\epsilon}(Z(t))
&=\int_0^t\langle(V_{\delta\epsilon})_x(Z(s)),b(X(s),X(s-\tau))-b(\bar{Y}(s),\bar{Y}(s-\tau))\rangle\text{\rm{d}}} \def\bb{\beta} \def\aa{\alpha} \def\D{\scr D s\\
&\quad+\frac{1}{2}\int_0^t\mbox{trace}\{(\sigma(X(s),X(s-\tau))-\sigma(\bar{Y}(s),\bar{Y}(s-\tau)))^*(V_{\delta\epsilon})_{xx}(Z(s))\\
&\quad\times(\sigma(X(s),X(s-\tau))-\sigma(\bar{Y}(s),\bar{Y}(s-\tau)))\}\text{\rm{d}}} \def\bb{\beta} \def\aa{\alpha} \def\D{\scr D
s\\
&\quad+\int_0^t\langle(V_{\delta\epsilon})_x(Z(s)),(\sigma(X(s),X(s-\tau))-\sigma(\bar{Y}(s),\bar{Y}(s-\tau)))\text{\rm{d}}} \def\bb{\beta} \def\aa{\alpha} \def\D{\scr D
W(s)\rangle\\
&:=I_1(t)+I_2(t)+I_3(t).
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
By \eqref{eq6}, $(A1)$ and the H\"older inequality, we derive
that
\begin{equation}\label{eq7}
\begin{split}
\mathbb{E}\Big(\sup\limits_{0\leq s\leq
t}|I_1(s)|^p\Big)&\leq\int_0^t\mathbb{E}|b(X(s),X(s-\tau))-b(\bar{Y}(s),\bar{Y}(s-\tau))|^p\text{\rm{d}}} \def\bb{\beta} \def\aa{\alpha} \def\D{\scr D
s\\
&\leq
C\int_0^t\Big\{\mathbb{E}|Z(s)|^p+\Big(\mathbb{E}V_1^{2p}(\tilde{Z}(s-\tau))\Big)^{\frac{1}{2}}\Big(\mathbb{E}|Z(s-\tau)|^{2p}\Big)^{\frac{1}{2}}\\
&\quad+\mathbb{E}|\bar{Z}(s)|^p+\Big(\mathbb{E}V_1^{2p}(\tilde{Z}(s))\Big)^{\frac{1}{2}}\Big(\mathbb{E}|\bar{Z}(s)|^{2p}\Big)^{\frac{1}{2}}\Big\}\text{\rm{d}}} \def\bb{\beta} \def\aa{\alpha} \def\D{\scr D
s,\ \ \ t\in[0,T],
\end{split}
\end{equation}
and due to $(A2)$ and \eqref{eq6} again that
\begin{equation}\label{eq8}
\begin{split}
\mathbb{E}\Big(\sup\limits_{0\leq s\leq t}|I_2(s)|^p\Big)&\leq
C\int_0^t\mathbb{E}\{\|(V_{\delta\epsilon})_{xx}(Z(s))\|\|\sigma(X(s),X(s-\tau))-\sigma(\bar{Y}(s),\bar{Y}(s-\tau))\|^2\}^p\text{\rm{d}}} \def\bb{\beta} \def\aa{\alpha} \def\D{\scr D
s\\
&\leq
C\mathbb{E}\int_0^t\frac{1}{|Z(s)|^p}\{|Z(s)|^{2p}+V_2^{2p}(\tilde{Z}(s-\tau))|Z(s-\tau)|^{2p}\\
&\quad+|\bar{Z}(s)|^{2p}+V_2^{2p}(\tilde{Z}(s-\tau))|\bar{Z}(s-\tau)|^{2p}\}{\bf1}_{[\epsilon/\delta,\epsilon]}(|Z(s)|)\text{\rm{d}}} \def\bb{\beta} \def\aa{\alpha} \def\D{\scr D
s\\
&\leq
C\int_0^t\Big\{\mathbb{E}|Z(s)|^p+\frac{1}{\epsilon^p}\Big(\mathbb{E}V_2^{4p}(\tilde{Z}(s-\tau))\Big)^{\frac{1}{2}}\Big(\mathbb{E}|Z(s-\tau)|^{4p}\Big)^{\frac{1}{2}}\\
&\quad+\frac{1}{\epsilon^p}\mathbb{E}|\bar{Z}(s)|^{2p}
+\frac{1}{\epsilon^p}\Big(\mathbb{E}V_2^{4p}(\tilde{Z}(s))\Big)^{\frac{1}{2}}\Big(\mathbb{E}|\bar{Z}(s)|^{4p}\Big)^{\frac{1}{2}}\Big\}\text{\rm{d}}} \def\bb{\beta} \def\aa{\alpha} \def\D{\scr D
s, \ \ \ t\in[0,T].
\end{split}
\end{equation}
By virtue of the Burkhold-Davis-Gundy inequality, the H\"older
inequality and \eqref{eq6}, for any $p\geq2$ and $t\in[0,T]$
\begin{equation}\label{eq10}
\begin{split}
\mathbb{E}\Big(\sup\limits_{0\leq s\leq t}|I_3(s)|^p\Big)&\leq
C\mathbb{E}\Big(\int_0^t\|\sigma(X(s),X(s-\tau))-\sigma(\bar{Y}(s),\bar{Y}(s-\tau))\|^2\text{\rm{d}}} \def\bb{\beta} \def\aa{\alpha} \def\D{\scr D
s\Big)^{\frac{p}{2}}\\
&\leq
C\mathbb{E}\int_0^t\|\sigma(X(s),X(s-\tau))-\sigma(\bar{Y}(s),\bar{Y}(s-\tau))\|^{p}\text{\rm{d}}} \def\bb{\beta} \def\aa{\alpha} \def\D{\scr D
s\\
&\leq C\int_0^t\Big\{\mathbb{E}|Z(s)|^{p}\text{\rm{d}}} \def\bb{\beta} \def\aa{\alpha} \def\D{\scr D s+\Big(\mathbb{E}V_2^{2p}(\tilde{Z}(s-\tau))\Big)^{\frac{1}{2}}\Big(\mathbb{E}|Z(s-\tau)|^{2p}\Big)^{\frac{1}{2}}\\
&\quad+\mathbb{E}|\bar{Z}(s)|^{p}+\Big(\mathbb{E}V_2^{2p}(\tilde{Z}(s))\Big)^{\frac{1}{2}}\Big(\mathbb{E}|\bar{Z}(s)|^{2p}\Big)^{\frac{1}{2}}\Big\}\text{\rm{d}}} \def\bb{\beta} \def\aa{\alpha} \def\D{\scr D
s.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Furthermore, observe from \eqref{eq19} and \eqref{eq3} that
\begin{equation*}
\mathbb{E}V_1^{2p}(\tilde{Z}(s-\tau))+\mathbb{E}V_2^{4p}(\tilde{Z}(s-\tau))\leq
C
\end{equation*}
and by \eqref{eq9} that $\mathbb{E}|\bar{Z}(t)|^p\leq
C\triangle^{\frac{p}{2}}. $ Then, combining \eqref{eq7}, \eqref{eq8}
with \eqref{eq10}, we thus obtain from \eqref{eq4} that, for any
$t\in[0,T]$ and any $p\geq2$,
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\mathbb{E}\Big(\sup\limits_{0\leq s\leq t}|Z(s)|^p\Big)&\leq
2^{p-1}\Big\{\epsilon^p+\mathbb{E}\Big(\sup\limits_{0\leq s\leq
t}V^p_{\delta\epsilon}(Z(s))\Big)\Big\}\\
&\leq
C\Big\{\epsilon^p+\triangle^{\frac{p}{2}}+\frac{1}{\epsilon^p}\triangle^p+\frac{1}{\epsilon^p}\triangle^{p}\\
&\quad+\int_0^t\mathbb{E}|Z(s)|^p\text{\rm{d}}} \def\bb{\beta} \def\aa{\alpha} \def\D{\scr D
s+\int_0^t\Big(\mathbb{E}|Z(s-\tau)|^{2p}\Big)^{\frac{1}{2}}\text{\rm{d}}} \def\bb{\beta} \def\aa{\alpha} \def\D{\scr D
s+\frac{1}{\epsilon^p}\int_0^t\Big(\mathbb{E}|Z(s-\tau)|^{4p}\Big)^{\frac{1}{2}}\text{\rm{d}}} \def\bb{\beta} \def\aa{\alpha} \def\D{\scr D
s\Big\}.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
This, together with the Gronwall inequality, implies
\begin{equation}\label{eq11}
\begin{split}
\mathbb{E}\Big(\sup\limits_{0\leq s\leq t}|Z(s)|^p\Big)&\leq
C\Big\{\epsilon^p+\triangle^{\frac{p}{2}}+\frac{1}{\epsilon^p}\triangle^p+\int_0^t\Big(\mathbb{E}|Z(s-\tau)|^{2p}\Big)^{\frac{1}{2}}\text{\rm{d}}} \def\bb{\beta} \def\aa{\alpha} \def\D{\scr D s\\
&\quad+\frac{1}{\epsilon^p}\int_0^t\Big(\mathbb{E}|Z(s-\tau)|^{4p}\Big)^{\frac{1}{2}}\text{\rm{d}}} \def\bb{\beta} \def\aa{\alpha} \def\D{\scr D
s\Big\}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
For any $p\geq2$, let
\begin{equation*}
p_i:=([T/\tau]+2-i)p4^{[T/\tau]+1-i}, \ \ \ i=1,2,\cdots,[T/\tau]+1.
\end{equation*}
It is easy to see that
\begin{equation}\label{eq12}
4p_{i+1}<p_i \ \mbox{ and } \ p_{[T/\tau]+1}=p, \ \ \
i=1,2,\cdots,[T/\tau].
\end{equation}
Noting that $Z(s-\tau)=0$ for $s\in[0,\tau]$ and taking
$\epsilon=\triangle^{\frac{1}{2}}$ in \eqref{eq11}, we obtain that
\begin{equation*}
\mathbb{E}\Big(\sup\limits_{0\leq s\leq \tau}|Z(s)|^{p_1}\Big)\leq
C\triangle^{\frac{p1}{2}}.
\end{equation*}
This, together with \eqref{eq12} and the H\"older inequality,
further gives that
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\mathbb{E}\Big(\sup\limits_{0\leq s\leq 2\tau}|Z(s)|^{p_2}\Big)&\leq
C\Big\{\triangle^{\frac{p_2}{2}}+\int_0^{2\tau}\Big(\mathbb{E}|Z(s-\tau)|^{p_1}\Big)^{\frac{p_2}{p_1}}\text{\rm{d}}} \def\bb{\beta} \def\aa{\alpha} \def\D{\scr D s\\
&\quad+\triangle^{-\frac{p_2}{2}}\int_0^{2\tau}\Big(\mathbb{E}|Z(s-\tau)|^{p_1}\Big)^{\frac{2p_2}{p_1}}\text{\rm{d}}} \def\bb{\beta} \def\aa{\alpha} \def\D{\scr D
s\Big\}\\
&\leq C\triangle^{\frac{p2}{2}}
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
by taking $\epsilon=\triangle^{\frac{1}{2}}$ in \eqref{eq11}. The
desired assertion then follows by repeating the previous procedures.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}
{\rm The strong convergence of EM scheme for SDDEs is generally
investigated under local Lipschitz condition and bounded moments of
analytic solutions and numerical solutions, or local Lipschitz
condition and linear growth condition, e.g., \cite{ms03}. In
this section, for a class of SDDEs, which may be {\it highly
nonlinear} with respect to the delay variables, we show the strong
convergence of EM scheme under rather general conditions. To the best of our knowledge, there are relatively few results in the existing literature.}
\end{rem}
\begin{rem}
{\rm There are only limited results on convergence order of EM
scheme for SDEs or SDDEs under weaker condition than global
Lipschitz and linear growth condition, For example, under a
H\"older continuous condition, \cite{gr11} reveals the convergence
order of EM scheme for a class of SDEs, and, with local Lipschitz
constants satisfying a logarithm growth condition, \cite{ym08} and
\cite{bbmy11,jwy09} discuss the convergence rate of EM approximate
methods for SDEs and stochastic functional differential equations
with jumps respectively, where
{\it linear growth condition} is imposed in \cite{bbmy11,jwy09}.
While, in this section, under very general conditions we reveal the convergence order of EM scheme for a class of
SDDEs although which are {\it highly nonlinear} with respect to
delay arguments. }
\end{rem}
\section{Convergence Rate for Pure Jump Case}
In the last section we discuss the strong convergence of EM scheme
for a class of SDDEs, and reveal the convergence rate is
$\frac{1}{2}$ although both the drift coefficient and the diffusion
coefficient may be highly nonlinear with respect to the delay
variables. In this section we turn to the counterpart for SDDEs with
jumps. We further need to introduce some notation. Let $\mathcal
{B}(\mathbb{R})$ be the Borel $\sigma$-algebra on $\mathbb{R}$, and
$\lambda(dx)$ a $\sigma$-finite measure defined on $\mathcal
{B}(\mathbb{R})$. Let $p=(p(t)),t\in D_p$, be a stationary $\mathcal
{F}_t$-Poisson point process on $\mathbb{R}$ with characteristic
measure $\lambda(\cdot)$. Denote by $N(dt,du)$ the Poisson counting
measure associated with $p$, i.e., $N(t,U)=\sum_{s\in D_p, s\leq
t}I_{U}(p(s))$ for $U\in\mathcal {B}(\mathbb{R})$. Let
$\tilde{N}(dt,du):=N(dt,du)-dt\lambda(du)$ be the compensated
Poisson measure associated with $N(dt,du)$. In what follows, we
further assume that $\int_U|u|^p\lambda(\text{\rm{d}}} \def\bb{\beta} \def\aa{\alpha} \def\D{\scr D u)<\infty$ for any
$p\geq2$.
In this section we consider SDDE with jumps on $\mathbb{R}^n$
\begin{equation}\label{eq24}
\text{\rm{d}}} \def\bb{\beta} \def\aa{\alpha} \def\D{\scr D X(t)=b(X(t),X(t-\tau))\text{\rm{d}}} \def\bb{\beta} \def\aa{\alpha} \def\D{\scr D t+\int_Uh(X(t),X(t-\tau),u)\tilde{N}(\text{\rm{d}}} \def\bb{\beta} \def\aa{\alpha} \def\D{\scr D
t,\text{\rm{d}}} \def\bb{\beta} \def\aa{\alpha} \def\D{\scr D u), \ \ \ t\in[0,T]
\end{equation}
with initial data $X(\theta)=\xi(\theta),\theta\in[-\tau,0]$, where
$\xi\in\mathscr{C}$. We assume that
\begin{enumerate}
\item[\textmd{(A3)}]
$b:\mathbb{R}^n\times\mathbb{R}^n\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^n$ satisfies the assumption
$(A1)$;
\item[\textmd{(A4)}] $h:\mathbb{R}^n\times\mathbb{R}^n\times
U\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^n$ and there exists $L_3>0$ such that
\begin{equation*}
|h(x_1,y_1,u)-h(x_2,y_2,u)|\leq
(L_3|x_1-x_2|+V_3(y_1,y_2)|y_1-y_2|)|u|
\end{equation*}
for $x_i,y_i\in\mathbb{R}^n,i=1,2$, and $u\in U$, where
$V_3:\mathbb{R}^n\times\mathbb{R}^n\rightarrow\mathbb{R}_+$ such
that
\begin{equation}\label{eq33}
V_3(x,y)\leq K_3(1+|x|^{q_3}+|y|^{q_3})
\end{equation}
for some $K_3>0, q_3\geq1$ and arbitrary $x,y\in\mathbb{R}^n$.
\end{enumerate}
\begin{rem}
{\rm The jump coefficient may be also {\it highly nonlinear} with
respect to the delay arguments, e.g., for $x,y\in\mathbb{R},u\in U$
and $q>1$, $h(x,y,u)=y^qu$ satisfies $(A4)$. }
\end{rem}
Fix $T>0$ and let the stepsize $\triangle$ be defined by
\eqref{eq27}. The EM scheme associated with Eq. \eqref{eq24} is
defined as follows:
\begin{equation}\label{eq22}
\text{\rm{d}}} \def\bb{\beta} \def\aa{\alpha} \def\D{\scr D Y(t)=b(\tilde{Y}(t),\tilde{Y}(t-\tau))\text{\rm{d}}} \def\bb{\beta} \def\aa{\alpha} \def\D{\scr D
t+\int_Uh(\tilde{Y}(t),\tilde{Y}(t-\tau),u)\tilde{N}(\text{\rm{d}}} \def\bb{\beta} \def\aa{\alpha} \def\D{\scr D t,\text{\rm{d}}} \def\bb{\beta} \def\aa{\alpha} \def\D{\scr D u),
\end{equation}
where $\bar{Y}(t):=Y(k\triangle)$ for $
t\in[k\triangle,(k+1)\triangle), k=0,1,\cdots,M-1$, and
$\bar{Y}(\theta)=\xi(\theta),\theta\in[-\tau,0]$.
To reveal the convergence order of EM scheme \eqref{eq22}, we need two
auxiliary lemmas, where the first one is
Bichteler-Jacod inequality for Poisson integrals, e.g., \cite[Lemma
3.1]{mpr10}.
\begin{lem}\label{Kunita inequality}
{\rm Let $\Phi:\mathbb{R}_+\times U\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^n$ and
assume that
\begin{equation*}
\int_0^t\int_U\mathbb{E}|\Phi(s,u)|^p\lambda(\text{\rm{d}}} \def\bb{\beta} \def\aa{\alpha} \def\D{\scr D u)\text{\rm{d}}} \def\bb{\beta} \def\aa{\alpha} \def\D{\scr D s<\infty, \ \ \
t\geq0,\ \ p\geq2.
\end{equation*}
Then there exists $D(p)>0$ such that
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\mathbb{E}\Big(\sup\limits_{0\leq s\leq
t}\Big|\int_0^s\int_U\Phi(r,u)\tilde{N}(\text{\rm{d}}} \def\bb{\beta} \def\aa{\alpha} \def\D{\scr D u,\text{\rm{d}}} \def\bb{\beta} \def\aa{\alpha} \def\D{\scr D s)\Big|^p\Big)&\leq
D(p)\Big\{\mathbb{E}\Big(\int_0^t\int_U|\Phi(s,u)|^2\lambda(\text{\rm{d}}} \def\bb{\beta} \def\aa{\alpha} \def\D{\scr D u)\text{\rm{d}}} \def\bb{\beta} \def\aa{\alpha} \def\D{\scr D
s\Big)^{\frac{p}{2}}\\
&\quad+\mathbb{E}\int_0^t\int_U|\Phi(s,u)|^p\lambda(\text{\rm{d}}} \def\bb{\beta} \def\aa{\alpha} \def\D{\scr D u)\text{\rm{d}}} \def\bb{\beta} \def\aa{\alpha} \def\D{\scr D s\Big\}.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
}
\end{lem}
Using the Lemma above and the similar argument of Lemma \ref{lemma1.1}, we have
\begin{lem}
{\rm Let $(A3)$ and $(A4)$ hold. Then Eq.\eqref{eq24} has a unique
global solution $(X(t))_{t\in[0,T]}$. Moreover, for any $p\geq2$
there exists $C>0$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{eq25}
\mathbb{E}\Big(\sup_{0\leq t\leq
T}|X(t)|^p\Big)\vee\mathbb{E}\Big(\sup_{0\leq t\leq
T}|Y(t)|^p\Big)\leq C,
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{eq26}
\mathbb{E}|Y(t)-\bar{Y}(t)|^p\leq C\triangle.
\end{equation}}
\end{lem}
\begin{rem}
{\rm We remark that for $p\geq2$ all $p$th-moments of
$Y(t)-\bar{Y}(t)$ are bounded by $\triangle$ up to a constant, which
is completely different from the Brownian motion case \eqref{eq9}.
This is due to the fact that all moments of the increment
$\tilde{N}((0,(i+1)\triangle],\text{\rm{d}}} \def\bb{\beta} \def\aa{\alpha} \def\D{\scr D u)-\tilde{N}((0,i\triangle],\text{\rm{d}}} \def\bb{\beta} \def\aa{\alpha} \def\D{\scr D u)$
have order $O(\triangle)$ for $\triangle\in(0,1)$.}
\end{rem}
We now state our main result in this section.
\begin{thm}\label{Th3}
{\rm Let $(A3)$ and $(A4)$ hold. For any $p\geq2$ and arbitrary
$\theta,\alpha\in(0,1)$, there exists $C>0$, independent of
$\triangle$, such that
\begin{equation*}
\mathbb{E}\Big(\sup\limits_{0\leq s\leq T}|X(s)-Y(s)|^p\Big)\leq
C\triangle^{\frac{1}{(1+\theta)^{[T/\tau](1+\alpha)}}}.
\end{equation*}}
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
The proof of Theorem \ref{Th3} is similar to that of Theorem
\ref{Th2}, while we give a sketch of the proof to highlight the
differences between the Brwonian motion case. Set
\begin{equation*}
Z(t):=X(t)-Y(t),\ \ \ \bar{Z}(t):=Y(t)-\bar{Y}(t),\ \ \
\tilde{Z}(t):=(X(t),\bar{Y}(t))\in\mathbb{R}^{2n},\ \ \ t\in[0,T].
\end{equation*}
Define for $t\in[0,T]$
\begin{equation*}
\Gamma_1(t):=b(X(t),X(t-\tau))-b(\bar{Y}(t),\bar{Y}(t-\tau))
\end{equation*}
and
\begin{equation*}
\Gamma_2(t,u):=h(X(t),X(t-\tau),u)-h(\bar{Y}(t),\bar{Y}(t-\tau),u).
\end{equation*}
For $V_{\delta\epsilon}\in C^2(\mathbb{R}^n;\mathbb{R}_+)$, defined
by \eqref{eq21}, the It\^o formula and the Taylor expansion give
that for $t\in[0,T]$
\begin{equation}\label{eq28}
\begin{split}
&V_{\delta\epsilon}(Z(t))
=\int_0^t\langle(V_{\delta\epsilon})_x(Z(s)),\Gamma_1(s)\rangle\text{\rm{d}}} \def\bb{\beta} \def\aa{\alpha} \def\D{\scr D
s+\int_0^t\int_U\{V_{\delta\epsilon}(Z(s)+\Gamma_2(s,u))\\
&\quad-V_{\delta\epsilon}(Z(s))-\langle(V_{\delta\epsilon})_x(Z(s)),\Gamma_2(s,u)\rangle\}\lambda(\text{\rm{d}}} \def\bb{\beta} \def\aa{\alpha} \def\D{\scr D
u)\text{\rm{d}}} \def\bb{\beta} \def\aa{\alpha} \def\D{\scr D s\\
&\quad+\int_0^t\int_U\{V_{\delta\epsilon}(Z(s)+\Gamma_2(s,u))-V_{\delta\epsilon}(Z(s))\}\tilde{N}(\text{\rm{d}}} \def\bb{\beta} \def\aa{\alpha} \def\D{\scr D u,\text{\rm{d}}} \def\bb{\beta} \def\aa{\alpha} \def\D{\scr D s)\\
&=\int_0^t\langle(V_{\delta\epsilon})_x(Z(s)),\Gamma_1(s)\rangle\text{\rm{d}}} \def\bb{\beta} \def\aa{\alpha} \def\D{\scr D
s\\
&\quad+\int_0^t\int_U\Big\{\int_0^1\langle(V_{\delta\epsilon})_x(\theta\Gamma_2(s,u)+Z(s))-(V_{\delta\epsilon})_x(Z(s)),\Gamma_2(s,u)\rangle\text{\rm{d}}} \def\bb{\beta} \def\aa{\alpha} \def\D{\scr D
\theta\Big\}\lambda(\text{\rm{d}}} \def\bb{\beta} \def\aa{\alpha} \def\D{\scr D
u)\text{\rm{d}}} \def\bb{\beta} \def\aa{\alpha} \def\D{\scr D s\\
&\quad+\int_0^t\int_U\Big\{\int_0^1\langle(V_{\delta\epsilon})_x(\theta\Gamma_2(s,u)+Z(s)),\Gamma_2(s,u)\rangle\text{\rm{d}}} \def\bb{\beta} \def\aa{\alpha} \def\D{\scr D
\theta\Big\}\tilde{N}(\text{\rm{d}}} \def\bb{\beta} \def\aa{\alpha} \def\D{\scr D u,\text{\rm{d}}} \def\bb{\beta} \def\aa{\alpha} \def\D{\scr D s).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
By \eqref{eq28}, together with \eqref{eq4} and \eqref{eq6}, we
then deduce that
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
|Z(t)|&\leq
\epsilon+V_{\delta\epsilon}(Z(t))\\
&\leq\epsilon+\int_0^t|\Gamma_1(s)|\text{\rm{d}}} \def\bb{\beta} \def\aa{\alpha} \def\D{\scr D
s+2\int_0^t\int_U|\Gamma_2(s,u)|\lambda(\text{\rm{d}}} \def\bb{\beta} \def\aa{\alpha} \def\D{\scr D
u)\text{\rm{d}}} \def\bb{\beta} \def\aa{\alpha} \def\D{\scr D s\\
&\quad+\int_0^t\int_U\Big\{\int_0^1\langle(V_{\delta\epsilon})_x(\theta\Gamma_2(s,u)+Z(s)),\Gamma_2(s,u)\rangle\text{\rm{d}}} \def\bb{\beta} \def\aa{\alpha} \def\D{\scr D
\theta\Big\}\tilde{N}(\text{\rm{d}}} \def\bb{\beta} \def\aa{\alpha} \def\D{\scr D u,\text{\rm{d}}} \def\bb{\beta} \def\aa{\alpha} \def\D{\scr D s),\ \ \ t\in[0,T].
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
Furthermore, note from \eqref{eq19}, \eqref{eq33} and \eqref{eq25}
that for any $q\geq2$
\begin{equation*}
\mathbb{E}\Big(\sup\limits_{0\leq t\leq
T}V_1^q(\tilde{Z}(s-\tau))\Big)+\mathbb{E}\Big(\sup\limits_{0\leq
t\leq T}V_3^q(\tilde{Z}(s-\tau))\Big)\leq C.
\end{equation*}
Consequently, for any $p\geq2$ and $t\in[0,T]$, using \eqref{eq6}
and \eqref{eq26}, Lemma \ref{Kunita inequality} and the H\"older
inequality, $(A3)$ and $(A4),$ we derive at
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\mathbb{E}\Big(\sup\limits_{0\leq s\leq t}|Z(s)|^p\Big)&\leq2^{p-1}
(\epsilon^p+\mathbb{E}\Big(\sup\limits_{0\leq s\leq t}V_{\delta\epsilon}^p(Z(s))\Big)\\
&\leq C\Big\{\epsilon^p+\int_0^t\mathbb{E}|\Gamma_1(s)|^p\text{\rm{d}}} \def\bb{\beta} \def\aa{\alpha} \def\D{\scr D
s+\int_0^t\int_U\mathbb{E}|\Gamma_2(s,u)|^p\lambda(\text{\rm{d}}} \def\bb{\beta} \def\aa{\alpha} \def\D{\scr D
u)\text{\rm{d}}} \def\bb{\beta} \def\aa{\alpha} \def\D{\scr D s\\
&\quad+\mathbb{E}\Big(\int_0^t\int_U|\Gamma_2(s,u)|^2\lambda(\text{\rm{d}}} \def\bb{\beta} \def\aa{\alpha} \def\D{\scr D u)\text{\rm{d}}} \def\bb{\beta} \def\aa{\alpha} \def\D{\scr D
s\Big)^{\frac{p}{2}}\Big\}\\
&\leq C\Big\{\epsilon^p+\int_0^t\mathbb{E}|\Gamma_1(s)|^p\text{\rm{d}}} \def\bb{\beta} \def\aa{\alpha} \def\D{\scr D
s+\int_0^t\int_U\mathbb{E}|\Gamma_2(s,u)|^p\lambda(\text{\rm{d}}} \def\bb{\beta} \def\aa{\alpha} \def\D{\scr D u)\text{\rm{d}}} \def\bb{\beta} \def\aa{\alpha} \def\D{\scr D s\Big\}\\
&\leq
C\Big\{\epsilon^p+\int_0^t\mathbb{E}(|X(s)-\bar{Y}(s)|\\
&\quad+V_1(\tilde{Z}(s-\tau))|X(s-\tau)-\tilde{Y}(s-\tau)|)^p\text{\rm{d}}} \def\bb{\beta} \def\aa{\alpha} \def\D{\scr D
s+\int_0^t\mathbb{E}(|X(s)-\bar{Y}(s)|\\
&\quad+V_3(\tilde{Z}(s-\tau))|X(s-\tau)-\tilde{Y}(s-\tau)|)^p\text{\rm{d}}} \def\bb{\beta} \def\aa{\alpha} \def\D{\scr D
s\Big\}\\
&\leq
C\Big\{\epsilon^p+\triangle+\int_0^t\{\mathbb{E}|Z(s)|^p+\mathbb{E}(V_1^p(\tilde{Z}(s-\tau))|Z(s-\tau)|^p)\\
&\quad+\mathbb{E}(V_1^p(\tilde{Z}(s-\tau))|\bar{Z}(s-\tau)|^p)+\mathbb{E}(V_3^p(\tilde{Z}(s-\tau))|Z(s-\tau)|^p)\\
&\quad+\mathbb{E}(V_3^p(\tilde{Z}(s-\tau))|\bar{Z}(s-\tau)|^p)\}\text{\rm{d}}} \def\bb{\beta} \def\aa{\alpha} \def\D{\scr D
s\Big\}\\
&\leq
C\bigg\{\epsilon^p+\triangle+\int_0^t\mathbb{E}|Z(s)|^p\text{\rm{d}}} \def\bb{\beta} \def\aa{\alpha} \def\D{\scr D s\\
&\quad+\int_0^t\Big\{\Big(\mathbb{E}|Z(s-\tau)|^{p(1+\theta)}\Big)^{\frac{1}{1+\theta}}+\Big(\mathbb{E}|\bar{Z}(s-\tau)|^{p(1+\theta)}
\Big)^{\frac{1}{1+\theta}}\Big\}\text{\rm{d}}} \def\bb{\beta} \def\aa{\alpha} \def\D{\scr D s\bigg\},
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
where $\theta\in(0,1)$ is an arbitrary constant. An application of
the Gronwall inequality then gives that
\begin{equation}\label{eq31}
\begin{split}
\mathbb{E}\Big(\sup\limits_{0\leq s\leq t}|Z(s)|^p\Big)&\leq
C\bigg\{\triangle+\int_0^t\Big\{\Big(\mathbb{E}|Z(s-\tau)|^{p(1+\theta)}\Big)^{\frac{1}{1+\theta}}\\
&\quad+\Big(\mathbb{E}|\bar{Z}(s-\tau)|^{p(1+\theta)}
\Big)^{\frac{1}{1+\theta}}\Big\}\text{\rm{d}}} \def\bb{\beta} \def\aa{\alpha} \def\D{\scr D s\bigg\},\ \ \ t\in[0,T]
\end{split}
\end{equation}
by taking $\epsilon=\triangle^{\frac{1}{p}}$. For $\theta\in(0,1)$
in \eqref{eq31} and any $\alpha\in(0,1)$, let
\begin{equation*}
p_i:=p(1+\theta)^{([T/\tau]+1-i)(1+\alpha)}, \ \ \
i=1,2,\cdots,[T/\tau]+1.
\end{equation*}
It is trivial to see that
\begin{equation}\label{eq32}
(1+\theta)p_{i+1}<p_i \ \mbox{ and } \ p_{[T/\tau]+1}=p, \ \ \
i=1,2,\cdots,[T/\tau].
\end{equation}
Noting that $Z(t)=\bar{Z}(t)=0$ for $t\in[-\tau,0]$, by \eqref{eq31}
we clearly get
\begin{equation*}
\mathbb{E}\Big(\sup\limits_{0\leq s\leq \tau}|Z(s)|^{p_1}\Big)\leq
C\triangle.
\end{equation*}
This, together with \eqref{eq26}, \eqref{eq31} and the H\"older
inequality, yields that
\begin{equation}\label{eq34}
\begin{split}
\mathbb{E}\Big(\sup\limits_{0\leq s\leq 2\tau}|Z(s)|^{p_2}\Big)&\leq
C\Big\{\triangle+\triangle^{\frac{1}{1+\theta}}+\int_0^{2\tau}\Big(\mathbb{E}|Z(s-\tau)|^{p_2(1+\theta)}\Big)^{\frac{1}{1+\theta}}\text{\rm{d}}} \def\bb{\beta} \def\aa{\alpha} \def\D{\scr D s\Big\}\\
&\leq C\Big\{\triangle+\triangle^{\frac{1}{1+\theta}}+\int_0^{2\tau}\Big(\mathbb{E}|Z(s-\tau)|^{p_1}\Big)^{\frac{p_2}{p_1}}\text{\rm{d}}} \def\bb{\beta} \def\aa{\alpha} \def\D{\scr D s\Big\}\\
&\leq C\{\triangle+\triangle^{\frac{1}{1+\theta}}+\triangle^{\frac{p_2}{p_1}}\}\\
&\leq C\triangle^{\frac{p_2}{p_1}},
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where the last step is due to \eqref{eq32}. Similarly, we have from
\eqref{eq31}-\eqref{eq34} that
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\mathbb{E}\Big(\sup\limits_{0\leq s\leq 3\tau}|Z(s)|^{p_3}\Big)&\leq
C\Big\{\triangle+\triangle^{\frac{1}{1+\theta}}+\int_0^{3\tau}\Big(\mathbb{E}|Z(s-\tau)|^{p_3(1+\theta)}\Big)^{\frac{1}{1+\theta}}\text{\rm{d}}} \def\bb{\beta} \def\aa{\alpha} \def\D{\scr D s\Big\}\\
&\leq C\Big\{\triangle+\triangle^{\frac{1}{1+\theta}}+\int_0^{3\tau}\Big(\mathbb{E}|Z(s-\tau)|^{p_2}\Big)^{\frac{p_3}{p_2}}\text{\rm{d}}} \def\bb{\beta} \def\aa{\alpha} \def\D{\scr D s\Big\}\\
&\leq C\{\triangle+\triangle^{\frac{1}{1+\theta}}+\triangle^{\frac{p_3}{p_1}}\}\\
&\leq C\triangle^{\frac{p_3}{p_1}}.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
Following the previous procedures gives that
\begin{equation*}
\mathbb{E}\Big(\sup\limits_{0\leq s\leq T}|Z(s)|^p\Big)\leq
C\triangle^{\frac{1}{(1+\theta)^{[T/\tau](1+\alpha)}}},
\end{equation*}
and the proof is therefore complete.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}
{\rm By Theorem \ref{Th3}, with $p\geq2$ increasing the convergence
rate of EM scheme \eqref{eq22} is decreasing, which is quite
different from the Brownian motion case with a constant order
$\frac{1}{2}$, and it is therefore best to use the mean-square
convergence for the jump case. On the other hand, we reveal that the
order of mean-square convergence is close to $\frac{1}{2}$ although
the jump diffusion may be highly nonlinear with respect to the delay
variables. }
\end{rem}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{intro}
Optical holography consists of the acquisition of images from diffracted optical field measurements. Holographic imaging was initially proposed by Gabor~\cite{Gabor1948} for electron microscopy. Holograms were recorded on high resolution photographic plates. Due to the subsequently-called "in-line" configuration, holograms were stained with twin-image and zero-order contributions, which overlapped with the signal image~\cite{Gabor1949}. Originally recorded with the red radiation of Mercury lamps, holograms were increasingly recorded with laser light sources, which gave much more reliable results. In 1962, Leith and Upatnieks proposed to introduce an off-axis reference beam~\cite{Leith1962} to separate, in the spatial frequency domain, the real image from the twin-image and zero-order diffraction terms. However, holograms were still to be reconstructed by optical means.\\
The first digital reconstructions of optically-measured holograms were realized by Goodman~\cite{Goodman1967} and further by Kronrod~\cite{Kronrod1972} (in Russian. More details can be found in Ref.~\cite{Yaroslavsky}) in the early 1970's. Here, optically magnified parts of the holograms are digitally sampled and then reconstructed using Fourier-transform based routines. Digitalization of optical holograms allowed, for instance, to improve reconstruction quality~\cite{Onural1987}, to retrieve information about the phase of the recording wave~\cite{Fienup1982,Liu1987}, and to treat holograms without reconstruction~\cite{Onural1992}. One of the major breakthroughs in holographic imaging was initiated, by Schnars, with direct recording of digital holograms~\cite{Schnars1994}. Charge-Coupled Device (CCD) and Complementary Metal Oxide Semiconductor (CMOS) digital sensor arrays enabled the acquisition and numerical processing of high-resolution holograms at fast rates.\\
Intrinsic properties of holographic imaging allow this technique to be used in a wide range of domains such as fluid mechanics~\cite{Lozano1999,Meng2004,Pu2005,Dubois2006,Atlan2006,Desse2008,Verrier2008a,Verrier2009,Verrier2010}, biomedical imaging~\cite{Schedin2000,Kim2000,XuW2001,Charriere2006,Kemper2008,Simonutti2010} or mechanical vibration analysis~\cite{Powell1965,Aleksoff1971,Zhang2004a,Picart2005,Leval2005,Borza2005,Iemma2006,Asundi2006,Joud2009}. Democratization of high resolution CCD and CMOS sensors played a major role in the development of digital reconstruction techniques. For instance, reconstruction of phase-only~\cite{Yamaguchi2006}, shifted~\cite{Matsushima2010}, tilted or aberrated data~\cite{Lebrun2003,Denicola2005,Verrier2008b} has been successfully demonstrated. Inverse-problem approaches make it possible to improve object localization and field of view in the reconstructed hologram~\cite{Soulez2007a,Soulez2007b}. Compressive sensing based approaches are also to be considered when working in noisy or low-light conditions~\cite{Denis2009,Marim2011}. Moreover, owing to the massive parallelization of image processing calculations by Graphics Processing Units (GPU), hologram reconstruction can be performed in real-time~\cite{ShimobabaSato2008,Ahrenberg2009,Shimobaba2010,SamsonVerpillat2011}.\\
In this paper, we will describe most of the common off-axis digital holographic reconstruction schemes, and discuss their applicability. After some brief reminders about digital holographic recording, we will present the main reconstruction approaches, involving one to three Fourier transforms. Then a discussion about reconstruction with adjustable magnification is proposed. Methods to tackle aliases and replicas are proposed, leading to high quality magnified reconstructions. The use of Fresnelet transform will also be discussed. Reconstruction methods will be assessed experimentally with optically-acquired off-axis holograms, to provide insight into their respective suitability towards targeted applications.
\section{Fresnel holography bases}
\label{sec1}
Digital holography typically consists of recording an optical field emerging from an illuminated object in a diffraction plane (\emph{e.g.} in free-space propagation conditions), and numerically calculating, from diffraction models, the field distribution in the reconstruction plane. In practice, optical holograms are measured-out from the interference of the diffracted beam beating against a reference beam, which is not disturbed by the object to be analyzed. One of the object-reference cross terms typically yields a complex-valued map (\emph{i.e.} quadrature-resolved : in amplitude and phase) of the diffraction field in the sensor plane. The complex-valued measurement contains relevant information about the local retardation of the diffracted field. Phase-shifting \cite{Yamaguchi1997} and frequency-shifting \cite{Atlan2007} techniques were proposed to record the diffraction field in quadrature. The interference pattern, recorded by sensor array, can be expressed as~\cite{Goodman}
\begin{multline}
E\left(x,y\right)=\left|\mathcal{R}\left(x,y\right)\right|^2+\left|\mathcal{O}\left(x,y\right)\right|^2\\ +\mathcal{O}^*\left(x,y\right)\mathcal{R}\left(x,y\right)+\mathcal{O}\left(x,y\right)\mathcal{R}^*\left(x,y\right),
\label{eq:RecCCD}
\end{multline}
where $\mathcal{R}$ and $\mathcal{O}$ denote reference and object optical fields respectively. Starred ($*$) symbols are associated with complex conjugate values.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics*[width=4cm]{fig1a.eps}}
\subfigure[]{{\includegraphics*[width=3.5cm]{fig1b.eps}}}
\caption{(a) Hologram recording in off-axis configuration. (b) Spatial frequency representation of off-axis holograms.}
\label{fig1}
\end{figure}
The interference between reference and object beams can be recorded within a wide range of configurations. These can be grouped in two main categories: in-line~\cite{Goodman} and off-axis configurations~\cite{Leith1963}. For our applications, off-axis holograms will be recorded with a Mach-Zehnder configuration. The final part of our off-axis Mach-Zehnder configuration is illustrated on Fig. (\ref{fig1}) (a). Here, reference and object beam are combined, with a relative angle $\alpha$, using a non-polarizing beam-splitting/combining cube. It should be noted that $\alpha$ should be chosen so as to fulfill the sampling theorem. The maximal value, leading to a correct sampling of the interference pattern is therefore given, under paraxial conditions, by:
\begin{equation}
\alpha_{\rm{max}}\approx\frac{\lambda}{2\Delta x},
\end{equation}
where $\Delta x$ denotes the sampling rate of the recording device.
This off-axis angle results in separation, of the four terms of Eq. (\ref{eq:RecCCD}), in the spatial frequency domain. This aspect is proposed Fig. (\ref{fig1}) (b). The central part of the hologram spectrum ($\left|\mathcal{R}\left(x,y\right)\right|^2+\left|\mathcal{O}\left(x,y\right)\right|^2$) is known as the autocorrelation term, its size is associated with the highest spatial frequencies of the object, denoted by $B$. Real and twin images of the object are respectively given by $\mathcal{O}\mathcal{R}^*$ and $\mathcal{R}\mathcal{O}^*$. These two terms are twice as small as the autocorrelation term. To improve the reconstruction quality, autocorrelation and twin image terms have to be canceled. This can be achieved either by spatial filtering~\cite{Cuche2000} or phase shifting~\cite{Yamaguchi2001}. Thus doing makes it possible to reconstruct the real image term only.
In the following part, we will focus on hologram reconstruction. After a brief reminder about the Fresnel transform, we will discuss its main digital implementations.
\section{Digital hologram reconstruction}
\label{sec2}
Digital reconstruction of an hologram consists in a \emph{a posteriori} refocusing over the original object, which can be performed by calculating backward propagation of the light from the hologram to the reconstruction plane. This process is equivalent to positioning the recorded hologram back into the reference beam. Reference beam therefore become the reconstruction beam. Using the Huygens-Fresnel principle, one can infer an integral formulation of the intensity $E_{\rm{rec}}$ in the reconstruction plane, from an off axis recorded hologram $E$~\cite{Born}
\begin{equation}
E_{\rm{rec}}\left(\xi,\eta\right)=-i\frac{z}{\lambda}\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}E\left(x,y\right)\frac{\exp\left(ikr\right)}{r}dx dy.
\label{eq:HFresnel}
\end{equation}
Here, the distance $r$ is given by:
\begin{equation}
r=\sqrt{z^2+\left(x-\xi\right)^2+\left(y-\eta\right)^2},
\end{equation}
$\left(x,y\right)$ and $\left(\xi,\eta\right)$ denote the spatial coordinates in the hologram and reconstruction plane respectively. It should be noted that, the hologram $E\left(x,y\right)$ has been recorded an off-axis configuration.
Under Fresnel approximation, when $z^3>>\frac{1}{8\lambda}\left[\left(\xi-x\right)^2+\left(\eta-y\right)^2\right]^2$, $r$ can be approximated by:
\begin{equation}
r=z\left[1+\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{x-\xi}{z}\right)^2+\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{y-\eta}{z}\right)^2\right],
\end{equation}
and Eq. (\ref{eq:HFresnel}) is rewritten as:
\begin{multline}
E_{\rm{rec}}\left(\xi,\eta\right)=\frac{\exp\left(\frac{i2\pi}{\lambda}z\right)}{i\lambda z}\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}E\left(x,y\right)\\
\times\exp\left\{i\frac{\pi}{\lambda z}\left[\left(x-\xi\right)^2+\left(y-\eta\right)^2\right]\right\}dx dy.
\label{eq:FRT}
\end{multline}
This relationship will be used in the remainder of this paper to perform reconstruction of off-axis intensity holograms.
As far as variables in Eq. (\ref{eq:FRT}) are separable, all the discrete formulations will be derived in the 1D case. Generalization in two dimensions is straightforward.
The 1D discrete Fresnel transform is defined by:
\begin{multline}
E_{\rm{rec}}\left(p\right)=\frac{\exp\left(\frac{i2\pi}{\lambda}z\right)}{i\lambda z}\exp\left(i\frac{\pi}{\lambda z}p^2\Delta\xi^2 \right)\sum_{n=0}^{N-1}E\left(n\right)\\
\times\exp\left(i\frac{\pi}{\lambda z}n^2\Delta x^2 \right)\exp\left(-i\frac{2\pi}{\lambda z}n p\Delta x \Delta\xi \right),
\label{eq:DFRT}
\end{multline}
where $n\Delta x$ and $p\Delta\xi$ respectively denote the spatial coordinate in the CCD and reconstruction plane, and N is the number of sampling points.
Direct implementation of Eq. (\ref{eq:DFRT}) is a time consuming process. Starting from Eq. (\ref{eq:FRT}), one can realize that efficient computational schemes can be designed to implement digital holographic reconstruction. This makes it possible to separate reconstruction methods into two main families: the Fourier based approaches (based on the use of a single fast Fourier transform (FFT)) well suited for imaging extended objects localized far from the CCD or CMOS sensor, and the convolution methods, computed by using two or three FFTs. These methods are well adapted for the reconstruction of holograms, of small lateral dimensions, recorded near the imaging device. Alternative methods can be considered when an adjustable magnification or advanced filtering techniques are needed.
In the remainder of this section, we will detail the different computational approaches and apply these to the reconstruction of digital holograms.
\subsection{Single-FFT method}
Efficient implementation of Eq. (\ref{eq:DFRT}) can be performed using FFT algorithm~\cite{Cooley1965,Schnars2002}. In this case pixel pitches in both reconstruction ($\Delta\xi$) and CCD plane ($\Delta x$) are related by:
\begin{equation}
\Delta \xi=\frac{\lambda z}{N\Delta x}.
\label{eq:g_fresnel}
\end{equation}
Therefore, Eq. (\ref{eq:DFRT}) can be rewritten as:
\begin{multline}
E_{\rm{rec}}\left(p\right)=\frac{\exp\left(\frac{i2\pi}{\lambda}z\right)}{i\lambda z}\exp\left(i\frac{\pi\lambda zp^2}{N^2\Delta x^2}\right)\\
\times\sum_{n=0}^{N-1}E\left(n\right)\exp\left(i\frac{\pi}{\lambda z}n^2\Delta x^2 \right)\exp\left(-i2\pi\frac{np}{N}\right).
\label{eq:1TF}
\end{multline}
This relationship is therefore easily computed by
\begin{multline}
E_{\rm{rec}}\left(\xi\right)=\frac{\exp\left(\frac{i2\pi}{\lambda}z\right)}{i\lambda z}\exp\left(i\frac{\pi\lambda zp^2}{N^2\Delta x^2}\right)\\
\times\mathcal{F}\left\{E\left(x\right) \exp\left(i\frac{\pi}{\lambda z}x^2\right)\right\}.
\end{multline}
It should be noted that, within this configuration, the ratio between the reconstructed horizon and the sensor array extension (which can be abusively denoted as the magnification of the reconstruction method) is closely linked to the reconstruction distance \emph{i.e.} $\gamma=\Delta\xi / \Delta x=\lambda z /(N\Delta x^2)$. In the remainder of this paper, the intrinsic magnification of the single-FFT implementation of the reconstruction integral will be denoted by $\gamma_0=\lambda z /(N\Delta x^2)$.
\subsection{Convolution based approaches}
Holographic reconstruction can be viewed as a linear system. As matter of fact, Eq. (\ref{eq:FRT}) is the mathematical expression of the spatial convolution between the hologram, and the Fresnel impulse response function $h_{z}$, which is defined by (omitting the multiplicative constant):
\begin{equation}
h_{z}\left(x\right)=\exp\left(i\frac{\pi}{\lambda z}x^2\right).
\label{eq:Rep_imp}
\end{equation}
Convolution based approaches lead to unitary magnification, namely $\Delta \xi = \Delta x$.
\subsubsection{``Three-FFT algorithm''}
Computation of the convolution product between the hologram and the holographic impulse response can be efficiently implemented in Fourier domain. Using fast Fourier transform algorithms, Eq. (\ref{eq:FRT}) can be computed as:
\begin{equation}
E_{\rm{rec}}\left(\xi\right)=\frac{\exp\left(\frac{i2\pi}{\lambda}z\right)}{i\lambda z}
\mathcal{F}^{-1}\left[\mathcal{F}\{E\left(x\right)\}\mathcal{F}\{h_{z}\left(x\right)\}\right],
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{F}$ and $\mathcal{F}^{-1}$ respectively stand for the Fourier transform and its inverse.
\subsubsection{Angular spectrum propagation}
This method is based on the propagation of the angular spectrum of the hologram. The angular spectrum transfer function is given by~\cite{LYu2005}:
\begin{equation}
H\left(u\right)\approx\exp\left[2i\frac{\pi z}{\lambda}\left(1-\frac{1}{2}\lambda^2u^2\right)\right],
\label{eq:AngSpec}
\end{equation}
where $u$ is the spatial frequency in Fourier domain.
Using Eq. (\ref{eq:AngSpec}), hologram reconstruction can be performed:
\begin{equation}
E_{\rm{rec}}\left(\xi\right)=\frac{1}{i\lambda z}
\mathcal{F}^{-1}\left[\mathcal{F}\{E\left(x\right)\}H\left(u\right)\right],
\end{equation}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics*[width=7.5cm]{fig2.eps}
\caption{Angular acceptance of digital holographic reconstruction process. Solid lines are associated with the 1-FFT reconstruction, and dashed lines correspond to the convolution approaches.}\label{fig2}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Algorithms with adjustable magnification}
Neither the single-FFT approach nor the convolution based methods allow the adjustment the magnification of the reconstructed hologram. As a matter of fact, in a single-FFT hologram processing, magnification depends on the recording wavelength and distance, whereas it remains constant using a convolution approach. In the latter case, the magnification is unitary ($\Delta \xi = \Delta x$). This aspect is illustrated by fig. (\ref{fig2}). Here, the evolution of the reconstructed horizon is represented with respect to the reconstruction distance. The solid lines are associated with the 1-FFT reconstruction scheme, and the doted lines are the reconstruction horizon of the convolution based reconstruction approaches. It should be noted that for $z=N\Delta x^2/\lambda$ (this distance is determined by taking $\Delta x=\Delta \xi$ in Eq. (\ref{eq:g_fresnel})), 1-FFT and convolution approaches exhibit the same magnification.
Working with an adjustable magnification algorithm is a great opportunity to make the reconstruction horizon independent from hologram recording parameters. Domains such as multi-wavelength holography benefit from this property~\cite{JCLi2009,Picart2009}.
Several approaches have been proposed to allow magnification adjustment. Ferraro used zero-padding to control the reconstructed horizon and to make it independent from the reconstructed distance~\cite{Ferraro2004}. This method gives good results for multiwavelength hologram multiplexing, but may however, increase the computational load. Another way to adjust the magnification is to reconstruct the hologram with a two step algorithm~\cite{Zhang2004}. Each step consists of a 1-FFT reconstruction. Let $z$ be the reconstruction distance, the two steps (reconstruction at distances $z_1$ and $z_2$) are chosen such that $z=z_1+z_2$. Here, the magnification is controlled by the choice of the intermediate reconstruction distance $z_1$. An optimization of this approach allows the authors of Ref.~\cite{Wang2008} to better match physical diffraction, thus obtaining high-fidelity reconstruction of magnified holograms. Control of reconstruction magnification, shift, and aberration compensation has also been proposed and realized using a digital lens, with adjustable parameters, in the reconstruction process~\cite{Colomb2006}.
In the following subsection, we will focus on two algorithms allowing the adjustment of magnification in the reconstruction process and that are based either on the convolution~\cite{JCLi2011} or the 1-FFT~\cite{Restrepo2010} implementation of the Fresnel transform.
\subsubsection{Digital quadratic lens method}
This method is based on the convolution approach~\cite{JCLi2009,Picart2009}. Prior to reconstruction, the hologram is padded to the desired horizon and then multiplied by a digital spherical wavefront, acting as a quadratic lens, which is defined by:
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}\left(x\right)=\exp\left(-i\frac{\pi}{\lambda R_{c}}x^2\right),
\label{eq:Quadlens}
\end{equation}
where $R_{c}$ denotes the curvature radius of $\mathcal{L}$. This curvature radius can be defined in terms of system magnification such that:
\begin{equation}
R_c=\frac{\gamma z}{\gamma-1}.
\end{equation}
Here, $\gamma$ is the ratio between the CCD horizon (of the padded hologram) and the object physical extent. Working with a spherical reconstruction wavefront modifies the physical reconstruction distance $z$ to $z'=\gamma z$. Thus, hologram reconstruction can be realized by computing the following relation:
\begin{multline}
E_{\rm{rec}}\left(\xi\right)=\frac{\exp\left(\frac{i2\pi}{\lambda}z'\right)}{i\lambda z'}\\
\mathcal{F}^{-1}\left[\mathcal{F}\{E\left(x\right)\mathcal{L}\left(x\right)\}\mathcal{F}\left\{h_{z'}\left(x\right)\right\}\right],
\end{multline}
when working within a "three-FFT" scheme, or
\begin{equation}
E_{\rm{rec}}\left(\xi\right)=\frac{\exp\left(\frac{i2\pi}{\lambda}z'\right)}{i\lambda z'}
\mathcal{F}^{-1}\left[\mathcal{F}\{E\left(x\right)\mathcal{L}\left(x\right)\}H\left(u\right)\right],
\end{equation}
when angular spectrum propagation is considered.
An alternative method, based on this formalism associated with a spatial filtering of the 1-FFT reconstructed hologram, allows the reconstruction of the local object field with an adjustable magnification~\cite{JCLi2011}. This method makes it possible to limit the effect of the reference beam distortions. However, one more FFT (two, when the angular spectrum implementation is considered) is needed to deal with the filtering step.
\subsubsection{Fresnel-Bluestein transform}
This approach is based on a ``clever'' expansion of Eq. (\ref{eq:1TF})~\cite{Restrepo2010}. In the kernel of the Fourier transform, the product $2np$ is rewritten as $2np=n^2+p^2-\left(p-n\right)^2$~\cite{Bluestein1970}, such that the discrete Fresnel transform can be expressed by:
\begin{multline}
E_{\rm{rec}}\left(p\right)=\frac{\exp\left(\frac{i2\pi}{\lambda}z\right)}{i\lambda z}\exp\left[-\frac{i\pi}{\lambda z}\Delta\xi\left(\Delta x-\Delta\xi\right)p^2\right]\\
\times\sum_{n=0}^{N}E\left(n\right)\exp\left[\frac{i\pi}{\lambda z}\Delta x\left(\Delta x-\Delta\xi\right)n^2\right]\\
\times\exp\left[\frac{i\pi}{\lambda z}\Delta x\Delta\xi\left(p-n\right)^2\right].
\label{eq:Bluestein}
\end{multline}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics*[width=3.4cm]{fig3a.eps}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics*[width=3.4cm]{fig3b.eps}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics*[width=3.4cm]{fig3c.eps}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics*[width=3.4cm]{fig3d.eps}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics*[width=3.4cm]{fig3e.eps}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics*[width=3.4cm]{fig3f.eps}}
\caption{Reconstruction of an hologram for $\gamma=0.8,1,2.5\times\gamma_0$. (a,c,e) Quadratic lens method. (b,d,f) Fresnel-Bluestein method.}\label{figpicgar}
\end{figure}
Let $\gamma=\Delta\xi/\Delta x$ be the magnification of the reconstruction. Therefore, Eq. (\ref{eq:Bluestein}) can be rewritten as:
\begin{multline}
E_{\rm{rec}}\left(p\right)=\frac{\exp\left(\frac{i2\pi}{\lambda}z\right)}{i\lambda z}\exp\left[-\frac{i\pi}{\lambda z}\gamma\left(1-\gamma\right)\Delta x^2p^2\right]\\
\times\sum_{n=0}^{N}E\left(n\right)\exp\left[\frac{i\pi}{\lambda z}\left(1-\gamma\right)n^2\Delta x^2\right]\\
\times\exp\left[\frac{i\pi}{\lambda z}\gamma\left(p-n\right)^2\Delta x^2\right].
\label{eq:Bluestein2}
\end{multline}
It should be noted that the magnification $\gamma$ is independent of the hologram recording parameters, and can be adjusted at will. With this formulation, Eq. (\ref{eq:Bluestein2}) is the spatial convolution product of two functions $f$ and $g$ defined by:
\begin{equation}
f(n)=E\left(n\right)\exp\left[i\frac{\pi}{\lambda z}\left(1-\gamma\right)n^2\Delta x^2\right],
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
g(n)=\exp\left(i\frac{\pi}{\lambda z}\gamma n^2\Delta x^2\right).
\end{equation}
The Fresnel-Bluestein reconstruction algorithm can, therefore, be summarized as:
\begin{multline}
E_{\rm{rec}}\left(\xi\right)=\frac{\exp\left(\frac{i2\pi}{\lambda}z\right)}{i\lambda z}\exp\left[-\frac{i\pi}{\lambda z}\gamma\left(1-\gamma\right)\Delta x^2p^2\right]\\
\times\mathcal{F}^{-1}\left[\mathcal{F}\{f\left(x\right)\}\mathcal{F}\{g\left(x\right)\}\right].
\end{multline}
Adjustable magnification rendering with the quadratic lens method and the Fresnel-Bluestein algorithm yield to the same results. Let $\gamma_0$ be the intrinsic magnification of the 1-FFT reconstruction scheme. Hologram rendering of a USAF resolution target sector, with $228\ \rm{line\ pairs}.mm^{-1}$ spatial frequency at element (7-6), with both methods at magnification $\gamma=0.8,1,2.5\times\gamma_0$ is reported in Fig. (\ref{figpicgar}). Despite these two methods are based on different formalisms (single-FFT formalism, and convolution based approach), it is here made obvious that both methods lead to the same results.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=13cm]{fig4.eps}
\caption{Illustration of alias and replica phenomena. (a) Reconstruction
with $\gamma=0.5\times\gamma_0$. (c) Reconstruction
with $\gamma=4\times\gamma_0$. (d) Same as (a) with replica removal. (f) Same as (c) with aliases filtering. (b,e) Reconstruction
with $\gamma=\gamma_0$.}\label{fig4}
\end{figure*}
\subsubsection{Aliases and replicas}
Adjustable magnification algorithms make it possible either to zoom over details in reconstructed images or to reconstruct objects whose dimensions are greater than that of the recording device. However, cares are to be taken. As a matter of fact, working with reconstruction horizons smaller than the object physical extend may cause aliases in the reconstruction plane, whereas replicas may appear in the opposite situation. In other words, considering $\gamma_0=\lambda z / \left(N \Delta x^2\right)$ the intrinsic magnification of the 1-FFT based Fresnel transform implementation,
\begin{equation}
\gamma<\gamma_0
\end{equation}
will lead to replicas in the reconstructed image, whereas choosing
\begin{equation}
\gamma>\gamma_0
\end{equation}
will generate aliases.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics*[width=7cm]{fig5a.eps}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics*[width=7cm]{fig5b.eps}}
\caption{(a) Synoptics of the anti-alias procedure. (b) Replica removal scheme.}\label{fig5}
\end{figure}
This aspect is illustrated by Fig. \ref{fig4} (a) and \ref{fig4} (c). A hologram of the object was reconstructed using the adjustable magnification algorithm proposed by Restrepo~\cite{Restrepo2010} (results would have been the same if the quadratic lens algorithm was considered). The reconstruction with the 1-FFT algorithm ($\gamma=\gamma_0$) is proposed on Fig. (\ref{fig4}) (b) and (e). It should be noted that replicas can be seen in Fig. \ref{fig4} (a) (here $\gamma<\gamma_0$) and aliases appear in Fig. \ref{fig4} (c) (for $\gamma>\gamma_0$). These unwanted effects degrade the reconstruction quality and must be avoided.
To limit the aliasing effect, when $\gamma>\gamma_0$, Hennelly proposed a filtering scheme which is presented in Fig. (\ref{fig5}) (a)~\cite{Hennelly2010}. Prior to being reconstructed, the hologram is multiplied by a chirp function defined as:
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{C}\left(x\right)=\exp\left(i\frac{\pi}{\lambda z}x^2\right).
\end{equation}
The resulting chirp-multiplied hologram is then low-pass filtered and finally multiplied by $\mathcal{C}^*$, which is the complex conjugate of $\mathcal{C}$. The size of the filtering window is chosen so as to match the physical extent of the reconstruction horizon at distance $z$. It is therefore possible to reconstruct the hologram using an adjustable magnification algorithm. Benefits of this filtering approach is illustrated by Figs. \ref{fig4} (c) and \ref{fig4} (f). Aliases artifacts are completely removed, thus giving a high contrast image of the reconstructed objects.
When $\gamma<\gamma_0$, replicas can be seen on the reconstructed image. Their removal can be performed by the procedure illustrated in Fig. (\ref{fig5}) (b). The reconstructed hologram is cropped in order to keep the $\left(\gamma_0/\gamma\right)N$ pixels associated with the original object. This selection is then zero-padded to the original size of the hologram. As can be seen from Figs. \ref{fig4} (a) and \ref{fig4} (d), replicas are completely removed.
\subsection{Fresnelet decomposition}
\label{Sub:fresnelets}
Fresnelet decomposition was initially proposed by Liebling for the reconstruction and processing of digital holograms~\cite{Liebling2003a}. This multiresolution scheme finds application in a wide variety of domains such as data compression~\cite{Darakis2006,Darakis2007}, non linear filtering~\cite{Liebling2003b}, wavefront retrieving~\cite{Liebling2004a} and can be considered in autofocusing procedures~\cite{Liebling2004b}. Fresnelet reconstruction of a hologram consists of its decomposition on a basis of Fresnel-transformed wavelets.
Liebling proposed the use of B-splines, which can be defined as~\cite{Liebling2003a}:
\begin{equation}
\beta^n\left(x\right)=\underbrace{\beta^0*\ldots*\beta^0}_{\rm{n+1}}\left(x\right),
\end{equation}
where $\beta^0$ is given by:
\begin{equation}
\beta^0\left(x\right)=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
1, & 0<x<1\\
\frac{1}{2}, & x=0\ \rm{or}\ x=1\\
0, & \rm{otherwise}
\end{array}
\right.
,
\end{equation}
and the $*$ symbol denotes the convolution product.
As shown by Unser, B-spline fulfills all the mathematical requirements to be used for multiresolution analysis of $L_2\left(\mathbb{R}\right)$~\cite{Unser1992}, especially the two-scale relation:
\begin{equation}
\beta^n\left(\frac{x}{2}\right)=\sum_{k\in\mathbb{Z}}h\left(k\right)\beta^n\left(x-k\right).
\end{equation}
Here $h\left(k\right)=\frac{1}{2^n}\left(\begin{array}{c}n+1\\ k\end{array}\right)$ is the binomial filter.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics*[width=7cm]{fig6.eps}
\caption{Experimental procedure for the holographic reconstruction benchmarking}\label{fig_bench}
\end{figure}
B-spline can be used to generate a semi-orthogonal wavelet function basis of $L_2\left(\mathbb{R}\right)$ denoted $\psi_{j,k}^n$ and defined as:
\begin{equation}
\left\{\psi_{j,k}^n=2^\frac{-j}{2}\psi^n\left(2^{-j}x-k\right)\right\}_{j,k\in\mathbb{Z}},
\end{equation}
where,
\begin{equation}
\psi^n\left(\frac{x}{2}\right)=\sum_{k\in\mathbb{Z}}g\left(k\right)\beta^n\left(x-k\right).
\end{equation}
The filter $g\left(k\right)$ is the quadrature mirror filter of $h\left(k\right)$. Fresnelets basis can be calculated simply by taking the Fresnel transform of the B-spline basis. Fresnelet bases are therefore defined by:
\begin{equation}
\left\{\tilde{\psi}_{j,k}^n=2^\frac{-j}{2}\tilde{\psi}^n\left(2^{-j}x-k\right)\right\}_{j,k\in\mathbb{Z}},
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
\tilde{\psi}^n\left(\frac{x}{2}\right)=\sum_{k\in\mathbb{Z}}g\left(k\right)\tilde{\beta}^n\left(x-k\right),
\label{eq:psi}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\tilde{\beta}^n\left(\frac{x}{2}\right)=\sum_{k\in\mathbb{Z}}h\left(k\right)\tilde{\beta}^n\left(x-k\right).
\label{eq:beta}
\end{equation}
Here $\tilde{.}$ is associated with the Fresnel transform.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics*[width=12cm]{fig7.eps}
\caption{Holographic reconstructions of USAF target located at different distances.}\label{benchmark}
\end{figure*}
It should be noted that computation method chosen for the Fresnel transform will affect the Fresnelet transform results. As a matter of fact, Fresnelet transform properties will be the same as those of the chosen Fresnel computation scheme (\emph{e.g.} adjustable, or unitary magnification).
\section{Application}
\label{sec3}
In this part, reconstruction of experimental holograms is performed according to the methods reported in Section (\ref{sec2}). Holograms are recorded according to the experimental set-up of Fig. (\ref{fig_bench}). Here, off-axis interference between the reference and object beam are recorded on a $2048\times2048$ pixels CCD sensor with $\Delta x=7.4\ \mu \rm{m}$ pixel pitch. The object consists of an inverted USAF target illuminated with a green laser ($\lambda=532\ \rm{nm}$). The USAF target is positioned at three different distances $z_i$, from the sensor, chosen such that $\Delta \xi<\Delta x$, $\Delta \xi=\Delta x$, and $\Delta \xi>\Delta x$, where $\Delta \xi$ and $\Delta x$ denote the size of the reconstruction and of the CCD sensor respectively. Experimental reconstruction are presented hereafter.
\subsection{Classical reconstruction methods}
In this section, holograms recorded at $z_i$ such that $\Delta \xi<\Delta x$, $\Delta \xi=\Delta x$, and $\Delta \xi>\Delta x$, are reconstructed using 1-FFT, angular spectrum propagation, and 3-FFT methods. Images of the reconstructed objects are proposed in Fig. (\ref{benchmark}). This figure consists of a two entry table. In each row, the hologram reconstructed when $\Delta\xi<\Delta x$, $\Delta\xi=\Delta x$, and $\Delta\xi>\Delta x$ are depicted. Each column is associated with the chosen reconstruction method: 1-FFT, angular spectrum propagation, and 3-FFT. It is noticeable that in most cases reconstruction result depend on the method chosen. In the following section, results obtained are detailed row by row.
\subsubsection{Reconstruction for $\Delta \xi<\Delta x$}
\begin{enumerate}
\item{1-FFT\\}
As seen on Fig. (\ref{benchmark}), aliases are present in the reconstructed image of the object. This is due to the fact that the 1-FFT implementation of the Fresnel transform results in a magnified image of the original object. Thus, the reconstructed object extend over the limits of the CCD sensor.
\item{Angular spectrum\\}
As far as $\Delta \xi<\Delta x$, the reconstructed object is well embedded within the CCD sensor horizon. Angular spectrum method is therefore well suited for reconstruction of holograms recorded near the CCD sensor.
\item{3-FFT\\}
The reconstructed image of the object is embedded within the CCD sensor. However, replicas can be noticed from the reconstructed hologram. This is due to the fact that, when the reconstruction distance $z<N\Delta x/\lambda$, the impulse response $h_z$ is ill-sampled: in this situation, the sampling theorem is not verified~\cite{Onural2000}.
\end{enumerate}
\subsubsection{Reconstruction for $\Delta \xi=\Delta x$}
It can be noted that, for $\Delta \xi=\Delta x$, the three reconstruction methods considered give the same results. As a matter of fact, in this situation, the reconstructed horizon perfectly matches the sensor array extend. In other words, intrinsic magnification of 1-FFT Fresnel implementation is the same as that of convolution approaches.
\subsubsection{Reconstruction for $\Delta \xi>\Delta x$}
\begin{enumerate}
\item{1-FFT\\}
As far as the object extent is bigger than the sensor array dimensions, the 1-FFT implementation of the Fresnel transform is appropriate for hologram reconstruction.
\item{Angular spectrum and 3-FFT\\}
The fact that these approaches exhibit unitary magnification is limiting when dealing with an object located far from the sensor. As a matter of fact, it can be realized from Fig. (\ref{benchmark}) that aliases occur in the reconstructed image of the hologram.
\end{enumerate}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics*[width=7cm]{fig8.eps}
\caption{Fresnelet decomposition of the hologram recorded for $\Delta \xi>\Delta x$. (a) Fresnelet coefficients computed within the 1-FFT scheme. (b) Fresnelet coefficients computed within the 3-FFT scheme. (c) Hologram reconstruction from (a). (d) Hologram reconstruction from (b).}
\label{Fresnelets}
\end{figure}
Classical reconstruction methods have been applied to experimental holograms recorded at various distances from the sensor array. It can be noted that each method is valid only within a limited range of distances. In the next section, we will give a few word about Fresnelet decomposition, and show that its reconstruction properties can be modified to match each reconstruction method.
\subsection{Fresnelets}
As presented in Section \ref{Sub:fresnelets}, Fresnelet decomposition is similar to a multiscale-wavelet decomposition on a Fresnel-transformed base. One appealing feature of this decomposition is that the result of the Fresnelet reconstruction depends on the method chosen to compute the Fresnel transform of the wavelet base.
To illustrate this point, Fresnelet reconstruction of the hologram recorded for $\Delta \xi>\Delta x$ is performed. In this situation, the 1-FFT method gave good results, whereas the 3-FFT reconstruction produces alises. Here, the fresnelet bases are calculated with the 1-FFT and the 3-FFT method according to Eqs. (\ref{eq:psi}) and (\ref{eq:beta}). Decompositions of the test hologram on the two calculated fresnelet bases are proposed in Fig. (\ref{Fresnelets}) (a) and (b) respectively. It should be noticed that the computation scheme chosen strongly affects the calculated coefficients. Therefore, properties of the fresnelet decomposition reconstruction depends on the method chosen to calculate the fresnelet base functions. This aspect is pointed out by Fig. (\ref{Fresnelets}) (c) and (d). Here, hologram reconstruction from the Fresnelet coefficients depicted in Fig. (\ref{Fresnelets}) (a) and (b) is realized. These reconstructions are similar to the one obtained with classical methods (See $\Delta \xi>\Delta x$ in Fig. (\ref{benchmark}) for comparison). Thus, for $\Delta \xi>\Delta x$, the single-FFT method will be more reliable than the 3-FFT scheme.
\section{Conclusion}
\label{conc}
We have proposed an overview of holographic reconstruction methods with application to off-axis intensity hologram treatment. Intrinsic properties and limitations of classical methods have been investigated and applicability ranges have been stated with the reconstruction of experimental holograms. It can be noted that the choice of the reconstruction method will be driven by the hologram recording conditions. For instance, when dealing with far and extended objects, 1-FFT algorithm will be the most appropriate, whereas convolution approaches will be suited for the reconstruction of small objects located near the sensor array. Adjustable magnification methods have been presented and can be viewed as a way to overcome limitations of the classical reconstruction schemes and allow the reconstruction result to be independent from the chosen scheme. Nevertheless, cares are to be taken in order to limit aliases and replicas when working with high or low magnification. Finally Fresnelet reconstruction of the holograms has been performed using the fact that the Fresnelet decomposition base depends on the method chosen to compute the Fresnel transform. This method can be considered for filtering or image compression when computational load is not a critical issue.
|
\section{Introduction}
Magnetic susceptibility $\chi$ is an important property of materials
indicating the magnetic response to an applied external magnetic field.
In microscopic picture, $\chi$ measures the propagation of the
collective wave mode of local magnetization $\mathbf{M}$, called
spin wave. Its quanta are the magnons, up to a gyromagnetic ratio constant,
the magnetic susceptibility and the spin-spin correlation function can be viewed as one thing. In fact, the magnetic susceptibility
is the magnetization or spin transport. Like other theoretical studies
of transport coefficients, e.g. see \cite{Jeon:1995zm,Arnold:2000dr},
the magnetic susceptibility could be calculated by using the standard
perturbative technique in quantum field theory, which is based on
the precondition that the magnetizations or, equivalently, the spins
taken by constituent fermions interact weakly with each other. The
condition is fulfilled in the Fermi-liquid theory, which is a theory
in the vicinity of a trivial fixed point \cite{Anderson:1990}. When
the interaction becomes stronger, the calculations are notoriously
difficult. However, it is conjectured that another non-trivial fixed
point exists \cite{PhysRevD.58.046004} and corresponds to a strongly
coupled conformal fields theory that is dual to a string/M theory
in an AdS space, the AdS/CFT correspondence \cite{Maldacena:1997re,Gubser:1998bc,Witten:1998qj}.
These two fundamentally different fixed points correspond to the extremely
weak and strong coupling limit \cite{Anderson:1990}.
An example of the study of the magnetic susceptibility in extremely
weak coupling limit is the Pauli paramagnetism, which describes $\chi$ in electron gas \cite{pauli_paramag}. The validity of the
weakly interacting description is based on the fact that the Coulomb
interactions are effectively screened, so the Coulomb interaction
becomes a short range force characterized by the Debye mass. But it is known that the magnetic
interactions which are mediated by the magnons can not be effectively
screened and spoil the normal Fermi-liquid behavior of the system
\cite{PhysRevLett.74.1423}, therefore, the non-perturbative effects
in magnetic susceptibility are thought to be important, especially in
strongly coupled system. In the extremely strong coupling limit, the
't Hooft coupling tends to infinity, the string/M theory is reduced
to a classical (super)gravity, so it allows us to do calculation of
the correlation functions in the limit.
One of the famous predictions \cite{Policastro:2001yc,Policastro:2002se}
of the AdS/CFT correspondence
was that the ratio of the shear viscosity $\eta$ to the entropy density
$s$, in $\mathcal{N}=4$ super-Yang-Mills (SYM) theory at large 't
Hooft coupling with finite temperature, equals to $1/4\pi$ (in natural
units), it is a universal quantity independent with the microscopic
details, which agrees well with the observation from the strongly coupled
quark-gluon-plasma produced in relativistic heavy ion collision \cite{PhysRevLett.97.162302}. The strongly coupled QCD theory is
an important area for applying the results. The surprising success of the AdS/CFT correspondence at low energies is probably the result of the universality in its predictions. Note that the magnetic susceptibility
is dimensionless, so a naive guess is that it may be universal as
well in the prediction from the approach, it is very interesting to
check this idea by detail calculations. Another motivation for doing
the calculation is that the topic of magnetic aspects of the quark
matter in the phase diagram of QCD have attracted many interests,
e.g. see \cite{Tatsumi:2008nx,Tatsumi:2008gu,Agasian:2008tb,PhysRevD.78.074033,Kharzeev:2009pj,Kharzeev:2010gd}.
In this paper, we will work in the framework of AdS/CFT correspondence
at large 't Hooft coupling limit with finite temperature and chemical
potential \cite{Ge:2008ak}. The idea to calculate the magnetic susceptibility
in this framework is simple. Similarly to the standard procedure in calculating
the other transport coefficients in Minkowski prescription \cite{Son:2002sd},
one places the magnetization $M_{i}$ on the 4-dimensional boundary
that couples to the magnetic field $H_{i}$ which propagates in the
5-dimension bulk AdS space. One can write down the action of the
magnetic fields in the bulk space deduced from the Maxwell action
in the AdS background. Depending on the thermodynamical variables
of the system, we need to place a Schwarzschild or charged Reissner-Nordstrom
black hole into the AdS space, which corresponds to introduce finite
temperature and/or chemical potential, respectively. The two point
correlation function (in Minkowski space) of $M_{i}$ can be computed
by performing the functional derivative with respect to the magnetic
field $H_{i}$ as a source on the boundary. Here the magnetic fields
$H_{i}$ in the bulk are dual to $M_{i}$, which is analogous to the
case that we compute the correlation function of charged currents $J_{i}$
where the gauge fields $A_{i}$ in the bulk are dual to $J_{i}$.
The paper is organized as follows. In section \ref{sec:Preliminaries}
we briefly define the magnetic susceptibility from the linear response
theory and review the computing framework of the Green's functions
from AdS/CFT correspondence in Minkowski prescription. In section
\ref{sec:Holographic-calculation}, we perform a detail calculation
to the magnetic susceptibility in two cases, the system with temperature
and temperature together with chemical potential. We also compare
our result with the one computed from the weakly coupled limit, the
Pauli paramagnetic susceptibility. Section \ref{sec:Conclusion} contains
the conclusions.
\section{\label{sec:Preliminaries}Preliminaries}
\subsection{Magnetic susceptibility in the linear response theory}
In this section, we set up a field theoretical framework for the response
of a system at equilibrium to small perturbations. The framework allows
us to relate a two point correlation function of magnetizations to
the magnetic susceptibility of the system.
Let us consider the response of the system to the presence of a weak external
magnetic field $H^{i}(x)$ which couples to a the magnetization $M_{i}$.
Then the Hamiltonian is perturbed by a term
\begin{equation}
\delta\mathcal{H}=\int d^{4}xM_{i}(x)H^{i}(x),\end{equation}
where the index $i=1,2,3$. The standard perturbation theory in textbook
of quantum mechanics tells us that it produces a change in the expectation
value of the operators\begin{equation}
\delta\langle M_{i}(x)\rangle=\int d^{4}x^{\prime}\tilde{G}_{ij}^{R}(x,x^{\prime})H^{j}(x^{\prime})+\mathcal{O}(H^{2}),\end{equation}
in which\begin{equation}
\tilde{G}_{ij}^{R}(x,x^{\prime})=-i\theta(t-t^{\prime})\langle[M_{i}(x),M_{j}(x^{\prime})]\rangle\end{equation}
is the retarded Green's function. The result can also be found by
using the Kubo formula, which tells us that to first order in the
time-dependent perturbation, the induced vector current (here it is
the perturbative wave of magnetization $M_{i}(x)$, or the spin wave
current) is equal to retarded correlator to the vector current with
the perturbation evaluated in equilibrium. The Fourier transformed
linear response then takes a simple form\begin{equation}
\delta M_{i}(k)=G_{ij}^{R}(k,0)H_{j}(k)+\mathcal{O}(H^{2}),\label{eq:linear_perturbation}\end{equation}
where the Fourier transformation of the retarded Green's function
is\begin{equation}
G_{ij}^{R}(k)=\int d^{4}xe^{-ikx}\tilde{G}_{ij}^{R}(x,0).\end{equation}
To see the relation between the retarded Green's function to the magnetic
susceptibility $\chi_{ij}$, we write down its definition \begin{equation}
M_{i}(k)\equiv\chi_{ij}(k)H_{j}(k),\end{equation}
which $\chi_{ij}$ is a second rank tensor. Compared with Eq.(\ref{eq:linear_perturbation}),
consider that here the external perturbation is weak, at linear level,
the magnetic susceptibility tensor is identified with the retarded
Green's function, i.e. the two point magnetization-magnetization correlation
function \begin{equation}
\chi_{ij}(k)=G_{ij}^{R}(k,0).\label{eq:chi_green}\end{equation}
\subsection{Minkowski correlators in AdS/CFT correspondence}
In order to calculate the two point magnetization-magnetization correlation
function of a thermal strongly coupled system in Minkowski space,
one need to discuss in detail a prescription for computing a two-point
Green's function from gravity, followed by the AdS/CFT correspondence.
One can write the AdS/CFT correspondence as the equality in Euclidean
version\begin{equation}
\langle e^{\int_{\partial\mathcal{M}}M_{i}H_{0}^{i}}\rangle=e^{-S_{cl}[H]}.\end{equation}
The left hand side is a generating functional for the correlators
of magnetization in the boundary field theory, which is conjectured
as a $\mathcal{N}=4$ SU(N) SYM theory at large N limit. When the
't Hooft coupling $g_{YM}^{2}N$ tends to infinity, the right hand
side tends to the action of the classical Einstein (super)gravity,
and the external magnetic field $H$ propagates in the bulk $AdS_{d+1}$
space, with its boundary condition $H_{0}$ couples to the magnetization
$M_{i}$ on the boundary $\partial\mathcal{M}$ of the AdS space.
In order to introduce a finite temperature to the system, one has
to place a black hole to the AdS space, the metric in Minkowski version
can be written as
\begin{equation}
ds^{2}=\frac{(\pi TR)^{2}}{u}\left(-f(u)dt^{2}+dx^{2}+dy^{2}+dz^{2}\right)+\frac{R^{2}}{4u^{2}f(u)}du^{2},\label{eq:background}\end{equation}
where for Schwarzschild-AdS background we have $f(z)=1-u^{2}$ and
$u=r_{0}^{2}/r^{2}$, $r_{0}$ is the radius of the horizon of the
black hole, in which $T=r_{0}/\pi R^{2}$ is the Hawking temperature,
the horizon locates at $u=1$, the boundary at $u=0$.
As proposed by Son and Starinets \cite{Son:2002sd}, to generalize
the AdS/CFT correspondence from the Euclidean to Minkowski version,
formally we have the relation\begin{equation}
\langle e^{i\int_{\partial\mathcal{M}}M_{i}H_{0}^{i}}\rangle=e^{iS_{cl}[H]},\label{eq:correspondence}\end{equation}
together with the incoming-wave boundary condition at the horizon,
i.e. all modes are absorbed into the black hole horizon but no ones
can emit. By using the Eq.(\ref{eq:chi_green}) and Eq.(\ref{eq:correspondence}),
the retarded Green's function, and then the magnetic susceptibility
in a strongly coupled system can be computed from the second functional
derivative of $S_{cl}$ with respect to the boundary value $H_{0}$,\begin{equation}
\chi_{ij}=-2\frac{\delta^{2}S_{cl}[H]}{\delta H_{0}^{i}\delta H_{0}^{j}}\Biggl|_{u\rightarrow0}.\label{eq:chi_from_action}\end{equation}
\section{\label{sec:Holographic-calculation}Holographic calculation}
\subsection{Finite Temperature}
In this section, we work on the 5-dimensional Schwarzschild-AdS background
and consider the perturbations of magnetic field $H^{i}$ in it. Our
starting point is the 5-dimensional Maxwell action in the background
Eq.(\ref{eq:background}),
\begin{equation}
S=-\frac{1}{4g_{YM}^{2}}\int d^{5}x\sqrt{-g}F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu},\end{equation}
where \begin{equation}
g_{YM}^{2}=16\pi^{2}R/N^{2}\label{eq:gYM}\end{equation}
is the coupling constant. In this paper, what we are interested in
is the correlator of magnetizations coupled to the magnetic fields
which are directly observed physical quantities unlike the gauge
potential $A_{\mu}$, so we will use the electric and magnetic fields
($E_{i}$,$H_{i}$) as fundamental dynamical variables. One can rewrite
the action as\begin{equation}
S=-\frac{1}{2g_{YM}^{2}}\int d^{5}x\sqrt{-g}\left(\epsilon_{0}E_{i}E^{i}-\mu_{0}H_{i}H^{i}\right),\end{equation}
where $\epsilon_{0}$ is the electric permittivity, $\mu_{0}$ the
magnetic permeability of the vacuum in the bulk space. Here we assume
that the backreaction of the source on the boundary to the bulk electromagnetic
fields is small, the electric and magnetic wave that will propagate
in the bulk along $u$ axis are almost purely transverse, so we shall
set $E_{u}=H_{u}=0$, the physical independent fields are those with
index $i=x,y,z=1,2,3$. The physical components are defined as \[
\sqrt{\epsilon_{0}}E^{i}=F^{i0},\quad\sqrt{\mu_{0}}H^{i}=\frac{1}{2}\epsilon^{ijk}F_{jk},\]
where $\epsilon^{ijk}=1$ for that the order of indices $(ijk)$ are
an even/odd permutation of $(123)$. One can use the Fourier decomposition\begin{eqnarray}
P_{i}(x,u) & = & \int\frac{d^{4}K}{(2\pi)^{4}}e^{-i\omega t+ik\cdot x}P_{i}(K,u),\quad P=H\;\mathrm{or}\; E.\end{eqnarray}
By locally using the Maxwell equation in 4-dimensional space\begin{eqnarray}
\nabla\times\mathbf{E} & = & -\mu_{0}\frac{\partial\mathbf{H}}{\partial t},\end{eqnarray}
to replace the transverse electric fields $E_{i}$ with magnetic fields
$H_{i}$ locally. Then the action can be written as\begin{equation}
S=-\frac{1}{2g_{YM}^{2}}\mu_{0}\int du\int\frac{d^{4}K}{(2\pi)^{4}}\sqrt{-g}\left(\epsilon_{0}\mu_{0}\omega^{2}-k^{2}\right)\frac{1}{k^{2}}H_{i}(K,u)H^{i}(K,u).\end{equation}
Without loss of generality, one can set the speed of light $c^{2}=(\epsilon_{0}\mu_{0})^{-1}=1$
in the bulk space, so we have\begin{equation}
S=\frac{1}{2g_{YM}^{2}}\mu_{0}\int du\int\frac{d^{4}K}{(2\pi)^{4}}\sqrt{-g}\frac{K^{2}}{k^{2}}H_{i}(K,u)H^{i}(K,u),\label{eq:action}\end{equation}
where $K^{2}=-\omega^{2}+k^{2}$, we denote $K_{\mu}=(\omega,\mathbf{k})$
locally as a 4-momentum. The magnetic fields can be decomposed as\begin{equation}
H^{i}(K,u)=h_{K}^{i}(u)H_{0}^{i}(K),\label{eq:decomposition}\end{equation}
note that $h_{K}^{i}$ equals to 1 at the boundary $u=0$, \begin{equation}
\lim_{u\rightarrow0}h_{K}^{i}(u)=1.\label{eq:boundary_condition}\end{equation}
The equations of motion of magnetic fields $H_{i}(K,u)$ in the extra
dimension $u$ are given by the decoupled equations of motion of $h_{K}^{i}(u)$\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{\sqrt{-g}}\partial_{u}\left(\sqrt{-g}g^{uu}\partial_{u}h_{K}^{i}\right)-g^{\mu\nu}K_{\mu}K_{\nu}h_{K}^{i}=0.\label{eq:EOM}\end{equation}
Introducing dimensionless energy and momentum in unit of temperature
\begin{equation}
\boldsymbol{\omega}=\frac{\omega}{2\pi T},\quad\boldsymbol{k}_{i}=\frac{k_{i}}{2\pi T},\end{equation}
substituting the metric Eq.(\ref{eq:background}) into Eq.(\ref{eq:EOM}),
we have\begin{equation}
\left(h_{K}^{i}\right)^{\prime\prime}+\left(\frac{f^{\prime}}{f}-\frac{1}{u}\right)\left(h_{K}^{i}\right)^{\prime}+\left(\frac{\boldsymbol{\omega}^{2}}{uf^{2}}-\frac{\boldsymbol{k}^{2}}{uf}\right)h_{K}^{i}=0,\label{eq:diff_equ}\end{equation}
in which the prime stands for the derivative with respect to $u$.
The Eq.(\ref{eq:diff_equ}) is a second-order differential equation
for $h_{K}^{i}(u)$ in which at the horizon $u=1$ is a singular point,
and behaves as $h_{K}^{i}=(1-u)^{\nu}F^{i}(u)$, where $F^{i}(u)$
is a regular function. There are only two values of $\nu_{\pm}=\pm i\boldsymbol{\omega}/2$,
and the incoming wave boundary condition at the horizon is $\nu_{-}$.
Then we obtain the equation for $F^{i}(u)$,\begin{equation}
F^{\prime\prime}+\left(-\frac{1+u^{2}}{uf}+\frac{i\boldsymbol{\omega}}{1-u}\right)F^{\prime}+\left(-\frac{i\boldsymbol{\omega}}{2uf}\right)F+\frac{\boldsymbol{\omega}^{2}\left[4-u(1+u)^{2}\right]}{4uf^{2}}F-\frac{\boldsymbol{k}^{2}}{uf}F=0,\end{equation}
Since the three equations are decoupled and identical, we have omitted
the superscript $i$ and denoted the solution as $F$. In the low
frequency and long wavelength limit, the $\boldsymbol{\omega}$ and
$\boldsymbol{k}$ can be considered small, we solve the equation perturbatively
by expanding the solution $F$ in powers of these small parameters\begin{equation}
F(u)=F_{0}+\boldsymbol{\omega}F_{1}+\boldsymbol{k}^{2}G_{1}+\boldsymbol{\omega}^{2}F_{2}+\boldsymbol{\omega}\boldsymbol{k}^{2}H_{1}+...\end{equation}
The leading order contribution is given by first three functions $F_{0},F_{1},G_{1}$,
which can be solved explicitly, the integration constants can be fixed
by requiring that these functions are regular at the horizon $u=1$,
and vanish in the limit $u\rightarrow1$ (except $F_{0}$). We obtain
\begin{equation}
F_{0}=C,\quad F_{1}=-\frac{iC}{2}\log\frac{1+u}{2},\quad G_{1}=-C\log\frac{1+u}{2}.\end{equation}
The constant $C$ is determined by the boundary condition Eq.(\ref{eq:boundary_condition}),
so we have\begin{equation}
C=\frac{1}{1+(\frac{i}{2}\boldsymbol{\omega}+\boldsymbol{k}^{2})\log2}.\end{equation}
Near the boundary, the radial derivative of the field behaves as\begin{equation}
\lim_{u\rightarrow0}\partial_{u}h_{K}=-\boldsymbol{k}^{2}-\frac{\boldsymbol{\omega}^{2}}{4}\log2+\frac{i}{2}\boldsymbol{\omega}\boldsymbol{k}^{2}\log2.\end{equation}
at leading order\begin{equation}
\lim_{u\rightarrow0}\partial_{u}h_{K}=-\boldsymbol{k}^{2}+...\label{eq:h_prime}\end{equation}
where ... denotes the higher order corrections, $\mathcal{O}(\boldsymbol{\omega}^{2})$
and $\mathcal{O}(\boldsymbol{\omega}\boldsymbol{k}^{2})$. Substituting
the solution into Eq.(\ref{eq:action}) and Eq.(\ref{eq:decomposition})
and integrate $u$ by part, we get\begin{equation}
S=\frac{1}{2g_{YM}^{2}}\mu_{0}\int\frac{d^{4}K}{(2\pi)^{4}}\sqrt{-g}\frac{1}{k^{2}}H_{0}^{i}g^{ij}\left[g^{uu}h_{-K}^{i}\partial_{u}h_{K}^{j}\right]H_{0}^{j}.\end{equation}
So according to the Eq.(\ref{eq:chi_from_action}) and Eq.(\ref{eq:gYM}),
we have\begin{equation}
G_{ij}^{R}=\frac{N^{2}\delta_{ij}}{32\pi^{2}}\mu_{0}+...\end{equation}
We see that the correlation functions is isotropic, the magnetic susceptibility
of the system can be written as a scalar\begin{equation}
\chi=\frac{N^{2}}{32\pi^{2}}\mu_{0}+...\end{equation}
\subsection{Finite Temperature and Chemical potential}
To generalize this result to a system with finite density, one need
to replace the Schwarzschild black hole by a charged black hole, namely,
the Reissner-Nordstrom-AdS (RN-AdS) background, which has the same form
as Eq.(\ref{eq:background}) with a different structure of horizon
\begin{equation}
f(u)=(1-u)(1+u-au^{2}),\label{eq:f_RN}\end{equation}
where $a$ is parameter that relates to the charge of the black hole.
The temperature and chemical potential of the system can be now written
as\begin{equation}
T=\frac{1}{2\pi b}(1-\frac{a}{2}),\quad\Sigma=\frac{1}{2b}\sqrt{\frac{3a}{2}},\end{equation}
in which $b$ is another parameter related to the mass of the black
hole \cite{Ge:2008ak}. The calculating process is similar, we need
to solve the differential equations Eq.(\ref{eq:diff_equ}) by using
Eq.(\ref{eq:f_RN}). Similarly, the solution is found to be\begin{equation}
h_{K}(u)=C(1-u)^{-i\boldsymbol{\omega}/2}\left[1+\boldsymbol{\omega}F_{1}+\boldsymbol{k}^{2}G_{1}+\mathcal{O}(\boldsymbol{\omega}^{2},\boldsymbol{\omega}\boldsymbol{k}^{2}...)\right],\end{equation}
with\begin{eqnarray}
C & = & \frac{1}{1-\frac{1}{4}\boldsymbol{\omega}\left[\pi+i\log(a-2)\right]-\frac{3i\boldsymbol{\omega}+4\boldsymbol{k}^{2}}{2\sqrt{-1-4a}}\left[\tan^{-1}\left(\frac{2a-1}{\sqrt{-1-4a}}\right)+\tan^{-1}\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{-1-4a}}\right)\right]},\\
F_{1} & = & -\frac{i}{4}\log\left(\frac{2-a}{1+u-au^{2}}\right)+\frac{3i}{2\sqrt{-1-4a}}\left[\tan^{-1}\left(\frac{2au-1}{\sqrt{-1-4a}}\right)-\tan^{-1}\left(\frac{2a-1}{\sqrt{-1-4a}}\right)\right],\\
G_{1} & = & \frac{2}{\sqrt{-1-4a}}\left[\tan^{-1}\left(\frac{2au-1}{\sqrt{-1-4a}}\right)-\tan^{-1}\left(\frac{2a-1}{\sqrt{-1-4a}}\right)\right].\end{eqnarray}
The behavior near the boundary is\begin{equation}
\lim_{u\rightarrow0}\partial_{u}h_{K}=-\boldsymbol{k}^{2}.\end{equation}
Differ from Eq.(\ref{eq:h_prime}), there are no higher order corrections
such as $\mathcal{O}(\boldsymbol{\omega}^{2})$, $\mathcal{O}(\boldsymbol{\omega}\boldsymbol{k}^{2})$.
Applying the prescription formulated in the previous section, one
finds\begin{equation}
\chi=\frac{N^{2}}{32\pi^{2}}\mu_{0},\label{eq:result}\end{equation}
which is our final result for the magnetic susceptibility at large
't Hooft coupling $g_{YM}^{2}N\gg1$. It can be regarded as a nontrivial
prediction from the strongly coupled $\mathcal{N}=4$ SYM theory at
finite temperature and chemical potential. The first observation is
that in this limit $\chi$ is independent with the temperature and
the 't Hooft coupling, it is so simple and be a universal quantity.
It is measured in the unit of the magnetic permeability $\mu_{0}$
of the bulk space.
The result is positivity, if we have an analytic continuation for
the result from large N to finite N, the system would be paramagnetic.
Note that in the weak coupling limit, the quasi-particle gas is paramagnetic,
the Pauli paramagnetism \cite{pauli_paramag}, it is interesting to
compare the Eq.(\ref{eq:result}) with the Pauli paramagnetic susceptibility.
In this weak coupling regime, the $\chi_{Pauli}$ comes from the contribution
of free quasi-particles near the Fermi surface \cite{pauli_paramag}\begin{equation}
\chi_{Pauli}=\mu_{0}\mu_{B}^{2}\rho,\end{equation}
where $\mu_{0}$ is the vacuum permeability, $\mu_{B}^{2}=g_{YM}^{2}N/4m^{2}$
is the Bohr magneton, $m$ the effective mass of the quasi-particle,
and \begin{equation}
\rho=-2N\int\frac{d^{3}k}{(2\pi)^{3}}\frac{\partial n_{k}}{\partial\omega_{k}}=\frac{Nk_{F}m}{\pi^{2}},\end{equation}
is the density of states near the Fermi surface, where $k_{F}$ is
the fermi momentum, $N$ the number of species of the fermions. Finally
we get\begin{equation}
\chi_{Pauli}=\frac{N}{4\pi^{2}}\mu_{0}\frac{(g_{YM}^{2}N)k_{F}}{m},\quad g_{YM}^{2}N\ll1.\label{eq:chi_pauli}\end{equation}
The Eq.(\ref{eq:result}) and Eq.(\ref{eq:chi_pauli}) implies that
in strong coupling regime the {}``quasi-particle'' (if we can still
denote them by this name) becomes heavy so that the effecitve mass
is comparable to the order of the numerator near the Fermi surface,
i.e. $m\sim\mathcal{O}(g_{YM}^{2}k_{F})$, and $m=8g_{YM}^{2}k_{F}$
for $g_{YM}^{2}N\rightarrow\infty$. Note that the life-time of quasi-particle
is $\tau\sim1/m$, so the notion of the long-lived quasi-particle at
the Fermi surface does not hold any more in the strongly coupled system,
instead of a broadened spectral density and/or smeared Fermi surface,
which has been observed in the studies on strongly coupled non-Fermi-liquid
system \cite{Lee:2008xf,Liu:2009dm,Faulkner:2010da,Faulkner:2011tm}.
We expect that $\chi$ behaves similarly in a non-Fermi-liquid system.
\section{\label{sec:Conclusion}Conclusion}
In this paper, we have calculated the real-time correlation function
of the magnetization $\mathbf{M}$, i.e. the magnetic susceptibility
$\chi$, in the $\mathcal{N}=4$ SYM theory at finite temperature
and chemical potential by using the Minkowski AdS/CFT prescription.
We show that in extremely strong coupling limit, the magnetic susceptibility,
measured in the unit of magnetic permeability in the bulk space,
does not vary with the temperature and 't Hooft coupling. It is found
to be universal and independent from the microscopic details. We expect that our result can be extended and applied to the strongly coupled
quark-gluon-plasma and the non-Fermi-liquid system observed in strange
metal phase of cuperate superconductors and many heavy fermion materials.
|
\section{Introduction}
Several astrophysical observations indicate that in the early as well
as in the present Universe a non-baryonic form of dark matter (DM)
prevails over the baryonic matter content. Structure formation favours
a cold dark matter (CDM) scenario \citep[for recent reviews see,
e.g.,][]{2005PhR...405..279B,2009arXiv0907.1912D,2010Natur.468..389B}. However,
the nature of DM remains unknown. A class of promising candidates for
CDM are stable, weakly interacting, massive particles (WIMPs) with
masses between 10 and $10^{5}$\,GeV, predicted by theories that extend
the standard model of particle physics. The most prominent extensions
encompass those based on supersymmetry and universal extradimensions,
which were invented to solve inconsistencies of the standard model at
high energy scales [$\mathcal{O}(\mathrm{TeV})$], and which deliver
adequate DM candidates in this way. These particles can
self-annihilate or decay, producing detectable signatures in the final
states such as energetic photons ($\gamma$ rays), antimatter, and
leptons.
Unravelling the nature of DM remains a challenging problem for
astronomy and particle physics, and a variety of attempts to detect
signals have been made, using both direct and indirect detection
techniques. For instance, multi-wavelength observations of
astrophysical targets have constrained the self-annihilation rate of
DM, which is related to the thermally averaged annihilation cross
section. In particular, regions with high DM densities such as the
Galactic Centre
\citep{2006PhRvL..97v1102A,2006PhRvL..97x9901A,2010arXiv1012.2292M,2011PhRvL.106p1301A},
Galactic Ridge \citep{2006Natur.439..695A}, dwarf spheroidal galaxies
\citep[dSphs;][\citetalias{2011APh....34..608H}]{2007PhRvD..75b3513C,2008ApJ...679..428A,2008APh....29...55A,2009ApJ...691..175A,2009ApJ...697.1299A,2010APh....33..274A,2010ApJ...712..147A,2010ApJ...720.1174A,2011JCAP...06..035A},
as well as globular \citep{2006A&A...455...21C,2009arXiv0910.4563W,2011ApJ...735...12A}
and galaxy clusters
\citep{2010ApJ...710..634A,2010JCAP...05..025A}
serve as excellent targets. Furthermore, DM annihilation in the entire
Galactic halo as well as its subhalo population produces a diffuse
$\gamma$-ray flux, which contributes to the overall diffuse signal of
the Galaxy. Comparatively stringent upper limits on the annihilation
cross section have been obtained from the combination of both
dedicated observations and bounds obtained from the diffuse
$\gamma$-ray flux
\citep{2010JCAP...11..041A,2010NuPhB.840..284C,2010NuPhB.831..178M,2010JCAP...03..014P,2010arXiv1012.0588Z}.
Based on the theory of hierarchical structure formation, DM haloes of
Milky Way-sized galaxies are anticipated to host numerous DM subhaloes
with masses between a cut-off scale $10^{-11}\!-\!10^{-3}$ and
$10^{10}\,\mathrm{M}_\odot$ \citep[e.g.,][]{2009NJPh...11j5027B},
where $\mathrm{M}_\odot$ denotes the solar mass. This expectation is a
consequence of the early collapse of overdensities in the expanding
Universe \citep{2005Natur.433..389D}, leading to the formation of
initially low-mass haloes, which subsequently serve as building-blocks
for larger haloes by merging at later times. Besides analytical
calculations
\citep[e.g.,][]{2003PhRvD..68j3003B,2006PhRvD..73f3504B,2008PhRvD..77h3519B},
recent numerical high-resolution $N$-body simulations of structure
formation in a $\Lambda$CDM cosmology \citep{2011ApJS..192...18K},
such as the Aquarius Project
\citep{2008MNRAS.391.1685S,2008Natur.456...73S} or the Via Lactea II
simulation \citep{2008Natur.454..735D,2009MNRAS.394..641Z}, allow to
study substructures in detail. For a Milky Way-type galaxy, these
simulations predict a large number of subhaloes (up to $10^{16}$) with
masses distributed following a power law, $\mathrm{d}N/\mathrm{d}M
\propto M^{-\alpha}$, where $\alpha \in [1.9;2.0]$. The DM density
profiles of large-mass subhaloes are found to be similar to the
host's, which results in high central densities
\citep{2008MNRAS.391.1685S}. The spatial distribution of subhaloes is
``anti-biased'', i.e., the dominant fraction is placed far away from
the host-halo's centre.
In self-annihilating DM scenarios, subhaloes are expected to appear as
weak point-like or moderately extended $\gamma$-ray sources, and a
small fraction of them could be detectable with current high- or very
high-energy (VHE) $\gamma$-ray telescopes
\citep[e.g.,][]{2005PhRvL..95u1301P,2008MNRAS.384.1627P,2011PhRvD..83b3518P,2008Natur.456...73S,2008ApJ...686..262K,2009PhRvD..80b3520A,2010PhRvD..82f3501B,2011PhRvD..83a5003B,2011arXiv1110.6868Z}. Examples
for currently operating telescopes are the \textit{Fermi}-LAT
\citep[$20\,\mathrm{MeV} - 300\,\mathrm{GeV}$,][]{2009ApJ...697.1071A}
and imaging air Cherenkov telescopes (IACTs; $E\gtrsim 100$\,GeV) such
as H.E.S.S. \citep{2006A&A...457..899A}, MAGIC
\citep{2008ApJ...674.1037A,2010NIMPA.623..437F}, and VERITAS
\citep{2002APh....17..221W}. In the near future, a significant
improvement in the overall sensitivity and lower energy threshold will
be achieved by upcoming experiments such as H.E.S.S.-II
\citep{2005ICRC....5..163V} and CTA
\citep{2010NIMPA.623..408F,2010arXiv1008.3703C,2011NIMPA.630..285D}. Such
instruments are possibly sufficiently sensitive to detect nearby
large-mass subhaloes of $\mathcal{O}(10^6)\,\mathrm{M}_\odot$ within
distances of $\mathcal{O}(1)\,\mathrm{kpc}$.
This paper consists of two separate parts, which can in principle be
read independently. The first part (Sects. \ref{sect:gamma_rays} to
\ref{sect:Fermi_clumps}) investigates the detectability of subhaloes
with \textit{Fermi}-LAT, where the basic framework for predicting the
$\gamma$-ray properties of subhaloes is laid out in Sects.
\ref{sect:gamma_rays} and \ref{sect:candidate_sources}. In Sect.
\ref{sect:Fermi_clumps}, properties of detectable subhaloes are
investigated by means of a fiducial source. In the second part,
Sect. \ref{sect:1FGL_searches} discusses the search for DM subhaloes
in the first \textit{Fermi}-LAT point-source catalogue (1FGL) and
subsequent multi-wavelength studies of the most promising candidate,
\mbox{1FGL J0030.7+0724}. A discussion of the physical origin of \mbox{1FGL J0030.7+0724}\space and
prospects for IACTs are presented in Sect. \ref{sect:discussion}.
Throughout this paper, Hubble's constant is $H_0 =
73\,\mathrm{km}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}\,\mathrm{Mpc}^{-1}$, yielding the
present value of the Universe's critical density $\rho_\mathrm{crit} =
3H_0^2/(8 \pi G_\mathrm{N}) \simeq 1.48 \times
10^{11}\,\mathrm{M}_\odot\,\mathrm{Mpc}^{-3}$, where $G_\mathrm{N}$
denotes Newton's gravitational constant
\citep[e.g.,][]{2007ApJS..170..377S}.
\section{Gamma rays from DM subhaloes} \label{sect:gamma_rays}
In the following, the $\gamma$-ray flux from DM subhaloes will be
derived, based upon current theoretical models of the corresponding
radial density distribution.
With respect to undisturbed, isolated galactic haloes, henceforth
field haloes, the general formation history of (embedded) subhaloes
differs significantly. Analytical models and numerical $N$-body
simulations of structure formation found their physical properties to
depend on particular evolutionary conditions, i.e., formation time,
evolution, and orbit \citep[see][and references
therein]{2007ApJ...667..859D,2008ApJ...679.1680D}. Tidal interaction
with the gravitational potential of the host halo leads to tidal
stripping and heating, and can therefore truncate the outer region of
subhaloes. In the following, two different approaches will be
discussed. On the one hand, subhaloes are modelled assuming negligible
tidal effects and are therefore considered to be in a genuine
virialised state. Because this approximation is (at least) valid for
field haloes, this model will be tagged as \textit{field-halo model}
(FHM). On the other hand, a second and more realistic model is
considered to account for subhalo evolution, henceforth referred to as
\textit{subhalo model} (SHM).
\subsection{Density profile} \label{sect:density}
The subhalo's DM density profile $\rho(r)$ is assumed to follow
\begin{equation} \label{eq:sub_profile}
\rho(r) = \frac{\rho_\mathrm{s}}{(r/r_\mathrm{s})^\gamma \left( 1+
r/r_\mathrm{s} \right)^2} \left\{ \begin{array}{lcl} 1 &
\mathrm{for} & r \leq r_\mathrm{cut}, \\
0 & \mathrm{for} & r > r_\mathrm{cut}, \end{array} \right.
\end{equation}
where $r$ denotes the distance to the subhalo's centre. In general,
the profile cuts at an outer radius $r_\mathrm{cut}$, which is the
virial or tidal radius ($R_\mathrm{vir}$ or $R_\mathrm{t}$),
respectively. Given $\gamma = 1.0$ for the remainder, the profile
follows the universal spherically symmetric Navarro-Frenk-White (NFW)
profile, well-fitting haloes resolved in numerical
simulations\footnote{Note that details on the very inner slope of halo
profiles remain to be clarified, by simulations as well as
observationally
\cite[e.g.,][]{2011ApJ...733L..46W,2007MNRAS.378...41S}.}
\citep{1997ApJ...490..493N}. The profile is defined by two parameters:
a characteristic inner radius $r_\mathrm{s}$, where the effective
logarithmic slope of the profile is $-2$, and an inner density $\rho_s
= 4\rho(r_\mathrm{s})$. In case of FHM haloes, which are not subject
to tides, both parameters are related to each other by the virial halo
mass $M_\mathrm{vir}$. This quantity is defined as the mass inside the
sphere of radius $R_{\mathrm{vir}}$, which encloses a mean density of
$\Delta_{\mathrm{c}}$ times the critical density of the Universe at
the considered redshift $z$
\citep{1997ApJ...490..493N,2001MNRAS.321..559B}, $M_\mathrm{vir} :=
4\pi/3 \,\Delta_\mathrm{c} \rho_\mathrm{crit} R^3_\mathrm{vir}$. The
virial overdensity at $z = 0$ is $\Delta_\mathrm{c} \approx 100$, as
suggested by models of the dissipationless spherical top-hat collapse
\citep{1996MNRAS.282..263E,1998ApJ...495...80B} and assuming present
concordance cosmology. In general, the subhalo mass $M$ is given by a
volume integration of Eq. \ref{eq:sub_profile}, revealing $M = 4\pi
\rho_\mathrm{s} r^3_\mathrm{s} f(c)$, where $f(c) \equiv
\ln(1+c)-c/(1+c)$ and $c$ denotes the concentration parameter of the
subhalo. For non-disturbed haloes, the concentration is then given by
the virial concentration $c_\mathrm{vir} \equiv
R_\mathrm{vir}/r_\mathrm{s}$. Generally, the concentration depends on
the subhalo mass and redshift, $c= c(M,z)$, where lighter haloes have
higher concentrations
\citep{1996ApJ...462..563N,1997ApJ...490..493N,2001MNRAS.321..559B}. Since
observational estimates are lacking \citep[see Sect. 2.2.1 in][and
references therein]{2008A&A...479..427L}, $c(M)$ is adopted from
$N$-body simulations. For the FHM, the toy model of
\citet{2001MNRAS.321..559B}\footnote{This model extends a proposal by
\citet{1997ApJ...490..493N}.} is used, where the halo's (average)
virial concentration at redshift $z$ is connected with the density of
the Universe at the halo's (mass-dependent) collapse redshift
$z_c(M)$, $c_\mathrm{vir}=K (1+z_c)/(1+z)$. The contraction parameter
$K$ is constant and independent of cosmology. To determine the mass
dependence of $z_{c}$ and, therefore, of $c_\mathrm{vir}$ at $z=0$,
the low-mass extrapolation of the Bullock model by
\citet{2008A&A...479..427L} is adapted. Because $c_\mathrm{vir}$
implicitly depends on $\Delta_\mathrm{c}$ (see also
Sect. \ref{sect:luminosity}), a conversion of $c_\mathrm{vir}$ to
$\Delta_\mathrm{c}=100$ was
applied\footnote{\citeauthor{2008A&A...479..427L} chose
$\Delta_\mathrm{c}=81.6$.} with the relation of
\citet{2003ApJ...584..702H}. The concentration-to-mass relation is
well-fitted by the polynomial form
\begin{equation} \label{eq:cvir_lavalle}
\ln (c^\mathrm{FHM}_\mathrm{vir}) = \sum_{i=0}^{4} c^\mathrm{FHM}_i
\times \left[ \ln \left( \frac{M}{\mathrm{M}_\odot} \right)
\right]^i,
\end{equation}
$c^\mathrm{FHM}_i =
\{4.265,-0.0384,-3.91\times10^{-4},-2.2\times10^{-6},-5.5\times10^{-7}\}$.
Note that this model almost equals the relation derived by
\citet{2011PhRvD..83b3518P} for a cosmology as used in the Aquarius
simulation. Regarding the concentration of SHM haloes, the low-mass
extrapolation of the Bullock model provides a conservative estimate
\citep[cf.,][]{2008MNRAS.384.1627P}.
\begin{figure}
\resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{17655f01.eps}}
\caption{Concentration-to-mass relation for subhaloes at $z=0$. The
dashed blue line depicts the concentration predicted by the
Bullock model (FHM), while its corresponding scatter is given by
the blue-shaded area. The mean concentration corrected for subhalo
evolution (SHM) is shown by the solid red line for a
galactocentric distance of $74\,\mathrm{kpc}$, the average
distance of the dSph galaxies included from
\citet{2010ApJ...712..147A} (black triangles). For comparison, the
concentration derived for Aquarius subhaloes is indicated by the
dot-dashed dark green line within its validity range, the
low/high-mass extrapolation by the double-dotted green line. The
black filled circle marks the virial concentration of the MW.}
\label{fig:conc_v}
\end{figure}
However, because subhalo formation differs from that of field haloes
and includes tidal truncation at $R_\mathrm{t}$, the virial
concentration is not well defined for subhaloes\footnote{In general,
the physical subhalo radius $R_\mathrm{t}$ is smaller than the
formally defined virial radius $R_\mathrm{vir}$, implying the
physical subhalo mass $M_\mathrm{t}$ to be smaller than
$M_\mathrm{vir}$. For massive subhaloes, the
$M_\mathrm{t}(M_\mathrm{vir})$ relation is approximately linear,
where $M_\mathrm{t}/M_\mathrm{vir} \approx 0.2$ (see Appendix
\ref{app:cvir_Aq}). Given the empirical model correction discussed
below, the formal virial quantities will be used in the remainder of
the paper.} \citep{2007ApJ...667..859D}. Therefore, the SHM
incorporates an empirical correction of $c_\mathrm{vir}$. Indicated by
numerical simulations, the concentration of subhaloes increases with
decreasing distance to the host's centre $D_\mathrm{gc}$,
\begin{equation} \label{eq:cSHM}
c^\mathrm{SHM}_\mathrm{vir}(M,D_\mathrm{gc}) =
c^\mathrm{FHM}_\mathrm{vir}(M) \left(
\frac{D_\mathrm{gc}}{R^\mathrm{MW}_\mathrm{vir}} \right)^{-\alpha_D},
\end{equation}
see \citet{2007ApJ...667..859D,2008ApJ...679.1680D} and
\citet{2008ApJ...686..262K}. The galactocentric distance is
\mbox{$D_\mathrm{gc} = ( R_0^2 + D^2 - 2 R_0 D \cos l \cos b
)^{1/2}$}, where $D$ denotes the subhalo's distance to the Sun,
$(l,b)$ its position in galactic coordinates, and $R_0=(8.28 \pm
0.29)\,\mathrm{kpc}$ the Sun's distance to the Galactic Centre
\citep{2010JCAP...08..004C}. The virial radius of the Milky Way (MW)
is $R^\mathrm{MW}_\mathrm{vir} =
c^\mathrm{MW}_\mathrm{vir}\,r_\mathrm{s}^\mathrm{MW} \approx (288 \pm
61)\,\mathrm{kpc}$, where $c^\mathrm{MW}_\mathrm{vir} = 19.70 \pm
2.92$ and $r^\mathrm{MW}_\mathrm{s} = (14.65 \pm 2.24)\,\mathrm{kpc}$
\citep{2010JCAP...08..004C}. The power-law slope $\alpha_D = 0.237$ is
adopted as fitting subhaloes resolved in the Aquarius simulation
\citep{2011PhRvD..83b3518P}.
Intrinsic to the stochastic process of halo formation, the
concentration of individual haloes scatters around the median
$\overline{c}$ provided by the quantities
$c^\mathrm{FHM}_\mathrm{vir}(M)$ and
$c^\mathrm{SHM}_\mathrm{vir}(M,D_\mathrm{gc})$, respectively. The
corresponding probability distribution follows a lognormal,
\begin{equation} \label{eq:scatter}
P(c,\overline{c}) = \frac{\log_{10} e}{\sqrt{2 \pi} \sigma_{\log_{10}
c} \,c} \exp \left[ -\frac{1}{2} \left( \frac{\log_{10} c -
\log_{10} \overline{c}}{\sigma_{\log_{10} c}} \right)^2 \right],
\end{equation}
where $\sigma_{\log_{10} c} = 0.14$ \citep{2001MNRAS.321..559B,2002ApJ...568...52W}.
The concentration-to-mass relations are shown in
Fig. \ref{fig:conc_v}. For the FHM, the scatter is also depicted
(68\%\,c.l. of $\log_{10} c$), see Eq. \ref{eq:scatter}. In addition
to the concentration of the MW, Fig. \ref{fig:conc_v} contains a
selection of eight dSphs that are associated with sufficiently precise
stellar data, which allow a conclusive modelling of the DM
distribution \citep[see][]{2010ApJ...712..147A}. Each dSph is modelled
with a NFW profile with parameters chosen to fit measurements of
stellar line-of-sight velocities and their distributions \citep[see
also][]{2009JCAP...06..014M}. The dSph's virial concentration is
given by its characteristic density,
$\rho_\mathrm{s}=\Delta_\mathrm{c} \rho_\mathrm{crit}
c_\mathrm{vir}^3/[3f(c_\mathrm{vir})]$, where tidal effects on the
inner system are assumed to be negligible. The SHM is depicted for
$D_\mathrm{gc} = 74\,\mathrm{kpc}$, the average galactocentric
distance of the dSph subset. Additionally, the models are confronted
with direct predictions of the Aquarius simulation, derived from
scaling relations fitting subhaloes observed in the
simulation. Details are provided in Appendix \ref{app:cvir_Aq}.
Within its scatter, the concentration model of FHM haloes consistently
describes the DM profile of dSph galaxies and the MW itself. However,
the median values $c^\mathrm{FHM}_\mathrm{vir}$ underpredict dSphs,
whereas the subhalo model SHM provides convincing agreement (as
expected by $N$-body simulations). The concentration derived directly
from the Aquarius simulation confirms the SHM within the validity
range, see Fig. \ref{fig:conc_v}. Note that the mean distance of
subhaloes resolved in Aquarius is 64\,kpc.
\subsection{DM annihilation in subhaloes} \label{sect:luminosity}
For self-annihilating particles, the total rate of photons (or
particles) emitted by a DM subhalo with energy $E$ in the interval
$[E_1;E_2]$ is
\begin{equation} \label{eq:luminosity}
\mathcal{L} = \frac{\ensuremath{\langle \sigma v \rangle}_\mathrm{eff} N_\gamma}{2 m_\chi^2} \int
\mathrm{d}V \rho^2(r) \propto \frac{M^2}{r_\mathrm{s}^3 f(c)^2},
\quad N_\gamma = \hskip -1mm \int\limits_{E_1/m_\chi}^{E_2/m_\chi}
\mathrm{d}x \frac{\mathrm{d}N_\gamma}{\mathrm{d}x},
\end{equation}
where $\ensuremath{\langle \sigma v \rangle}_\mathrm{eff}$ is the thermally averaged annihilation
cross section times the relative velocity, $m_\chi$ the WIMP mass, and
$\mathrm{d}N_\gamma/\mathrm{d}x$, $x \equiv E/m_\chi$, denotes the
differential spectrum of photons per annihilation. Assuming
$r_\mathrm{s} \ll D$, the produced photon flux is given by
$\phi=\mathcal{L}/(4\pi D^2)$. The solution of the integral holds for
$\gamma = 1.0$ and $c \gg 1$. In Eq. \ref{eq:luminosity}, a small,
flat core replacing the unphysical singularity at the halo centre
\citep{1992PhLB..294..221B} is safely neglected (given the NFW profile
used here). For $\gamma = 1.0$, Eq. \ref{eq:luminosity} simplifies via
\mbox{$r_\mathrm{s} = [ 3 M/(4\pi \Delta_\mathrm{c} \rho_\mathrm{crit}
c_\mathrm{vir}^3) ]^{1/3}$}:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:luminosity_vir}
\mathcal{L} = \frac{\ensuremath{\langle \sigma v \rangle}_\mathrm{eff} N_\gamma \Delta_\mathrm{c}
\rho_\mathrm{crit}}{18 m_\chi^2} \frac{ M
c_\mathrm{vir}^3}{f(c_\mathrm{vir})^2}.
\end{equation}
For a $\gamma=1.2$ profile (Eq. \ref{eq:sub_profile}) the
photon rate increases by a factor of \mbox{$\sim 1.5$} for subhaloes
above $10^3\,\mathrm{M}_\odot$. DM annihilation in subhaloes may be
additionally boosted by sub-substructure populations
\citep[see][]{2007PhRvD..75h3526S,2008ApJ...686..262K,2009JCAP...06..014M}. Conveniently,
the value of $\ensuremath{\langle \sigma v \rangle}_\mathrm{eff}$ is normalised to the value
$\ensuremath{\langle \sigma v \rangle}_0 = 3 \times 10^{-26}\,\mathrm{cm}^3 \mathrm{s}^{-1}$, which
leads to the correct relic density. An increase of the annihilation
rate, a so-called boost factor $\ensuremath{\langle \sigma v \rangle}_\mathrm{eff}/\ensuremath{\langle \sigma v \rangle}_0$, could
in principle be related to the underlying particle physics framework
\citep[e.g,][]{2004PhRvD..70j3529F} and effects such as Sommerfeld
enhancement \citep[e.g.,][]{2009PhRvD..79a5014A,2009Sci...325..970K}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{17655f02.eps}}
\caption{Differential $\gamma$-ray energy spectra $E^2
\frac{\mathrm{d}N}{\mathrm{d}E}$ originating from final-state
fragmentation of WIMP annihilation. Four different WIMP models are
depicted: mass \mbox{$m_\chi = 500\,\mathrm{GeV}$}, final states:
$b\overline{b}$ (solid black line), $W^+W^-$ (dashed red line),
$\tau^+\tau^-$ (dotted blue line); mass \mbox{$m_\chi =
150\,\mathrm{GeV}$}, final state $\tau^+\tau^-$ (dot-dashed
green line). The parametrisations are valid down to $E/m_\chi
\approx 0.01$. The grey-shaded area indicates the considered
energy range $E \in [10;100]\,\mathrm{GeV}$. }
\label{fig:DM_spectra}
\end{figure}
We considered DM to be composed of self-annihilating heavy WIMPs of
mass $m_\chi = 500\,\mathrm{GeV}$ and investigated three distinct
annihilation models: two of them with total annihilation in heavy
quarks or gauge bosons ($b\overline{b}$ and $W^+W^-$) and a model with
total annihilation in the leptons $\tau^+\tau^-$. Additionally, we
considered WIMPs of $m_\chi = 150\,\mathrm{GeV}$ for annihilation in
$\tau^+\tau^-$ final states. Particles of this type are, for instance,
provided by supersymmetric theories, e.g., manifested in the
neutralino. The WIMP masses chosen are compatible with WIMPs which
might explain the recently observed cosmic-ray electron and positron
excess, see, e.g., \citet{2010NuPhB.831..178M}. In general,
\textit{heavy} WIMPs are also supported by collider searches such as
the non-detection of supersymmetric particles in the 7\,TeV run of the
Large Hadron Collider (for an integrated luminosity of 35\,pb$^{-1}$)
\citep[][and references
therein]{2011EPJC...71.1682A,2011arXiv1105.3152C}.
Given these final annihilation states, hadronisation and the
subsequent decay of $\pi^0$-mesons lead to a continuous $\gamma$-ray
spectrum. The resulting photon spectra
$\mathrm{d}N_\gamma/\mathrm{d}x$ were modelled using parametrisations
provided by \citet{2004PhRvD..70j3529F}, see
Fig. \ref{fig:DM_spectra}. Note that photons produced by final state
radiation (FSR) and virtual internal bremsstrahlung (VIB)
\citep{2005PhRvL..95x1301B,2005PhRvL..94m1301B,2008JHEP...01..049B}
are neglected, because a significant contribution of FSR is only
expected for $W^+W^-$ at high energies ($E > 0.6\,m_\chi$) and
possible contributions of VIB are highly model-dependent.
\section{Candidate gamma-ray sources} \label{sect:candidate_sources}
Given a high WIMP mass, a DM subhalo will show up as steady
(very)~high-energy $\gamma$-ray source. The differential photon
spectrum follows a hard power law (index $\Gamma \lesssim 1.5$) that
cuts off exponentially at energies beyond $10$\,GeV, see
Fig. \ref{fig:DM_spectra}.
Candidate sources are selected according to their possibility to
originate from DM subhaloes based on their observational quantities
flux and angular extent. Note that the detailed spectral shape of
faint sources is observationally rather unconstrained. Via
Eq. \ref{eq:luminosity_vir}, the effective self-annihilation cross
section $\ensuremath{\langle \sigma v \rangle}_\mathrm{eff}$ required to obtain a given flux $\phi$
for the intrinsic source extent $\theta_\mathrm{s}$ is determined by
$\mathcal{L}=4\pi D^2 \phi$, where $\theta_\mathrm{s}$ constrains the
distance $D$ to the subhalo. For feasible candidate sources the
required $\ensuremath{\langle \sigma v \rangle}_\mathrm{eff}$ should comply with current
observational constraints.
Conveniently, the characteristic profile radius $r_\mathrm{s}$ (see
Eq. \ref{eq:sub_profile}) traces the intrinsic extent of a DM subhalo,
because for an NFW profile $87.5\%$ of the total luminosity
is produced within $r_\mathrm{s}$ (see Table \ref{tab:sigmav_eff} for values of
$r_\mathrm{s}$). Therefore, the distance to the subhalo is $D \approx
r_\mathrm{s}/\theta_\mathrm{s}$, where $\theta_\mathrm{s}$ denotes the
angle corresponding to $r_\mathrm{s}$. Owing to the centrally
peaked profile, about 68\% of the total luminosity is emitted
within the angle $\theta_{68} \simeq 0.46\,\theta_\mathrm{s}$. The
following relations are given with respect to $\theta_\mathrm{s}$ and
can easily be adjusted for $\theta_{68}$, which is more convenient for a
comparison with observational data. With \mbox{$r_\mathrm{s} = [ 3
M/(4\pi \Delta_\mathrm{c} \rho_\mathrm{crit} c_\mathrm{vir}^3)
]^{1/3}$}, the distance to a subhalo with given $\theta_\mathrm{s}$
is related to its mass and concentration. In the FHM,
\begin{equation} \label{eq:D_FHM}
D_\mathrm{FHM}(M;\theta_\mathrm{s}) \simeq 3.8 \left(
\frac{M}{10^6\,\mathrm{M}_\odot} \right)^{1/3} \left(
\frac{c^\mathrm{FHM}_\mathrm{vir}}{37.9} \right)^{-1} \left(
\frac{\theta_\mathrm{s}}{\mathrm{deg}} \right)^{-1}\,\mathrm{kpc}.
\end{equation}
Note that the concentration depends on the subhalo mass via
Eq.~\ref{eq:cvir_lavalle} as well as, in the SHM, on the object's
position $(l,b)$.
For a given WIMP model $\ensuremath{\langle \sigma v \rangle}_\mathrm{eff}$ is then fully
determined by the subhalo mass (Eq. \ref{eq:luminosity_vir}) and the
observed quantities flux and extent:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:boost}
\ensuremath{\langle \sigma v \rangle}_\mathrm{eff}(M;\phi,\theta_\mathrm{s}) =
96\,\pi^{\frac{1}{3}} \frac{m^2_\chi}{N_\gamma} \left( \frac{3}{4
\Delta_\mathrm{c} \rho_\mathrm{crit}} \right)^{5/3}
\frac{\phi}{\theta^2_\mathrm{s}} \, \frac{M^{-1/3}
f(c_\mathrm{vir})^2}{c^5_\mathrm{vir}}.
\end{equation}
Additional contributions to the DM signal from annihilation in the
smooth halo as well as the entire subhalo population were
neglected\footnote{For the fiducial candidate in
Sect. \ref{sect:Fermi_clumps} this additional contribution is less
than 1\%.}. The required $\ensuremath{\langle \sigma v \rangle}_\mathrm{eff}$ is highly sensitive
to the (observationally unconstrained) concentration, because
Eq. \ref{eq:boost} roughly depends on $c^{-5}_\mathrm{vir}$.
\section{Interpretation of \textit{Fermi} sources as DM subhaloes} \label{sect:Fermi_clumps}
Based on the study of a fiducial candidate source in
Sect. \ref{sect:fiducial_candidate}, the properties of
\textit{Fermi}-LAT detectable subhaloes are investigated in
Sect. \ref{sect:LATdet_subs}.
\subsection{A fiducial candidate} \label{sect:fiducial_candidate}
\subsubsection{Observational properties} \label{sect:fiducial_candidate:obsprop}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=90mm]{17655f03a.eps}
\includegraphics[width=90mm]{17655f03b.eps}
\caption{Effective self-annihilation cross section
$\ensuremath{\langle \sigma v \rangle}_\mathrm{eff}$ required for a moderately extended, faint
\textit{Fermi}-LAT source to originate from a DM subhalo of mass
$M$. Assumed source parameters are $\phi(10\!-\!100\,\mathrm{GeV})
=1.6\times 10^{-10}\,\mathrm{cm}^{-2} \mathrm{s}^{-1}$, an
intrinsic extent $\theta_\mathrm{s} = 1^\circ$ ($\theta_{68}
\approx 0.5^\circ$), and the Galactic position
$(l,b)=(114^\circ,-55^\circ)$. The dashed blue and solid red lines
indicate the average prediction considering the FHM and SHM,
respectively. The intrinsic SHM scatter is shown by the red-shaded
area and the dotted red lines. The \textit{left panel} depicts
WIMPs of $m_\chi=500\,\mathrm{GeV}$ totally annihilating in
$b\overline{b}$, while the \textit{right panel} considers
$m_\chi=150\,\mathrm{GeV}$ with total annihilation in
$\tau^+\tau^-$. Current contraints on $\ensuremath{\langle \sigma v \rangle}_\mathrm{eff}$ from
\citet{2010JCAP...03..014P} (grey-shaded) and
\citet{2010JCAP...11..041A} (light grey-shaded) are plotted in
combination with the expectation from thermal freeze-out
(blue-shaded).}
\label{fig:fiducial}
\end{figure*}
In combination with improving (integrated) sensitivity at high energy
\citep[][and cf., Fig. \ref{fig:spectra}]{2009ApJ...697.1071A}, the
expected energy spectrum of DM subhaloes (Sect. \ref{sect:gamma_rays}
and \ref{sect:candidate_sources}) favours a detection at the
high-energy band of \textit{Fermi}-LAT. In Appendix B, we investigate
the detection sensitivity for faint, moderately extended
($\theta_\mathrm{s} \lesssim 1^\circ$, corresponding to $\theta_{68}
\lesssim 0.5^\circ$), and high-latitude ($|b| > 20^\circ$) sources
between 10 and 100\,GeV in detail. We find that a spectrally hard
high-energy source with a flux $\phi(10\!-\!100\,\mathrm{GeV}) =
1.4\times 10^{-10}\,\mathrm{cm}^{-2}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}$ and moderate
extent\footnote{In comparison with the point spread function of
\textit{Fermi}-LAT, \mbox{$\theta_\mathrm{s} = 1^\circ$} (as
implying \mbox{$\theta_{68} \approx 0.5^\circ$}) corresponds to
about \mbox{$3\,\sigma_\mathrm{PSF}$}, where
\mbox{$\sigma_\mathrm{PSF} \approx 0.15^\circ$} for energies beyond
10\,GeV (see
http://www-glast.slac.stanford.edu/software/IS/glast\_lat\_performance.htm).}
$\theta_\mathrm{s} = 1^\circ$ can be detected as a point-source with a
reconstructed flux $\phi_\mathrm{p}(10\!-\!100\,\mathrm{GeV}) =
0.9\times 10^{-10}\,\mathrm{cm}^{-2}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}$, with a
sky-survey exposure of one year. With respect to the true flux $\phi$
emitted by the entire source, the reconstructed flux $\phi_\mathrm{p}$
fitted by the point-source analysis in general decreases with
increasing $\theta_\mathrm{s}$. To account for this effect, the
scaling relation $\phi(\theta_\mathrm{s}) =
h(\theta_\mathrm{s})\,\phi_\mathrm{p}$ is used in Eq. \ref{eq:boost},
where $h(\theta_\mathrm{s}) = 1$ for $\theta_\mathrm{s} \ll
2\,\sigma_\mathrm{PSF}$ and $h(\theta_\mathrm{s}) \approx 0.72 \left(
\theta_\mathrm{s}/\mathrm{deg} \right) + 0.89$ for extended sources up
to \mbox{$\sim 1^\circ$} (see Appendix \ref{app:mc} for details).
The high-energy flux of the fiducial source above 10\,GeV has been
chosen to be at the level of the detection sensitivity,
$\phi^\mathrm{fid}_\mathrm{p}(10\!-\!100\,\mathrm{GeV}) =
10^{-10}\,\mathrm{cm}^{-2}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}$, assuming an extent of
$\theta^\mathrm{fid}_\mathrm{s} = 1^\circ$. Given the dependence of the SHM
concentration on the galactocentric distance (see Eq.~\ref{eq:cSHM}),
the fiducial source is placed on a particular line-of-sight
chosen to match the location of \mbox{1FGL J0030.7+0724}\space (investigated in
Sect. \ref{sect:1FGL_searches}). In general, this line-of-sight serves
as an appropriate (conservative) benchmark, because it points to
(anticentric) positions where the majority of subhaloes is located.
\subsubsection{Subhalo interpretation}
Adopting the properties of the fiducial source,
Fig. \ref{fig:fiducial} depicts the effective enhancement factors
$\ensuremath{\langle \sigma v \rangle}_\mathrm{eff}/\ensuremath{\langle \sigma v \rangle}_0$ required to generate the emission
$\phi^\mathrm{fid}_\mathrm{p}$ by DM annihilation (obtained via
Eq. \ref{eq:boost}). In the left panel, WIMPs of
$m_\chi=500\,\mathrm{GeV}$ are considered to totally annihilate in
$b\overline{b}$, while the right panel assumes
$m_\chi=150\,\mathrm{GeV}$ and annihilation in $\tau^+\tau^-$. For a
given WIMP model, the resulting enhancement factors of the FHM and SHM
are widely different. With respect to the FHM, much less enhancement
is required in the SHM, which is manifested in generically higher
concentrations of SHM subhaloes. Within the scatter of the
concentration intrinsic to the stochastic nature of halo formation
(Eq.~\ref{eq:scatter}), which is shown for the SHM, the necessary
enhancement spans about one order of magnitude. Only moderate
enhancement is required for massive subhaloes between $10^{6}$ and
$10^{7}\,\mathrm{M}_\odot$, where the lowest $\ensuremath{\langle \sigma v \rangle}_\mathrm{eff}$ is
needed for $m_\chi=150\,\mathrm{GeV}$ and $\tau^+\tau^-$ final states
(amongst the WIMP models considered here). The lowest possible
enhancement factors within the concentration scatter of a
$10^6\,\mathrm{M}_\odot$ subhalo are listed in Table
\ref{tab:sigmav_eff} for the different subhalo and the WIMP models of
Sect. \ref{sect:gamma_rays}.
The distance to the fiducial candidate anticipated in the FHM and the
SHM is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:distance}. The intrinsic concentration
scatter implies a corresponding distance scatter for a given halo mass
and angular extent. Note that a similar scatter is present for the
FHM, but is not shown in the figure. Compared with the FHM, tidal
effects lead to higher concentrated subhaloes. This in turn favours a
closer distance at the same mass and angular extent for SHM subhaloes
than for FHM.
\subsubsection{Consistency with observational constraints}
\begin{table}[b]
\caption{\label{tab:sigmav_eff}Enhancement factors
$\ensuremath{\langle \sigma v \rangle}_\mathrm{eff}/\ensuremath{\langle \sigma v \rangle}_0$ required to explain the fiducial
$\gamma$-ray source with a DM subhalo of $10^6\,\mathrm{M}_\odot$.}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{lcccccc}
\hline \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{Model} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{$m_\chi = 500\,\mathrm{GeV}$} &\hspace{-2mm} 150\,GeV & $r^\mathrm{n}_\mathrm{s}$ & \multirow{2}{*}{$g_r(c_\mathrm{vir})$} \\
& \hspace{-2mm} $b\overline{b}$ & $W^+W^-$ & $\tau^+\tau^-$ & \hspace{-2mm} $\tau^+\tau^-$ & [kpc] & \\
\hline
FHM &\hspace{-2mm} $\gtrsim 321$ & $\gtrsim 479$ & $\gtrsim 1386$ &\hspace{-2mm} $\gtrsim 138$ & 0.067 & $\left(\frac{c^\mathrm{FHM}_\mathrm{vir}}{37.86}\right)^{-1}$\\
SHM\tablefootmark{a} & \hspace{-2mm} $\gtrsim 8$ & $\gtrsim 12$ & $\gtrsim 35$ &\hspace{-2mm} $\gtrsim 3$ & 0.029 & $\left(\frac{c^\mathrm{SHM}_\mathrm{vir}}{86.56}\right)^{-1}$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\tablefoot{The factors correspond to the WIMP models discussed in the
text. The respective photon yields are
$N^{bb\,(WW)\,[\tau\tau]}_\gamma(10\!-\!100\,\mathrm{GeV})=6.95\,(4.66)\,[1.46]$
for $m_\chi = 500\,\mathrm{GeV}$ and
$N^{\tau\tau}_\gamma(10\!-\!100\,\mathrm{GeV})= 1.61$ for $m_\chi =
150\,\mathrm{GeV}$. We list the minimum values within the
$c$-scatter. In addition, the subhalo's (average) characteristic
radius $r_\mathrm{s}(M) = r^\mathrm{n}_\mathrm{s} [
M/(10^6\,\mathrm{M}_\odot)]^{1/3} g_r(c_\mathrm{vir})$ is
depicted. \tablefoottext{a}{The normalisation of
$c^\mathrm{SHM}_\mathrm{vir}$ implies the Galactic position
($114^\circ$,$-55^\circ$) and intrinsic extent $\theta_\mathrm{s}
= 1^\circ$, corresponding to $D \approx 1.7$\,kpc ($D_\mathrm{gc}
\approx 8.8$\,kpc).} }
\end{table}
The resulting values of $\ensuremath{\langle \sigma v \rangle}_\mathrm{eff}$ can now be checked for
consistency with the diffuse extragalactic $\gamma$-ray background
\citep[EGB;][]{2010PhRvL.104j1101A}. \textit{Fermi}-LAT measurements
of the overall diffuse $\gamma$-ray flux allow the derivation of the
isotropic high-energy EGB, which is shown to be compatible with a
featureless power-law spectrum ($\Gamma= 2.41 \pm 0.05$) and
integrated diffuse flux $\phi_\mathrm{EGB}(>\!100\,\mathrm{MeV}) = (1.03
\pm 0.17) \times 10^{-5}\,\mathrm{cm}^{-2}
\mathrm{s}^{-1}\mathrm{sr}^{-1}$ \citep{2010PhRvL.104j1101A}. The
diffuse $\gamma$-ray flux anticipated from DM annihilation in the
Galactic halo as well as the entire subhalo population is shown in
Fig. \ref{fig:diff} (see Appendix \ref{app:sub_diff} for details), in
comparison with the EGB. Both FHM and SHM subhaloes are depicted for
$m_\chi = 150\,\mathrm{GeV}$ and annihilation in $\tau^+\tau^-$. In
this model, the nearly isotropic diffuse flux from the subhalo
population contributes about 1\% to the EGB (assuming SHM subhaloes
and no sub-substructure) and is fainter than the contribution of the
smooth halo ($\gtrsim\! 3\%$). Note that the flux from the extragalactic
halo population is lower than the contribution of Galactic subhaloes,
see, e.g., \citet{2010JCAP...11..041A}.
The contribution from the smooth halo peaks at the Galactic Centre,
where a high astrophysical foreground is also present, and can
therefore not be isotropic. Given that the EGB has been derived
assuming isotropy, the most robust upper limits on
$\ensuremath{\langle \sigma v \rangle}_\mathrm{eff}$ are determined by the subhalo contribution and
are listed in Table \ref{tab:EGB_ul}, depending on the WIMP model and
cut-off mass. The bounds were obtained requiring that the specific
intensity of the subhalo population $\langle I_\nu(180^\circ,E)
\rangle$ does not exceed the EGB, where $\langle I_\nu(\psi,E)
\rangle$ depends on the angle $\psi$ between the Galactic Centre
direction and line-of-sight and the $\gamma$-ray energy $E$ (see
Appendix \ref{app:sub_diff}).
\begin{figure}[t]
\resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{17655f04.eps}}
\caption{Distance to the fiducial subhalo in the FHM (dashed blue
line) and SHM (solid red line), respectively, as function of the
subhalo mass $M$. The scatter of the SHM distance is indicated by
the red-shaded area. An extent of $\theta_\mathrm{s} = 1^\circ$
($\theta_{68} \approx 0.5^\circ$) and a source position $(l,b) =
(114^\circ,-55^\circ)$ are assumed.}
\label{fig:distance}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}[t]
\caption{\label{tab:EGB_ul}Upper limits on
$\ensuremath{\langle \sigma v \rangle}_\mathrm{eff}/\ensuremath{\langle \sigma v \rangle}_0$ from the EGB.}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{lccccc}
\hline \hline
\multicolumn{2}{c}{WIMP model} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{Upper limit on $\ensuremath{\langle \sigma v \rangle}_\mathrm{eff}/\ensuremath{\langle \sigma v \rangle}_0$} \\
Channel & $m_\chi$\,[GeV] & FHM & SHM & FHM & SHM \\
\hline
$b\overline{b}$ & 500 & 1650 & 530 & 1875 & 605\\
$W^+W^-$ & 500 & 2096 & 673 & 2381 & 769\\
$\tau^+\tau^-$ & 500 & 3490 & 1121 & 3964 & 1279\\
$\tau^+\tau^-$ & 150 & 378 & 121 & 429 & 139\\
\hline
\multicolumn{2}{c}{$M_\mathrm{min}$} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$10^{-10}\,\mathrm{M}_\odot$} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$10^{-6}\,\mathrm{M}_\odot$}\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\tablefoot{We assumed a subhalo mass fraction of
$f_\mathrm{sh}=15\,\%$ for a cut-off mass $M_\mathrm{min} =
10^{-6}\,\mathrm{M}_\odot$. Upper limits are listed for the cut-off
masses bordering a 500\,GeV neutralino scenario
\citep[see][]{2009NJPh...11j5027B} and with respect to
$\psi=180^\circ$ and $E=40\,\mathrm{GeV}$. See text and Appendix
\ref{app:sub_diff} for details.}
\end{table}
However, more stringent constraints have been provided by a more
detailed modelling of the EGB, including all DM components. To
evaluate a possible DM origin of the fiducial source, the results of
\citet{2010JCAP...11..041A} and
\citet{2010JCAP...03..014P}\footnote{In comparison with
\citeauthor{2010JCAP...03..014P}, the work by
\citeauthor{2010JCAP...11..041A} includes a fore- and background
subtraction. Note that the MW halo parameters used by
\citeauthor{2010JCAP...11..041A} are similar to those adopted in
this work (see Sect. \ref{sect:density}).} are included in
Fig. \ref{fig:fiducial}. As stated in the introduction, competitive
and similar constraints have been also provided by the non-detection
of various objects with high (central) DM densities. Note, for
instance, that the constraints used here are consistent with recent
bounds from dSph galaxies \citep{2010ApJ...712..147A}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{17655f05.eps}}
\caption{Average diffuse $\gamma$-ray flux from DM annihilation in
the Galaxy as function of the angle between the observational and
Galactic Centre direction $\psi$. The fluxes from the host halo
(double-dot-dashed magenta line), FHM (dashed blue line), and SHM
subhaloes (solid red line) are depicted. Each curve was
derived at the peak energy of $\nu I_\nu(E)$ (40\,GeV) assuming
total annihilation in $\tau^+\tau^-$ with $m_\chi =
150\,\mathrm{GeV}$ and $\ensuremath{\langle \sigma v \rangle}_\mathrm{eff} = \ensuremath{\langle \sigma v \rangle}_0$. The
minimum subhalo mass used was $M_\mathrm{min} =
10^{-6}\,\mathrm{M}_\odot$ (see Appendix \ref{app:sub_diff}). The
EGB at 40\,GeV is shown by the dotted black line.}
\label{fig:diff}
\end{figure}
\subsection{\textit{Fermi}-LAT detectable subhaloes} \label{sect:LATdet_subs}
\subsubsection{Expected number}
Integrating over the mass and spatial distribution
(Eq. \ref{eq:mass_spatial_distr}) reveals the total number of
detectable subhaloes with masses $M_\mathrm{I} \in [M;M+\Delta M]$,
solar distances $D_\mathrm{I} \in [D;D+\Delta D]$, concentrations
$c_\mathrm{I} \in [c;c+\Delta c]$, galactic latitudes $b_\mathrm{I}
\in [b,b + \Delta b]$, and galactic longitudes $l \in [0;2\pi]$, $N =
N(M_\mathrm{I},D_\mathrm{I},c_\mathrm{I},b_\mathrm{I})$,
\begin{eqnarray}
N & = & \hskip -0.15cm \int\limits_{M_\mathrm{I}} \hskip -0.15cm
\mathrm{d}M \hskip -0.1cm \int\limits_{D_\mathrm{I}} \hskip -0.1cm
\mathrm{d}D\,D^2 \hskip -0.1cm \int\limits_{c_\mathrm{I}} \hskip
-0.1cm \mathrm{d}c \hskip -0.1cm \int\limits_{b_\mathrm{I}} \hskip
-0.1cm \mathrm{d}b \,\cos b \hskip -0.1cm \int\limits_0^{2\pi} \hskip
-0.1cm \mathrm{d}l\, P(c,\overline{c})\,
\frac{\mathrm{d}n_\mathrm{sh}(D_\mathrm{gc},M)}{\mathrm{d}M} \\
& = & \hskip -0.1cm a_N \hskip -0.15cm \int\limits_{M_\mathrm{I}} \hskip
-0.1cm \mathrm{d}M\, M \hskip -0.15cm
\int\limits_{0}^{\theta_\mathrm{s}^\mathrm{max}} \hskip -0.15cm
\mathrm{d}\theta_\mathrm{s}
\frac{\cos^2\theta_\mathrm{s}}{\sin^4\theta_\mathrm{s}} \hskip -0.6cm
\int\limits_{\hskip 0.5cm
c_\mathrm{min}(\theta_\mathrm{s},M)}^{\infty} \hskip -0.65cm
\mathrm{d}c\,c^{-3} \hskip -0.15cm \int\limits_{b_\mathrm{I}} \hskip
-0.15cm \mathrm{d}b\,\cos b \hskip -0.15cm
\int\limits_{0}^{2\pi} \hskip -0.1cm
\mathrm{d}l\,P(c,\overline{c})\,\frac{\mathrm{d}n_\mathrm{sh}}{\mathrm{d}M},
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
using $D = r_\mathrm{s}/\tan \theta_\mathrm{s}$ (see
Sect. \ref{sect:candidate_sources}) and $a_N \equiv 3/(4\pi
\Delta_\mathrm{c} \rho_\mathrm{crit})$. Parameters defining the
subhalo distribution were taken to match the Aquarius simulation
(Appendix \ref{app:sub_diff}). In total, this resulted in about
$6.4\times 10^{14}$ Galactic subhaloes residing in the Galaxy. For
every single $\theta_\mathrm{s}$ and $M$, the integral counts
detectable subhaloes only, i.e., their concentration is sufficiently
high to ensure their $\ensuremath{\langle \sigma v \rangle}_\mathrm{eff}$ to be smaller than the
observational constraints (cf., Fig. \ref{fig:fiducial}). Therefore,
the lower bound of the concentration integral
$c_\mathrm{min}(\theta_\mathrm{s},M)$ is determined via
Eq. \ref{eq:boost}, choosing the instrument's sensitivity and
constraints from \citet{2010JCAP...11..041A} and
\citet{2010JCAP...03..014P}, respectively. To account for the fact
that highly extended objects will be hardly detectable (see Appendix
\ref{app:mc}), we conservatively chose
$\theta_\mathrm{s}^\mathrm{max}=1^{\circ}$. For the SHM,
Fig. \ref{fig:clump_number} shows the number of detectable subhaloes
per mass decade expected in one year of data taking while considering
subhaloes at galactic latitudes $|b|\geq20^\circ$ only (cf.,
Sect. \ref{sect:1FGL_searches}). Given the dependence of
$c_\mathrm{min}$ on the WIMP model, the results for the
$b\overline{b},\,m_\chi = 500\,\mathrm{GeV}$ model are compared to the
$\tau^+\tau^-,\,m_\chi = 150\,\mathrm{GeV}$ scenario.
\begin{figure}[t]
\resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{17655f06.eps}}
\caption{Expected number of one-year detectable subhaloes per mass
decade at $|b|\geq20^\circ$. The subhaloes' mass and spatial
distributions were adopted from Aquarius (Appendix
\ref{app:sub_diff}) while the SHM concentration was
used. $M_\mathrm{min} = 10^{-6}\,\mathrm{M}_\odot$. The number
corresponding to the $b\overline{b},\,\,m_\chi =
500\,\mathrm{GeV}\,\,(\tau^{+}\tau^{-},\,\,m_\chi =
150\,\mathrm{GeV})$ WIMP model is shown in the left (right)
panel. The mass assigned to each bar denotes the geometric mean of
the interval. Red and red-patterned bars show the number
considering observational constraints on $\ensuremath{\langle \sigma v \rangle}_\mathrm{eff}$ by
\citet{2010JCAP...11..041A} and \citet{2010JCAP...03..014P},
respectively.}
\label{fig:clump_number}
\end{figure}
Considering the constraints found by \citet{2010JCAP...11..041A} for
the $b\overline{b}\,\, (\tau^{+}\tau^{-})$ model, on average 0.4 (0.2)
subhaloes within $10^5$ and $10^8\,\mathrm{M}_\odot$ are anticipated
for detection with \textit{Fermi}-LAT in one year. Given the Poisson
distribution of $N$, this means that up to \textit{one} massive
subhalo is expected in the one-year data set (at 95\%
confidence). Comparable results have been claimed by other authors,
e.g., \citet{2008JCAP...07..013B}, \citet{2008ApJ...686..262K},
\citet{2008MNRAS.384.1627P,2011PhRvD..83b3518P}, and
\citet{2010ApJ...718..899A}.
In general, note that numerical simulations like Aquarius and Via
Lactea II neglect the influences of baryonic matter distributed in
galactic disks. A recent study by \citet{2010ApJ...709.1138D}
indicates that a baryonic disk may reduce the number of (massive)
subhaloes in the inner galaxy by a factor of 2 to 3.
\subsubsection{Properties}
Given a particular $\gamma$-ray source (such as the fiducial of
Sect. \ref{sect:fiducial_candidate}), massive subhaloes between about
$10^5$ and $10^8\,\mathrm{M}_\odot$ require a minimally enhanced
annihilation cross section $\ensuremath{\langle \sigma v \rangle}_\mathrm{eff}$, see
Fig. \ref{fig:fiducial}. Consistently, the probability for these
objects to appear in current data sets peaks for high subhalo masses
(Fig. \ref{fig:clump_number}). Therefore, subhalos with masses of
$10^5$ up to $10^8\,\mathrm{M}_\odot$ in corresponding distances from
0.5 to 10\,kpc (Fig. \ref{fig:distance}) are favoured for detection
with \textit{Fermi}-LAT as faint and moderately extended
sources. Although for the FHM a DM origin of the fiducial source is
excluded, within the scatter of the more realistic SHM cross sections
required for sources with $\phi(10\!-\!100\,\mathrm{GeV}) \approx
10^{-10}\,\mathrm{cm}^{-2} \mathrm{s}^{-1}$ and angular extents up to
$\sim 1^\circ$ are well consistent with observational constraints. The
presence of sub-substructure will even lower $\ensuremath{\langle \sigma v \rangle}_\mathrm{eff}$
by a mass-dependent factor of \mbox{$\sim 2$} to 3 for massive
subhaloes \citep{2008ApJ...686..262K,2009JCAP...06..014M}. In case of
a cuspier profile ($\gamma=1.2$), the required cross section is
lowered by an additional factor of 1.5. At least for WIMPs of $m_\chi
= 150\,\mathrm{GeV}$ annihilating to $\tau^+\tau^-$, this leads to a
required enhancement of the order of unity within the
scatter. Summarising, in optimistic but realistic scenarios a
$\gamma$-ray emitter at the (one year) detection level of
\textit{Fermi}-LAT with a measured extent $\theta_{68}$ of about
$0.5^\circ$ might be consistent with a subhalo driven by
self-annihilating DM.
In the next years, \textit{Fermi}-LAT will provide deeper observations
with increased observation time $T_\mathrm{obs}$. This will improve
the sensitivity by roughly $\sqrt{T_\mathrm{obs}}$, leading to a
factor of about 2 lower values of the minimum detectable flux for the
five-year catalogue. This in turn will allow us to detect fainter
subhaloes with a correspondingly reduced minimum
$\ensuremath{\langle \sigma v \rangle}_\mathrm{eff}$. The average number of detectable subhaloes
within five years is about 1.3 (0.8) for the
\mbox{$b\overline{b},\,m_\chi = 500\,\mathrm{GeV}$}
\mbox{$(\tau^+\tau^-,\,m_\chi = 150\,\mathrm{GeV})$} scenario.
Via Eq. \ref{eq:boost}, a comparison with observational constraints on
$\ensuremath{\langle \sigma v \rangle}_\mathrm{eff}$ allows to estimate the maximum flux subhalo
candidates are expected to have. The catalogued flux is
$\phi_\mathrm{p} \propto \theta_\mathrm{s}^2/h(\theta_\mathrm{s})$,
which is quadratic for $\theta_\mathrm{s} \ll 0.3^\circ$ and linear in
the limit of large $\theta_\mathrm{s}$. The increase with
$\theta_\mathrm{s}$ originates from decreasing subhalo
distance. Because massive subhaloes require minimum
$\ensuremath{\langle \sigma v \rangle}_\mathrm{eff}$, a subhalo of $10^6\,\mathrm{M}_\odot$ is
assumed below. Within the concentration scatter, the maximum flux
between 10 and 100\,GeV expected for a source with $\theta_\mathrm{s}
= 1^\circ$ is
\begin{equation}
\phi_\mathrm{p}^\mathrm{max}(10\!-\!100\,\mathrm{GeV}) \simeq
1.2\,(2.8)\times
10^{-11}\,\frac{\ensuremath{\langle \sigma v \rangle}_\mathrm{eff}}{\ensuremath{\langle \sigma v \rangle}_0}\,\mathrm{cm}^{-2}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}
\end{equation}
in the $b\overline{b},\,m_\chi = 500\,\mathrm{GeV}$ and
$\tau^+\tau^-,\,m_\chi = 150\,\mathrm{GeV}$ scenario,
respectively. Given the observational constraints of
\citeauthor{2010JCAP...11..041A}, the high-energy flux of catalogued
candidates should not exceed \mbox{$\phi_\mathrm{p}^\mathrm{max}
\lesssim 4.0\,(2.8)\times
10^{-10}\,\mathrm{cm}^{-2}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}$}.
\section{Searches for DM subhaloes in the 1FGL} \label{sect:1FGL_searches}
In the previous section we demonstrated that DM subhaloes could
appear in $\gamma$-ray catalogues of sufficient sensitivity as faint,
non-variable, and moderately extended objects without astrophysical
counterparts. The 11-month\footnote{August 2008 to July 2009}
point-source catalogue of \textit{Fermi}-LAT
\citep[1FGL,][]{2010ApJS..188..405A} lists 1451 sources significantly
detected above 100\,MeV (test statistic $\mathrm{TS} \geq 25$,
corresponding to a significance $S = 4.1\sigma$), together with the
flux in five discrete energy bins (up to 100\,GeV), position,
significance of variability, and spectral curvature. Source spectra
have been fitted with power laws. Among the sources, 630
objects\footnote{Adding sole associations with other $\gamma$-ray
catalogues, 671 sources are ``unassociated``.} are not confidently
associated with known sources at other wavelengths.
Although sophisticated methods have been applied to find
multi-wavelength associations for unidentified sources, all algorithms
suffer from lacking sensitivity or incomplete sky-coverage of current
surveys. Therefore, the sample of unassociated high-latitude
\textit{Fermi}-LAT sources is expected to be composed of several
source classes, among them faint AGN (Active Galactic Nuclei), galaxy
clusters, and new exotic sources like DM subhaloes \citep[][and
references
therein]{2010MNRAS.408..422S,2010arXiv1007.2644M}. Concerning the
1FGL catalogue, improved association methods recently presented by
\citet{2010arXiv1007.2644M} revealed that $\lesssim 20\%$ of all
unassociated 1FGL sources with $|b| \geq 15^\circ$ may contain new
$\gamma$-ray emitters.
To single out possible subhalo candidates within the sample of
unassociated sources \citep[cf.,][]{2010PhRvD..82f3501B}, we searched
the sample for non-variable\footnote{The cut is passed by sources with
a steadiness probability $P_\mathrm{s} > 1\%$.} sources detected
between 10 and 100\,GeV. Requiring a detection at high energy provides
subhalo candidates driven by heavy WIMPs and avoids confusion with
high-energy pulsars\footnote{The spectral properties of $\gamma$-ray
pulsars can mimic the spectra of DM subhaloes, see
\citet{2007ApJ...659L.125B}. However, spectral cut-off energies of
$\gamma$-ray pulsars are well below 5\,GeV
\citep{2009Sci...325..848A}, excluding a detection above
10\,GeV.}. Furthermore, the candidate's location was constrained to
galactic latitudes $|b|\geq20^\circ$ to avoid a general confusion
with Galactic sources. Additionally, the lower Galactic foreground
improves the detection sensitivity of \textit{Fermi}-LAT at high
latitudes \citep{2009ApJ...697.1071A}.
Applying all cuts, \textit{twelve} unassociated sources remain. The
twelve sources are listed in Table \ref{tab:clump_candidates} together
with additional information from the catalogue. With the exception of
1FGL~J0614.1-3328, the sample consists of sources at the faint end of
the entire 1FGL sample. Given the result of
\citet{2010arXiv1007.2644M}, the sample should statistically contain
two to three subhaloes at most, consistent with the estimate discussed
previously (Fig. \ref{fig:clump_number}). The expectation of the
sample consisting mostly of AGN is met by applying the same cuts to
all AGN detected by \textit{Fermi}-LAT. A comparison with the sample
of unassociated sources reveals similar cut efficiencies (5\%
vs. 11\%, see Table \ref{tab:efficiencies}), indicating that the two
populations share common properties. Note that for the AGN the
variability cut has subdominant influence as well, see Table
\ref{tab:efficiencies}. Except for three, all AGN that passed the cuts
have been classified as BL Lac.
\begin{table}[t]
\caption{\label{tab:efficiencies}Cut efficiencies on the sample of
unassociated sources and AGN.}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{lcc}
\hline \hline
Cut & Unassociated & AGN \\
\hline
-- & 671 & 693 \\
$|b| \geq 20^\circ$ & 249 (100\%) & 539 (100\%) \\
non-variable & 241 (97\%) & 372 (69\%)\\
detected between & \multirow{2}{*}{12 (5\%)} & \multirow{2}{*}{58 (11\%)} \\
$10\!-\!100\,\mathrm{GeV}$ & & \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\tablefoot{The cuts are cumulative, i.e., each number includes all
cuts listed by previous rows. See text for details.}
\end{center}
\end{table}
Even though the twelve candidate objects are listed in the 1FGL
catalogue as unassociated, we extended the counterpart search
to a wider choice of astronomical catalogues. Table
\ref{tab:clump_candidates} lists the classifications of counterpart
candidates in the 68\% confidence regions around the most likely 1FGL
positions, retrieved from the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database
(NED). In particular, possible associatons are provided by radio and
X-ray sources, since most of the selected $\gamma$-ray sources are
expected to be AGN. Given that no detailed association study was
conducted, some of the tabulated sources might be by-chance
associations.
\begin{table*}
\caption{\label{tab:clump_candidates}Unassociated, non-variable 1FGL
sources at high galactic latitudes.}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c l c}
\hline \hline
\multicolumn{1}{l}{Name} & $\sigma_{68}/\sigma_{95}$ & $S$ & $f_\mathrm{p} (0.1\! -\! 100\,\mathrm{GeV})$ & \multirow{2}{*}{$\Gamma$} & $\phi_\mathrm{p} (10\! -\! 100\,\mathrm{GeV})$ & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Possible associations\tablefootmark{a}} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Remarks}\\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{1FGL J} & [arcmin] & $[\sigma]$ & [$10^{-11}\,\mathrm{erg}\,\mathrm{cm}^{-2}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}$] & & [$10^{-10}\,\mathrm{cm}^{-2}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}$] & \multicolumn{1}{c}{68\% c.l.} \\
\hline
0022.2-1850 & 6.0/9.6 & 9.4 & $1.3(4)$ & $1.6(1)$ & 1.6(7) & RadioSs (4,21,22), Gs ($20 - 18$) & \\
0030.7+0724 & 3.0/5.1 & 5.8 & $1.0(4)$ & $1.7(4)$ & 1.5(7) & --- & \\
0051.4-6242 & 2.4/4.2 & 12.0 & $1.8(5)$ & $1.7(1)$ & 1.7(8) & Gs (20), XrayS (3.8) & c\\
0143.9-5845 & 3.0/4.7 & 9.0 & $1.4(4)$ & $2.0(2)$ & 2.0(9) & RadioS (28$^\S$), Gs (20 - 13) & \\
0335.5-4501 & 2.4/4.0 & 8.6 & $1.5(4)$ & $2.1(2)$ & 1.6(8) & Gs (19,18) & \\
0614.1-3328 & 1.2/1.7 & 54.4 & $11.2(6)$ & $1.93(3)$ & 3(1) & GrayS & b\\
0848.6+0504 & 5.4/8.6 & 5.4 & $1.0(5)$ & $1.2(3)$ & 1.6(8) & RadioSs (2,3,5), Gs \& *s, XrayS (4.4) & c\\
1323.1+2942 & 1.8/2.7 & 11.9 & $1.5(4)$ & $2.0(1)$ & 2.1(8) & RadioSs (2.8,263,724), Gs \& *s & \\
1754.3+3212 & 2.4/4.1 & 15.6 & $2.6(4)$ & $2.09(9)$ & 1.4(7) & RadioS (38$^\dag$) & \\
2134.5-2130 & 3.0/5.1 & 6.7 & $1.1(3)$ & $1.9(2)$ & 1.4(7) & RadioS (22), Gs (20) & \\
2146.6-1345 & 3.0/4.4 & 9.8 & $1.5(5)$ & $1.8(2)$ & 1.8(8) & RadioS (23), Gs (20), XrayS (1.9) & c\\
2329.2+3755 & 1.2/1.9 & 10.4 & $1.7(5)$ & $1.6(2)$ & 2.4(9) & G (14) & c\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\tablefoot{The columns list the positional uncertainty
$\sigma_{68\,(95)}$ [68\% (95\%) c.l., semimajor axis], detection
significance $S$ in Gaussian sigma, integrated energy flux
$f_\mathrm{p} (0.1-100\,\mathrm{GeV})$, spectral index $\Gamma$, and
the photon flux $\phi_\mathrm{p}(10\!-\!100\,\mathrm{GeV})$. Here,
parentheses indicate the corresponding error on the last
decimal(s). Furthermore, the type classifications of sources found
in astronomical catalogues within the 68\% uncertainty region of the
\textit{Fermi}-LAT position are listed.
\tablefoottext{a}{Classifications referred to are RadioS (radio
source), G (galaxy), * (star), XrayS (X-ray source), and GrayS
($\gamma$-ray source). For radio, optical, and X-ray sources
corresponding fluxes are given in mJy (at 1.4\,GHz [$^{(\S)}$:
843\,MHz, $^{(\dag)}$: 4.85\,GHz]), apparent magnitudes, and
$10^{-12}\,\mathrm{erg}\,\mathrm{cm}^{-2}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}$,
respectively. The unabsorbed X-ray flux was derived from the
catalogued count-rate, assuming a power law with index 2.0 (with
WebPIMMS, http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/Tools/w3pimms.html). The
hydrogen column density was obtained from the LAB survey, see
Sect. \ref{sect:swift_data}. Sources referred to are listed in the
FIRST \citep{1995ApJ...450..559B}, JVAS/CLASS
\citep{2007MNRAS.376..371J}, NVSS, SUMSS
\citep{2003MNRAS.342.1117M}, 2MASS, APMUKS
\citep{1990MNRAS.243..692M}, SDSS \citep{2009ApJS..182..543A},
ROSAT, or EGRET \citep{1999ApJS..123...79H} catalogue,
respectively.} \tablefoottext{b}{The spectrum is probably
curved.} \tablefoottext{c}{The $\gamma$-ray source has
been associated by a cross-correlation of unidentified
\textit{Fermi}-LAT sources with the ROSAT All Sky Survey Bright
Source Catalogue (see \citet{2010MNRAS.408..422S} for details).}}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
Governed by lacking association, faintness, and spectral shape, this
study focusses on the most promising candidate, \mbox{1FGL J0030.7+0724}. Within the
errors, its high-energy flux and spectral index are well-compatible
with a self-annihilating DM scenario. The source has only been
detected between 10 and 100\,GeV, see Fig. \ref{fig:spectra}.
\subsection{Multi-wavelength properties of \mbox{1FGL J0030.7+0724}}
\subsubsection{Catalogued data} \label{sect:catalogued_data}
\textit{No} counterpart candidate was found within the positional
uncertainty of the $\gamma$-ray source at a 68\% confidence level (Table
\ref{tab:clump_candidates}). In the 95\% confidence region, the faint
radio object \mbox{NVSS J003030+072132} is located
\citep[$f_{1.4\,\mathrm{GHz}} = (3.5 \pm
0.4)\,\mathrm{mJy}$;][]{1998AJ....115.1693C}. However, no conclusive
infrared \citep[2MASS,][]{2006AJ....131.1163S} or optical \citep[USNO
B1.0,][]{2003AJ....125..984M} association of the NVSS source is
known so far\footnote{Within the 2$\sigma$ positional uncertainty of
\mbox{NVSS J003030+072132}, a very faint optical SDSS (Sloan Digital
Sky Survey) source is located ($26.0^\mathrm{m}$) -- SDSS
J003031.22+072132.2 \citep[SDSS DR7,][]{2009ApJS..182..543A}.
However, this object was observed
with the edge of the plated SDSS camera. Therefore, this detection
is probably spurious.}. Note that no dSph galaxy is located in the
source region (NED). ROSAT \citep[$0.1 -
2.4\,\mathrm{keV}$;][]{1999A&A...349..389V} observations of the
region with an exposure of about 170\,s revealed no X-ray source down
to an energy-flux level of \mbox{$\sim
10^{-12}\,\mathrm{erg}\,\mathrm{cm}^{-2}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}$}
\citep{2010Borm}.
We emphasise that the orphaned faint radio source is likely located in
the uncertainty region of \mbox{1FGL J0030.7+0724}\space by chance, because about 0.7
NVSS sources are expected by statistics.
\begin{figure}[t]
\resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{17655f07.eps}}
\caption{Energy spectrum of \mbox{1FGL J0030.7+0724}\space as given in the first
\textit{Fermi}-LAT catalogue between 100\,MeV and 100\,GeV (filled
circles). The solid red line depicts the (catalogued) power law
fitting the data. Only the highest energy bin has been
significantly detected, while for the low-energy bins upper limits
are shown (95\% c.l.).}
\label{fig:spectra}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{\textit{Fermi}-LAT data} \label{sect:fermi_data}
By analysing the 24-month public archival data between 10 and
100\,GeV, updated results on \mbox{1FGL J0030.7+0724}\space will be provided. For the
same energy range, a reanalysis of the 11-month data is presented for
comparison. Particular focus will be drawn on positional properties,
the high-energy flux, and the photon distribution, which allows us to
investigate possible counterparts, temporal variability, and the
angular extent.
The data analysis was performed with the latest public version of the
\textit{Fermi Science Tools} (v9r18p6)\footnote{Fermi Science Support
Center, http://fermi.gsfc.nasa.gov/ssc/} along with recommended
options and the set of instrument-response functions
\textit{P6\_V3\_DIFFUSE} \citep{2009arXiv0907.0626R}. Throughout the
analysis, the optimiser MINUIT was used. For reliable results, photons
of event class 3 (\textit{Diffuse}) and 4 (\textit{DataClean}) within
a radius of 10$^\circ$, centred on the nominal position of \mbox{1FGL J0030.7+0724},
were selected. Given that most of the photons are at highest energies
(Fig. \ref{fig:spectra}), only events between 10 and 100\,GeV were
selected to minimise the background and ensure a narrow PSF. The data
were processed using \textit{gtselect}, \textit{gtmktime},
\textit{gtltcube}, \textit{gtexpmap}, and unbinned \textit{gtlike}. To
compute the most likely position and its corresponding uncertainty on
basis of the $10\!-\!100$\,GeV photon sample, we used
\textit{gtfindsrc}. For the purpose of detailed counterpart searches,
the two-dimensional likelihood function $L(\mathrm{R.A.,Dec.})$ was
computed, which provides the 95\% uncertainty contour by
$2\,\Delta(\log L) = 6.18$ (2 degrees of freedom).
\begin{table}[t]
\caption{\label{tab:analysis_plfit} Positional and spectral
properties of \mbox{1FGL J0030.7+0724}\space as given in the catalogue (11\,months)
and by the (re-)analysis of the first 11 and 24-month data sets.}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c}
\hline \hline
\hspace{-2mm} Data & \hspace{-3mm} $E$ & \hspace{-2mm} R.A. & \hspace{-2mm} Dec. & \hspace{-4mm} $\phi_\mathrm{p}(10\!-\!100\,\mathrm{GeV})$ & \hspace{-3mm} $S(\phi_\mathrm{p})$ \hspace{-3mm}\\
\hspace{-2mm} set & \hspace{-3mm} [GeV] & \hspace{-2mm} (J2000) & \hspace{-2mm} (J2000) & \hspace{-4mm} [$10^{-10}\,\mathrm{cm}^{-2}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}$] &\hspace{-6mm} [$\sigma$] \hspace{-3mm} \\
\hline
\hspace{-2mm} 1FGL & \hspace{-3mm} 0.1--100 & \hspace{-2mm} 00 30 42.6 & \hspace{-2mm} +07 24 09 & \hspace{-4mm} $1.5 \pm 0.7$ &\hspace{-3mm} 6.6 \hspace{-3mm}\\
\hspace{-2mm} 11 & \hspace{-3mm} 10--100 & \hspace{-2mm} 00 30 37.6 & \hspace{-2mm} +07 24 15 & \hspace{-4mm} $1.4 \pm 0.7$ &\hspace{-3mm} 6.5 \hspace{-3mm}\\
\hspace{-2mm} 24 & \hspace{-3mm} 10--100 & \hspace{-2mm} 00 30 47.6 & \hspace{-2mm} +07 24 20 & \hspace{-4mm} $0.9 \pm 0.4$ &\hspace{-3mm} 6.6 \hspace{-3mm}\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\tablefoot{The second column lists the analysed energy range. The
11\,(24)-month analysis focusses on the high-energy flux
$\phi_\mathrm{p}(10\!-\!100\,\mathrm{GeV})$ only. In all cases, the
significance $S$ of the high-energy bin is well above 6$\sigma$.}
\end{center}
\end{table}
The source model for the data analysis contains all 1FGL sources
within the region of interest (ROI, radius $10^\circ$). Their
parameters were taken as catalogued and we used the latest Galactic
(\textit{gll\_iem\_v02.fit}) and extragalactic
(\textit{isotropic\_iem\_v02.txt}) diffuse background models. All
parameters but those of \mbox{1FGL J0030.7+0724}\space were kept fixed. Furthermore,
the catalogued power-law index of \mbox{1FGL J0030.7+0724}\space was used while fitting
the flux between 10 and 100\,GeV. Although the exposure of the
24-month data has almost doubled with respect to the catalogue, the
use of the catalogued properties for sources within the ROI will not
affect the analysis between 10 and 100\,GeV: The three nearby sources,
i.e., 1FGL~J0022.5+0607, 1FGL~J0030.4+0451, and 1FGL~J0023.5+0930, are
not only more than 2$^\circ$ away from \mbox{1FGL J0030.7+0724}, but they are also not
significantly detected between 10 and 100\,GeV. Furthermore, visual
inspection does not reveal any other relevant source within this
nearby region.
\begin{table}[t]
\caption{\label{tab:photons}High-energy photons detected from
\mbox{1FGL J0030.7+0724}\space within $0.5^\circ$.}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c}
\hline \hline
$E$ & R.A.& Dec. & $\vartheta$ & $\Delta t$ & \multirow{2}{*}{CT} & event\\
$[$GeV$]$ & [deg] & [deg] & [deg] & [30\,d] & & class\\
\hline
83.8 & 7.6330 & 7.3975 & 56.26 & 2.46 & B & 3\\
11.8 & 7.7293 & 7.3771 & 36.39 & 5.19 & F & 4\\
39.8 & 7.7841 & 7.4962 & 47.38 & 7.96 & B & 4\\
10.2 & 7.6426 & 7.4483 & 34.21 & 10.46 & F & 4\\
15.0 & 7.6361 & 7.1872 & 38.24 & 11.12 & B & 4\\
43.8 & 7.8392 & 7.4151 & 20.81 & 18.93 & F & 4\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\tablefoot{The table lists their energy $E$, celestial position
(J2000), inclination $\vartheta$, detection time $\Delta t$, and
conversion type (CT). By $\Delta t$ the time between detection and
mission start is given. The conversion type is front (F) or back
(B). For each event, we list the classification assigned by LAT data
reconstruction (Pass 6), where 3 tags the \textit{Diffuse} and 4 the
\textit{DataClean} class \citep[see][]{2010PhRvL.104j1101A}.}
\end{center}
\end{table}
The analysis of the 11-month data reproduces the catalogued values
well (Table \ref{tab:analysis_plfit}). After 11\,(24)\,months, five
(six) photons between 10 and 100\,GeV have been detected within a
radius of 0.5$^\circ$ around the nominal position, listed in Table
\ref{tab:photons}. Except one, all photons are classified as class 4
events and are therefore very likely signal events. The Galactic
foreground and the extragalactic background at the source
position are negligible with respect to the signal, with an expected
total number of background photons $N_\mathrm{bg} = 0.6\,(1.2)$ within
the considered region of $0.5^\circ$. For comparison, the predicted
number of signal events is $N_\mathrm{sig} = 4.9\,(5.8)$ after
11\,(24)\,months. According to the 11-month data set, the
(10--100\,GeV) best-fit position shifts by about $2.5^\prime$. The
small positional error of the sixth photon also accounts for the
increase of the source's positional uncertainty, see
Fig. \ref{fig:skyplot}.
The average flux over the entire data set has decreased by a factor of
roughly 1.5 with respect to the first 11\,months (Table
\ref{tab:analysis_plfit}). To judge on the variability of \mbox{1FGL J0030.7+0724}, its
temporal photon distribution (Table \ref{tab:photons}) was tested
for compatibility with a constant flux, using an unbinned
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS) test \citep{2007NR}. The KS test is already
valid for low photon counts, unlike the binned chi-square method used
by the catalogue. The KS test confirms the null-hypothesis of
non-variability with a probability of about 0.7\,(0.5) for the
11\,(24) months data set. The varying exposure on the region was
taken into account by examining the photon distribution of the bright
pulsar nearby (1FGL~J0030.4+0451).
The analysis of the (intrinsic) spatial extent of the source is based
upon a likelihood-ratio test, using all photons listed in Table
\ref{tab:photons}. The corresponding statistical measure is given by
\mbox{$L(\theta_\mathrm{s}) = -2 \sum_{i=1}^N \ln
[p_\mathrm{det}(\mathbi{x}_i-\overline\mathbi{x};\theta_\mathrm{s})
+ b]$}, where $p_\mathrm{det}(\mathbi{x};\theta_\mathrm{s})$ is
the probability distribution function for a photon detected at
$\mathbi{x}$, $\overline\mathbi{x}$ denotes the best-fit position
(Table \ref{tab:analysis_plfit}), and $b$ incorporates the flat
background. For a spatially extended $\gamma$-ray emitter
$p_\mathrm{det} = p_\mathrm{PSF} \ast p_\mathrm{int}$, the (two
dimensional) convolution of the \textit{Fermi}-LAT PSF (P6\_v3,
diffuse class) with the intensity profile of the emitter. In the
subhalo case, the intensity profile follows the line-of-sight integral
of the squared NFW profile (Eq. \ref{eq:sub_profile}). The quantity
$\Delta L = L - L_\mathrm{min}$ follows a chi-square distribution with
one degree of freedom, with additional terms of the order of
$1/N^{1/2}$, which are important for a small number of counts
\citep{1938Wilks,1979ApJ...228..939C}. The likelihood is minimised
($L_\mathrm{min}$) for the intrinsic extension parameter fitting the
photon distribution best. Examining the 11-month data, the test shows
the source to be consistent with a point source, implying that the
intrinsic extent is smaller than the (average) PSF (about
$0.15^\circ$). The 24-month data favour a moderate extent
$\theta_\mathrm{s} = 0.14^{+0.20}_{-0.12}\,\mathrm{deg}$, which is,
however, not significant. Upper limits on the extension parameter are
$\theta_\mathrm{s} \leq 0.54\, (0.72)\,\mathrm{deg}$ at 95\%
confidence level, derived from the 11\,(24)\,months data set. Since
the low statistics affect the chi-square distribution, note that the
confidence level is not precisely defined
\citep{1979ApJ...228..939C,1996ApJ...461..396M}. Furthermore, we point
out that the PSF of \textit{Fermi}-LAT (P6\_v3) may be
underestimated\footnote{http://fermi.gsfc.nasa.gov/ssc/data/analysis/LAT\_caveats.html}
and changes will have an impact on the fitted extent.
\subsubsection{\textit{Swift}-XRT data} \label{sect:swift_data}
The field was successfully proposed for observation with the X-ray
telescope (XRT, 0.2--10\,keV) aboard the \textit{Swift} satellite
\citep{2004ApJ...611.1005G,2005ApJ...621..558G}. The observations
(Obs.~ID~00041265001) were carried out on 10 November, 2010, between
00:23:46 and 19:52:56\,UT with a total effective exposure of
10.1\,ks. Observations with the XRT were performed in photon-counting
(PC) mode. The XRT data were calibrated and selected with standard
screening criteria (\textit{xrtpipeline}), using the HEAsoft 6.10
package for data reduction with the current version of calibration
files available (release 2010-09-30). For the analysis, events with
grades 0--12 \citep{2005SSRv..120..165B} were used. The spectral
analysis was carried out with \textit{Xspec}
\citep[12.6.0,][]{1996ASPC..101...17A}, using the PC grade 0--12
response matrix \textit{swxpc0to12s6\_20070901v011.rmf} with the
ancilliary response function generated by \textit{xrtmkarf} for PSF
correction and the position of the source considered. The on-source
region was selected to contain about 90\% of the PSF ($\approx
47''$). For background subtraction, an off-source region with radius
of about $4^\prime$ was used. To ensure a spectral fit of
sufficient quality, the spectra were rebinned to a minimum of 10
events per bin (with \textit{grppha}). Owing to the low statistics
accumulated, the C-statistic was used for spectral fitting.
In the field-of-view (FoV) of XRT, seven new X-ray sources were
discovered with a probability of being background fluctuations smaller
than $10^{-6}$. We show them in Fig. \ref{fig:skyplot}. Their
positional properties, measured flux, and the flux corrected for
photoelectric absorption between 0.2 and 2\,keV are listed in Table
\ref{tab:swift_srcs}. The spectra of the two brightest sources are
well-fitted by an absorption corrected power-law model, fixing the
hydrogen column density $N_\mathrm{H}$ to the nominal Galactic
value. The power-law index for the faint sources was fixed to 2.0. The
Galactic hydrogen column density was obtained from the LAB HI survey
\citep{2005A&A...440..775K} for the corresponding celestial positions.
\begin{figure}[t]
\resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{17655f08.eps}}
\caption{Celestial region of \mbox{1FGL J0030.7+0724}, $25^\prime \times
13^\prime$. The catalogued position is indicated by the red $+$,
while the dashed red ellipse borders its uncertainty (95\%
c.l.). The black $\times$ marks the 24-month position, the solid
black contour its uncertainty at 95\% confidence. Photons detected
by \textit{Swift}-XRT (10.1\,ks) are mapped by the back-image,
which is smoothed with a Gaussian ($7''$). The positions of NVSS
radio sources are given by the darkgreen boxes, the two NVSS sources
discussed in the text are named. In this region, seven X-ray
sources have been discovered, indicated by the blue arrows (see
Table \ref{tab:swift_srcs}). Note that the boxes' size is chosen
arbitrarily.}
\label{fig:skyplot}
\end{figure}
\paragraph{Associations.}
The newly discovered X-ray sources were studied for possible
associations in other accessible wavelengths. Multi-wavelength surveys
covering the region are the NVSS in the radio, the 2MASS in the
infrared, and the USNO B1.0 and SDSS DR7 catalogues for the optical
band. For every \textit{Swift} source we found at least one SDSS
source to be positionally coincident (Table \ref{tab:swift_srcs_cp}),
with apparent magnitudes between 21$^\mathrm{m}$ and
17$^\mathrm{m}$. Owing to insufficient sensitivity, the very faint
SDSS sources have not been detected by USNO.
\begin{table*}[t]
\caption{\label{tab:swift_srcs}X-ray sources detected with the
\textit{Swift}-XRT.}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c c}
\hline \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{ID} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Name} & $\sigma_\mathrm{90}$ & \multirow{2}{*}{$S/N$} & $f^\mathrm{abs}(0.2\!-\!2\,\mathrm{keV})$ & $N_\mathrm{H}$ & $\phi_0$ & \multirow{2}{*}{$\Gamma$} & $f^\mathrm{unabs}(0.2\!-\!2\,\mathrm{keV})$\\
& \multicolumn{1}{c}{SWIFT J} & [arcsec] & & [$10^{-14}$\,erg\,cm$^{-2}$\,s$^{-1}$] & $[10^{20}\,\mathrm{cm}^{-2}]$ & [$10^{-5}$\,keV$^{-1}$\,cm$^{-2}$\,s$^{-1}$] & & [$10^{-14}$\,erg\,cm$^{-2}$\,s$^{-1}$] \\
\hline
A & 003000.3+072301\tablefootmark{a} & 6 & 3.5 & $3.5_{-0.9}^{+1.1}$ & 3.98 & $1.4 \pm 0.4$ & 2.0 & $5.2 \pm 1.5$\\
B & 003017.8+072142 & 5 & 5.4 & $5.0_{-2.1}^{+3.0}$ & 3.71 & $2.2_{-0.4}^{+0.6}$ & $1.4 \pm 0.3$ & $6.7_{-1.8}^{+2.3}$\\
C & 003022.1+072623\tablefootmark{a} & 6 & 3.1 & $1.7_{-0.4}^{+0.5}$ & 3.10 & $0.6_{-0.2}^{+0.3}$ & 2.0 & $2.2_{-0.7}^{+1.1}$ \\
D & 003030.0+072013\tablefootmark{a} & 5 & 5.1 & $5.2_{-2.0}^{+2.8}$ & 3.71 & $2.0_{-0.4}^{+0.6}$ & 2.0 & $7.4_{-1.5}^{+2.2}$\\
E & 003049.8+072316\tablefootmark{a} & 6 & 3.0 & $3.1_{-1.1}^{+1.0}$ & 3.10 & $1.2_{-0.3}^{+0.4}$ & 2.0 & $4.4_{-1.1}^{+1.5}$ \\
F & 003054.9+072328\tablefootmark{a} & 6 & 2.8 & $2.0_{-0.6}^{+0.8}$ & 3.10 & $0.8_{-0.3}^{+0.4}$ & 2.0 & $3.0_{-1.1}^{+1.5}$ \\
G & 003119.8+072454 & 5 & 6.5 & $15.9_{-5.0}^{+4.5}$ & 3.10 & $6.5_{-0.9}^{+1.1}$ & $1.6 \pm 0.3$ & $20.7^{+8.8}_{-4.7}$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\tablefoot{The FoV is centred on \mbox{$(\mathrm{R.A.},\mathrm{Dec.}) =
(7.6315,7.4211)\,\mathrm{deg}$} with a radius of $13^\prime$. We give
an internal ID, the position (SWIFT~JHHMMSS.s$\pm$DDMMSS) and its
corresponding error at 90\% confidence level $\sigma_{90}$
(determined with \textit{xrtcentroid}), and the signal-to-noise
ratio $S/N$ (\textit{Ximage}) of the observed flux
$f^\mathrm{abs}$. If constraining, a power-law model corrected for
photoelectric absorption was fitted to the spectrum,
$\mathrm{d}\phi/\mathrm{d}E =
\phi_0\,(E/\mathrm{keV})^{-\Gamma}$. The hydrogen column density
$N_\mathrm{H}$ was fixed during the fit. The unabsorbed flux
$f^\mathrm{unabs}$ was derived from the power-law fit.
\tablefoottext{a}{Due to a low S/N a two-parameter power-law fit is
not constraining. The fluxes were derived assuming the index
$\Gamma = 2.0$.}}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
\begin{table*}[t]
\caption{\label{tab:swift_srcs_cp}Likely counterparts of the
X-ray sources listed in Table \ref{tab:swift_srcs}.}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c c c}
\hline \hline
\multicolumn{1}{l}{ID} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{NVSS\tablefoottext{a}} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{2MASS} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{USNO B1.0\tablefoottext{b}} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{SDSS DR7}\\
& Name & $S$ [mJy] & Name & K & Name & R & Name & g & Type \\
\hline
A & 003000+072255 & $47(2)$ & -- & -- & 0973-0005315 & 20.0$^\mathrm{m}$& J003000.24+072254.7 & 20.3$^\mathrm{m}$ & 6\\
B & -- & -- & -- & -- & 0973-0005428 & 20.4$^\mathrm{m}$ & J003017.75+072140.6 & 19.6$^\mathrm{m}$ & 6\\
C & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & J003022.22+072621.3 & 21.4$^\mathrm{m}$ & 6\\
\multirow{2}{*}{D} & \multirow{2}{*}{--} & \multirow{2}{*}{--} & \multirow{2}{*}{00302977+0720101} & \multirow{2}{*}{15.3$^\mathrm{m}$} & 0973-0005481 & 18.9$^\mathrm{m}$ & \multirow{2}{*}{J003029.77+072010.3} & \multirow{2}{*}{18.5$^\mathrm{m}$} & \multirow{2}{*}{3} \\
& & & & & 0973-0005484 & 19.3$^\mathrm{m}$ &\\
E & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & J003049.61+072313.5 & 21.0$^\mathrm{m}$ & 6\\
\multirow{2}{*}{F} & \multirow{2}{*}{--} & \multirow{2}{*}{--} & \multirow{2}{*}{00305500+0723233} & \multirow{2}{*}{15.7$^\mathrm{m}$} & \multirow{2}{*}{0973-0005560} & \multirow{2}{*}{18.2$^\mathrm{m}$} & J003054.80+072323.1 & 20.7$^\mathrm{m}$ & 6\\
& & & & & & & J003055.00+072323.2 & 18.5$^\mathrm{m}$ & 6\\
G & 003119+072456 & $11.6(6)$ & -- & -- & 0974-0005617 & 18.6$^\mathrm{m}$ & J003119.71+072453.5 & 17.4$^\mathrm{m}$ & 6\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\tablefoot{Scans ranging from radio (NVSS) to infrared (2MASS) and
optical (USNO and SDSS) wavelength bands are given. The table lists
the object's name and the catalogued flux or apparent
magnitude. Here, parentheses indicate the corresponding error on the
last decimal. Based on photometric morphology, SDSS provides a
separation between galaxy-like (3) and star-like objects (6), see
\citet{2001ASPC..238..269L}.
\tablefoottext{a}{Frequency $\nu = 1.4\,\mathrm{GHz}$}
\tablefoottext{b}{The column lists R2. If not
available, R1 or B1 is given instead \citep[see][and references
therein]{2003AJ....125..984M}.} }
\end{center}
\end{table*}
\section{Discussion} \label{sect:discussion}
\subsection{An AGN origin of \mbox{1FGL J0030.7+0724}\space} \label{sect:HBL_scenario}
The $\gamma$-ray signal of \mbox{1FGL J0030.7+0724}\space can be explained by a
conventional AGN. With respect to the unified scheme for the spectral
energy distribution (SED) of AGN (namely Flat Spectrum Radio Quasars
(FSRQs) and blazars), see, e.g., \citet{2001A&A...375..739D}, the hard
spectral index of \mbox{1FGL J0030.7+0724}\space ($\Gamma \approx 1.7$) is compatible
with a high-energy-peaked blazar (HBL). Within the updated positional
uncertainty of \mbox{1FGL J0030.7+0724}\space derived from the 24-month data
(Fig. \ref{fig:skyplot}), the most likely radio counterpart is
\object{NVSS~J003119+072456} ($f_{1.4\,\mathrm{GHz}} =
(11.6\pm0.6$)\,mJy), which positionally coincides with the newly
discovered hard X-ray source SWIFT~J003119.8+072454 ($\Gamma \approx
1.6$). Note that corresponding to the notation of Table
\ref{tab:swift_srcs}, the \textit{Swift} source is flagged with a
\textit{G} in Fig. \ref{fig:skyplot}. The energy flux observed between
0.2 and 2\,keV is \mbox{$\sim 2\times
10^{-13}\,\mathrm{erg}\,\mathrm{cm}^{-2}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}$} (Table
\ref{tab:swift_srcs}). Additionally, an optical counterpart of the
radio and X-ray source is listed in the SDSS catalogue ($r =
17.4^\mathrm{m}$), see Table \ref{tab:swift_srcs_cp}. In
Fig. \ref{fig:sed_clump} we show an empirical model for the average
SED of HBLs, which is based on the bolometric luminosity distribution
of FSRQs and blazars
\citep{1997MNRAS.289..136F,1998MNRAS.299..433F,2001A&A...375..739D}. The
SED is normalised to the radio flux of NVSS~J003119+072456 (at 5
GHz). For comparison, the spectral measurements of the optical and
X-ray counterparts are presented as well. Within the observational
errors and assuming temporal variability, the $\gamma$-ray spectrum of
\mbox{1FGL J0030.7+0724}\space is consistent with the model prediction. Furthermore,
the spectral index of the X-ray source agrees with an HBL, while its
flux is fainter than predicted for an (average) HBL. This might be
also explainable by temporal variability (the radio, X-ray, and
$\gamma$-ray observations were not taken simultaneously), and blazars
are well known to be variable in all wavelength bands, where the
amplitude of variability increases with energy
\citep{1997ARA&A..35..445U}.
The other fainter objects in the uncertainty region (the radio source
NVSS~J003030+072132 and the two X-ray sources \textit{E} and
\textit{F}, see Fig. \ref{fig:skyplot}) are less likely to be
associated with \mbox{1FGL J0030.7+0724}, but cannot be excluded. For
NVSS~J003030+072132, no X-ray association was detected with
\textit{Swift}-XRT at the level of $2\times
10^{-14}\,\mathrm{erg}\,\mathrm{cm}^{-2}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}$. No
conclusive optical counterpart is catalogued (above \mbox{$\sim
26^\mathrm{m}$}, see Sect. \ref{sect:catalogued_data}). With respect
to the comparatively high $\gamma$-ray signal (cf.,
Fig. \ref{fig:sed_clump}), this source therefore fails to provide a
convincing counterpart for \mbox{1FGL J0030.7+0724}. Similarly, the lacking radio
detection as well as energy fluxes ($\sim 4\times
10^{-14}\,\mathrm{erg}\,\mathrm{cm}^{-2}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}$), which are
much fainter than the HBL prediction, disfavour a coincidence of the
X-ray sources \textit{E} and \textit{F} with \mbox{1FGL J0030.7+0724}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{17655f09.eps}}
\caption{Energy spectra of \mbox{1FGL J0030.7+0724}\space (solid red line) and the
favoured radio (filled black triangle), optical (violet
crosses, dereddened $ugriz$ magnitudes), and X-ray (solid blue
line) counterparts, together with the SED of an average HBL (solid
black line). The SED was adapted from
\citeauthor{2001A&A...375..739D}, assuming the average redshift of
known HBLs $z=0.25$ \citep{2001A&A...375..739D}, and is normalised
to the radio flux of NVSS~J003119+072456. The frequency-dependent
energy flux $\nu f_\nu$ is given in the observer's frame. Note that
the statistical errors of the radio and optical data points are
too low to be resolved in the figure. Statistical uncertainties of
the X- and $\gamma$-ray spectra are indicated by the corresponding
shaded areas, which we derived with Eq. 1 in
\citet{2009ApJ...707.1310A}. The filled red circle indicates the
catalogued high-energy flux from \textit{Fermi}-LAT. Observations
with ROSAT provide an upper limit on the X-ray flux at the nominal
position of \mbox{1FGL J0030.7+0724}\space between 0.1 and 2.4\,keV, which is
depicted by the green square \citep[95\% c.l., assuming $\Gamma =
2.0$,][]{2010Borm}.}
\label{fig:sed_clump}
\end{figure}
\subsection{A DM subhalo origin of \mbox{1FGL J0030.7+0724}\space} \label{sect:subhalo_scenario}
Without a clear indication for variability, it remains plausible that
the $\gamma$-ray emission of \mbox{1FGL J0030.7+0724}\space originates from a DM
subhalo. The analysis of the arrival times of the source photons
(Sect. \ref{sect:fermi_data}) is consistent with a temporally constant
source of moderate spatial extent. The reconstructed high-energy flux
within the statistical errors is
$\phi_\mathrm{p}(10\!-\!100\,\mathrm{GeV}) \gtrsim 5\times
10^{-11}\,\mathrm{cm}^{-2}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}$, while the upper limit on
the extent is $\theta_\mathrm{s} \lesssim 0.7^\circ$, corresponding to
$\theta_{68} \lesssim 0.3^\circ$. As shown in
Sect. \ref{sect:Fermi_clumps}, in realistic WIMP scenarios the high
effective self-annihilation cross section required to explain the
source with DM annihilation in a FHM subhalo is hardly compatible with
current observational constraints (see Fig. \ref{fig:fiducial} and
Table \ref{tab:sigmav_eff}). However, given the more realistic SHM,
flux and extent of \mbox{1FGL J0030.7+0724}\space are consistent with a subhalo of mass
between $10^6$ and $10^8\,\mathrm{M}_\odot$. Assuming a DM subhalo of
$10^6\,\mathrm{M}_\odot$, the resulting distance
would be $2.4_{-0.7}^{+1.0}\,\mathrm{kpc}$, given the concentration
scatter of the SHM model. For a WIMP of 500\,GeV annihilating to
$b\overline{b}$, the required minimum effective enhancement is 7 for a
high-concentrated SHM subhalo with a corresponding distance of
$1.7\,\mathrm{kpc}$, while it increases to 31 for an
average-concentrated subhalo with a corresponding distance of
$2.4\,\mathrm{kpc}$. Note that $h(0.7^\circ) \approx
1.4$. An even lower boost factor is required for a lighter WIMP of
150\,GeV which predominantly annihilates to $\tau^+\tau^-$: 3\,(13)
for a high-concentrated (average-concentrated) SHM subhalo. Further
decrease of the necessary boost may be provided by sub-substructure
and cuspier profiles (Sect. \ref{sect:Fermi_clumps}).
In addition to theoretical uncertainties on halo properties and their
expected scatter (Sect. \ref{sect:density}), observational
uncertainties affect the distance and boost factor estimates. The
uncertainties on the flux directly change the boost, while
uncertainties on the most crucial measurement, the angular extent
$\theta_\mathrm{s}$, affect both the required boost and the
distance estimate (Sect. \ref{sect:candidate_sources}). The discussed
object \mbox{1FGL J0030.7+0724}\space serves as an appropriate benchmark, because the
corresponding uncertainties are representative for a typical DM
subhalo source. The observational uncertainties are of similar
magnitude as the theoretical ones.
\subsection{Remarks and prospects for IACTs} \label{sect:remarks_IACTs}
The 28-month data of \textit{Fermi}-LAT contains no additional photon
detected around the nominal position. This lowers the probability of
steadiness to $\sim 25\%$ and may indicate variability, which supports
a BL Lac scenario. Vice versa, such a behaviour would also be
anticipated by a selection bias: If the true flux is lower than the
value found in the discovery data set, the discovery condition would
only allow for the detection of sources where the photon number has
been fluctuating upwards. Poisson fluctuations of this faint signal
could have accounted for a detection with the LAT even if the true
flux had remained below the detection sensitivity.
\begin{table}[t]
\caption{\label{tab:iacts}Fluxes above the energy thresholds of MAGIC
and H.E.S.S., predicted by a DM scenario of \mbox{1FGL J0030.7+0724}.}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{lccc}
\hline \hline
\multicolumn{4}{c}{Flux prediction for MAGIC/H.E.S.S. [\%Crab]} \\
$m_\chi$ & 150\,GeV & 500\,GeV & 1\,TeV \\
\hline
$b\overline{b}$ & & $0.3/10^{-3}$ & 0.6/0.05 \\
$W^+W^-$ & & 0.5/0.01 & 0.8/0.2 \\
$\tau^+\tau^-$ & 0.7/-- & 3.1/1.1 & \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\tablefoot{The fluxes are listed in percentages of the Crab Nebula's
flux, $\phi_\mathrm{Crab}(> 50\,\mathrm{GeV}) \approx 1.6\times
10^{-9}\,\mathrm{cm}^{-2}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}$
\citep{2008ApJ...674.1037A} and
$\phi_\mathrm{Crab}(>300\,\mathrm{GeV}) \approx 1.5\times
10^{-10}\,\mathrm{cm}^{-2}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}$
\citep{2006A&A...457..899A}, respectively. Effective cross sections
required by the individual DM scenarios are discussed in
Sect. \ref{sect:subhalo_scenario}, raised by a factor of about 2.3
for $m_\chi = 1\,\mathrm{TeV}$.}
\end{center}
\end{table}
It is instructive to note that with regard to a definite
identification of a counterpart (or ruling out a candidate) from
observations in other wavelength regimes the limiting factor is the
accuracy of the \textit{Fermi}-LAT source position
($\mathcal{O}(5^\prime)$, cf., Table \ref{tab:clump_candidates}) and
PSF. With just six detected photons, probably including one background
photon, the source is close to the confusion limit. This situation can
only be resolved by future instruments with much larger effective
areas, such as the proposed CTA, which will probe deep into the
expected population of subhaloes. The much larger number of photons
would help to infer significantly improved source
positions. Furthermore, for detecting a spectral cut-off and in case
of heavy WIMPs ($m_\chi > 1\,\mathrm{TeV}$), observations in the VHE
range with IACTs are favoured. For the particular DM scenarios
proposed for \mbox{1FGL J0030.7+0724}, fluxes anticipated in the energy ranges
accessible for MAGIC and H.E.S.S., $\phi(> 50\,\mathrm{GeV})$ and
$\phi(> 300\,\mathrm{GeV})$, respectively, are listed in Table
\ref{tab:iacts} (given by $\phi(>E)\propto
N_\gamma(>E)/N_\gamma(10\!-\!100\,\mathrm{GeV})$, see
Eq. \ref{eq:boost}). Additionally, flux estimates for WIMPs with
$m_\chi=1\,\mathrm{TeV}$ were derived. Note that the required
effective cross sections (see Sect. \ref{sect:subhalo_scenario})
increase by a factor of 2.3, because \mbox{$\ensuremath{\langle \sigma v \rangle}_\mathrm{eff} \propto
m_\chi^2\,N_\gamma(10\!-\!100\,\mathrm{GeV})^{-1}$}. Also note that fluxes
expected for VERITAS are comparable to those for H.E.S.S.
The low energy threshold of MAGIC leads to comparatively high
integrated VHE fluxes for $m_\chi < 1\,\mathrm{TeV}$. The flux
prediction for MAGIC is of $\mathcal{O}(1\%)$ of the Crab Nebula's for
the favoured $\tau^+\tau^-, m_\chi = 150\,\mathrm{GeV}$ and $W^+W^-,
m_\chi = 1\,\mathrm{TeV}$ model. With MAGIC, 50\,hours of observation
are necessary to detect this source with more than 5$\sigma$. For
comparison, predicted fluxes for H.E.S.S. are not higher than
0.2\%\,Crab for these models, which requires a few hundred hours of
observation \citep{2006A&A...457..899A}. We remark that advanced
analysis methods improve the sensitivity of H.E.S.S. by a factor of 2
\citep{2009APh....32..231D}. In the near future, an additional
telescope (H.E.S.S.-II) will lower the energy threshold of H.E.S.S. to
about 25-50\,GeV. For the corresponding flux level of 1\%\,Crab, the
required observation time for H.E.S.S.-II and MAGIC will be
similar. Furthermore, the planned CTA observatory will be able to
detect such a source in about 50\,hours \citep{2010arXiv1008.3703C}.
\section{Summary and conclusions} \label{sect:conclusion}
Hierarchical structure formation predicts \mbox{Milky Way-sized}
galaxies to host numerous DM subhaloes with masses ranging from
$10^{10}$ down to a cut-off scale of
$10^{-3}-10^{-11}\,\mathrm{M}_\odot$. Given standard WIMP scenarios,
e.g., motivated by supersymmetry, we have demonstrated that DM
subhaloes are detectable with the currently operating $\gamma$-ray
telescope \textit{Fermi}-LAT. Based upon state-of-the-art models,
detectable subhaloes would observationally appear as faint high-energy
$\gamma$-ray sources between 10 and 100\,GeV with a flux at the
sensitivity level of \textit{Fermi}-LAT (\mbox{$\sim
10^{-10}\,\mathrm{cm}^{-2}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}$} between 10 and
100\,GeV for one year). The observable $\gamma$-ray emission exhibits
a moderate spatial extent below \mbox{$\sim 0.5^\circ$}. Subhaloes
favoured for detection are massive ($10^5 - 10^{8}\,\mathrm{M}_\odot$)
at distances of $\mathcal{O}(\mathrm{kpc})$, while low-mass subhaloes
are not detectable. Within the intrinsic halo-to-halo scatter, only a
moderate enhancement of the self-annihilation cross section preferred
by standard cosmology, $\ensuremath{\langle \sigma v \rangle}_0 =
3\times10^{-26}\,\mathrm{cm}^3\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}$, between 3 and 12 is
necessary (dependent on the WIMP model), which is consistent with
current observational constraints. Increasing sensitivity for a
data-taking period of five years will allow us to resolve subhaloes
requiring a cross section enhanced by a factor between 1.3 and
5. Additional sub-substructure within a subhalo may lower the required
enhancement. Within statistics, \textit{one} massive subhalo could be
detectable with \textit{Fermi}-LAT in one year and might appear in the
first-year catalogue (1FGL), assuming a subhalo population predicted
by numerical $N$-body simulations. Regarding the 1FGL, the high-energy
flux ($10\!-\!100$\,GeV) of subhalo candidates should be fainter than
$\sim 4\times 10^{-10}\,\mathrm{cm}^{-2}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}$ (for the
WIMP scenarios considered here).
Intensive searches for subhaloes in the 1FGL reveal twelve candidates,
which are unassociated, non-variable, high-latitude sources detected
above 10\,GeV. The physical origin of the most promising object
selected by lacking association, faintness, and spectral index,
\mbox{1FGL J0030.7+0724}, was investigated by analysing the 24-month data set of
\textit{Fermi}-LAT. With dedicated \textit{Swift}-XRT observations
(10.1\,ks), seven X-ray sources were discovered around
\mbox{1FGL J0030.7+0724}. Located within the positional uncertainty of the $\gamma$-ray
source, a radio source positionally coincident with a newly discovered
X-ray source hints at a conventional HBL origin of \mbox{1FGL J0030.7+0724}. However,
owing to a large positional uncertainty and the lacking detection of
variability, the possibility of a dark nature remains. The measured
high-energy flux and spatial extent of the source is compatible with a
DM subhalo between $10^6$ and $10^8\,\mathrm{M}_\odot$ in a distance
of about 2\,kpc, driven by a 500\,(150)\,GeV WIMP self-annihilating to
$b\overline{b}$ ($\tau^+\tau^-$). In this case, the required
enhancement of $\ensuremath{\langle \sigma v \rangle}_0$ is 7 (3) within the intrinsic scatter of
the subhalo model, given a subhalo of $10^6\,\mathrm{M}_\odot$.
Establishing the -- probably more likely -- HBL scenario of
\mbox{1FGL J0030.7+0724}\space requires a significant detection of $\gamma$-ray
variability and a confirmation of the radio as well as X-ray
counterparts. Vice versa, a steady $\gamma$-ray flux with a spectral
shape predicted by self-annihilating WIMPs would hint at a DM nature
of the object. This validates the necessity of additional intense and
long multi-wavelength observations. In particular, IACTs offer a
unique capability to reduce the positional uncertainty of faint LAT
sources and to detect a spectral cut-off in the VHE range. A detection
of the subhalo candidate \mbox{1FGL J0030.7+0724}\space may be possible with telescope
systems like H.E.S.S.-II, MAGIC, and CTA within about 50\,hours of
observation.
Our results encourage the search for more subhalo candidates in
current and upcoming \mbox{(very-)high-energy} data releases. However,
even in optimistic scenarios the expected number of LAT-detectable
subhaloes is small. Furthermore, a longer exposure time -- while
certainly helpful with regard to the single candidate discussed in
this work -- will not neccessarily remedy the general problem of the
$\gamma$-ray photon count that limits the positional accuracy and
therefore the chance of identifying counterparts. Given $m_\chi <
1\,\mathrm{TeV}$, acquiring a sufficiently large number of detections
which may solve the subhalo problem requires higher sensitivity in the
high-energy range.
\begin{acknowledgements}
We kindly acknowledge helpful discussions with our colleagues
Katharina Borm, Torsten Bringmann, Wilfried Buchm\"uller, Frederike
J\"ager, Andrei Lobanov, and Martin Raue. We kindly acknowledge the
\textit{Swift} PI Neil Gehrels and his team for the prompt response to
our ToO request and the corresponding observations. The help of the
Fermi HelpDesk is kindly acknowledged. We kindly thank the anonymous
referee for useful comments. This work was supported through the
collaborative research center (SFB) 676 ``Particles, Strings, and the
Early Universe'' at the University of Hamburg.
This publication makes use of data products from the Two Micron All
Sky Survey, which is a joint project of the University of
Massachusetts and the Infrared Processing and Analysis
Center/California Institute of Technology, funded by the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration and the National Science
Foundation.
This publication makes use of data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey
(SDSS). Funding for the SDSS and SDSS-II has been provided by the
Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the Participating Institutions, the
National Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Energy, the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Japanese
Monbukagakusho, the Max Planck Society, and the Higher Education
Funding Council for England. The SDSS Web Site is
http://www.sdss.org/.
The SDSS is managed by the Astrophysical Research Consortium for the
Participating Institutions. The Participating Institutions are the
American Museum of Natural History, Astrophysical Institute Potsdam,
University of Basel, University of Cambridge, Case Western Reserve
University, University of Chicago, Drexel University, Fermilab, the
Institute for Advanced Study, the Japan Participation Group, Johns
Hopkins University, the Joint Institute for Nuclear Astrophysics, the
Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology, the Korean
Scientist Group, the Chinese Academy of Sciences (LAMOST), Los Alamos
National Laboratory, the Max-Planck-Institute for Astronomy (MPIA),
the Max-Planck-Institute for Astrophysics (MPA), New Mexico State
University, Ohio State University, University of Pittsburgh,
University of Portsmouth, Princeton University, the United States
Naval Observatory, and the University of Washington.
This research has made use of the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database
(NED) which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California
Institute of Technology, under contract with the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration.
\end{acknowledgements}
\begin{appendix}
\section{Concentration of Aquarius subhaloes} \label{app:cvir_Aq}
The Aquarius simulation provides results on the profile parameters of
resolved subhaloes, taking tidal interaction into account
\citep{2008MNRAS.391.1685S}. These results are used to derive the
distance-averaged virial concentration of subhaloes to confront it
with the toy-model predictions used here.
Following up on Eq.~\ref{eq:sub_profile}, the \textit{tidal}
concentration $c_\mathrm{t} \equiv R_\mathrm{t}/r_\mathrm{s}$ is
introduced \citep[cf.,][]{2009PhRvD..80b3520A}, where $R_\mathrm{t}$
denotes the tidal and therefore physical radius of a subhalo. For an
NFW-type mass density profile, $c_\mathrm{t} = \exp[W(-e^{-a})+a] -1,
a \equiv 1 + M_\mathrm{t}/(4\pi \rho_\mathrm{s} r_\mathrm{s}^3)$,
where $W(x)$ denotes Lambert's W-function and $M_\mathrm{t}$ the tidal
subhalo mass. In numerical simulations, the directly ''observable''
quantities of (sub)haloes are related to the dynamics of the halo
system, including the maximum velocity $V_\mathrm{max}$ and the
distance $r_\mathrm{max}$ where $V_\mathrm{max}$ is reached. To
recover the canonical parameters $r_s$ and $\rho_s$ related to the
density profile, we use approximate relations $2 [V_\mathrm{max}/(H_0
r_\mathrm{max})]^2 \simeq 5.80\times
10^4\,[M_\mathrm{t}/(10^8\,\mathrm{M}_\odot)]^{-0.18}$ and
$M_\mathrm{t} \simeq 3.37 \times 10^7\,
[V_\mathrm{max}/(10\,\mathrm{km}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1})]^{3.49}\,\mathrm{M}_\odot$,
fitting the results of the simulation
\citep{2008MNRAS.391.1685S,2009PhRvD..80b3520A}. Given analytical
relations between $(r_\mathrm{max},V_\mathrm{max})$ and
$(r_\mathrm{s},\rho_\mathrm{s})$ for the NFW profile \citep[e.g.,
Eq. 8 in][]{2008ApJ...686..262K}, this yields
$r^\mathrm{Aq}_\mathrm{s}(M_\mathrm{t}) \simeq 0.094\,[
M_\mathrm{t}/(10^6\,\mathrm{M}_\odot) ]^{0.38}\,\mathrm{kpc}$ and
$\rho^\mathrm{Aq}_\mathrm{s}(M_\mathrm{t}) \simeq 9.6 \times 10^5
\rho_\mathrm{crit}\,[ M_\mathrm{t}/(10^6\,\mathrm{M}_\odot)
]^{-0.18}$. Therefore, the tidal concentration
$c_\mathrm{t}^\mathrm{Aq}$ is determined via $a^\mathrm{Aq} \simeq 1 +
0.66\,[M_\mathrm{t}/(10^6\,\mathrm{M}_\odot)]^{0.04}$, which is valid
for masses above the resolution limit of the simulation, $M_\mathrm{t}
\gtrsim 3.2\times 10^4\,\mathrm{M}_\odot$.
The virial concentration of Aquarius subhaloes is given by
\mbox{$c_\mathrm{vir}^\mathrm{Aq}(M_\mathrm{vir}) = [3
M_\mathrm{vir}/(4\pi \Delta_\mathrm{c}
\rho_\mathrm{crit})]^{1/3}/r^\mathrm{Aq}_\mathrm{s}(M_\mathrm{vir})$},
where the characteristic radius as function of the virial subhalo mass
is obtained from an empirical relation mapping $M_\mathrm{vir}$ to
$M_\mathrm{t}$. Based on $c_\mathrm{t}^\mathrm{Aq}$ and assuming the
FHM virial concentration-to-mass relation (Eq. \ref{eq:cvir_lavalle}),
the relative tidal mass is \mbox{$M_\mathrm{t}/M_\mathrm{vir} \approx
f[c^\mathrm{Aq}_\mathrm{t}(M_\mathrm{t})]/f[c^\mathrm{FHM}_\mathrm{vir}(M_\mathrm{vir})]$},
since $M = 4\pi \rho_\mathrm{s} r_\mathrm{s}^3 f(c)$. Hereby, we have
assumed that tidal effects on inner subhalo parts are negligible:
$\rho_\mathrm{s}(M_\mathrm{vir}) r_\mathrm{s}(M_\mathrm{vir})^3
\approx \rho_\mathrm{s}(M_\mathrm{t})
r_\mathrm{s}(M_\mathrm{t})^3$. With $f(c^\mathrm{Aq}_\mathrm{t}) =
a^\mathrm{Aq}-1$, the distance-averaged
\mbox{$M_\mathrm{t}$-$M_\mathrm{vir}$} relation is
\begin{equation} \label{eq:app_Mt_Mv}
M_\mathrm{t}(M_\mathrm{vir}) \simeq \left(
\frac{712.6\,\mathrm{kpc}^{-3}}{4\pi \rho_\mathrm{crit}}
\right)^{1.04} \left(
\frac{M_\mathrm{vir}}{f(c^\mathrm{FHM}_\mathrm{vir})} \right)^{1.04}
\mathrm{M}_\odot.
\end{equation}
For massive subhaloes \mbox{($\gtrsim 10^4\,\mathrm{M}_\odot$)},
$f(c^\mathrm{FHM}_\mathrm{vir})^{-1.04}$ is well fit by a power law,
$f[c^\mathrm{FHM}_\mathrm{vir}(M_\mathrm{vir})]^{-1.04} \approx
0.34\,[M_\mathrm{vir}/(10^6\,\mathrm{M}_\odot)]^{0.02}$, yielding
$M_\mathrm{t}/M_\mathrm{vir} \approx 0.23
[M_\mathrm{vir}/(10^6\,\mathrm{M}_\odot)]^{0.06}$ for $M_\mathrm{t}
\gtrsim 3.2\times 10^4\,\mathrm{M}_\odot$. This reveals
$r^\mathrm{Aq}_\mathrm{s}(M_\mathrm{vir}) \simeq 0.054\,[
M_\mathrm{vir}/(10^6\,\mathrm{M}_\odot) ]^{0.40}\,\mathrm{kpc}$ and,
therefore, the distance-averaged virial concentration of subhaloes
\begin{equation}
c^\mathrm{Aq}_\mathrm{vir}(M_\mathrm{vir}) \simeq
46.8\,\left(\frac{M_\mathrm{vir}}{10^6\,\mathrm{M}_\odot}\right)^{-0.07}
\end{equation}
for $M_\mathrm{vir} \in [1.5\times 10^5;\sim 10^{10}]\,\mathrm{M}_\odot$.
\end{appendix}
\begin{appendix}
\section{Moderately extended \textit{Fermi} sources} \label{app:mc}
For $\gamma$-ray catalogues such as 1FGL, instrument data have been
analysed assuming sources to be point-like. Given that detectable
subhaloes would appear as moderately extended according to the PSF of
\textit{Fermi}-LAT (see Sect. \ref{sect:fiducial_candidate:obsprop},
$\sigma_\mathrm{PSF} \approx 0.15^\circ$ for $E = 10$\,GeV), we
investigated the effect of the 1FGL point-source-analysis framework on
extended sources.
To study the high-energy flux $\phi_\mathrm{p}(10\!-\!100\,\mathrm{GeV})$
reconstructed by the point-source analysis for a given intrinsic
(subhalo) extent $\theta_\mathrm{s}$, a Monte-Carlo (MC) simulation
dedicated to the particular source \mbox{1FGL J0030.7+0724}\space was used. Based
on the 11-month data set (see Sect. \ref{sect:fermi_data} for
details), the celestial coordinates of each of the five source photons
between 10 and 100\,GeV were re-simulated. The intensity profile
was assumed to follow the line-of-sight integral over the
(squared) NFW profile of a subhalo for the given
$\theta_\mathrm{s}$ (peaking at the nominal source position). Other
observational photon parameters, such as energy, inclination,
detection time, conversion type, and event class (see Table
\ref{tab:photons}), were kept fixed. Subsequently, detectional
influences were accounted for by smoothing with the PSF. For each
$\theta_\mathrm{s}$, 500 iterations were analysed with the
framework described in Sect. \ref{sect:fermi_data} (\textit{gtfindsrc}
and \textit{gtlike}) according to flux and significance ($S \approx
\sqrt{\mathrm{TS}}$, where TS denotes the test statistic of the
analysis). All other sources within the ROI were kept fixed. The
study is restricted to the signal-dominated regime chosen to be
$\theta_\mathrm{s} \lesssim 1^\circ$ given the low background
$N_\mathrm{bg}$. Since $\theta_{68} \approx 0.46^\circ$, this
corresponds to $\sim 3\, \sigma_\mathrm{PSF}$. Justified by the low
background, all photons were treated as signal events.
\begin{figure}[t]
\resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{17655f10.eps}}
\caption{Average (solid lines) and rms (shaded areas) of
\mbox{$\phi_\mathrm{p}(10\!-\!100\,\mathrm{GeV})$} (upper panel), TS (middle
panel), and the scaling $h(\theta_\mathrm{s})$ (lower panel) as
function of the intrinsic angular extent $\theta_\mathrm{s}$. For
each $\theta_\mathrm{s}$, a sample of 500 simulations of the
\mbox{1FGL J0030.7+0724}\space photon distribution between 10 and 100 GeV assuming
a DM subhalo intensity profile was analysed with the 1FGL
point-source-analysis framework.}
\label{fig:sumMC}
\end{figure}
The $\theta_\mathrm{s}$ dependence of the sample-averaged
reconstructed flux $\phi_\mathrm{p}(10\!-\!100\,\mathrm{GeV})$ and
corresponding test statistic TS is shown in the two upper panels of
Fig. \ref{fig:sumMC}. For large $\theta_\mathrm{s}$, the probability
of photons to be located far away from their central position
increases. Therefore, both $\phi_\mathrm{p}$ and TS decrease because
of a minor contribution of outer photons to the point-source region
(defined by the PSF). For $\theta_\mathrm{s} \approx 1^\circ$, the
average significance drops below the detection criterion ($\mathrm{TS}
\geq 25$). Note that $\mathrm{TS} \geq 25$ still holds for about 35\%
of the simulated samples.
In terms of Eq. \ref{eq:boost}, appropriate investigation of
candidates provided by point-source catalogues is therefore admitted
by a scaling $h(\theta_\mathrm{s})$, which allows us to map the
catalogued flux $\phi_\mathrm{p}$ to the true flux $\phi$ of the
entire source. The angular dependence of $h$ is shown in the lower
panel of Fig. \ref{fig:sumMC}. Given $\phi =
h(\theta_\mathrm{s})\,\phi_\mathrm{p}$, the factor was derived by
defining $h(0^\circ) = 1$. Conservatively, the complete MC sample was
used to derive $h(\theta_\mathrm{s})$, including realisations
with $\mathrm{TS}<25$\,\footnote{Given the selection bias of the 1FGL
catalogue, $\mathrm{TS} \geq 25$, a more stringent deduction of
$h(\theta_\mathrm{s})$ should include realisations with $\mathrm{TS}
\geq 25$ only. This lowers the effective scaling factor
$h(\theta_\mathrm{s})$.}. As expected in the signal-dominated
regime, the increase of $h$ with increasing $\theta_\mathrm{s}$ is
comparatively slight, while it is fairly linear in the
background-dominated regime. Note again that this result holds for
sources similar to \mbox{1FGL J0030.7+0724}\space at high galactic latitudes only,
while in general $h = h(l,b,\theta_\mathrm{s})$.
Vice versa, Fig. \ref{fig:sumMC} states a reasonable (but
conservative) value of the sensitivity of \textit{Fermi}-LAT for hard
sources of similar type: $\phi_\mathrm{p}(10\!-\!100\,\mathrm{GeV})
\approx 10^{-10}\,\mathrm{cm}^{-2}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}$. Note that this
value is similar to the point-source sensitivity stated in
\citet{2009ApJ...697.1071A}.
\end{appendix}
\begin{appendix}
\section{Subhalo-induced diffuse flux} \label{app:sub_diff}
In the following, the diffuse flux of the subhalo population is
derived using a prescription by \citet{2009PhRvD..80b3520A}, which is
extended to include the probability distribution of the concentration
parameter $c$ (see Eq.~\ref{eq:scatter}). Numerical $N$-body
simulations have demonstrated that the differential subhalo number
density $\mathrm{d}n_\mathrm{sh}=\mathcal{N}(r,M)\,\mathrm{d}M$
follows a power-law in subhalo mass $M$. Following standard
assumptions, the number density $\mathcal{N}(r,M)$ factorises such
that $\mathcal{N}(r,M) \propto n_\mathrm{sh}(r)\cdot M^{-\alpha}$,
where $\alpha = 1.9$ and $r$ is the distance to the host's centre. In
simulations, the spatial density distribution $n_\mathrm{sh}(r)$ is
consistently found to be ``anti-biased'' and, e.g., $n_\mathrm{sh}(r)
\propto \rho_\mathrm{Ein}(r)$ \citep{2008MNRAS.391.1685S}, where
$\rho_\mathrm{Ein}(r)$ denotes the Einasto profile \citep{1965Einasto}
\begin{equation}
\rho_\mathrm{Ein}(r) \propto \exp\left\{-\frac{2}{\alpha_\mathrm{E}}
\left[ \left( \frac{r}{r_{-2}} \right)^{\alpha_\mathrm{E}} - 1
\right] \right\}.
\end{equation}
For a Milky Way-sized halo, the best-fit parameters for the subhaloes'
spatial distribution $\rho_\mathrm{Ein}(r)$ have been found to be
$\alpha_\mathrm{E} = 0.68$ and $r_{-2} =
0.81\,c^\mathrm{MW}_{200}\,r_\mathrm{s}^\mathrm{MW}$
\citep{2008MNRAS.391.1685S}, where $c^\mathrm{MW}_{200} \approx 15$
\citep{2010JCAP...08..004C}. Using $\mathcal{N}(r,M)$ normalised to
represent a probability density function in $M$, the differential
density is
\begin{equation} \label{eq:mass_spatial_distr}
\frac{\mathrm{d}n_\mathrm{sh}(r,M)}{\mathrm{d}M}=n_\mathrm{sh}(r)\frac{\alpha-1}{M_\mathrm{min}}\left(
\frac{M}{M_\mathrm{min}} \right)^{-\alpha},
\end{equation}
where $M_\mathrm{min} \ll M_\mathrm{max}$ are the minimum and maximum
mass of Galactic subhaloes, respectively. The normalisation of the
subhalo number density $n_\mathrm{sh}(r)$ is chosen such that the
fraction of the host's mass distributed in subhaloes $f_\mathrm{sh}
\equiv M_\mathrm{sh}/M^\mathrm{MW}_\mathrm{vir} = 15\%$ for the
cut-off scale $M_\mathrm{min} = 10^{-6}\,\mathrm{M}_\odot$, where
$M^\mathrm{MW}_\mathrm{vir} = (1.49 \pm 0.17)\times
10^{12}\,\mathrm{M}_\odot$ \citep{2010JCAP...08..004C}. The chosen
value of $f_\mathrm{sh}$ is consistent with recent estimates
$f_\mathrm{sh} = 10\!-\!50\%$
\citep{2005Natur.433..389D,2009arXiv0906.4340D,2008Natur.454..735D,2008Natur.456...73S}. The
total mass contained in subhaloes is given by
\begin{equation}
f_\mathrm{sh} M^\mathrm{MW}_\mathrm{vir} = 4\pi
\int_0^{R^\mathrm{MW}_\mathrm{vir}} \mathrm{d}r\,r^2
\int_{M_\mathrm{min}}^{M_\mathrm{max}}
\mathrm{d}M\,M\frac{\mathrm{d}n_\mathrm{sh}(r,M)}{\mathrm{d}M}.
\end{equation}
Solving for an Einasto-type profile and $\alpha \neq 2$ yields
\begin{eqnarray}
n_\mathrm{sh}(r) & = & \frac{f_\mathrm{sh}
M^\mathrm{MW}_\mathrm{vir}}{2\pi r^3_{-2} M_\mathrm{min}} \left(
\frac{2}{\alpha_\mathrm{E}} \right)^{3/\alpha_\mathrm{E}-1} \Gamma
\left[ \frac{3}{\alpha_\mathrm{E}}, \frac{2}{\alpha_\mathrm{E}}
\left( \frac{R^\mathrm{MW}_\mathrm{vir}}{r_{-2}}
\right)^{\alpha_\mathrm{E}}\right]^{-1} \nonumber \\
& \times &
\frac{2-\alpha}{(\alpha-1) (\Lambda^{2-\alpha}-1)} \exp \left[
-\frac{2}{\alpha_\mathrm{E}} \left( \frac{r}{r_{-2}}
\right)^{\alpha_\mathrm{E}} \right],
\end{eqnarray}
where $\Gamma(a,x)$ is the lower incomplete gamma function and
$\Lambda = M_\mathrm{max}/M_\mathrm{min}$.
The minimum mass $M_\mathrm{min}$ of subhaloes is governed by the
details of kinetic decoupling of WIMPs in the early Universe
\citep{2003PhRvD..68j3003B,2006PhRvD..73f3504B,2005JCAP...08..003G,2009NJPh...11j5027B}. Depending
upon the mass and composition of, e.g., the neutralino, a wide range
of minimal subhalo masses has been considered in the literature,
namely $M_\mathrm{min} \in
[10^{-11};10^{-3}]\,\mathrm{M}_\odot$. Here, two benchmark cases are
considered for $M_\mathrm{min}$, i.e., $10^{-10}$ and
$10^{-6}\,\mathrm{M}_\odot$, bracketing the 500\,GeV neutralino
scenario discussed by \citet{2009NJPh...11j5027B}. The upper mass
limit was fixed to $M_\mathrm{max} =
10^{-2}\,M^\mathrm{MW}_\mathrm{vir} \approx
10^{10}\,\mathrm{M}_\odot$. Results do not depend on the exact value
chosen for $M_\mathrm{max}$.
Using $\mathcal{L}(M,D)$ (Sect. \ref{sect:density} and
\ref{sect:luminosity}), the average specific intensity from a subhalo
population with extended, isotropic emissivity profiles is given
towards a galactic direction $\hat{\mathbi{n}}$ by
\begin{equation} \label{eq:diffint}
\langle I_\nu(\hat{\mathbi{n}}) \rangle = \hskip -0.2cm
\int\limits_{M_\mathrm{min}}^{M_\mathrm{max}} \hskip -0.15cm
\mathrm{d}M \hskip -0.3cm
\int\limits_{s_*(\mathcal{L}(M,\tilde{s}))}^{s_\mathrm{max}(\hat{\mathbi{n}})}
\hskip -0.4cm \mathrm{d}s \frac{\mathrm{d}n_\mathrm{sh}(r(s,\hat{\mathbi{n}}),M)}{\mathrm{d}M} \hskip -0.15cm
\int \hskip -0.15cm \mathrm{d}c\, P(c,\overline{c})\, \frac{\mathcal{L}_\nu(M,c)}{4 \pi},
\end{equation}
assuming that the spatial extent of each subhalo is much smaller than
the scale on which the subhalo distribution changes significantly. The
total photon rate $\mathcal{L}_\nu$ is given by
Eq. \ref{eq:luminosity_vir} with the substitution $N_\gamma
\rightarrow E\, \mathrm{d}N_\gamma/\mathrm{d}E$. Furthermore,
$\mathcal{L}_\nu(M)$ is required to be one-to-one. The galactocentric
radius corresponding to the position $s\,\hat{\mathbi{n}}$ is
$r(s,\psi) = ( R_0^2 + s^2 - 2 R_0 s \cos \psi )^{1/2}$, where $\psi$
denotes the angle between $\hat{\mathbi{n}}$ and $\hat{\mathbi{R}}_0$
($\cos(\psi)=\langle \hat{\mathbi{n}},\hat{\mathbi{R}}_0
\rangle$). Subhaloes bright enough to be detected as individual
sources are not considered to contribute to the diffuse
emission. Therefore, the lower limit of the line-of-sight integral is
set by the detection criterion $\mathcal{L} \geq 4\pi s_*^2
\phi_\mathrm{sens}$, where $\phi_\mathrm{sens}$ denotes the flux
sensitivity for a detection in one year with \textit{Fermi}-LAT, see
Sect. \ref{sect:Fermi_clumps}. Since $R_0 \ll R_\mathrm{vir}$, the
upper bound of the $s$-integral $s_\mathrm{max}(\hat{\mathbi{n}})
\approx R^\mathrm{MW}_\mathrm{vir}$. The SHM photon rate is a function
of both $M$ and $s$, and therefore $s_*$ also depends slightly on
$s$. Conservatively, $s_*(M,s) = s_*(M,\tilde{s})$, $\tilde{s} =
R^\mathrm{MW}_\mathrm{vir}$, revealing a lower bound on $s_*$.
\end{appendix}
\bibliographystyle{aa}
|
\section*{Introduction}
In recent years, Calabi-Yau (CY) algebras have attracted lots of
attention due to their applications in Algebraic Geometry and in Mathematical Physics.
The study of Calabi-Yau Hopf algebras is initiated by K. Brown and J. Zhang in 2008 cf.\cite{bz}, where they studied rigid dualizing complexes of Noetherian Hopf algebras. S. Chemala showed in \cite{c} that quantum enveloping algebras are Calabi-Yau. In \cite{hvz} J. He, F. Van Oystaeyen and Y. Zhang showed that the smash product of a universal enveloping algebra of a finite dimensional Lie algebra is Calabi-Yau if and only if the group is a subgroup of the special linear group and the enveloping algebra itself is Calabi-Yau. Thus they were able to classify the Noetherian cocommutative Calabi-Yau Hopf algebras of dimension less than 4 over an algebraically closed field. The smash product construction of Calabi-Yau Hopf algebras applied in \cite{hvz} provides in fact an effective method to construct new Calabi-Yau (Hopf) algebras based on existing Calabi-Yau (Hopf) algebras. However, the Calabi-Yau property of the smash product $R\#\kk G$ depends strongly on the action of $\kk G$ on $R$. For example, the pointed Hopf algebra $U(\mc{D},\lmd)$ of finite Cartan type constructed in \cite{as3} with $\Gamma$ an infinite group of finite rank is Calabi-Yau if and only if the associated graded Hopf algebra $R\#\kk\Gamma$ is Calabi-Yau, where $R$ is the Nichols algebra of $U(\mc{D},\lmd)$. But in this case, if $R\#\kk\Gamma$ is Calabi-Yau, then $R$ can not be Calabi-Yau; and vice versa cf.\cite{yuz}. This arises the question: can we find the "right" action of $G$ on $R$ so that the Calabi-Yau property of an algebra $R$ delivers the Calabi-Yau property of $R\#\kk G$?
The question was answered by Wu and Zhu in \cite{wz}, where they considered the smash product $R\#\kk G$ of a Koszul Calabi-Yau algebra $R$ by a finite group of automorphisms of $R$. They
showed that the smash product $R\# \kk G$ is Calabi-Yau if and only if the
homological determinant (Definition \ref{hdetl}) of the $G$-action on $R$
is trivial. Later, this result was generalized to the case where $R$
is a $p$-Koszul Calabi-Yau algebra and $\kk G$ is replaced by an involutory Calabi-Yau Hopf algebra \cite{liwz}.
Inspired by the work of Wu and Zhu \cite{wz} and the fact that the associated graded Hopf algebra of a pointed Hopf algebra is a smash product of a braided Hopf algebra in a Yetter-Drinfeld module category over the coradical, we consider in this paper the Calabi-Yau property of a smash product Hopf algebra $R\# H$, where $R$ is a braided Hopf algebra in the Yetter-Drinfeld module category over $H$. We use the homological determinant of the Hopf action to describe the homological integral (Definition \ref{int}) of $R\#H$. We then
give a necessary and sufficient condition for $R\#H$ to be a Calabi-Yau
algebra in case $R$ is Calabi-Yau and $H$ is semisimple (Theorem \ref{cyrtoh}). We then continue to consider the inverse problem. That is, if $R\#H$ is Calabi-Yau, when is $R$ Calabi-Yau? In Section 3, we answer this question in case
$H=\kk G$ is the group algebra of a finite group. We then go on to
characterize the Calabi-Yau property of $R$ when $R\#\kk G$ is Calabi-Yau (Theorem \ref{thm cyator}). Applying our characterization theorem we obtain the Calabi-Yau property of $U(\mc{D},\lmd)$ in case the datum is not generic (). The generic case is completely worked out in \cite{yuz}. We will provide two examples of Calabi-Yau pointed Hopf algebras with a finite abelian group of group-like elements.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section 1, we review the definition of a braided Hopf algebra, the definition of a Calabi-Yau algebra, the concept of a homological integral and the notion of homological determinants.
In Section 2, we study the Calabi-Yau property under a Hopf action. Our main result in this section is Theorem \ref{cyrtoh}, which characterizes the Calabi-Yau property of the smash product Hopf algebra $R\# H$, where $H$ is a semisimple Hopf algebra and $R$ is a braided Hopf algebra in the Yetter-Drinfeld module category over $H$.
In Section 3, we consider the question when the Calabi-Yau property of $R\# H$ implies that $R$ is Calabi-Yau. We answer this question in case
$H=\kk G$ is the group algebra of a finite group. We first
construct a bimodule resolution of $R$ from a projective resolution
of $\kk$ over the algebra $R\#\kk G$. Based on this, we obtain a
rigid dualizing complex of $R$ in case $R$ is AS-Gorenstein (Theorem \ref{thm ridfgp}). Our main result in this section is Theorem \ref{thm cyator}.
Throughout, we work over an algebraically closed field of characteristic zero. All vector spaces and algebras are assumed to be over $\kk$.
\section{Preliminaries}
Given an algebra $A$, let $A^{op}$ denote the opposite algebra of
$A$ and $A^e$ denote the enveloping algebra $A\ot A^{op}$ of $A$. The unfurnished tensor $\ot$ means
$\ot_\kk$ in this paper. Mod$A$ denotes the category of left $A$-modules.
We use Mod$A^{op}$ to denote the category of right $A$-modules.
For a left $A$-module $M$ and an algebra automorphism $\phi:A\ra A$,
write $_{\phi}M$ for the left $A$-module defined by $a\cdot m=\phi(a)m$ for any $a\in A$ and $m\in M$. Similarly, for a right $A$-module $N$, we have
$N_{\phi}$. Observe that $A_\phi\cong {}_{\phi^{-1}} A$ as
$A$-$A$-bimodules. $A_\phi\cong A$ as $A$-$A$-bimodules if and only
if $\phi$ is an inner automorphism.
For a Hopf algebra, we use Sweedler's notation for its
comultiplication and its coactions of. Let $A$ be a Hopf algebra, and $\xi:A\ra\kk$ an algebra
homomorphism. We write $[\xi]$ to be the winding homomorphism of
$\xi$ defined by
$$[\xi](a)=\sum\xi(a_1)a_2,$$ for any $a\in A$.
\subsection{Braided Hopf algebra}
Let $H$ be a Hopf algebra. We denote by $^H_H\mc{YD}$ the category of Yetter-Drinfeld modules
over $H$ with morphisms given by $H$-linear and $H$-colinear maps. If $\bgm$ is a finite group, then $^{\kk\bgm}_{\kk\bgm}\mc{YD}$ will be abbreviated to $^{\bgm}_{\bgm}\mc{YD}$.
Assume that $R$ is a braided Hopf algebra in the
category $^H_H\mc{YD}$. For $h\in H$ and $r\in R$, We write $h(r)$ for $h$ acting on $r$. It is an element in $R$. On the other hand, we write $hr$ for $h$ multiplying with $r$. It is an element in $R\#H$.
The tensor product of two Yetter-Drinfeld modules $M$ and $N$ is
again a Yetter-Drinfeld module with the module and comodule
structures given as follows
$$h(m\ot n)= h_1 m\ot h_2 n \t{ and } \dt(m\ot n) =
m_{(-1)}n_{(-1)}\ot m_{(0)}\ot n_{(0)}, $$for any $h\in H$, $m\in
M$ and $n\in N$. This turns the category of Yetter-Drinfeld modules
$^H_H\mc{YD}$ into a braided tensor category. For more detail about braided tensor categories, one refers
to \cite{kas}.
For any two Yetter-Drinfeld modules $M$ and $N$, the braiding
$c_{M,N} : M\ot N\ra N \ot M $ is given by $$ c_{M,N}(m\ot n) =
m_{(-1)}\cdot n \ot m_{(0)},$$ for any $ m \in M$ and $n\in N$.
\begin{defn}Let $H$ be a Hopf algebra.
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(i)] An \textit{algebra} in $^H_H\mc{YD}$ is a $\kk$-algebra $(R,m,u)$ such that
$R$ is a Yetter-Drinfeld $H$-module, and both the multiplication $m:R\otimes R\ra R$ and the unit $u:\kk\ra R$ are morphisms in $^H_H\mc{YD}$.
\item[(ii)] A \textit{coalgebra} in $^H_H\mc{YD}$ is
a $\kk$-coalgebra $(C,\Delta,\varepsilon)$ such that $C$ is a Yetter-Drinfeld $H$-module, and both the comultiplication $\bd:R\ra R\otimes R $ and the counit $\vps:R\ra \kk$ are morphisms in
$^H_H\mc{YD}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{defn}
Let $R$ and $S$ be two algebras in $^H_H\mc{YD}$. Then $R\ot S$ is a
Yetter-Drinfeld module in $^H_H\mc{YD}$, and becomes an algebra in
the category $^H_H\mc{YD}$ with the multiplication $m_{R\ul{\ot}S}$
defined by $$m_{R\ul{\ot}S}:=(m_R\ot m_S)(\id\ot c \ot \id).$$
Denote this algebra by $R\ul{\ot} S$.
\begin{defn}\index{braided bialgebra}\index{braided Hopf algebra!graded}\index{braided Hopf algebra}
Let $H$ be a Hopf algebra. A\textit{ braided bialgebra} in
$^H_H\mc{YD}$ is a collection $(R,m, u,\bd, \vps)$, where
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(i)] $(R,m, u)$ is an algebra in $^H_H\mc{YD}$.
\item[(ii)] $(R, \bd, \vps)$ is a coalgebra in $^H_H\mc{YD}$.
\item[(iii)] $\bd:R\ra R\ul\ot R$ and $\vps: R\ra \kk$ are morphisms of algebras in $^H_H\mc{YD}$.
\end{enumerate}
If, in addition, the identity is convolution invertible in $\End
(R)$, then $R$ is called a \it{braided Hopf algebra} in
$^H_H\mc{YD}$. The inverse of the identity is called the
\textit{antipode} of $R$.
\end{defn}
In order to distinguish comultiplications of braided Hopf algebras
from those of usual Hopf algebras, we use Sweedler's notation with
upper indices for braided Hopf algebras
\begin{equation*}\label{sweed}\bd(r)=r^1\ot r^2.\end{equation*}
Let $H$ be a Hopf algebra and $R$ a braided Hopf algebra in the
category $^H_H\mc{YD}$. Then $R\#H$ is a usual Hopf algebra with
the following structure \cite{ra}:
The multiplication is given by \begin{equation*}(r\#g)(s\#h):=rg_1(s)\#g_2h\end{equation*}
with unit $u_R\ot u_H$.
The comultiplication is given by
\begin{equation}\label{equa braidedcomulti}
\bd(r\#h):=r^1\#(r^2)_{(-1)}h_1\ot
(r^2)_{(0)}\#h_2
\end{equation}
with counit $\vps_R\ot \vps_H$.
The antipode is as follows:
\begin{equation}\label{equa braidedanti}\mc{S}_{R\#H}(r\#h)=(1\#\mc{S}_H(r_{(-1)}h))(\mc{S}_R(r_{(0)})\#1).
\end{equation}
The algebra $R\#H$ is called the \textit{Radford biproduct} or
\textit{bosonization} of $R$ by $H$. The algebra $R$ is a subalgebra of $R\#H$
and $H$ is a Hopf subalgebra of $R\#H$. \index{Radford biproduct}
\index{bosonization}
Conversely, let $A$ and $H$ be two Hopf algebras and $\pi:A\ra H$,
$\iota:H\ra A$ Hopf algebra homomorphisms such that
$\pi\iota=\id_H$. In this case the algebra of right coinvariants
with respect to $\pi$
$$R=A^{co\pi}:=\{a\in A\mid (\id\ot \pi)\bd(a)=a\ot 1\},$$
is a braided Hopf algebra in $^H_H\mc{YD}$, with the following
structure \cite{ra}:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] The action of $H$ on $R$ is the restriction of the adjoint action (composed with $\iota$).
\item[(ii)] The coaction is $(\pi\ot \id)\bd$.
\item[(iii)] $R$ is a subalgebra of $A$.
\item[(iv)] The comultiplication is given by $$\bd_R(r)=r_1\iota\mc{S}_H\pi (r_2)\ot
r_3.$$
\item[(v)] The antipode is given by $$\mc{S}_R(r)=\pi(r_1)\mc{S}_A(r_2).$$
\end{itemize}
Define a linear map $\rho: A\ra R$ by
$$\rho(a)=a_1\iota\mc{S}_H\pi(a_2),$$ for all $r\in R$.
\begin{thm}\cite{ra}
The morphisms $\Psi:A\ra R\#H$ and $\Phi: R\#H\ra A$ defined by
$$\Psi(a)=\rho(a_1)\#\pi(a_2)\t{ and } \Phi(r\#h)=r\iota(h)$$ are mutually inverse isomorphisms of Hopf algebras.
\end{thm}
\subsection{Calabi-Yau algebras} We follow Ginzburg's definition of a Calabi-Yau algebra \cite{g2}.
\begin{defn}An algebra $A$ is called a \textit{Calabi-Yau algebra of dimension
$d$} if
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(i)] $A$ is \it{homologically smooth}, that is, $A$ has
a bounded resolution of finitely generated projective
$A$-$A$-bimodules;
\item[(ii)] There are $A$-$A$-bimodule
isomorphisms$$\Ext_{A^e}^i(A,A^e)=\begin{cases}0& i\neq d
\\A&i=d.\end{cases}$$
\end{enumerate}
\end{defn}
In the sequel, Calabi-Yau will be abbreviated to CY for short.
CY algebras form a class of algebras possessing a rigid dualizing complex. The
non-commutative version of a dualizing complex was first introduced
by Yekutieli.
A Noetherian algebra in this paper means a \textit{left and right}
Noetherian algebra.
\begin{defn}\cite{y} (cf. \cite[Defn. 6.1]{vdb})\label{defn dc} \index{dualizing complex}
Assume that $A$ is a (graded) Noetherian algebra. Then an object
$\ms{R}$ of $D^b(A^e)$ ($D^b(\t{GrMod}(A^e))$) is called a
\textit{dualizing complex} (in the graded sense) if it satisfies the
following conditions:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(i)] $\ms{R}$ is of finite injective dimension over $A$ and $A^{op}$.
\item[(ii)] The cohomology of $\ms{R}$ is given by bimodules which are
finitely generated on both sides.
\item[(iii)] The natural morphisms $A\ra {\RHom}_A(\ms{R},\ms{R})$ and $A\ra
\RHom_{A^{op}}(\ms{R},\ms{R})$ are isomorphisms in $D(A^e)$
($D(\t{GrMod}(A^e))$).
\end{enumerate}
\end{defn}
Roughly speaking, a dualizing complex is a complex $\ms{R}\in
D^b(A^e)$ such that the functor
\begin{equation}\label{dualcom}\RHom_A(-,\ms{R}):D^b_{fg}(A)\ra D^b_{fg}(A^{op})\end{equation} is a
duality, with adjoint $\RHom_{A^{op}}(-,\ms{R})$ (cf. \cite[Prop.
3.4 and Prop. 3.5]{y}). Here $D^b_{fg}(A)$ is the full triangulated
subcategory of $D(A)$ consisting of bounded complexes with finitely
generated cohomology modules.
In the above definition, the algebra $A$ is a Noetherian algebra.
In this case, a dualizing complex in the graded sense is also a
dualizing complex in the usual sense.
Dualizing complexes are not unique up to isomorphism. To overcome
this weakness, Van den Bergh introduced the concept of a rigid
dualizing complex cf. \cite[Defn. 8.1]{vdb}.
\begin{defn}\label{defn rdc}\index{dualizing complex!rigid} Let $A$ be a (graded) Noetherian algebra. A dualizing
complex $\ms{R}$ over $A$ is called \textit{rigid} (in the graded sense) if $$\RHom_{A^e}(A,{_A\ms{R}\ot \ms{R}_A})\cong
\ms{R}$$ in $D(A^e)$ ($D(\t{GrMod}(A^e))$).
\end{defn}
Note that if $A^e$ is Noetherian, then the graded version of
this definition implies the ungraded version. The following lemma can be found in \cite[Prop. \;4.3]{bz} and \cite[Prop. \;8.4]{vdb}.
Note that if a Noetherian algebra has finite left and
right injective dimension, then they are equal cf. \cite[Lemma
A]{za}. We call this common value the injective dimension of $A$.
\begin{lem}\label{vdb} Let $A$ be a Noetherian algebra. Then the following two conditions are
equivalent:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(i)] $A$ has a rigid dualizing complex $\ms{R}=A_{\psi}[s]$, where $\psi$ is an
algebra automorphism and $s\in \ZZ$.
\item[(ii)] $A$ has finite
injective dimension $d$ and there is an algebra automorphism $\phi$
such that
$$\Ext_{A^e}^i(A,A^e)\cong\begin{cases}0,& i\neq d;
\\A_\phi&i=d\end{cases}$$ as $A$-$A$-bimodules. \end{enumerate}
If the two conditions are equivalent, then
$\phi=\psi^{-1}$ and $s=d$.
\end{lem}
The
following corollary follows directly from Lemma \ref{vdb} and the
definition of a CY algebra.
\begin{cor}\label{cor cyrid}
Let $A$ be a Noetherian algebra which is homologically smooth. Then
$A$ is a CY algebra of dimension $d$ if and only if $A$ has a rigid
dualizing complex $A[d]$.
\end{cor}
\subsection{Homological integral}
In \cite{hvz}, the CY property of Hopf algebras was discussed by
using the homological integrals of Artin-Schelter Gorenstein (AS-Gorenstein for short)
algebras \cite[Thm. 2.3]{hvz}. The concept of a homological integral for an
AS-Gorenstein Hopf algebra was introduced by Lu,
Wu and Zhang in \cite{lwz} to study infinite dimensional Noetherian Hopf algebras. It generalizes
the concept of an integral of a finite dimensional Hopf algebra. In \cite{bz},
homological integrals were defined for general AS-Gorenstein
algebras.
\begin{defn}(cf. \cite[defn. 1.2]{bz}). \label{defn as}\index{AS-regular}
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(i)] Let $A$ be a left Noetherian augmented algebra with
a fixed augmentation map $\vps:A\ra \kk$. $A$ is said to be \it{left
AS-Gorenstein},\index{AS-Gorenstein!left} if
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(a)] $\injdim {_AA}=d<\infty$,
\item[(b)] $\dim\Ext_A^i({_A\kk},{_AA})=\begin{cases}0,&i\neq d;\\ 1,& i=d,\end{cases}$
\end{enumerate}
where $\injdim$ stands for injective dimension.
A \textit{Right AS-Gorenstein algebras}\index{AS-Gorenstein!right} can be defined similarly.
\item[(ii)] An algebra $A$ is
said to be \textit{AS-Gorenstein}\index{AS-Gorenstein} if it is both left and right
AS-Gorenstein (relative to the same augmentation map $\vps$).
\item[(iii)] An
AS-Gorenstein algebra $A$ is said to be \it{regular} if in
addition, the global dimension of $A$
is finite.
\end{enumerate}
\end{defn}
\begin{defn}\label{int}
Let $A$ be a left AS-Gorenstein algebra
with $\injdim{_AA}=d$. Then $\Ext_A^d({_A\kk},{_AA})$ is a 1-dimensional
right $A$-module. Any nonzero element in $\Ext_A^d({_A\kk},{_AA})$
is called a \it{left homological integral} of $A$. We write
$\int_A^l$ for $\Ext_A^d({_A\kk},{_AA})$. Similarly, if $A$ is right
AS-Gorenstein with $\injdim{A_A}=d$, any nonzero element in $\Ext_A^d({\kk_A},{A_A})$ is
called a \it{right homological integral} of $A$. Write
$\int_A^r$ for $\Ext_A^d({\kk_A},{A_A})$.
$\int_A^l$ and $\int_A^r$
are called \textit{left and right homological integral modules} of $A$
respectively.
\end{defn}
The left integral module $\int^l_A$ is a 1-dimensional right
$A$-module. Thus $\int^l_A\cong \kk_\xi$ for some algebra
homomorphism $\xi:A\ra\kk$.
\begin{prop}\label{prop cy-as}
Let $A$ be a Noetherian augmented algebra such that $A$ is CY of
dimension $d$. Then $A$ is AS-regular of global dimension $d$. In
addition, $\int_A^l\cong \kk$ as right $A$-modules.
\end{prop}
\proof If $A$ is an augmented algebra, then $_A\kk$ is a finite
dimensional $A$-module. By \cite[Remark 2.8]{br}, $A$ has global
dimension $d$.
It follows from \cite[Prop. 2.2]{br} that $A$ admits a projective
bimodule resolution
$$0\ra P_d\ra \cdots\ra P_1\ra P_0\ra A\ra 0,$$ where each $P_i$ is
finitely generated as an $A$-$A$-bimodule. Tensoring with functor
$\ot_A \kk$, we obtain a projective resolution of
$_A\kk$:
$$0\ra
P_d\ot_A\kk\ra \cdots\ra P_1\ot_A\kk\ra P_0\ot_A\kk\ra {}_A\kk\ra
0.$$ Since each $P_i$ is finitely generated, the isomorphism
$$\kk\ot _A\Hom_{A^e}(P_i,A^e)\cong \Hom_{A }(P_i\ot_A\kk,A)$$ holds
in Mod$A^{op}$. Therefore, the complex $\Hom_A(P_\bullet\ot_A\kk,
A)$ is isomorphic to the complex
$\kk\ot_A\Hom_{A^e}(P_\bullet,A^e)$. The fact that algebra $A$ is CY of
dimension $d$ implies that the following $A$-$A$-bimodule complex is exact:
$$0\ra \Hom_{A^e}(P_0,A^e)\ra \cdots\ra \Hom_{A^e}(P_{d-1},A^e)\ra \Hom_{A^e}(P_d,A^e)\ra A\ra 0.$$ Thus the complex $\kk\ot_A\Hom_{A^e}(P_\bullet,A^e)$ is exact except at $\kk\ot_A\Hom_{A^e}(P_d,A^e)$, whose homology is $\kk$.
It follows that the isomorphisms
$$\Ext_A^i({}_A\kk,{}_AA)\cong\begin{cases}0,&i\neq d;\\\kk,&i=
d\end{cases}$$ hold in Mod$A^{op}$. Similarly, we have isomorphisms
$$\Ext_A^i( \kk_A, A_A)\cong\begin{cases}0,&i\neq d;\\\kk,&i=
d\end{cases}$$ in Mod$A$. We conclude that $A$ is AS-regular and
$\int^l_A\cong \kk$. \qed
\begin{rem}\label{twisted}
From the proof of Proposition \ref{prop cy-as} we can see that if
$A$ is a Noetherian augmented algebra such that
\begin{enumerate}\item[(i)] $A$ is homologically
smooth, and
\item[(ii)] there is an integer $d$ and an algebra automorphism $\psi$, such that
$$\Ext_{A^e}^i(A,A^e)\cong\begin{cases}0,& i\neq d;
\\A_\psi,&i=d\end{cases}$$ as $A$-$A$-bimodules,
\end{enumerate}
then $A$ is AS-regular of global dimension $d$. In this case,
$\int_A^l\cong \kk_\xi$. The algebra homomorphism $\xi$ is defined
by $\xi(a)=\vps(\psi(a))$ for all $a\in A$, where $\vps$ is the
augmentation map of $A$.
\end{rem}
\subsection{Homological determinants}The homological determinant was defined by J{\o}rgensen and Zhang
\cite{joz} for graded automorphisms of an
AS-Gorenstein algebra and by Kirkman, Kuzmanovich and
Zhang \cite{kkz} for Hopf actions on an AS-Gorenstein algebra. The homological determinant was used to study the
AS-Gorenstein property of invariant subrings.
\begin{defn}\label{hdetl}(cf. \cite{liwz}, \cite{kkz})
Let $H$ be a Hopf algebra, and $R$ an $H$-module AS-Gorenstein algebra of injective
dimension $d$. There is a natural $H$-action on $\Ext_R^d(\kk,R)$ induced by the
$H$-action on $R$. Let $\bf{e}$ be a non-zero element in
$\Ext_R^d(\kk,R)$. Then there exists an algebra homomorphism $\eta:
H\ra\kk$ satisfying $h \cdot {\bf e} = \eta(h)\bf{e}$ for all $h\in
H$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(i)] The
composite map $\eta\mc{S}_H:H\ra\kk$ is called the \textit{
homological determinant} of the $H$-action on $R$, and it is denoted
by $\hdet $ (or more precisely $\hdet_R$).
\item[(ii)] The homological determinant $\hdet_R$ is said to be \textit{trivial} if $\hdet_R=\vps_H$, where $\vps_H$ is the counit of the Hopf algebra $H$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{defn}\index{homological determinant}
\section{Calabi-Yau property under Hopf actions}\label{fgp. H}
Let $H$ be a Hopf algebra and $R$ a braided Hopf algebra in the
category $^H_H\mc{YD}$. In this section, we study the CY property of the smash product $R\#H$, when $R$ is a CY algebra and $H$ is a semisimple Hopf algebra.
For a left $R\#H$-module $M$, the vector
space $M\ot H$ is a left $R\#H$-module defined by
$$(r\#h)\cdot (m\ot g):=(r\#h_1)m\ot h_2g,$$ for all $r\#h\in R\#H$ and $m\ot g\in M\ot H$. Denote this $R\#H$-module by $M\#H$.
Let $M$ and $N$ be two $R\#H$-modules. Then there is a natural left
$H$-module structure on $\Hom_R(M,N)$ given by the adjoint action
$$(h\rap f)(m):=h_2f(\mc{S}^{-1}_H(h_1)m),$$ for all $h\in H$, $f\in \Hom_R(M,N)$ and $m\in M$.
\begin{lem}\label{lem H1}
Let $M$ be a left $R\#H$-module. Then $\Hom_R(M,R)\ot H$ is an
$H$-$R\#H$-bimodule, where the left $H$-module structure is defined
by
$$h\cdot (f\ot g):=h_1\rap f\ot h_2g$$ and the right $R\#H$-module structure is given by
the diagonal action:
$$(f\ot g)\cdot (r\#h):=f g_1(r)\ot g_2h,$$ for all $f\in \Hom_R(M,R)$, $g,h\in H$ and $r\in R$.
\end{lem}
\proof First we show that for all $h\in H$, $f\in \Hom_R(M,R)$ and
$r\in R$\begin{equation}\label{41}(h_1\rap f){h_2}(r)=h
\rightharpoonup(fr).\end{equation}
For $m\in M$, we have $$\begin{array}{ccl}[(h_1\rap f){h_2}(r)](m)&=&(h_1\rap f)(m)h_2(r)\\
&=&h_2(f(\mc{S}^{-1}_H(h_1)m))h_3(r)\\
&=&h_2(f(\mc{S}^{-1}_H(h_1)m)r)\\
&=&h_2((fr)(\mc{S}^{-1}_H(h_1)m))\\
&=&[h\rap(fr)](m).
\end{array}$$
Now we check that for all $f\ot g\in \Hom_R(M,R)\ot H$, $h\in H$
and $r\#k\in R\#H$, $(h\cdot(f\ot g))\cdot (r\# k)=h\cdot((f\ot
g)\cdot (r\# k))$. We have
$$\begin{array}{ccl}(h\cdot(f\ot g))\cdot (r\# k)&=&(h_1\rap f\ot h_2g)\cdot (r\# k)\\
&=&(h_1\rap f) (h_2g_1)(r)\ot h_3g_2k.
\end{array}$$ and
$$\begin{array}{ccl}h\cdot((f\ot g)\cdot (r\# k))&=&h\rap(fg_1(r)\ot g_2k)\\
&=&h_1\rap (fg_1(r))\ot h_2g_2k\\
&\overset{\tiny{(\ref{41})}}=&(h_1\rap f)(h_2g_1)(r)\ot h_3g_2k.
\end{array}$$\qed
There is a natural right $R\#H$-module structure on $\Hom_{R\#H}(M\#
H,R\#H)$. It is also a left $H$-module defined by
\begin{equation}\label{H2}(h\cdot f)(m\ot g):=f(m\ot gh),\end{equation} for all $h\in H$, $f\in
\Hom_{R\#H}(M\# H,R\#H)$ and $m\ot g\in M\ot H$. Then $\Hom_{R\#H}(M\ot H,R\#H)$ is an $H$-$R\#H$-bimodule.
\begin{prop}\label{prop iso}
Let $P$ be an $R\#H$-module such that it is finitely generated
projective as an $R$-module. Then
$$\Hom_R(P,R)\ot H\cong \Hom_{R\#H}(P\# H, R\#H)$$ as
$H$-$R\#H$-bimodules.
\end{prop}
\proof Let $$\psi:\Hom_R(P,R)\ot H\ra \Hom_{R\#H}(P\# H, R\#H)$$ be
the homomorphism defined by
$$\begin{array}{ccl}[\psi(f\ot h)](p\ot g)&=&(g_1\rightharpoonup f)(p)\#g_2h\\
&=&g_2(f(\mc{S}_H^{-1}(g_1)p))\#g_3h,
\end{array}$$ for all $f\ot h\in \Hom_R(P,R)\ot H$ and $p\ot g\in P\# H$.
We claim that the image of $\psi$ is contained in $\Hom_{R\#H}(P\#
H, R\#H)$. For any $f\ot h\in \Hom_R(P,R)\ot H$, $r\#k\in R\#H$ and
$p\ot g\in P\# H$, on one hand, we have
$$\begin{array}{ccl}[\psi(f\ot h)]((r\#k)(p\ot g))&=&[\psi(f\ot h)]((r\#k_1)p\ot k_2g))\\
&=&(k_3g_2)( f(\mc{S}_H^{-1}(k_2g_1)((r\#k_1)p)))\#k_4g_3h\\
&=&(k_2g_3)(
f(((\mc{S}_H^{-1}(k_1g_2))(r))\mc{S}_H^{-1}(g_1)p))\#k_3g_4h.
\end{array}$$
On the other hand, $$\begin{array}{ccl}(r\#k)[\psi(f\ot h)](p\ot g)&=&(r\#k)(g_2 (f(\mc{S}_H^{-1}(g_1)p))\#g_3h)\\
&=&r(k_1g_2) (f(\mc{S}_H^{-1}(g_1)p))\#k_2g_3h\\
&=&(k_2g_3) (\mc{S}_H^{-1}(k_1g_2)(r) f(\mc{S}_H^{-1}(g_1)p))\#k_3g_4h\\
&=&(k_2g_3)(
f(((\mc{S}_H^{-1}(k_1g_2))(r))\mc{S}_H^{-1}(g_1)p))\#k_3g_4h.
\end{array}$$
Now we show that $\psi$ is an $H$-$R\#H$-bimodule
homomorphism. We have
$$\begin{array}{ccl}[\psi((f\ot h)(r\#k))](p\ot g)&=&[\psi(fh_1(r)\ot h_2k))](p\ot g)\\
&=&g_2([fh_1(r)](\mc{S}_H^{-1}(g_1)p))\ot g_3h_2k\\
&=&g_2(f(\mc{S}_H^{-1}(g_1)p))(g_3h_1)(r)\ot g_4h_2k\\
&=&(g_2(f(\mc{S}_H^{-1}(g_1)p))\ot g_3h)(r\# k)\\
&=&[\psi(f\ot h)(r\#k)](p\ot g)
\end{array}$$
and
$$\begin{array}{ccl}[\psi(k(f\ot h))](p\ot g)&=&[\psi(k_1\rap f\ot k_2h)](p\ot g)\\
&=&g_2((k_1\rap f)(\mc{S}_H^{-1}(g_1)p))\#g_3k_2h\\
&=&(g_2k_2)(f(\mc{S}_H^{-1}(k_1)\mc{S}_H^{-1}(g_1)p))\#g_3k_3h\\
&=&((g_1k_1)\rap f)(p)\ot g_2k_2h\\
&=&[\psi(f\ot h)](p\ot gk)\\
&=&[k\cdot \psi(f\ot h)](p\ot g).
\end{array}$$
So $\Hom_R(P,R)\ot H\cong \Hom_{R\#H}(P\# H, R\#H)$ as
$H$-$R\#H$-bimodules when $P$ is finitely generated projective as an
$R$-module. \qed
\begin{prop}\label{ext} Let $H$ be a finite dimensional Hopf algebra and $R$ a Noetherian braided Hopf algebra in the category $^H_H\mc{YD}$. Then
$$\Ext^i_{R\#H}(H,R\#H)\cong \Ext^i_R(\kk,R)\ot H$$ as $H$-$R\#H$-bimodules for all $i\le 0$.
\end{prop}
\proof Since $R$ is Noetherian and $H$ is finite dimensional, $R\#H$
is also Noetherian. Then $_{R\#H}\kk$ admits a projective resolution
$$\cdots\ra P_n\ra \cdots\ra P_1\ra P_0\ra \kk\ra 0$$
such that each $P_n$ is a finitely generated $R\#H$-module. Because
$H$ is finite dimensional, each $P_n$ is also finitely generated as
an $R$-module. Tensoring with $H$, we obtain a projective resolution
of $H$ over $R\#H$
$$\cdots\ra P_n\# H\ra \cdots\ra P_1\# H\ra P_0\# H\ra H\ra 0.$$ Applying the functor $\Hom_{R\#H}(-,R\#H)$ to this complex, we obtain the following complex
\begin{equation}\label{comp1}0\ra \Hom_{R\#H}(P_0\# H,R\#H)\ra \Hom_{R\#H}(P_1\# H,R\#H)\ra\cdots \end{equation}
$$\hspace{65mm}\ra \Hom_{R\#H}(P_n\# H,R\#H)\ra \cdots.$$ This is a complex of $H$-$R\#H$-bimodules, where the left $H$-module structure is defined as in (\ref{H2}). By Proposition \ref{prop iso}, one can check that it is isomorphic to the following complex of $H$-$R\#H$-bimodules,
\begin{equation}\label{comp2}0\ra \Hom_R(P_0,R)\ot H\ra \Hom_R(P_1,R)\ot H\cdots \hspace{20mm}\end{equation}
$$\hspace{60mm}\ra \Hom_R(P_n,R)\ot H\ra \cdots.$$
After taking cohomologies of complex (\ref{comp1}) and complex
(\ref{comp2}), we arrive at isomorphisms of $H$-$R\#H$-bimodules
$$\Ext^i_{R\#H}(H,R\#H)\cong \Ext^i_R(\kk,R)\ot H$$ for all $i\le 0$.\qed
The algebra $R$ can be viewed as an augmented right $H$-module
algebra through the right $H$-action: $r\cdot
h:=\mc{S}_H^{-1}(h)\cdot r$, for all $r\in R$ and $h\in H$. The
algebra $H\#R$ can be defined in a similar way. The multiplication
is given by
$$(h\#s)(k\#r):=hk_2\#(s\cdot k_1)r=hk_2\#(\mc{S}_H^{-1}(k_1)(s))r,$$
for all
$h\#s$ and $k\#r\in H\#R$. The homomorphism $\vph:R\#H\ra H\#R$
defined by
$$\vph(r\#k)=k_2\#\mc{S}_H^{-1}(k_1)(r)$$ is an algebra isomorphism
with its inverse $\psi:H\#R\ra R\#H$ defined by
$$\psi(k\#r)=k_1(r)\#k_2.$$ In addition, $\vph$ is compatible with the
augmentation maps of $R\#H$ and $H\#R$ respectively. Now right
$R\#H$-modules can be treated as $H\#R$-modules. Let $M$ and $N$ be
two $H\#R$-modules, then $\Hom_R(M,N)$ is a right $H$-module defined
by
$$(f\leftharpoonup h)(m):=f(m\mc{S}_H(h_1))h_2,$$ for all $h\in H$, $f\in \Hom_R(M,N)$ and $m\in M$.
Similar to the left case, we have the following proposition.
\begin{prop}\label{extright}
Let $H$ be a finite dimensional Hopf algebra and $R$ a Noetherian
braided Hopf algebra in the category $^H_H\mc{YD}$. Then
$$\Ext^i_{R\#H}(H_{R\#H},{R\#H}_{R\#H})\cong H\ot
\Ext^i_R(\kk_{R},R_R)$$ as $R\#H$-$H$-bimodules for all $i\le 0$.
\end{prop}
\begin{lem}\label{lgl}
Let $H$ be a Hopf algebra and $R$ an $H$-module algebra. If the
left global dimensions of $R$ and $H$ are $d_R$ and $d_H$
respectively, then the left global dimension of $A=R\#H$ is not
greater than $d_R+d_H$.
\end{lem}
\proof Let $M$ and $N$ be two $A$-modules. We have
$$\Hom_A(M,N)\cong \Hom_H(\kk,\Hom_R(M,N)),$$ that is, the functor
$\Hom_A(M,-)$ factors through as follows
$$\xymatrix{
\t{Mod} A\ar[rr]^{\Hom_R(M,-)} \ar[dr]_{\Hom_A(M,-)}
& & \t{Mod}H \ar[dl]^{\Hom_H(\kk,-)} \\
& \t{Mod}\kk }.$$
To apply the Grothendieck spectral sequence (see e.g. \cite[Sec.
5.8]{we}), we need to show that if $N$ is an injective $A$-module,
then $\Ext_H^q(\kk,\Hom_R(M,N))=0$ for all $q\le 1$.
Let $$\cdots\ra P_i\ra P_{i-1}\ra \cdots \ra P_1\ra P_0\ra \kk\ra
0$$ be a projective resolution of $\kk$ over $H$.
$\Ext_H^*(\kk,\Hom_R(M,N))$ are the cohomologies of the complex
$\Hom_H(P_\bullet, \Hom_R(M,N))$. The following
isomorphisms hold:
$$\begin{array}{ccl}\Hom_H(P_\bullet, \Hom_R(M,N))&\cong&\Hom_H(\kk,\Hom_\kk(P_\bullet,
\Hom_R(M,N)))\\
&\cong &\Hom_H(\kk,\Hom_R(P_\bullet\ot M,
N))\\
&\cong &\Hom_{R\#H}(P_\bullet\ot M, N).
\end{array}$$
The complex $P_\bullet$ is exact except at $P_0$. Since the functors $\Hom_{R\#H}(-,N)$ and $-\ot M$ are exact, the complex $\Hom_H(P_\bullet, \Hom_R(M,N))$ is also exact except at $\Hom_H(P_0, \Hom_R(M,N))$. It
follows that $$\Ext_H^q(\kk,\Hom_R(M,N))=0$$ for all $q\le 1$.
Now we have $$\Ext^q_H(\kk,\Ext_R^p(M,N))\Rightarrow
\Ext^{p+q}_{R\#H}(M,N).$$ Because the left global dimensions of $R$
and $H$ are $d_R$ and $d_H$, $\Ext^i_{R\#H}(M,N)=0$ for all $i\le
d_R+d_H$. Therefore, the left global dimension of $R\#H$ is not
greater than $d_R+d_H$.\qed
Let $H$ be an involutory CY Hopf algebra and $R$ a $p$-Koszul CY
algebra and a left $H$-module algebra. As mentioned in
the introduction, Liu, Wu and Zhu used
the homological determinant of the $H$-action to characterize the
CY property of $R\#H$ in \cite{liwz}. They defined an $H$-module structure on the
Koszul bimodule complex of $R$ and computed the $H$-module
structures on the Hochschild cohomologies. Then they proved that
$R\#H$ is CY if and only if the homological determinant is trivial. If $H$ is not involutory or $R$ is not a $p$-Koszul algebra, is it still true that $R\#H$ is a CY algebra when the homological determinant is trivial?
We answer this question in the case that $R$ is a braided Hopf algebra in the
category $^H_H\mc{YD}$, where $H$ is a semisimple Hopf
algebra. We use the homological determinant to discuss the
homological integral and the rigid dualizing complex of the algebra
$A=R\#H$. We then give a necessary and sufficient condition for $A$
to be a CY algebra. The result we will obtain is slightly different from what
was obtained by Liu, Wu and Zhu. We first need the following lemma.
\begin{lem}\label{s^2}
Let $H$ be a Hopf algebra, and $R$ a braided Hopf algebra in the
category ${^H_H\mathcal{YD}}$. Then
$$\mc{S}_{R\#H}^2(r)={\mc{S}_H(r_{(-1)})}({ \mc{S}_R^2(r_{(0)})}),$$
for any $r\in R$.
\end{lem}
\proof Set $A=R\#H$. By equation (\ref{equa braidedanti}), for any
$r\in R$, we have
$$\mc{S}_A(r)=(1\#\mc{S}_H(r_{(-1)}))(\mc{S}_R(r_{ (0) })\#1).$$
Therefore,
$$\begin{array}{ccl}\mc{S}_A^2(r)&=&\mc{S}_A((1\#\mc{S}_H(r_{(-1)}))(\mc{S}_R(r_{(0)})\#1))\\
&=&\mc{S}_A(\mc{S}_R(r_{(0)})\#1)\mc{S}_A(1\#\mc{S}_H(r_{(-1)}))\\
&=&(1\#\mc{S}_H(\mc{S}_R(r_{(0)})_{(-1)}))(\mc{S}_R(\mc{S}_R(r_{(0)})_{(0)})\#1)(1\#\mc{S}_H^2(r_{(-1)}))\\
&=&(1\#\mc{S}_H(r_{(0)(-1)}))(\mc{S}_R^2(r_{(0)(0)})\#1)(1\#\mc{S}_H^2(r_{(-1)}))\\
&=&(1\#\mc{S}_H(r_{(-1)2}))(\mc{S}_R^2(r_{(0)})\#1)(1\#\mc{S}_H^2(r_{(-1)1}))\\
&=&{\mc{S}_H(r_{(-1)3})}( \mc{S}_R^2(r_{(0)}))\#\mc{S}_H(r_{(-1)2})\mc{S}_H^2(r_{(-1)1})\\
&=&{{\mc{S}_H(r_{(-1)2})} ( \mc{S}_R^2(r_{(0)}))}\#\mc{S}_H(\varepsilon(r_{(-1)1}))\\
&=&{{\mc{S}_H(r_{(-1)})}( \mc{S}_R^2(r_{(0)}))}.\end{array}$$\qed
\begin{prop}\label{thm int}
Let $H$ be a finite dimensional semisimple Hopf algebra and $R$ a
braided Hopf algebra in the category $^H_H\mc{YD}$. If $R$ is an
AS-regular algebra of global dimension $d_R$, then $A=R\#H$ is also AS-regular of global dimension
$d_R$.
In this case, $\int^l_A=\kk_\xi$, where $\xi:A\ra \kk$ is defined by
$$\xi(r\#h)=\xi_R(r)\hdet(h),$$ for all $r\#h\in R\#H$, where the algebra map $\xi_R:R\ra \kk$ defines the left integral module of $R$, i.e., $\int^l_R=\kk_{\xi_R}$.
The rigid dualizing complex of $A$ is isomorphic to $_\psi A[d_R]$,
where $\psi$ is the algebra automorphism $[\xi]\mc{S}_A^2$. To be
precise, $\psi$ is defined by {
$$\psi(r\#h)=\xi_R(r^1)\hdet((r^2)_{(-1)1}h_1)\mc{S}_H((r^2)_{(-1)2})(\mc{S}_R^2((r^2)_{(0)}))\#\mc{S}^2_H(h_2),$$}
for all $r\#h\in R\#H$.
\end{prop}
\proof We have the
following isomorphisms
$$\begin{array}{ccl}\RHom_A(\kk,{}_AA)&\cong&\RHom_A(H\ot_{H}\kk,A)\\
&\cong&\RHom_{H}(\kk,\RHom_A(H,A))\\
&\cong&\RHom_{H}(\kk,H)\ot^L_{H}\RHom_A(H,A).
\end{array}$$
Following Proposition \ref{ext}, we have $\int_A^l\cong
\int_H^l\ot_H\int_R^l \ot H$ and
$$\dim\Ext_A^i(\kk,{}_AA)=\begin{cases}0,&i\neq d_R;\\1,&i=
d_R.\end{cases}$$ Let ${\bf e}$ be a non-zero element in $\int_R^l$
and ${\bf h}$ a non-zero element in $\int_H^l$. Since $H$ is semisimple, $H$ is unimodular. That is, we have $\int_H^l=\kk$. Let $\eta:H\ra\kk$
be an algebra homomorphism such that $h \cdot {\bf e} =
\eta(h)\bf{e}$ for all $h\in H$. Then the following equations hold
$$\begin{array}{ccl}({\bf h}\ot {\bf e}\ot 1)\cdot(r\#h)&=&\xi_R(r){\bf h}\ot {\bf e}\ot h \\
&=&\xi_R(r){\bf h}\ot \vps(h_1){\bf e}\ot h_2 \\
&=&\xi_R(r){\bf h}\ot \eta(\mc{S}_H(h_1))\eta(h_2){\bf e}\ot h_3 \\
&=&\xi_R(r)\eta(\mc{S}_H(h_1)) {\bf h}\ot h_2\cdot({\bf e}\ot 1) \\
&=&\xi_R(r)\eta(\mc{S}_H(h_1)) \varepsilon(h_2){\bf h}\ot {\bf e}\ot 1 \\
&=&\xi_R(r)\hdet(h) {\bf h}\ot {\bf e}\ot 1.
\end{array}$$ This implies that $\int^l_A\cong \kk_\xi$, where $\xi$ is the algebra
homomorphism defined in the proposition. Similarly, by Proposition
\ref{extright}, we have
$$\dim\Ext_A^i(\kk,A_A)=\begin{cases}0,&i\neq d_R,\\1,&i=
d_R.\end{cases}$$
Because $H$ is finite dimensional and $R$ is Noetherian, the algebra
$A$ is Noetherian as well. Therefore, the left and right global
dimensions of $A$ are equal. Since $H$ is semisimple, the global
dimension of $H$ is 0. Now it follows from Lemma \ref{lgl} that the
global dimension of $A$ is $d_R$. In conclusion, we have proved that
$A$ is an AS-regular algebra.
By \cite[Prop. \;4.5]{bz}, the rigid dualizing complex of $A$ is
isomorphic to $_{[\xi]\mc{S}_A^2}A[d_R]$. For any $r\#h\in R\#H$, we have
{\small $$\begin{array}{cl}&[\xi]\mc{S}_A^2(r\#h)\\\overset{(a)}=&\mc{S}_A^2[\xi](r\#h)\\\overset{(b)}=&\xi(r^1\#(r^2)_{(-1)}h_1)\mc{S}_A^2((r^2)_{(0)}\#h_2)\\
=&\xi_R(r^1)\hdet((r^2)_{(-1)}h_1)\mc{S}_A^2((r^2)_{(0)})\#\mc{S}^2_H(h_2)\\
\overset{(c)}=&\xi_R(r^1)\hdet((r^2)_{(-1)}h_1)\mc{S}_H((r^2)_{(0)(-1)})(\mc{S}_R^2((r^2)_{(0)(0)}))\#\mc{S}^2_H(h_2)\\
=&\xi_R(r^1)\hdet((r^2)_{(-1)1}h_1)\mc{S}_H((r^2)_{(-1)2})(\mc{S}_R^2((r^2)_{(0)}))\#\mc{S}^2_H(h_2).
\end{array}$$}Equations (a), (b) and (c) follow from \cite[Lemma 2.5]{bz},
Equation (\ref{equa braidedcomulti}) and Lemma \ref{s^2}
respectively. Thus the proof is completed.\qed
From the fact that $\int_{R\#H}^l$ is a right $R\#H$-module, the
following equation holds
$$\xi_R(r)\hdet(h)=\xi_R(h_1(r))\hdet(h_2).$$
We show how $\int^r_{R\#H}$ looks like. Let $\bf{e}'$ be a non-zero
element in $\Ext_R^d(\kk,R)$. There is an algebra homomorphism
$\eta': H\ra\kk$ satisfying $ {\bf e}'\cdot h= \eta'(h)\bf{e}'$ for
all $h\in H$. Applying a similar argument as in the proof of
Proposition \ref{thm int}, we have that if $\int^r_R={}_{\xi'_R}\kk$, then $\int^r_A={\;}_{\xi'}\kk$, where
$\xi'$ is defined by
$\xi'(r\#h)=\xi'_R(\mc{S}^{-1}_H(h_1)(r))\eta'(\mc{S}_H(h_2))$
for all $r\#h\in R\#H$.
Now we give the main theorem of this section.
\begin{thm}\label{cyrtoh}
Let
$H$ be a finite dimensional semisimple Hopf algebra and $R$ a Noetherian
braided Hopf algebra in the category $^H_H\mc{YD}$. Suppose that the
algebra $R$ is CY of dimension $d_R$. Then $R\#H$
is CY if and only if the homological determinant of $R$ is trivial
and the algebra automorphism $\phi$ defined by
$$\phi(r\#h)=\mc{S}_H(r_{(-1)})(\mc{S}_R^2(r_{(0)}))\mc{S}_H^2(h)$$
for all $r\#h\in R\#H$ is an inner automorphism.
\end{thm}
\proof From Proposition \ref{prop cy-as}, we have that $R$ is
AS-regular with $\int_R^l\cong \kk$. In addition, since $H$ is
finite dimensional and semisimple, the algebra $H$ is unimodular.
Thus $\int_H^l=\kk$. Set $A=R\#H$. By Proposition \ref{thm int}, we
obtain that $A$ is AS-regular with $\int_A^l\cong \kk_\xi$, where
$\xi$ is the algebra homomorphism defined by
$\xi(r\#h)=\vps(r)\hdet(h)$ for all $r\#h\in R\#H$. Following
from \cite[Thm. \;2.3]{hvz}, the algebra $A$ is CY if and only if
$\xi=\vps$ and $\mc{S}_A^2$ is an inner automorphism. On one hand,
$\xi=\vps_H$
if
and only if $\hdet=\vps_H$. On the other hand, by Lemma \ref{s^2},
we have
$\mc{S}_A^2(r\#h)=\mc{S}_H(r_{(-1)})(\mc{S}_R^2(r_{(0)}))\mc{S}_H^2(h)$,
for any $r\#h\in R\#H$. \qed
One may compare the above theorem with Theorem 2.12 in \cite{liwz}.
Keep the notations as in Theorem \ref{cyrtoh}. When $R$ is
$p$-Koszul and $H$ is involutory, then the automorphism $\phi$ is an
inner automorphism if the homological determinant is trivial. In the
following Example \ref{eg 2}, we see that the automorphism $\phi$
can be expressed via the homological determinant of the $H$-action.
\begin{eg}\label{eg 2}
Let $$\mc{D}(\bgm,
(g_i)_{1\se i\se \tt},(\chi_i)_{1\se i\se \tt}, (a_{ij})_{1\se
i,j\se \tt})$$ be a datum of finite Cartan type (see \cite{as2} for terminology), where $\bgm$ is a
finite abelian group and $(a_{ij})$ is of type $A_1\times \cdots
\times A_1$. Assume that $V$ is a braided vector space with a basis
$\{x_1,\cdots, x_\tt\}$ whose braiding is given by
$$c(x_i\ot x_j)=q_{ij}x_j\ot x_i,\;\;1\se i,j\se \tt,$$
where $q_{ij}=\chi_j(g_i)$.
Let $R$ be the following algebra:
$$\kk\lan x_1,\cdots,x_\tt\mid x_ix_j=q_{ij}x_jx_i,\;\;1\se
i<j\se \tt\ran.$$ The algebra $R$ is a braided
Hopf algebra in the category $^\bgm_\bgm\mc{YD}$. Moreover, it is easy to see that $R$ is a Koszul algebra. Assume that
$\mc{K}$ is the Koszul complex (cf. complex (6) in \cite{vdb1})
$$0\ra R\ot R^{!*}_\tt\ra \cdots R\ot R^{!*}_{j}\xra{d_j} R\ot
R^{!*}_{j-1}\cdots\ra R\ot R^{!*}_{1}\ra R\ra 0.$$ Then we have that
$\mc{K}\ra {}_R\kk\ra 0$ is a projective resolution of $\kk$. Each
$R^{!*}_{j}$ is a left $\kk\bgm$-module with module structure
defined by $$\begin{array}{ccl}[g(\bt)](x^*_{i_1}\wedge\cdots\wedge
x^*_{i_j})&=&\bt(g^{-1}(x^*_ {i_1} \wedge\cdots\wedge x^*_
{i_j}))\\&=&\bt(g^{-1}(x^*_ {i_1} )\wedge\cdots\wedge g^{-1}(x^*_
{i_j} ))\\
&=&(\prod_{t=1}^j\chi_{i_t}(g))\bt(x^*_ {i_1} \wedge\cdots\wedge
x^*_ {i_j} ),\end{array}$$ where $\bt\in S^{!*}_{j} $. Thus each
$R\ot R^{!*}_{j}$ is a left $\kk\bgm$-module. It is not difficult to
see that the differentials in the Koszul complex are also left
$\bgm$-module homomorphisms. By \cite[Prop.
5.0.7]{c}, we have that $\int_R^l\cong R_\tt^{!*}$. Therefore,
$\hdet(g)=\prod_{i=1}^\tt\chi_i(g^{-1})$ for all $g\in \bgm$.
Following from \cite[Prop. 8.2 and Thm. 9.2]{vdb}, the algebra $R$ has the rigid dualizing complex $R_\vph[\tt]$, where $\vph$ is the algebra automorphism defined by $\vph(x_i)=q_{1i}\cdots
q_{(i-1)i}q_{i(i+1)}^{-1}\cdots q_{i\tt}^{-1}x_i$, for $1\se i\se \tt$. By Corollary \ref{cor cyrid}, the algebra $R$ is a CY
algebra if and only if for each $1\se i\se \tt$, $q_{1i}\cdots
q_{(i-1)i}=q_{i(i+1)}\cdots q_{i\tt}$. In this case, $$\begin{array}{ccl}\hdet(g_j)&=&\prod_{i=1}^\tt\chi_i(g_j^{-1})\\&=&(\prod_{i=1}^{j-1}\chi_i(g_j^{-1}))\chi_j(g_j^{-1})(\prod_{k=j+1}^\tt\chi_k(g_j^{-1}))\\
&=&(\prod_{i=1}^{j-1}q_{ij}) \chi_j(g_j^{-1})(\prod_{k=j+1}^\tt q^{-1}_{jk})\\
&=&\chi_j(g_j^{-1}).\end{array}$$ The algebra automorphism $\phi$ given
in Theorem \ref{cyrtoh} is defined by
$$\phi(x_j)=\chi_j(g_j^{-1})x_j=\hdet(g_j)x_j$$ for all $1\se j\se
\tt$ and $\phi(g)=g$ for all $g\in \bgm$. However, $\chi_j(g_j)\neq
1$ for all $1\se j\se \tt$. The algebra $R\#\kk\bgm$ is not a CY
algebra.
\end{eg}
\begin{eg}\label{cocomm}
Let $\gg$ be a finite dimensional Lie algebra, and $U(\gg)$ the
universal enveloping algebra of $\gg$. Assume that there is a group
homomorphism $\nu:\bgm\ra Aut_{Lie}(\gg)$, where $Aut_{Lie}(\gg)$ is
the group of Lie algebra automorphisms of $\gg$. Then it is known
that $U(\gg)\#\kk \bgm$ is a cocommutative Hopf algebra.
It is proved in \cite[Cor. 3.6]{hvz} that the smash product
$U(\gg)\#\kk \bgm$ is CY if and only if $U(\gg)$ is CY and
$\Im(\nu)\subseteq SL(\gg)$.
Let $d$ be the dimension of $\mk{g}$. By \cite[Lemma 3.1]{hvz}, we have $\int^l_{U(\gg)}\cong \wedge^d
\gg^*$ as left $\bgm$-modules, where the left $\bgm$-action on
$\mathfrak{g}^*$ is defined by $(g\cdot \al)(x)=\al(g^{-1}x)$ for
all $g\in \bgm$, $\al\in \mathfrak{g}^*$ and $x\in \mathfrak{g}$, and
$\bgm$ acts on $\wedge^d \mathfrak{g}^*$ diagonally. Let
$\{x_1,\cdots,x_d\}$ be a basis of $\gg$. Then
$$g(x_1^*\wedge\cdots\wedge x_d^*)=\t{det}(\nu(g^{-1}))(x_1^*\wedge\cdots\wedge x_d^*),$$ for all $g\in\bgm$. So
$\hdet(g)=\t{det}(\nu(g))$. That is, if $\Im(\nu)\subseteq SL(\gg)$,
then the homological determinant is trivial. The algebra
$U(\mk{g})$ is a braided Hopf algebra in the category
$^\bgm_\bgm\mc{YD}$ with trivial coaction. So the automorphism
$\phi$ defined in Theorem \ref{cyrtoh} is the identity. Therefore,
if $U(\mk{g})$ is a CY algebra and $\Im(\nu)\subseteq SL(\gg)$, by
Theorem \ref{cyrtoh}, we can also get that $U(\gg)\#\kk \bgm$ is a
CY algebra.
\end{eg}
\section{Rigid dualizing complexes of braided Hopf algebras over finite group algebras}\label{fgp. fgp}
Let $\bgm$ be a finite group and $R$ a braided Hopf algebra in the category $^\bgm_\bgm\mathcal {YD}$ of Yetter-Drinfeld modules over $\kk\bgm$ such that $R\#\bgm$ is a CY algebra. In this section, we answer the question when the algebra $R$ is a CY algebra.
Let $A$ be a Hopf algebra. By \cite[Appendix, Lemma 11]{pw}, $A$ can
be viewed as a subalgebra of $A^e$ via the algebra homomorphism
$\rho:A\ra A^e$ defined by \begin{equation}\label{rho}\rho(a)=\sum
a_1\ot \mc{S}(a_2).\end{equation} Then $A^e$ is a right $A$-module
via this embedding. We denote this right $A$-module by
$\mc{R}(A^e)$. Actually, $\mc{R}(A^e)$ is an $A^e$-$A$-bimodule.
Similarly, $A^e$ is also an $A$-$A^e$-bimodule, where the left
$A$-module is induced from the homomorphism $\rho$. Denote this bimodule
by $\mc{L}(A^e)$.
From now on, let $\bgm$ be a finite group and $R$ a braided Hopf
algebra in the category $^\bgm_\bgm\mc{YD}$ with $\bgm$-coaction
$\dt$. The biproduct $A=R\#\kk\bgm$ is a usual Hopf algebra
\cite{ra}. Let $\mathscr {D}$ be the subalgebra of $A^e$ generated
by the elements of the form $(r\#g)\ot (s\#g^{-1})$ with $r,s\in R$
and $g\in \bgm$.
Note that $R$ is a $\bgm$-graded module, i.e., $R =\op_{g\in
\bgm}R_g$, where $R_g = \{r \in R \mid \dt(r) = g \ot r\}$.
Therefore, for any $r\in R$, it can be written as $r=\sum_{g\in
\bgm}r_g$ with $r_g\in R_g$. Then $\dt(r)=\sum_{g\in \bgm}g\ot r_g$.
\begin{lem}
The subalgebra $\mathscr {D}$ is a left and right $A$-submodule of
$\mc{L}(A^e)$ and $\mc{R}(A^e)$ respectively.
\end{lem}
\proof For any $r\#h\in A$, by equations (\ref{equa braidedcomulti})
and (\ref{equa braidedanti}), we have $$\Delta(r\#h)=\sum_{g\in
\bgm} r^1\#gh\ot (r^2)_g\#h$$ and $$\mc{S}_A(r\#h)=\sum_{g\in \bgm}
h^{-1}g^{-1} \mc{S}_R(r_g).$$ Any element in $\ms{D}$ can be written
as a linear combination of elements of the form $s\#k\ot
t\#k^{-1}\in \ms {D}$ with $s,t\in R$ and $k\in \bgm$.
$$\begin{array}{cl}&(r\#h)\cdot(s\#k\ot
t\#k^{-1})\\=&\sum_{g\in \bgm}(r^1\#gh)(s\#k)\ot (t\#k^{-1})\mc{S}_A((r^2)_g\#h)\\
=&\sum_{g\in \bgm}(r^1\#gh)(s\#k)\ot (t\#k^{-1})h^{-1}g^{-1}\mc{S}_R((r^2)_g)\\
=&\sum_{g\in \bgm}(r^1{(gh)(s)}\#ghk)\ot (t(k^{-1}h^{-1}g^{-1})(\mc{S}_R((r^2)_g))\#k^{-1}h^{-1}g^{-1})\\
\in &\mathscr {D}. \end{array}$$ This shows that $\mathscr{D}$ is a
left $A$-submodule of $\mc{L}(A^e)$. Similarly, $\mathscr{D}$ is
also a right $A$-submodule of $\mc{R}(A^e)$. \qed
The following lemma is known, we include it for completeness.
\begin{lem}\label{lem d}
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(a)] Both $\mc{L}(A^e)$ and $\mc{R}(A^e)$ are free as $A$-modules.
\item[(b)] $\mc{R}(A^e)\ot_A \kk\cong A$ as left $A^e$-modules and this isomorphism restricts to the isomorphism $\ms{D}\ot_A\kk\cong R$.
\item[(c)] If $\xi:A\ra\kk$ is an algebra homomorphism, then there is an isomorphism $\kk_\xi\ot_A \mc{L}(A^e)\cong {A_{[\xi]\mc{S}_A^2}}$ of right $A^e$-modules and the isomorphism restricts to an isomorphism
$\kk_\xi\ot_A \ms{D}\cong {R_{([\xi]\mc{S}_A^2)|_R}}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lem}
\proof (a) was proved in \cite[Lemma 2.2]{bz}. The module $L(A^e)$
defined in the same paper is isomorphic to $\mc{R}(A^e)$ as right
$A$-modules. It was proved that $\varphi:A_A\ot A^{op}\ra
\mc{R}(A^e)$ defined by $\vph(a\ot b)=a_1\ot b\star\mc{S}_A(a_2)$ is
an isomorphism, where $\star$ denotes the multiplication in
$A^{op}$. The right $A$-module structure on $A_A\ot A^{op}$ is
defined by $(a\ot b)\cdot c=ac\ot b$ for all $a$, $b$ and $c\in A$.
Similarly, $\mc{L}(A^e)\cong {_AA}\ot A^{op}$ as free left
$A$-module.
(b) The isomorphism $\mc{R}(A^e)\ot_A \kk\cong A$ of left $A^e$-modules can be
found in \cite[Appendix, Lemma 11]{pw}. The homomorphism
$\phi:\mc{R}(A^e)\ot_A \kk\ra A$ given by $\phi(a\ot b \ot 1)=ab$ is
an $A^e$-isomorphism. It is clear that $\psi$ restricts to an
isomorphism from $\ms{D}\ot_A\kk$ to $R$.
(c) It was proved in \cite[Lemma 4.5]{bz} that $\kk_\xi\ot_A
\mc{L}(A^e)\cong {A_{[\xi]\mc{S}_A^2}}$ as right $A^e$-modules.
Here we give another proof. We construct the the isomorphism
explicitly. Define a homomorphism $\Phi:\kk_\xi\ot_A A^e\ra
{A_{[\xi]\mc{S}_A^2}}$ by $\Phi(1\ot a\ot
b)=\xi(a_1)b\mc{S}_A^2(a_2)$ and a homomorphism
$\Psi:{A_{[\xi]\mc{S}_A^2}}\ra \kk_\xi\ot_A A^e$ by $\Psi(a)=1\ot 1\ot a$. For any $x,a, b\in A$, we have $$\begin{array}{ccl} \Phi(1\ot x_1a\ot b\mc{S}(x_2))&=& \xi(x_1)\xi(a_1)\ot b\mc{S}(x_3)\mc{S}^2(x_2)\mc{S}^2(a_2)\\
&=& \xi(x_1)\xi(a_1)\ot b\mc{S}(\varepsilon(x_2))\mc{S}^2(a_2)\\
&=& \xi(x)\xi(a_1)\ot b\mc{S}^2(a_2)\\
&=&\xi(x)\Phi(1\ot a\ot b).\end{array}$$
This shows that $\Phi$ is
well defined. Similar calculations show that $\Phi$ and $\Psi$ are
right $A^e$-module homomorphisms and they are inverse to each other.
It is straightforward to check that the isomorphism $\kk_\xi\ot_A
\mc{L}(A^e)\cong {A_{[\xi]\mc{S}_A^2}}$ restricts to the isomorphism
$\kk_\xi\ot_A \ms{D}\cong {R_{([\xi]\mc{S}_A^2)|_R}}$. \qed
\begin{lem}\label{lem fgp}
$\Hom_{R^e}(\mathscr{D}, R^e)\cong \mathscr{D}$ as
$A$-$R^e$-bimodules.
\end{lem}
\proof The algebra $\mathscr{D}$ is an $A$-$R^e$-bimodule. Note
that the $A$-module structure is induced from the homomorphism
$\rho$ defined in (\ref{rho}). On the other hand, the $A$-$R^e$-bimodule
structure on $\Hom_{R^e}(\mathscr{D}, R^e)$ is induced from the
right $A$-module structure on $\mathscr{D}$ and the right
$R^e$-module structure on $R^e$. We have
$r\#g=(1\#g)(g^{-1}(r)\#1)$ for any $r\#g \in R\#\kk\bgm$.
Therefore, an element in $\mathscr{D}$ can be expressed of the form
$\sum_{g\in \bgm} (1\#g^{-1})(r^g\#1)\ot s^g \#g$ with $r^g, s^g\in
R$. For simplicity, we write $gr$ for the element $(1\#g)(r\#1)$ with $r\in
R$ and $g\in \bgm$. Let $\Psi:\mathscr{D}\ra
\Hom_{R^e}(\mathscr{D}, R^e)$ be a homomorphism defined by
$$[\Psi(\sum_{g\in \bgm} g^{-1}r^g\ot (s^g \#g))](h\ot h^{-1})=r^h\ot s^h,$$ for
$\sum_{g\in\bgm} g^{-1}r^g\ot s^g \#g\in \mathscr{D}, h\ot h^{-1}\in
\mathscr{D}$. Next define a homomorphism $\Phi:
\Hom_{R^e}(\mathscr{D}, R^e)\ra\mathscr{D}$ as follows:
$$\Phi(f)=\sum_{g\in
\bgm}( g^{-1}\ot g)f(g\ot g^{-1})$$ for $f\in
\Hom_{R^e}(\mathscr{D}, R^e)$. It is clear that $\Phi$ is a right
$R^e$-homomorphism. On the other hand, we have
{\small $$\begin{array}{ccl}\Phi((r\#h)f)&=&\sum_{g\in \bgm}(g^{-1}\ot g)((r\#h)f)(g\ot g^{-1})\\
&=&\sum_{g\in \bgm}\sum_{k\in \bgm}(g^{-1}\ot g)f(g(r^1\#k)h\ot \mc{S}_A((r^2)_k\#h)g^{-1})\\
&=&\sum_{g\in \bgm}\sum_{k\in \bgm}(g^{-1}\ot g)f(g(r^1\#k)h\ot h^{-1}k^{-1}\mc{S}_R((r^2)_k)g^{-1})\\
&=&\sum_{g\in \bgm}\sum_{k\in \bgm}(g^{-1}\ot g)f(g(r^1)\#gkh\ot
h^{-1}k^{-1}g^{-1}{g(\mc{S}_R((r^2)_k))}),
\end{array}$$}
and
{\small $$\begin{array}{cl}&(r\#h)\Phi(f)\\=&(\sum_{k\in \bgm}r_1\#kh\ot h^{-1}k^{-1}\mc{S}_{R}(r_{2k}))\sum_{g\in \bgm} (g^{-1}\ot g)f(g\ot g^{-1})\\
=&\sum_{k\in \bgm}\sum_{g\in \bgm}(r^1\#khg^{-1}\ot gh^{-1}k^{-1}\mc{S}_{R}((r^2)_k))f(g\ot g^{-1})\\
=&\sum_{k\in \bgm}\sum_{g\in \bgm}(khg^{-1}{(gh^{-1}k^{-1})(r^1)}\ot (gh^{-1}k^{-1})\mc{S}_{R}((r^2)_k)gh^{-1}k^{-1})f(g\ot g^{-1})\\
=&\sum_{k\in \bgm}\sum_{g\in \bgm}(khg^{-1}\ot
gh^{-1}k^{-1})f((gh^{-1}k^{-1})(r^1)\#g\ot
g^{-1}(gh^{-1}k^{-1})(\mc{S}_{R}((r^2)_k)))\\
=&\sum_{g\in \bgm}\sum_{k\in \bgm}(g^{-1}\ot g)f(g(r^1)\#gkh\ot
h^{-1}k^{-1}g^{-1}{g(\mc{S}_R((r^2)_k))}).
\end{array}$$}
So $\Phi$ is an $A$-$R^e$-bimodule homomorphism. It is easy to check that
$\Phi$ and $\Psi$ are inverse to each other. Thus $\Phi$ is an
isomorphism. \qed
\begin{lem}\label{bimod}
Let $\bgm$ be a finite group and $R$ a braided Hopf algebra in the
category $^\bgm_\bgm\mc{YD}$. If $A=R\#\kk\bgm$ is AS-Gorenstein
with $\int_A^l\cong\kk_\xi$, where $\xi:A\ra\kk$ is an algebra homomorphism, then we have $R$-$R$-bimodule
isomorphisms
$$ \Ext^i_{R^e}(R,R^e)\cong\begin{cases}0,&i\neq d;\\
{R_{([\xi]\mc{S}_A^2)|_R}},&i=d.\end{cases}$$
\end{lem}
\proof We have the following isomorphisms,
$$\begin{array}{ccl} \Ext^i_{R^e}(R,R^e)&\cong&\Ext^i_{R^e}(\ms{D}\ot_A
\kk,R^e)\\&\cong&\Ext^i_A({}_A\kk,\Hom_{R^e}(\ms{D} ,R^e))\\
&\cong&\Ext^i_A({}_A\kk,\ms{D})\\
&\cong&\Ext^i_A({}_A\kk,A)\ot_A\ms{D}\\
&\cong&\begin{cases}0,&i\neq d;\\\kk_\xi\ot_A \ms{D}\cong
{R_{([\xi]\mc{S}_A^2)|_R}},&i=d.\end{cases}\end{array}$$ The first, the third
and the last isomorphism follow from Lemma \ref{lem d}, Lemma \ref{lem
fgp} and Lemma \ref{lem d} respectively.\qed
\begin{lem}\label{hs}
If the projective dimension of $A=R\#\kk\bgm$ is finite and $R$ is
Noetherian, then $R$ is homologically smooth.
\end{lem}
\proof By assumption, the algebra $A$ is Noetherian, and $_A\kk$ has
a finite projective resolution
$$0\ra P_d\ra P_{d-1}\ra\cdots\ra P_1\ra P_0\ra \kk\ra 0,$$ such that each $P_i$, $0\se i\se d$, is a finitely generated projective $A$-module. $\ms{D}$ is a summand of $A^e$ as a right $A$-module. Indeed, $A^e\cong \op_{h\in \bgm}\ms{D}^h$, where $\ms{D}^h$ is the right $A$-submodule of $A^e$ generated by elements of the form $(r\#hg)\ot (s\#g^{-1})$ with $r,s\in R$ and $g\in \bgm$. By Lemma \ref{lem d}, $A^e$ is free as a right $A$-module. Therefore, the functor $\ms{D}\ot_A- $ is exact. We obtain an exact sequence \begin{equation}\label{comp3}0\ra \ms{D}\ot_AP_d\ra \ms{D}\ot_AP_{d-1}\ra\cdots\ra \ms{D}\ot_AP_1\ra \ms{D}\ot_AP_0\ra \ms{D}\ot_A\kk\ra 0.\end{equation} $\ms{D}$ is projective as left $R^e$-module and $\ms{D}\ot_A\kk\cong R$ as left $R^e$-modules (Lemma \ref{lem d}). So the complex (\ref{comp3}) is a projective bimodule resolution of $R$. Because each $P_i$ is a finitely generated $A$-module and $\bgm$ is a finite group, each $\ms{D}\ot_AP_{i}$ is a finitely generated left $R^e$-module. Therefore, we conclude that $R$ is homologically smooth. \qed
The homological integral of the skew group algebra $R\#\kk\bgm$
was discussed by He, Van Oystaeyen and Zhang in \cite{hvz}. Based on
their work, we use the homological determinant of the group
action to describe the homological integral of $R\#\kk\bgm$.
\begin{lem}\label{int fgp}
Let $\bgm$ be a finite group and $R$ a braided Hopf algebra in the
category $^\bgm_\bgm\mc{YD}$. If $R$ is an AS-Gorenstein algebra
with injective dimension $d$ and $\int_R^l\cong \kk_{\xi_R}$, where
$\xi_R:R\ra \kk$ is an algebra homomorphism, then the algebra
$A=R\#\kk\bgm$ is AS-Gorenstein with injective dimension $d$ as
well, and $\int_A^l\cong \kk_\xi$, where $\xi:A\ra \kk$ is the algebra homomorphism defined by
$\xi(r\#h)=\xi_R(r)\hdet(h)$ for any $r\#h\in R\#\kk\bgm$.
\end{lem}
\proof By \cite[Prop. 1.1 and 1.3]{hvz}, we have that
$A=R\#\kk\bgm$ is AS-Gorenstein of injective dimension $d$,
$\int_R^l$ is a
1-dimensional left $\bgm$-module, and as right $A$-modules:\vspace{3mm}\\
\centerline{$\int^l_A\cong(\int_R^l\ot\kk\bgm)^\bgm$,}\vspace{3mm}\\ where the
right $A$-module structure on $\int_R^l\ot\kk\bgm$ is defined by $$({ e}\ot
g)\cdot(r\#h)={ e}(g(r))\ot gh,$$ for $g\in \kk\bgm$,
$r\#h\in R\#\kk\bgm$ and ${e}\in \int_R^l$, and the left $\bgm$-action on $\int_R^l\ot\kk\bgm$ is the diagonal
one. Let ${\bf e}$ be a basis of $\int_R^l$. It is not difficult to check
that the element $\sum_{g\in \bgm}{g({\bf
e})}\ot g$ is a basis of $(\int_R^l\#\kk\bgm)^\bgm$. Let $\eta:\kk
\bgm\ra\kk$ be an algebra homomorphism such that $h\cdot {\bf
e}=\eta(h){\bf e}$ for all $h\in\bgm$.
For any $r\#h\in R\#\kk\bgm$, we have $$\begin{array}{ccl}(\sum_{g\in \bgm}{g({\bf e})}\#g)(r\#h)&=&\sum_{g\in \bgm}{g({\bf e})}g(r)\#gh\\
&=&\sum_{g\in \bgm}{g({\bf e}r)}\#gh\\
&=&\xi_R(r)\sum_{g\in \bgm}{g({\bf e})}\#gh\\
&=&\xi_R(r)\eta(h^{-1})\sum_{g\in \bgm}{(gh)({\bf e})}\#gh\\
&=&\xi_R(r)\eta(h^{-1})\sum_{g\in \bgm}{g({\bf e})}\#g\\
&=&\xi_R(r)\hdet(h)\sum_{g\in \bgm}{g({\bf e})}\#g\\
&=&\xi(r\#h)\sum_{g\in \bgm}{g({\bf e})}\#g.
\end{array}$$
It implies that $\int_A^l\cong\kk_\xi$. \qed
The following proposition shows that the AS-regularity of $R\#\kk\bgm$ depends strongly
on the AS-regularity of $R$.
\begin{prop}\label{asreg}
Let $\bgm$ be a finite group and $R$ a braided Hopf algebra in the
category $_\bgm^\bgm\mc{YD}$. Then $R$ is AS-regular if and only if
$A=R\#\kk\bgm$ is AS-regular.
\end{prop}
\proof Assume that $R$ is AS-regular. By Lemma \ref{int fgp}, the algebra
$A$ is AS-Gorenstein. To show that $A$ is AS-regular, it suffices to
show that the global dimension of $A$ is finite. Since the global
dimension of $R$ is finite, there is a finite projective resolution
of $\kk$ over $R$,
$$0\ra P_d\ra P_{d-1}\ra\cdots P_1\ra P_0\ra \kk\ra 0.$$ Note that $A$ is projective as a right $R$-module. Tensoring this resolution with $A\ot_R-$, we obtain an exact sequence
$$0\ra A\ot_R P_d\ra A\ot_R P_{d-1}\ra\cdots A\ot_R P_1\ra A\ot_R P_0\ra A\ot_R \kk\ra 0.$$ It is clear that each $A\ot_R P_i$ is projective. This shows that the projective dimension of $A\ot_R\kk$ is finite. But $_A\kk$ is a direct summand of $A\ot_R\kk$ as an $A$-module (\cite[Lemma III.4.8]{ars}). So the projective dimension of $_A\kk$ is finite. Since $A$ is a Hopf algebra, the global dimension of $A$ is finite.
Conversely, if $A$ is AS-regular, then $R$ is AS-regular by Lemma \ref{bimod}, Lemma
\ref{hs} and Remark \ref{twisted}. \qed
We are ready to give the rigid dualizing complex of an AS-Gorenstein braided Hopf
algebra.
\begin{thm}\label{thm ridfgp}
Let $\bgm$ be a finite group and $R$ a braided Hopf algebra in the
category $^\bgm_\bgm\mc{YD}$. Assume that $R$ is an
AS-Gorenstein algebra with injective dimension $d$. If
$\int_R^l\cong\kk_{\xi_R}$, for some algebra homomorphism
$\xi_R:R\ra\kk$, then $R$ has a rigid dualizing complex $_\vph
R[d]$, where $\vph$ is the algebra automorphism defined by $$\vph(r)=\sum_{g\in
\bgm}\xi_R(r^1)\hdet(g){{g^{-1}}(\mc{S}_R^2((r^2)_g))},$$ for any $r\in R$.
\end{thm}
\proof Let $A$ be $R\#\kk\bgm$. By Lemma \ref{int fgp}, $A$ is AS-Gorenstein with $\int_A^l\cong\kk_\xi,$ where $\xi:A\ra \kk$ is the algebra homomorphism
defined by $$\xi(r\#h)=\xi_R(r)\hdet(h)$$ for any $r\#h\in R\#\kk\bgm$. By Lemma \ref{bimod}, there are bimodule isomorphisms $$ \Ext^i_{R^e}(R,R^e)\cong\begin{cases}0,&i\neq d;\\
R_{([\xi]\mc{S}_A^2)|_R},&i=d.\end{cases}$$
For any $r\in R$,
$$\begin{array}{ccl}[\xi]\mc{S}_A^2(r)&=&\sum_{g\in \bgm}\xi(r^1\#g)\mc{S}_A^2((r^2)_g)\\&=&\sum_{g\in \bgm}\xi_R(r^1)\hdet(g)\mc{S}_A^2((r^2)_g)\\
&=&\sum_{g\in
\bgm}\xi_R(r^1)\hdet(g)g^{-1}(\mc{S}_R^2((r^2)_g)).\end{array}$$ Now
the theorem follows from Lemma \ref{vdb}. \qed
\begin{rem}
The algebra $A=R\#\kk\bgm$ has a rigid dualizing complex
$_{[\xi]\mc{S}^2_A}A[d]$ (\cite[Prop. \;4.5]{bz}). Observe that
the algebra automorphism $\vph$ given in Theorem \ref{thm ridfgp} is just
the restriction of $[\xi]\mc{S}_A^2$ on $R$.
\end{rem}
Now we can characterize the CY property of $R$ in case $R\#\kk\bgm$
is CY.
\begin{thm}\label{thm cyator}
Let $\bgm$ be a finite group and $R$ a Noetherian braided Hopf algebra in the
category $^\bgm_\bgm\mc{YD}$. Define an algebra automorphism $\vph$
of $R$ by $$\vph(r)=\sum_{g\in \bgm}g^{-1}(\mc{S}_R^2(r_g)),$$ for any
$r\in R$. If $R\#\kk\bgm$ is a CY algebra, then $R$ is CY if and
only if the algebra automorphism $\vph$ is an inner automorphism.
\end{thm}
\proof Assume that $A=R\#\kk\bgm$ is a CY algebra of dimension $d$. By
Proposition \ref{prop cy-as}, $A$ is AS-regular of global dimension
$d$ and $\int_A^l\cong \kk$. It follows from Lemma \ref{hs} that $R$
is homologically smooth.
Since $\int^l_A\cong \kk$, by Lemma \ref{bimod} there are
$R$-$R$-bimodule isomorphisms
$$ \Ext^i_{R^e}(R,R^e)\cong\begin{cases}0,&i\neq d;\\
{R_{ \mc{S}_A^2|_R}},&i=d.\end{cases}$$ Following Remark
\ref{twisted}, we obtain that $R$ is AS-regular. Suppose
$\int^l_R\cong \kk_{\xi_R}$ for some algebra homomorphism
$\xi_R:R\ra \kk$. Then by Lemma \ref{int fgp}, $\int^l_A\cong
\kk_\xi$, where $\xi:A\ra\kk$ is defined by
$\xi(r\#h)=\xi_R(r)\hdet(h)$ for any $r\#h\in R\#\kk\bgm$. But
$\int^l_A\cong \kk$. Therefore, $\xi_R=\vps_R$ and
$\t{hdet}=\vps_H$. It follows from Theorem \ref{thm ridfgp} that the
rigid dualizing complex of $R$ is isomorphic to $_\vph R[d]$, where
$\vph$ is defined by
$$\begin{array}{ccl}\vph(r)&=&\sum_{g\in
\bgm}\xi_R(r^1)\hdet(g){{g^{-1}}(\mc{S}_R^2((r^2)_g))}\\
&=&\sum_{g\in \bgm}g^{-1}(\mc{S}_R^2(r_g))\end{array}$$ for any $r\in
R$. Now the theorem follows from Corollary \ref{cor cyrid}. \qed
\begin{cor}\label{cor iff}
Let $\bgm$ be a finite group and $R$ a braided Hopf algebra in the
category $^\bgm_\bgm\mc{YD}$. Assume that $R$ is an
AS-regular algebra. Then the following two conditions are
equivalent:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(a)] Both $R$ and $R\#\kk\bgm$ are CY algebras.
\item[(b)] The following three conditions are satisfied:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(i)] $\int_R^l\cong \kk$;
\item[(ii)] The homological determinant of the group action is
trivial;
\item[(iii)] The algebra automorphism $\vph$ defined by $$\vph(r)=\sum_{g\in \bgm}g^{-1}(\mc{S}_R^2(r_g))$$ for all $r\in R$ is
an inner automorphism.
\end{enumerate}
\end{enumerate}
\end{cor}
\proof $(a)\Rightarrow(b)$ Since $R$ is a CY algebra, by Proposition \ref{prop cy-as} we have $\int_R^l\cong \kk$. Because both $R$ and $R\#\kk\bgm$ are CY, (ii) and (iii) are satisfied by Theorem \ref{cyrtoh} and Theorem \ref{thm cyator}.
$(b)\Rightarrow(a)$ Since $R$ is AS-regular, $R\#\kk\bgm$ is
AS-regular by Proposition \ref{asreg}. Thus $R$ is homologically
smooth (Lemma \ref{hs}). By Theorem \ref{thm ridfgp}, if the three
conditions in (b) are satisfied, then the rigid dualizing complex of
$R$ is isomorphic to $R[d]$, where $d$ is the injective dimension of
$R$. So $R$ is a CY algebra. That the algebra $R\#\kk\bgm$ is a CY
algebra follows from Theorem \ref{cyrtoh}. \qed
\begin{eg}
Keep the notations from Example \ref{cocomm}. Assume that $\bgm$
is a finite group and that $\mk{g}$ is a finite dimensional $\bgm$-module
Lie algebra. Suppose there is a group homomorphism $\nu:\bgm\ra
Aut_{Lie}(\mk{g})$. In Example \ref{cocomm}, we use Theorem
\ref{cyrtoh} to obtain that if $U(\mk{g})$ is a CY algebra and
$\Im(\nu)\subseteq SL(\mk{g})$ then $U(\mk{g})\#\kk\bgm$ is a CY
algebra. Now by Theorem \ref{thm cyator}, if $U(\mk{g})\#\kk\bgm$ is
a CY algebra, then $U(\mk{g})$ is a CY algebra as well. This is
because $U(\mk{g})$ is a braided Hopf algebra in $^\bgm_\bgm\mc{YD}$
with trivial coaction, the algebra automorphism $\vph$ in Theorem
\ref{thm cyator} is the identity.
By \cite[Prop. 6.3]{bz}, we have that $\int_{U(\mk{g})}^l=\kk_\xi$,
where $\xi(x)=\t{tr}(\ad(x))$ for all $x\in \mk{g}$. We calculate in
Example \ref{cocomm} that $\hdet(g)=\t{det}(\nu(g))$ for $g\in
\bgm$. Therefore, both $U(\mk{g})$ and $U(\mk{g})\#\kk\bgm$ are CY
algebras if and only if $\t{tr}(\ad(x))=0$ for all $x\in \mk{g}$ and
$\Im(\nu)\subseteq SL(\mk{g})$. This coincides with Corollary 3.5 and
Lemma 4.1 in \cite{hvz}.
\end{eg}
We refer to \cite{as2} for the definition of a datum of finite Cartan type
and the definition of the algebras $U(\mc{D},\lmd)$. The algebras $U(\mc{D},\lmd)$
were constructed to classify finite dimensional pointed Hopf algebras whose group-like
elements form an abelian group.
Let $$\mc{D}(\bgm, (g_i)_{1\se i\se \tt},(\chi_i)_{1\se i\se \tt},
(a_{ij})_{1\se i,j\se \tt})$$ be a datum of finite Cartan type for a
finite abelian group $\bgm$ and $\lmd$ a family of linking parameters for $\mc{D}$. Let $\{\al_1,\cdots,\al_\tt\}$ be a set
of simple roots of the root system corresponding to the Cartan
matrix $(a_{ij})$. Assume that $w_0=s_{i_1}\cdots s_{i_p}$ is a reduced
decomposition of the longest element in the Weyl group as a product
of simple reflections. Then the positive roots are as follows
$$\bt_1=\al_{i_1},\bt_2=s_{i_1}(\al_{i_2}),\cdots, \bt_p=s_{i_1}\cdots s_{i_{p-1}}(\al_{i_p}).$$
If
$\bt_i=\sum_{i=1}^{\tt} m_i\al_i$, then we define
$\chi_{_{\bt_i}}={\chi}_1^{m_1}\cdots {\chi}_\tt^{m_\tt}$.
The following proposition characterizes the CY property of the algebra $U(\mc{D},\lmd)$.
\begin{prop}
(a) The algebra $A=U(\mc{D},\lmd)$ is
AS-regular of global dimension $p$ and $\int^l_A=\kk_\xi$, where
$\xi$ is the algebra homomorphism defined by
$\xi(g)=(\prod_{i=1}^p\chi_{_{\bt_i}})(g)$, for all $g\in \bgm$ and
$\xi(x_i)=0$ for all $1\se i\se \tt$.
(b) The algebra $A$ is CY if and only if
$\prod_{i=1}^p\chi_{_{\bt_i}}=\vps$ and $\mc{S}_A^2$ is an inner
automorphism.
\end{prop}
\proof (a) can be obtained by applying \cite[Thm. 2.6]{as2} and a similar argument as in the
proof of Theorem 2.2 in \cite{yuz}. (b) follows from \cite[Thm. 2.3]{hvz}. \qed
Let $R$ be the algebra generated by $x_1,\cdots ,x_\tt$ subject to
the relations
$$(\ad_cx_i)^{1-a_{ij}}(x_j)=0,1\se i,j\se \tt,\;\;i\neq j.$$ Then $U(\mc{D},0)=R\#\kk\bgm$, where $U(\mc{D},0)$ is the associated graded algebra of $U(\mc{D},\lmd)$ with respect to its coradical filtration.
\begin{prop}
The algebra $R$ is CY if and only if $\prod_{i=1,i\neq
j_k}^p\chi_{_{\bt_i}}(g_k)=1$ for each $1\se k\se \tt$.
\end{prop}
\proof By Lemma \ref{hs} and Theorem \ref{thm ridfgp}, we have that $R$ is homologically smooth, and that it has a rigid dualizing complex $_\vph R[p]$, where $\vph$ is the restriction of $[\xi]\mc{S}_A^2$ on $R$. That is, $\vph$ is defined by $\vph(x_k)=\prod_{i=1,i\neq j_k}^p\chi_{_{\bt_i}}(g_k)(x_k)$, $1\se k\se \tt$, where each $1\se
j_k\se p$ is the integer such that $\bt_{j_k}=\al_k$. Therefore,
$R$ is CY if and only if $\prod_{i=1,i\neq
j_k}^p\chi_{_{\bt_i}}(g_k)=1$ for each $1\se k\se \tt$.\qed
One may compare these results with Theorem 2.3, Theorem
3.9 and Lemma 4.1 in \cite{yuz}.
In case the algebra $U(\mc{D},0)=R\#\kk\bgm$ is CY, the algebra automorphism $\vph$ defined in Theorem \ref{thm cyator} is $\vph(x_i)=\chi_i(g_i^{-1})(x_i)$, $1\se i\se \tt$. However, $\chi_i(g_i)\neq 1$ for all $1\se i\se \tt$. We conclude that when $R\#\kk\bgm$ is CY, the algebra $R$ is not a CY algebra.
Now we give two examples of CY pointed Hopf algebra with a finite group of group-like elements.
\begin{eg} Let $A$ be $U(\mc{D},\lmd)$ with
the datum $(\mc{D},\lmd)$ given by
\begin{itemize}
\item $\bgm=\lan y_1,y_2 \ran\cong \ZZ_2\times \ZZ_2$;
\item The Cartan matrix is of type $A_2$;
\item $g_i=y_i$, $1\se i\se 2$;
\item $\chi_i$, $1\se i\se 2$, are given by the following table. $$\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}\hline
&$y_1$&$y_2$\\\hline $\chi_1$&$-1$&$1$\\\hline
$\chi_2$&$-1$&$-1$\\\hline
\end{tabular}$$
\item $\lmd=0$
\end{itemize}
The algebra $A$ is a CY algebra of dimension 3.
Let $R$ be the algebra generated by $x_1$ and $x_2$
subject to relations
$$x_1^2x_2-x_2x_1^2=0\t{ and }
x_2^2x_1-x_1x_2^2=0.$$ Then $A=R\#\kk\bgm$.
The rigid dualizing complex of $R$ is $_\vph R[3]$, where
$\vph=-\id$.
\begin{rem}From the proof of Proposition 5.8 in \cite{yuz}, we can see that if $A=U(\mc{D},\lmd)$ is a CY algebra such that $(\mc{D},\lmd)$ is a generic datum, then the Cartan matrix in $\mc{D}$ cannot be of type $A_2$.
\end{rem}
\end{eg}
\begin{eg} Let $A$ be $U(\mc{D},\lmd)$ with
the datum $(\mc{D},\lmd)$ given by
\begin{itemize}
\item $\bgm=\lan y_1,y_2 \ran\cong \ZZ_n\times \ZZ_n$;
\item The Cartan matrix is of type $A_1\times A_1$;
\item $g_i=y_i$, $i=1,2$;
\item $\chi_1(y_i)=q$, $\chi_2(y_i)=q^{-1}$, $i=1,2$, where $q\in \kk$ is an $n$-th root of unity;
\item $\lmd=1$.
\end{itemize}
The algebra $A$ is a CY algebra of dimension 2.
Let $R$ be the algebra
$\kk\lan x_1,x_2\mid x_1x_2=q^{-1}x_2x_1\ran.$ Then $\Gr A=U(\mc{D},0)=R\#\kk\bgm$, where $\Gr A$ is the associated graded algebra of $A$ with respect to the coradical filtration of $A$. The rigid dualizing complex of $R$ is $_\vph R[3]$, where $\vph$ is defined by $\vph(x_1)=q^{-1}x_1$ and $\vph(x_2)=qx_2$.
\end{eg}
\vspace{5mm}
\subsection*{Acknowledgement} This work forms a part of the PhD thesis of the first author at Hasselt University. She would like to thank BOF of UHasselt its the financial support.
\vspace{5mm}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:introduction}
Understanding the spin-orbit interaction is essential to the development of spintronics and gives rise to various spin transport mechanisms. Effects of the spin-orbit interaction can be intrinsic or extrinsic. Intrinsic effects are caused by the spin-orbit interaction in the band structure. Extrinsic contributions arise from spin-orbit coupling at impurities. The spin Hall effect, where a transverse spin current is generated via a longitudinal charge current, is one of the effects resulting from the spin-orbit coupling and has attracted much attention, both theoretically\cite{Karplus1954, Dyakonov1971b,Dyakonov1971,Hirsch1999,Zhang2000,Murakami2003,Sinova2004,Engel2007} and experimentally\cite{Kato2004,Sih2005,Wunderlich2005,Saitoh2006,Stern2006,Valenzuela2006,Kimura2007}. In a sample, this transverse spin current generates opposite spin accumulations at the lateral boundaries.
While the spin Hall effect provides coupling between charge and spin, another spin-orbit-induced transport mechanism has recently been introduced in which only spins couple and which emerges even in the absence of charge currents. Primary longitudinal spin currents give rise to secondary transverse spin currents due to spin-orbit coupling at extrinsic impurities.\cite{Lifshits2009} The generated secondary spin currents are proportional to the extrinsic spin-orbit coupling strength. The effect has been coined `spin swapping' because, in its simplest manifestation, it interchanges the spin polarization direction and the spin flow.\footnote{The terms responsible for extrinsic spin swapping were already indicated in Refs.\ \protect\onlinecite{Dyakonov1971b,Dyakonov1971}. However, their physical origin was not understood at the time\protect\cite{Lifshits2009}} It has been suggested that any mechanism inducing a spin Hall effect should also give rise to spin swapping. However, it has not yet been clear how the intrinsic mechanism could produce this effect.
In this paper, we demonstrate that an intrinsic (Rash\-ba spin-orbit-induced) spin swapping effect exists in two-dimensional diffusive metals and that it is drastically different from its extrinsic analog. The main distinction between these two effects is that the extrinsic effect is of the same order as the spin-orbit coupling strength and is thus small, irrespective of the system size. In contrast, the intrinsic spin swapping effect is large for system dimensions exceeding the spin-orbit precession length, and the secondary spin currents generated by this effect are then of the same order as the primary spin currents. If, however, the system width is small compared to the spin-orbit precession length, the effect is small but leads to a long-range propagation of spin polarizations closely related to the increase of the D'yakonov-Perel spin relaxation time in narrow strips\cite{Malsh2000}. Furthermore, the symmetry of intrinsic spin swapping is more complex and richer than that of the extrinsic spin swapping effect resulting in a non-trivial dependence on the relative orientation of the injected spin flow and the spin polarization. We present numerical and analytical results for the transverse secondary spin currents and accumulations induced by primary spin currents in two-dimensional diffusive metals, and we compare the intrinsic and extrinsic spin swapping effects.
This paper is organized as follows. We first provide a review of the previously discussed extrinsic spin swapping effect in Sec.\ \ref{sec:extrinsic}, and we compute the spin accumulations and spin currents induced by an injected primary spin current in a two-dimensional diffusive metal. In Sec.\ \ref{sec:intrinsic}, we discuss the intrinsic spin swapping effect, numerically evaluate the spin densities and spin currents generated through intrinsic spin swapping, and derive analytical results for the resulting spin currents far away from the lateral edges of a sample. Next, in Sec.\ \ref{sec:narrowstrip}, we treat the case of a narrow strip whose width is small compared to the spin-orbit precession length and find analytical expressions for the spin accumulations at the lateral edges of a sample stemming from the intrinsic spin swapping effect. In Sec.\ \ref{sec:observation}, we briefly discuss how the spin swapping effects could be observed in experiment. Finally, we give our conclusions in Sec.\ \ref{sec:conclusion}.
\section{Extrinsic spin swapping}
\label{sec:extrinsic}
First, we review the extrinsic spin swapping effect introduced in Ref.\ \onlinecite{Lifshits2009} and present its features in two-dimensional diffusive metals in order to compare it to the intrinsic spin swapping effect to be discussed later. The Hamiltonian of the system under consideration reads
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:extrinsic_hamiltonian}
\uppercase{\mathcal{H}}(\vect{\rho})
=
- \frac{1}{2m} \partial^{2}_{\vect{\rho}}
+
V_\text{imp}(\vect{\rho})
+
V_\text{so}(\vect{\rho}),
\end{equation}
where $\vect{\rho}=(x,y)$ is a two-dimensional coordinate,
\begin{subequations}
\label{eq:impurity}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:impurity_simple}
V_\text{imp}(\vect{\rho})
=
\frac{1}{A} \sum_{\vect{\rho}_i} \sum_{\vect{k}} v(\vect{k}) \e{\mathrm i \, \vect{k} \cdot (\vect{\rho} - \vect{\rho}_i)}
\end{equation}
is the elastic impurity scattering potential, and
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:impurity_soi}
V_\text{so}(\vect{\rho})
=
- \mathrm i \, \gamma \Big[ \vect{\sigma} \times \vect{\nabla} V_\text{imp}(\vect{\rho}) \Big] \cdot \vect{\partial}_{\vect{\rho}}
\end{equation}
\end{subequations}
is the spin-orbit coupling. $\vect{\rho}_i$ is the position of the $i^{\text{th}}$ impurity, $A$ is the area, $v(\vect{k})$ is the Fourier transformed scattering potential, $\vect{\sigma} = (\sigma_x, \sigma_y, \sigma_z)^\text{T}$ is a vector of Pauli matrices, and $\gamma$ is the dimensionless spin-orbit coupling strength.
Considering transport in the diffusive limit, the spin diffusion equation reads
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:extrinsic_spin_diffusion}
\vect{\partial}^{2}_{\vect{\rho}} f_b
-
\frac{1}{l_\text{sf}^2}
f_b
=0
,
\end{equation}
where $f_b$ is the $b$ component of the spin density, $b \in \{x,y,z\}$, and $l_\text{sf}$ is the spin-flip length. In order to study spin transport, one also needs to define the spin current. In the leading approximation, while neglecting spin-orbit effects, the spin current is given by the spin diffusion current $j_{a b}^{(0)} = - D \partial_a f_b$ flowing along $a$ and polarized along $b$, where $D$ is the diffusion constant. The spin-orbit interaction gives rise to additional terms in the spin current. To first order in the spin-orbit coupling strength $\gamma$, when there is no charge current giving rise to the spin Hall effect, the spin current is\cite{Lifshits2009}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:normal_spin_current}
j_{a b}
=
j_{a b}^{(0)}
+
\chi
\Big(
j_{b a}^{(0)}
-
\delta_{a b}
j_{c c}^{(0)}
\Big)
.
\end{equation}
The term proportional to the swapping constant $\chi$ relates the spin polarization to the direction of flow and results in the induction of secondary spin currents, i.e., a `spin swapping' effect.\cite{Lifshits2009} For example, a primary spin current directed along $x$ will induce transverse spin currents that arise as follows,
\begin{align*}
j_{x b}^{(0)} &\Rightarrow j_{b x},\\
\intertext{if $b \neq x$, and}
j_{x x}^{(0)} &\Rightarrow - j_{y y} - j_{z z}.
\end{align*}
The first of these transformations swaps the current's flow direction and its polarization. In general, this causes spin accumulations at the lateral edges of a sample, as we shall see shortly. The swapping constant is linear in the spin-orbit coupling strength and can be calculated explicitly, \cite{Lifshits2009}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:normal_swappingconstant}
\chi = 2 \gamma p_\text{F}^2
,
\end{equation}
where $p_\text{F}$ is the momentum at the Fermi level and short-ranged scattering potentials are assumed.
Extrinsic spin swapping arises from the additional terms in the spin current \eqref{eq:normal_spin_current} that are proportional to $\chi$, whereas the spin diffusion equation \eqref{eq:extrinsic_spin_diffusion} is unaltered. Extrinsic spin swapping therefore affects the boundary conditions for an unaltered, conventional spin diffusion differential equation. We will see later that the spin diffusion equation for the intrinsic spin swapping effect is altered as well, giving rise to a richer class of phenomena.
\begin{figure}[h!tb]
\centering
\subfigure[Spin density and spin current polarized along $x$]
{\includegraphics[scale=0.35]{extfx2}
\label{fig:ext_fx}
}
\subfigure[Spin density and spin current polarized along $y$]{
\includegraphics[scale=0.35]{extfy2}
\label{fig:ext_fy}
}\\
\subfigure{
\hspace{0pt}\setlength\fboxsep{2pt}
\setlength\fboxrule{0.25pt}
\fbox{\includegraphics[scale=0.46]{legendh}}
}\\
\caption{(Color online) The extrinsic spin swapping effect in a semi-infinite two-dimensional diffusive metal of width $L = 4 l_\text{sf}$. Shown are the scaled spin densities and the scaled spin currents according to Eqs.\ \eqref{eq:extrinsic_spin_diffusion} and \eqref{eq:normal_spin_current}. A primary spin current $j_{x x}^{(0)}$ injected at $x=0$ in \subref{fig:ext_fx} induces a transverse spin current $j_{y y}$ through the spin swapping effect in \subref{fig:ext_fy}. Note that the secondary spin accumulation and spin currents in \subref{fig:ext_fy} are linear with respect to the small swapping constant $\chi$. If, instead, a primary spin current $j_{x y}^{(0)}$ polarized along $y$ is injected, $f_y$ and $j_{x y}$ are illustrated by \subref{fig:ext_fx} and the resulting secondary spin density and spin current ($f_x$ and $j_{y x}$, respectively) only differ from \subref{fig:ext_fy} by a sign.}
\label{fig:ext_dens}
\end{figure}
In order to compare the extrinsic spin swapping effect with its intrinsic analog to be discussed in the next section, we first study the spin polarizations generated via the extrinsic spin swapping effect beyond the discussion given in Ref.\ \onlinecite{Lifshits2009}. We consider a semi-infinite two-dimensional diffusive metal of width $L$ into which a spin current $j_{x x}^{(0)}$ directed along $x$ and carrying spins polarized along $x$ is injected at $x = 0$. We assume that the injected current is homogeneous along $y$ at the injection edge. Further, we assume impenetrable lateral sample edges such that no spin current flows through, with $j_{y b}(y = \pm L/2) = 0$ for any spin polarization $b$. The spin-orbit coupling at extrinsic impurities generates a transverse spin current $j_{y y}$ on length scales larger than the mean free path according to Eq.\ \eqref{eq:normal_spin_current}. In turn, this gives rise to an accumulation of spins at the lateral edges of the sample polarized along $y$ that is anti-symmetric in the transverse coordinate $y$. The spin accumulation and spin current are plotted in Fig.\ \ref{fig:ext_dens}: Fig.\ \ref{fig:ext_fx} shows the polarization along $x$, and Fig.\ \ref{fig:ext_fy} shows the polarization along $y$. In the two-dimensional case considered here, no transformation into spins polarized along $z$ takes place. Note that the extrinsic spin swapping effect and, therefore, the resulting secondary spin accumulations and spin currents are of the order of the small swapping constant $\chi$. Solving the spin diffusion equation with the above-mentioned boundary conditions, the accumulation of spins at the lateral edges of a sample can be obtained analytically and may be probed experimentally,
\begin{equation*}
f_y ( y = \pm L/2 )
=
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
&\pm \frac{2}{\pi} \frac{j_{x x}^{(0)} \chi}{D} x K_1 (x/l_\text{sf}) ,& \text{for} \quad &L \gg l_\text{sf},
\\
&\pm \frac{L}{2} \frac{j_{x x}^{(0)} \chi}{D} \e{-x/l_\text{sf}},& \text{for} \quad &L \ll l_\text{sf},
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation*}
where $K_1$ is the modified Bessel function of the second kind and first order. This coincides with the numerical result illustrated in Fig.\ \ref{fig:ext_dens}. If, instead, a primary spin current $j_{x y}^{(0)}$ polarized along $y$ is injected, the resulting secondary spin densities and spin currents ($f_x$ and $j_{y x}$, respectively) differ only by a sign according to Eq.\ \eqref{eq:normal_spin_current} and can also be illustrated as shown in Fig.\ \ref{fig:ext_dens}.
\begin{widetext}
\begin{figure}[h!tb]
\centering
\subfigure[Spin density and spin current polarized along $x$]{
\includegraphics[scale=0.46]{intfx}
\label{fig:int_fx}
}
\subfigure[Spin density and spin current polarized along $y$]{
\includegraphics[scale=0.46]{intfy}
\label{fig:int_fy}
}
\subfigure[Spin density and spin current polarized along $z$]{
\includegraphics[scale=0.46]{intfz}
\label{fig:int_fz}
}
\subfigure{
\raisebox{34pt}{\setlength\fboxsep{2pt}
\setlength\fboxrule{0.25pt}
\fbox{\includegraphics[scale=0.46]{legendv}}}
}
\caption{(Color online) The intrinsic spin swapping effect in a two-dimensional diffusive metal of width $L = 4 l_\text{s}$ and length $L_x = 16 l_\text{s}$. A primary spin current $j_{x x}^{(0)}$ injected at $x=0$ in \subref{fig:int_fx} induces an oscillating transverse spin current $j_{y y}$ in \subref{fig:int_fy} through coupling with the $z$ components of the spins in \subref{fig:int_fz}. The resulting accumulation of $y$ components of the spins at the sample edges in \subref{fig:int_fy} is a signature of the intrinsic spin swapping effect. Shown are the spin densities and spin current densities according to Eqs.\ \eqref{eq:intrinsic_spin_diffusion} and \eqref{eq:intrinsic_spin_current} on a relative scale for each plot. Note that all quantities are of the same order of magnitude.}
\label{fig:int_dens}
\end{figure}
\end{widetext}
\section{Intrinsic spin swapping}
\label{sec:intrinsic}
We now elucidate the nature of the intrinsic spin swapping effect. The Hamiltonian of a two-dimensional metal with intrinsic spin-orbit coupling reads as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:intrinsic_hamiltonian}
\uppercase{\mathcal{H}}(\vect{k})
=
\frac{\hbar^2 k^2}{2m^*}
+
\vect{\sigma} \cdot \vect{h}_{\vect{k}}
+
v(\vect{k}),
\end{equation}
where $m^*$ is the effective electron mass, $\vect{k}$ is the electron wave vector, and $v(\vect{k})$ is the Fourier transformed scattering potential. We assume Rashba spin-orbit coupling,\cite{Bychkov1984}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:rashba_soi}
\vect{h}_{\vect{k}}
=
\big( \alpha k_y, - \alpha k_x, 0 \big)^\text{T}
,
\end{equation}
where $\alpha$ defines the spin-orbit coupling strength. When $\alpha$ is sufficiently small, such that the spin-orbit precession length $l_\text{s} = (\alpha m^*)^{-1}$ is much larger than the elastic mean free path, the spin diffusion equation reads \cite{Tang2005}
\begin{subequations}
\label{eq:intrinsic_spin_diffusion}
\begin{align}
\label{eq:intrinsic_spin_diffusion_x}
\vect{\partial}^{2}_{\vect{\rho}} f_x - \frac{4}{l_\text{s}^2} f_x &= \frac{4}{l_\text{s}} \partial_x f_z
,\\
\label{eq:intrinsic_spin_diffusion_y}
\vect{\partial}^{2}_{\vect{\rho}} f_y - \frac{4}{l_\text{s}^2} f_y &= \frac{4}{l_\text{s}} \partial_y f_z
,\\
\label{eq:intrinsic_spin_diffusion_z}
\vect{\partial}^{2}_{\vect{\rho}} f_z - \frac{8}{l_\text{s}^2} f_z &= - \frac{4}{l_\text{s}} \big(\partial_x f_x + \partial_y f_y\big)
.
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
The spin current is given by\cite{Tang2005,Brataas2007}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:intrinsic_spin_current}
j_{a b}
=
- D \partial_a f_b
+
\frac{2}{l_\text{s}} D \big(
\delta_{a b}
f_z
-
\delta_{b z}
f_a
\big)
.
\end{equation}
The diffusion equations \eqref{eq:intrinsic_spin_diffusion} for the case of intrinsic spin-orbit coupling are more difficult to solve analytically than for the extrinsic case because the $x$, $y$, and $z$ spin components are coupled. Therefore, we numerically study the spin currents and the accumulations of spins resulting from intrinsic spin swapping in a two-dimensional system. Before presenting the numerical results, we discuss the simple analytical expressions that can be derived for the spin accumulations and spin currents induced by intrinsic spin swapping far away from the lateral edges of a sample. The problem can also be treated analytically for a narrow strip system whose width is small compared to the spin-orbit precession length (see Sec.\ \ref{sec:narrowstrip}).
We first consider a case analogous to that given for extrinsic spin swapping. A spin current $j_{x x}^{(0)} = j_{x x}(x = 0)$ carrying spins polarized along the $x$ direction and directed along $x$ is injected at $x=0$. Again, we assume that the injected current is homogeneous along $y$ at the injection edge and that the lateral edges of the sample are impenetrable, i.e., $j_{y b}(y = \pm L/2) = 0$ for any spin polarization $b$. The situation is, to some extent, similar to the extrinsic case depicted in Fig.\ \ref{fig:ext_dens}. However, while the swapping effect in this scenario is straightforward for the extrinsic case, it is much more complex and rich for intrinsic spin swapping. As mentioned before, analytical expressions can be found for the spin currents and accumulations far away from the lateral boundaries, at distances much larger than $l_\text{s}$. In this region, the influence of the boundaries is weak, and the expressions approach the limit of a system that is infinite in the $y$ direction. We thus find that a transverse spin current $j_{y y}$ flowing along the $y$ direction carrying spins polarized along $y$ is induced,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:intrinsic_spin_current_y}
\begin{split}
&\frac{j_{y y}(x)}{j_{x x}^{(0)}} =
\\
&\e{-k_r x/l_\text{s}}
\Big[
\big(\! \sqrt{2} - 1 \big) \cos \big(k_i x / l_\text{s} \big)
- \frac{3 + \! \sqrt{2}}{\sqrt{7}} \, \sin \big(k_i x / l_\text{s} \big)
\Big]
,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $k_{r/i} = \! \sqrt{2 \! \sqrt{2} \mp 1}$. This is the intrinsic spin swapping effect. The induced spin current reaches its maximum, $|j_{y y}(x_\text{max})|/j_{x x}^{(0)} \approx 61\%$, within one spin-orbit precession length from the injection edge at $x=0$. The injected spin current itself decays away from the spin current source at $x=0$,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:intrinsic_spin_current_x}
\frac{j_{x x}(x)}{j_{x x}^{(0)}} =
\e{-k_r x/l_\text{s}}
\Big[
\cos \big(k_i x / l_\text{s} \big)
+ \frac{k_r^2}{\sqrt{7}} \, \sin \big(k_i x / l_\text{s} \big)
\Big]
.
\end{equation}
\begin{widetext}
\begin{figure}[h!bt]
\centering
\subfigure[Spin density and spin current polarized along $x$]{
\includegraphics[scale=0.46]{intfx2}
\label{fig:int_fx2}
}
\subfigure[Spin density and spin current polarized along $y$]{
\includegraphics[scale=0.46]{intfy2}
\label{fig:int_fy2}
}
\subfigure[Spin density and spin current polarized along $z$]{
\includegraphics[scale=0.46]{intfz2}
\label{fig:int_fz2}
}
\subfigure{
\raisebox{34pt}{\setlength\fboxsep{2pt}
\setlength\fboxrule{0.25pt}
\fbox{\includegraphics[scale=0.46]{legendv}}}
}
\caption{(Color online) The intrinsic spin swapping effect in a two-dimensional diffusive metal of width $L = 4 l_\text{s}$ and length $L_x = 16 l_\text{s}$. A primary spin current $j_{x y}^{(0)}$ injected at $x=0$ in \subref{fig:int_fy2} induces a transverse spin current $j_{y z}$ in \subref{fig:int_fz2}. In turn, this leads to an accumulation of $z$ spins at the sample edges, which is a signature of the intrinsic spin swapping effect. In \subref{fig:int_fx2}, an oscillating spin current polarized along $x$ is only generated close to the lateral edges of the system. Shown are the spin densities and spin current densities according to Eqs.\ \eqref{eq:intrinsic_spin_diffusion} and \eqref{eq:intrinsic_spin_current} on a relative scale for each plot. Note that all quantities are of the same order of magnitude.}
\label{fig:int_dens2}
\end{figure}
\end{widetext}
While extrinsic spin swapping in general directly couples $x$-polarized and $y$-polarized spins, in intrinsic spin swapping the conversion between $x$-polarized and $y$-polarized spin currents occurs via spins polarized along $z$ as can be seen from Eqs.\ \eqref{eq:intrinsic_spin_diffusion} and \eqref{eq:intrinsic_spin_current}. In addition, spin currents and spin accumulations oscillate as a function of the distance from the injection edge. The situation is depicted in Fig.\ \ref{fig:int_dens} for a system with width $L = 4 l_\text{s}$ and length $L_x = 16 l_\text{s}$. In Fig.\ \ref{fig:int_fx}, we see that the spin current carrying spins polarized along $x$, which is given by Eq.\ \eqref{eq:intrinsic_spin_current_x} in the bulk, as well as the spin accumulation decay away from the spin current source at $x=0$. The $x$ components of the spins are converted to $z$ components, as shown in Fig.\ \ref{fig:int_fz}, which in turn gives rise to a swapped transverse spin current $j_{y y}$, shown in Fig.\ \ref{fig:int_fy}, that is polarized along $y$. In the bulk, this current is given by Eq.\ \eqref{eq:intrinsic_spin_current_y}. We also see that this swapped spin current causes an oscillating spin accumulation at the lateral edges, which is a signature of the intrinsic spin swapping effect that may be probed experimentally (see Sec.\ \ref{sec:narrowstrip} for an explicit expression of this spin swapping induced spin accumulation in a narrow strip system).
Next, we turn to the case in which a homogeneous spin current $j_{x y}^{(0)} = j_{x y}(x = 0)$ carrying spins polarized along $y$ is injected at $x=0$. To analyze this situation, we first find an analytic expression for the transverse spin current induced through spin swapping far from the lateral edges of the system. We find that the primary spin current $j_{x y}$ is directly transformed into a transverse spin current,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:intrinsic_spin_current_z}
\frac{j_{y z}(x)}{j_{x y}^{(0)}}
=
- \e{-2 x/l_\text{s}}
=
- \frac{j_{x y}(x)}{j_{x y}^{(0)}}
,
\end{equation}
that gives rise to an accumulation of $z$ spins at the lateral edges of the sample (again, refer to Sec.\ \ref{sec:narrowstrip} for an explicit expression for the induced spin accumulation in a narrow strip system). In contrast to the case of extrinsic spin swapping, Eqs.\ \eqref{eq:intrinsic_spin_diffusion} and \eqref{eq:intrinsic_spin_current} provide a direct coupling between the $y$ and $z$ spins, with the resulting spin current having polarization along $z$ (rather than $x$): again, the resulting current is of the same order as the primary spin current. It is only near the lateral boundaries that spin currents polarized along $x$ are generated as well. This spin current leads to an oscillating spin accumulation at the sample edges. This situation is depicted in Fig.\ \ref{fig:int_dens2}.
In both scenarios of injected spin currents discussed above, intrinsic spin swapping is a much stronger effect than extrinsic spin swapping.
\section{Intrinsic spin swapping in a narrow strip}
\label{sec:narrowstrip}
In this section, we will consider the special case of a strip whose width $L$ is much less than $l_\text{s}$. This case is interesting because, in such a system, a long-range spin swapping effect can be realized, such that the spin-swapped accumulation can extend far along the strip, over a length much greater than $l_\text{s}$. This long-range behavior is closely related to the increase of the D'yakonov-Perel spin relaxation time in narrow strips\cite{Malsh2000}.
Due to the small parameter $L/l_\text{s}$, the spin-swapping problem can be treated analytically. Following Ref.\ \onlinecite{Malsh2000}, we introduce new spin density variables,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:narrow_psi}
\psi_{\pm 1} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\big(\pm f_x - \mathrm i \, f_y\big),\quad \psi_{0} = f_z .
\end{equation}
In terms of these variables, Eq.\ \eqref{eq:intrinsic_spin_diffusion} can be transformed into
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:narrow_psi_diffusion}
\Big(\mathrm i \, \partial_x + \frac{2}{l_\text{s}} J_y\Big)^2 \vect{\psi} + \Big(\mathrm i \, \partial_y - \frac{2}{l_\text{s}} J_x \Big)^2 \vect{\psi} = 0,
\end{equation}
where $\vect{\psi}$ is a 3-vector $(\psi_1,\psi_0,\psi_{-1})^\text{T}$ and $J_i$, $i \in \{x,y,z\}$, are the corresponding 3 $\times$ 3 angular momentum operators for spin $1$. Using Eq.\ \eqref{eq:intrinsic_spin_current}, the boundary conditions can be expressed as
\begin{subequations}
\label{eq:narrow_psi_boundary}
\begin{align}
\label{eq:narrow_psi_boundary_x}
&\Big(\mathrm i \, \partial_x + \frac{2}{l_\text{s}} J_y \Big) \vect{\psi} |_{x = 0} = \vect{I},\\
\label{eq:narrow_psi_boundary_y}
&\Big(\mathrm i \, \partial_y - \frac{2}{l_\text{s}} J_x \Big) \vect{\psi} |_{y = \pm L/2} = 0,
\end{align}
where $\vect{I}$ is determined by the spin current injected at $x = 0$,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:narrow_psi_boundary_I}
I_{\pm 1} = \frac{\mathrm i \,}{\sqrt{2} D} \Big( \mp j_{x x}^{(0)} + \mathrm i \, j_{x y}^{(0)} \Big),\quad I_0 = - \frac{\mathrm i \,}{D} j_{x z}^{(0)}.
\end{equation}
\end{subequations}
The unitary transformation
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:narrow_unitary}
\vect{\psi} = \e{\mathrm i \, J_x(\pi/2 - 2 y/l_\text{s})} \vect{\phi}
\end{equation}
further simplifies Eq.\ \eqref{eq:narrow_psi_diffusion} to
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:narrow_phi_diffusion}
\Big(\mathrm i \, \partial_x + \frac{2}{l_\text{s}} J_y(y) \Big)^2 \vect{\phi} - \partial^2_y \vect{\phi} = 0,
\end{equation}
where $J_y(y) = \e{-\mathrm i \, J_x(\pi/2 - 2 y/l_\text{s})} J_y \e{\mathrm i \, J_x(\pi/2 - 2 y/l_\text{s})}$, and the boundary conditions at the lateral edges of the system then read
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:narrow_phi_boundary_y}
\partial_y \vect{\phi} |_{y = \pm L/2} = 0.
\end{equation}
The transformed differential equations \eqref{eq:narrow_phi_diffusion} and the boundary conditions \eqref{eq:narrow_phi_boundary_y} are exact equivalent representations of the original problem.
For the case of a narrow strip, $L \ll l_\text{s}$, one can expand $J_y(y)$ up to second order in $y/l_\text{s}$ to obtain $J_y(y) = J_z + 2 (y/l_\text{s}) J_y - 2 (y/l_\text{s})^2 J_z$ and consider the last two terms in this expression as a perturbation. Due to Eq.\ \eqref{eq:narrow_phi_boundary_y}, the solution of Eq.\ \eqref{eq:narrow_phi_diffusion} can be represented as a Fourier expansion in $\sin \big( (2 n + 1) \pi y / L \big)$ and $\cos \big( 2 n \pi y / L \big)$, where $n$ is an integer. Further analysis reveals that only a term uniform in $y$ is relevant because the other Fourier components decay very quickly along the $x$ direction. The equation for $\bar{\vect{\phi}}$, that is, $\vect{\phi}$ averaged over $-L/2 \leq y \leq L/2$, can then be derived from Eq.\ \eqref{eq:narrow_phi_diffusion} as\cite{Malsh2000}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:narrow_barphi_diffusion}
\Big(\mathrm i \, \partial_x + \frac{2}{l_\text{s}} J_z \Big)^2 \bar{\vect{\phi}} + \frac{\Gamma}{l_\text{s}^2} \Big(2 - J_z^2 \Big) \bar{\vect{\phi}} = 0,
\end{equation}
where $\Gamma = 2 L^2 / 3 l_\text{s}^2$. The general solution of this equation that converges for $x \rightarrow \infty$ has the form $\bar{\phi}_{\pm 1} = A_{\pm 1} \e{\pm 2 \, \mathrm i \, x/l_\text{s}} \e{-\sqrt{\Gamma} x/l_\text{s}}$ and $\bar{\phi}_{0} = A_0 \e{-\sqrt{2 \Gamma } x/l_\text{s}}$. The coefficients $A$ can be found from the boundary condition \eqref{eq:narrow_psi_boundary_x}.
If we consider a case analogous to that presented for extrinsic spin swapping in Sec.\ \ref{sec:extrinsic}, where a spin current $j_{x x}^{(0)}$ carrying spins polarized along $x$ is injected, we find $I_{\pm 1} = \mp \frac{\mathrm i \,}{\sqrt{2} D} j_{x x}^{(0)}$ and $I_0 = 0$. Applying the unitary operator \eqref{eq:narrow_unitary} to this boundary condition we obtain in the leading approximation
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:narrow_bcphi}
\bar{\phi}_{\pm 1}(x = 0) = \pm \frac{j_{xx}^{(0)} l_\text{s}}{\sqrt{2 \Gamma} D}, \quad \bar{\phi}_{0}(x = 0) = 0.
\end{equation}
From this it follows that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:narrow_phix}
\bar{\phi}_{\pm 1} = \pm \frac{j_{xx}^{(0)} l_\text{s}}{\sqrt{2 \Gamma} D} \e{\pm 2 \, \mathrm i \, x/l_\text{s} -\sqrt{\Gamma} x/l_\text{s}}, \quad \bar{\phi}_{0} = 0.
\end{equation}
Using Eqs.\ \eqref{eq:narrow_unitary} and \eqref{eq:narrow_psi}, we finally obtain the spin densities
\begin{subequations}
\label{eq:narrow_spin_density}
\begin{align}
\label{eq:narrow_spin_density_x}
f_x &= \frac{j_{xx}^{(0)} l_\text{s}}{\sqrt{\Gamma} D} \e{-\sqrt{\Gamma} x/l_\text{s}} \, \cos \big(2 x/l_\text{s} \big)
,\\
\label{eq:narrow_spin_density_y}
f_y &= - 2 \frac{j_{xx}^{(0)} l_\text{s}}{\sqrt{\Gamma} D} \frac{y}{l_\text{s}} \e{-\sqrt{\Gamma} x/l_\text{s}} \, \sin \big(2 x/l_\text{s} \big)
,\\
\label{eq:narrow_spin_density_z}
f_z &= - \frac{j_{xx}^{(0)} l_\text{s}}{\sqrt{\Gamma} D} \e{-\sqrt{\Gamma} x/l_\text{s}} \, \sin \big(2 x/l_\text{s} \big)
,
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
to first order in $y/l_\text{s}$. The accumulation of $y$ spins at the lateral edges of the narrow strip caused by the intrinsic spin swapping effect reads
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:narrow_fy}
f_y(y = \pm L/2) = \mp \sqrt{\frac{3}{2}} \frac{j_{xx}^{(0)} l_\text{s}}{D} \e{-\sqrt{\Gamma} x/l_\text{s}} \, \sin \big(2 x/l_\text{s} \big).
\end{equation}
Since $\sqrt{\Gamma}/l_\text{s} \ll 1$, the spin accumulation oscillates and slowly decreases along $x$.
Considering the second case treated in Sec.\ \ref{sec:intrinsic}, where a spin current $j_{x y}^{(0)}$ carrying spins polarized along $y$ is injected, a similar calculation yields
\begin{subequations}
\label{eq:narrow_spin_density2}
\begin{align}
\label{eq:narrow_spin_density2_x}
f_x &= 0
,\\
\label{eq:narrow_spin_density2_y}
f_y &= \frac{j_{xy}^{(0)} l_\text{s}}{\sqrt{2 \Gamma} D} \e{-\sqrt{2 \Gamma} x/l_\text{s}}
,\\
\label{eq:narrow_spin_density2_z}
f_z &= - 2 \frac{j_{xy}^{(0)} l_\text{s}}{\sqrt{2 \Gamma} D} \frac{y}{l_\text{s}} \e{-\sqrt{2 \Gamma} x/l_\text{s}}
.
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
Again, the spin densities slowly decay along $x$ but, analogous to the previous discussion, no oscillation takes place.
\section{Experimental observation of spin swapping}
\label{sec:observation}
In order to observe spin swapping, a primary spin current needs to be injected. This can be achieved in a two terminal setup where a spin current is electrically injected into a two-dimensional diffusive metal from a ferromagnetic electrode.\cite{Lifshits2009} As discussed here, spin swapping then gives rise to spin accumulations at the lateral sample edges that could be detected experimentally, for example, by optical means \cite{Sih2005} or by measuring the interface voltage at weak contacts between the lateral boundaries and ferromagnets \cite{Valenzuela2006, Saitoh2006,Kimura2007}. However, in such a setup, an electric current is present in the system as well and additional spin currents therefore emerge from the coupling of charge and spin via the spin Hall effect. In a two-dimensional system with extrinsic spin-orbit coupling, the spin accumulations resulting from spin swapping at the lateral sample edges are polarized in-plane while those generated by the electric current via the spin Hall effect are polarized out-of-plane.\cite{Dyakonov1971, Dyakonov1971b} This makes it possible to experimentally distinguish the two effects. On the other hand, in a diffusive system with intrinsic Rashba spin-orbit coupling, a uniform electric field gives rise to a uniform in-plane spin polarization via the Edelstein effect (while it does not produce spin currents).\cite{Edelstein1990, Inoue2003} In contrast, the resulting in-plane accumulation of swapped spins generated by a primary spin current with in-plane polarization is opposite at the lateral boundaries, as discussed above. This difference allows to distinguish the intrinsic spin swapping effect and the Edelstein effect in experiment.
Another possibility is the use of a non-local geometry\cite{Valenzuela2006} where the spin swapping effects could be observed in a part of the system where there is no charge current. There, an electric current is injected from a ferromagnetic electrode on top of a diffusive metal towards a second electrode. A tunnel barrier between the electrodes and the metal assures that the current is injected uniformly and it optimizes the polarization of the injected electrons. A pure spin current is thus generated in the system, propagating in opposite direction of the injected charge current and away from the electrodes. This spin current will give rise to spin accumulations at the lateral sample edges through the spin swapping effect that could be detected experimentally.
\section{Conclusion}
\label{sec:conclusion}
In conclusion, we have demonstrated that there is an intrinsic analog to the extrinsic spin swapping effect in two-dimensional diffusive metals with Rashba spin-orbit coupling. We found that the intrinsic effect is drastically different because it is large for system dimensions exceeding the spin-orbit precession length and gives rise to secondary spin currents and accumulations that are of the same order of magnitude as the injected primary spin currents while leading to a long-range propagation of spin polarizations in narrow strip systems. In contrast, the extrinsic spin swapping effect is proportional to the spin-orbit coupling strength for any system size and is therefore small. Moreover, intrinsic spin swapping is more complex and richer than its extrinsic counterpart, resulting in a non-trivial dependence on the relative orientation of the injected spin flow and the spin polarization.
We derived explicit expressions for the transverse spin currents in the bulk and numerically computed the resulting spin accumulations at the lateral boundaries. In addition, we derived explicit expressions for the spin accumulations in a narrow strip when $L \ll l_\text{s}$ and found that the exponential decay of spin polarizations along the $x$ direction is greatly reduced in such systems. We further gave a brief discussion on how the spin swapping effect could be observed in experiment.
\begin{acknowledgments}
This work was partially supported by the Research Council of Norway.
\end{acknowledgments}
\nocite{*}
\bibliographystyle{apsrev4-1}
|
\section{Introduction}
Furthering science depends to a large degree on knowledge and information transfer. Therefore it critically relies on discoverability. This applies to findings in publications and to the underlying data that led to these findings. Therefore, significant amounts of energy (and funds) should be invested in improving discoverability, of both publications and data. Major progress has been made on the level of publications by improved visibility and more sophisticated techniques for information discovery. The adoption of faceted filtering, recommender systems and semantic interlinking of resources are good examples of this (\citet{accomazzi11}, \citet{henneken11}).
It is time that exposure of data becomes common practice. A publication based on a data set is just one expression of the potential of that data set. It totally depends on the background and the interests of the researchers which representation of that potential will be selected. However, there are many other representations. The scientific community would also benefit greatly from the ability to combine a data set with other available data sets. Also, having data available publicly would greatly facilitate the verification of claims (\citet{fischer10}). The special session ``The Literature-Data Connection: Meaning, Infrastructure and Impact'' at the 218th Meeting of the American Astronomical Society (Boston, May 2011) was dedicated to this discussion. As part of the discussion of how to create a practice of linking data to publications, the question was raised whether such publications would see a citation advantage. That would be like getting a tax benefit for ``being green''. Everybody agrees that ``being green'' is a sensible thing to do, but having some kind of incentive definitely helps as additional motivation. Motivation is an essential ingredient for creating a practice. Since citations are a measure used for scientific impact, it is logical to ask whether investing energy into making data available publicly results in a citation advantage.
In this presentation we address the question whether there is a citation advantage. We explore the question using the holdings and citation data of the SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS).
\section{Results}
With every record in the ADS holdings a number of possible attributes (``links'') can be associated, giving access to information related to that record. The attribute used for this analysis is the ``D'' link, associated with access to on-line data. Currently these links point to data hosted at data centers (like CDS, HEASARC and MAST). The following set of records was chosen for this study: articles published in \emph{The Astrophysical Journal} (including \emph{Letters} and \emph{Supplement}), \emph{The Astronomical Journal}, \emph{The Monthly Notices of the R.A.S.} and \emph{Astronomy \& Astrophysics} including \emph{Supplement}), during the period 1995 through 2000. Comparing publications with a ``D'' link to those without such a link would, to a large degree, be comparing apples with oranges, because of the range in subject matter. In order for the comparison to make sense, the subject matter of the publications needs to be restricted. We decided to use keywords as filter. We determined the set of 50 most frequently used keywords in articles with data links. The articles to be used for the analysis were obtained by requiring that they have at least 3 keywords in common with that set of 50 keywords. This resulted in a set of 3814 articles with data links and 7218 articles without data links. The box diagram in figure~\ref{fig:BoxDiagram} characterizes the distribution of citations in the sets with and without data links, for respectively 2 and 4 years after publication.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\plotone{P020_f1.eps}
\caption{Distribution of citations of articles published in \emph{The Astrophysical Journal} (including \emph{Letters} and \emph{Supplement}), \emph{The Astronomical Journal}, \emph{The Monthly Notices of the R.A.S.} and \emph{Astronomy \& Astrophysics} including \emph{Supplement}), during the period 1995 through 2000. The extent of the box corresponds with the interquartile range of the citations and whiskers extend to 1.5 times the interquartile range. The horizontal lines within the boxes correspond with the medians. From left to right, the boxes correspond respectively with the citation distributions for the article set with and without data links 2 years after publication, and 4 years after publication. The medians are respectively at 10, 8, 17 and 13 citations.}
\label{fig:BoxDiagram}
\end{figure}
For this analysis, a random selection of 3814 articles was extracted from the set of 7218 articles (without links to data). For both sets the citation accumulation was determined for each article. From now on, we will refer to the set with data links as $\emph{D}_d$ and the one without data links as $\emph{D}_n$. These citation distributions were used to calculate the mean citation accumulation for each set, normalized by the total number of citations in the entire set of publications. The results are shown in figure~\ref{fig:normalizedCites}.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\plotone{P020_f2.eps}
\caption{The normalized number of citations for data sets $\emph{D}_d$ and $\emph{D}_n$. The citations have been normalized by the total number of citations.}
\label{fig:normalizedCites}
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{fig:normalizedCites} indicates that publications with a data link have a larger citation rate than publications that do not. To get get an indication of how much more citations a publication with a data link accumulates, on average, figure~\ref{fig:cumulativeCites} shows the cumulative citation distribution, normalized by the total number of citations for articles without data links, 10 years after publication.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\plotone{P020_f3.eps}
\caption{The cumulative citation distributions for data sets $\emph{D}_d$ and $\emph{D}_n$. The citation counts have been normalized by the total number of citations for articles without data links, 10 years after publication.}
\label{fig:cumulativeCites}
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{fig:cumulativeCites} indicates that for this data set, articles with data links on average acquired 20\% more citations (compared to articles without these links) over a period of 10 years. The fact that this increase is statistically significant follows from a regression analysis performed on the entire data set. This confirmed the increase of 20\% in citation count (at a 95\% confidence level).
\section{Discussion}
Our study seems to indicate that publications with links to on-line data seem to have a higher citation rate than publications that do not. Could this effect be attributed to another systematic effect? For example, studies have shown that e-printing results in higher citation rates (see for example~\citet{henneken06}). However, both sets used to construct figures~\ref{fig:normalizedCites} and~\ref{fig:cumulativeCites} turn out to be homogeneous in other publication attributes. For example, in each set about 20\% of the publications have e-prints associated with them. So, the increased citation rates associated with e-printing contribute similarly in both sets. Also, both sets are homogenous in links to object information (NED and SIMBAD links). Lastly, could data centers, in attributing data links to articles, have cherry-picked important (i.e. more citable) data sets? Both sets of publications turn out to be homogenous in citation distributions as well. This leads us to believe that the effect observed is real.
In a study of medical literature on cancer microarray clinical trials, \citet{piwowar07} found that ``publicly available data was significantly associated with a 69\% increase in citations''. Even though citation rates are different for different disciplines, the qualitative observation still holds. Studies and discussions in other disciplines show that data sharing is viewed as important and highly relevant for the integrity and furthering of science, and that the hurdles encountered have much in common between various disciplines (\citet{bruna10}, \citet{delamothe96}, \citet{kansa10}, \citet{pisani10}, \citet{south10}, \citet{vickers11}, \citet{vandewalle09}).
\bibliographystyle{asp2010}
|
\section{Introduction}
Various extra-dimensional extensions of the Standard Model (SM) \cite{
ADD,RS,RS2,Antoniadis,Appelquist} have attracted a lot of interest in the recent literature.
In these models, the number of spacial dimensions is assumed to be more than $3$
with the extra dimensions being hidden (compactified). Apart from the compactification mechanism,
different models differ on the size as well as the number of the extra
dimensions. Although, depending on the model, the SM fields can either propagate in the bulk or live
on a boundary of the bulk, gravity can freely propagate through the extra-dimensions.
In the low energy 4-D picture gravity is treated as an effective theory with
the graviton fields appearing as towers of KK-excitation modes (KK-gravitons).
The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) provides us with a unique opportunity to observe experimental signatures of these KK-gravitons.
For possible signals, several people have studied different production processes of spin-2 KK-gravitons (referred to as graviton in
the rest of the paper) in association with some vector boson in the LHC \cite{Kumar:2010kv,Kumar:2010ca,Karg:2009xk,Gao:2009pn}. Except for the case
where the final state vector boson is a gluon, these papers
consider only the $q\bar q$ initiated processes.
Here our focus is on a different initial state -- we discuss the two gluon initiated graviton production in association with a scalar/vector boson ($gg \rar G\mc B $).
Since gravitons couple with matter via energy-momentum tensor, only the $gg\rar Gg$ process has a tree level contribution.
For all the other bosons the corresponding process mediates via quark loops. We restrict
ourselves to color singlet final states and consider the following processes -- (i) $gg\rar Gh$, (ii) $gg\rar G\g$ and (iii) $gg\rar GZ$.
At the LHC, the gluon flux dominates over the quark-flux. Hence, although loop mediated, gluon fusion
contributions to the processes with the color singlet bosons need not be negligible. For the Higgs case, gluon fusion is the dominant channel
in the LHC. The cross-sections for this process in two different extra-dimensional models like ADD \cite{ADD} and RS1 \cite{RS}
have been reported earlier \cite{Shivaji}. In this paper we briefly describe the calculation and
summarize the results.
For the case of photon, however, gluon fusion gives zero contribution. This follows from the
introduction of C-parity of the graviton. We present a
small field theoretic proof of this argument. We present some results for the $Z$-boson case -- the details of this calculation
will be reported elsewhere \cite{ambresh}.
\section{Graviton with a Higgs Boson}
As already mentioned, the gluon fusion mechanism ($gg\rar h G$)
is the dominant channel for the production of a Higgs boson in association with a graviton at the LHC \cite{Shivaji}.
Since both the final state particles are
color singlet, diagrams containing three gluon vertices are absent because of the color conservation.
The first non vanishing contribution to the $gg\rar h G$ process
comes from the diagrams containing a quark loop (at $\mc O(g^2_s \kp y_q)$). However,
because of the presence of the Yukawa coupling ($y_q$) only the top-quark loop contributes significantly.
There are six box diagrams and twelve triangle diagrams (see Figs. \ref{fig:diaga} -- \ref{fig:diage}), of which only half are independent
as they are related to the others by charge conjugation. Moreover the contribution from the triangle diagrams with a $hqqG$
vertex (Fig. \ref{fig:diage}) vanishes -- this vertex is proportional to the metric, $\et_{\m\n}$, which when contracted with the graviton polarization
tensor gives zero.
\begin{figure}[]
\bc
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.195\textwidth]{box1.eps}\label{fig:diaga}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.195\textwidth]{tr3.eps}\label{fig:diagb}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.195\textwidth]{tr7.eps}\label{fig:diagc}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.195\textwidth]{tr10.eps}\label{fig:diagd}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.195\textwidth]{tr12.eps}\label{fig:diage}}
\ec
\caption{Different classes of diagrams for the process $gg\rar h G$. The complete set of diagrams can be obtained by permuting the external particles.
The zigzag lines denote the graviton and the dashed lines denote the Higgs.}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Computation}
Feynman rules for the vertices required to calculate these diagrams can be found in \cite{Han}.
After computing the traces associated with the top-quark loops using FORM \cite{Vermaseren:2000nd},
the amplitude contains tensor loop integrals, the most complicated of which are the
rank-4 tensor-box integral ($D^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma}$) among the the box integrals while rank-2 tensor-triangle integral ($C^{\mu \nu}$) among the triangle ones,
\begin{equation}
D^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma} = \int \frac{d^n l_0}{(2 \pi)^n} \frac{l_0^{\mu} l_0^{\nu} l_0^{\rho} l_0^{\sigma}}{D_0 D_1 D_2 D_3}\,,\quad
C^{\mu \nu} = \int \frac{d^n l_0}{(2 \pi)^n} \frac{l_0^{\mu} l_0^{\nu} }{D_0 D_1 D_2 }\,,
\end{equation}
where $D_i = l_i^2- m_t^2 + i\ve$ and $n=4-2\ep$ (see Figs. \ref{fig:diaga} - \ref{fig:diage} for the definition of $l_i$'s).
These tensor integrals were reduced into the standard scalar integrals -- $A_0$, $B_0$, $C_0$ and $D_0$
using fortran routines \cite{agrawal} that follows the reduction scheme
developed by Oldenborgh and Vermaseren \cite{vanOldenborgh:1989wn}.
The scalar integrals (with massive internal lines) were ultimately called from FF library \cite{vanOldenborgh:1990yc}.
Helicity basis for the polarization vectors were used to calculate the amplitude.
To compute the cross-section, numerical integrations were performed over
the two body phase space, momentum fractions ($x_{1}/x_2$) of the initial state gluons and
over the graviton mass parameter in the continuum approximation (for the ADD model \cite{ADD,Han}).
As a cautionary check, the following tests were made with the code.
\begin{enumerate}
\item {\it UV Finiteness:}
The UV finiteness of the total amplitude were tested by varying the renormalization scale ($\m_{\rm R}$)
over ten orders of magnitude. The amplitude is independent of the actual value of $\m_{\rm R}$.
The triangle and box amplitudes are separately UV finite. Each triangle
diagram is UV finite by itself.
\item {\it Gauge Invariance:}
The amplitude was ensured to be gauge invariant with respect to both the gluons. This was done by replacing the polarization
vector of either of the gluons by its momentum ($\ve^\m(p_i) \rar p^\m_i$) which made the amplitude
vanish. Some of the triangle diagrams are separately gauge invariant with respect to both
the gluons. To ensure the correctness of their contribution towards the full amplitude,
gauge invariance check with respect to the graviton polarization was also performed.
\end{enumerate}
\subsection{Results}
\begin{figure}[]
\bc
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics [angle=0,width=.49\linewidth] {sigma_ms.eps}\label{fig:sigma_ms}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics [angle=0,width=.49\linewidth] {sigma_mh.eps}\label{fig:sigma_mh}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics [angle=0,width=.49\linewidth] {sigma_E.eps}\label{fig:sigma_E}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics [angle=0,width=.49\linewidth] {sigma_rs.eps}\label{fig:sigma_rs}}
\ec
\caption{Process $gg\to Gh$: (a) Variation of the cross-section ($\s$) with the cutoff scale ($M_{\rm S}$) of the ADD model \cite{ADD} for different numbers of extra
dimensions, $d$. (b) Variation of $\s$ with mass of the Higgs, $m_h$. (c) Variation of $\s$ with $E_{cm}$. (d) The cross-section, $\s$
for the production of the first KK mode of the graviton with the Higgs scaled by the square of the dimensionless coupling
parameter $c_0= k/{\bar M}_{\rm P} = \sqrt{8\pi} k/M_{\rm P}$ in the RS1 model \cite{RS}. Here $M_1$ denotes the mass of the first KK mode of the graviton. }
\end{figure}
In Figs. \ref{fig:sigma_ms} -- \ref{fig:sigma_rs} we display the results for the KK-graviton production in association with a Higgs boson.
Fig. \ref{fig:sigma_ms} shows the dependence of the cross-section on the two parameters of the ADD model \cite{ADD}, {\it i.e.},
the cut-off scale, $M_{\rm S}$ and the number of extra dimensions, $d$. Fig. \ref{fig:sigma_mh} shows how the cross-section goes
down (mainly because of phase space suppression)
with increasing Higgs mass and Fig. \ref{fig:sigma_E} shows the dependence of $\s$ on the center of mass energy, $E_{cm}$. In Fig. \ref{fig:sigma_rs}
we show the cross-section in the RS1 model \cite{RS} scaled by the square of the dimensionless coupling parameter $c_0= k/{\bar M}_{\rm P} = \sqrt{8\pi} k/M_{\rm P}$.
In general $c_0$ is assumed to be between 0.01 and 0.1. These plots were obtained using NLO CTEQ6M PDFs and applying the following cuts on the transverse momentum and rapidity of the
Higgs: $p_{\rm T}^h > 20$ GeV, $|\eta^h| < 2.5$. In case of the ADD model, one extra cut was applied on the invariant mass of the
outgoing particles: $M(hG) \leq M_{\rm S}$ (truncated scheme).
We found a large cancelation between the box-diagrams contribution and the triangle-diagrams contribution
that reduces the amplitude by two-to-three orders of magnitude. This, in turn, reduces the cross-section
to the order of 1 fb or smaller for most of the parameter ranges of the ADD model. Still, one could expect few
hundred such events after the LHC achieves its design luminosity if $d \sim 2-3$ and $M_{\rm S} \sim 1-3$ TeV.
This process can be observed at LHC with a few years of operation. However in the RS1 model, the cross-section
becomes even smaller. For example for $c_0 = 0.075$, $M_1=1$ TeV and $m_h =120$ GeV the
cross-section is only about 0.02 fb.
Finally, before we move on to the next section, one comment on the effect of the mass of top quark is in order.
We find that the top quark does not decouple even as its mass, $m_t$ increases. In the beginning the cross-section increases because of
the propagator enhancement. However, beyond $m_t \approx 400$ GeV, cross-section
decreases and approaches a constant value beyond $m_t \gtrsim 2$ TeV. This behavior
is similar to what has been seen in the case of $gg \rar h$ production within the SM.
\section{Graviton with a Photon}
Photons do not have any charge (quantum number) and hence they are eigenstates of the Charge Conjugation (CC) operator $\mc C$.
Invariance of the QED Lagrangian under CC implies,
\ba
{\mc C} A_{\m}{\mc C}^\dag = \et_\g A_{\m}\,,\quad \et_\g = -1\,,\label{eq:ccphoton}
\ea
{\it i.e.}, photons have negative C-parity. As a result there is no process with only odd number of external photons in QED. This is known as the
Furry's Theorem \cite{Furry, Nishijima}. To construct a field theoretic proof of this theorem let us consider the photon $n$-point Green's function,
\ba
\G_{\m_1\cdots\m_n} = \frac{1}{\mc N} \left<0\left| {\sf T} \left[ A_{\m_1}(x_1)A_{\m_2}(x_2)\cdots A_{\m_n}(x_n)
\exp\left[i\int d^4x\, \mc L^{\rm QED}_{int}\right]\right]\right|0\right>\,,
\ea
where $\mc N$ is the normalization factor.
As ${\mc C}^\dag{\mc C} = 1$,
\ba
\G_{\m_1\cdots\m_n} &=& \frac{1}{\mc N} \left<0\left| {\sf T} \left[ {\mc C}^\dag{\mc C} A_{\m_1}(x_1){\mc C}^\dag{\mc C}\cdots {\mc C}^\dag{\mc C} A_{\m_n}(x_n){\mc C}^\dag{\mc C}
\exp\left[i\int d^4x\, \mc L^{\rm QED}_{int}\right]{\mc C}^\dag{\mc C}\right]\right|0\right>\nn\\
&=& (-1)^n\G_{\m_1\cdots\m_n}\,,
\ea
where we have used Eq. \ref{eq:ccphoton} and the fact that both the free vacuum and QED interactions are invariant under CC.
Hence for odd $n$, the Green's function vanishes. This proof shows that this result is valid at all orders of perturbation theory as long as
the interaction terms remain invariant under CC.\footnote{Since weak interaction breaks CC invariance, odd number of photons can couple via $W$-boson loop. However
three photon vertex still remains zero by Yang's theorem \cite{Yang}.} Moreover insertion of any number of C-even boson fields would not affect the result.
\subsection{C-parity of Gravitons}
We introduce C-parity of gravitons to examine processes involving gravitons,
photons and gluons.
To determine the C-parity of the gravitons, let us consider the graviton-electron interaction \cite{Han},
\ba
2\kp^{-1} \lag_e^{\vec n}
- G_{\m\n}\bar \psi_e i\g^\m\pr^\n\psi_e
- \frac12 \bar \psi_e i\g^\m\left(\pr^\n G_{\m\n}\right)\psi_e\,.\label{eq:gravint}
\ea
As gravity couples only to the energy-momentum tensor, it is natural to assume that the gravitational
interaction with matter, in particular with electron, is invariant
under CC. Using CC properties of the Dirac fields and gamma matrices,
we can determine that gravitons have positive C-parity,
\ba
{\mc C} G_{\m\n}{\mc C}^\dag = \et_G G_{\m\n}\,,\quad \et_G = 1\,.
\ea
Therefore as discussed above, any process with only odd number of external photons and any number
of external gravitons vanishes to all orders of perturbation theory,
as long as we include only CC invariant interactions.
\subsection{Furry's Theorem with Gravitons, Photons and Two Gluons}
Gluons carry color charges and hence are not eigenstates of ${\mc C}$. One cannot expect Furry's theorem to work for process with only
external gluons and indeed three gluon vertex exists even at the tree level. However,
since QCD interactions are invariant under CC one can derive a transformation rule for gluons \cite{Tyutin},
\ba
{\mc C} g^a_\m(x) {\mc C}^\dag &=& - \left[\Lambda\right]^{a b} g^b_\m(x)\,,
\ea
where $\Lambda$ is a diagonal matrix with $\Lambda^2 = 1$. It is defined as,
\ba
\left[\tau^a\right]^{\rm T} = \left[\Lambda\right]^{a b}\tau^b\,,
\ea
where $\tau^a$'s are the $SU(3)_c$ generators. The Green's function for a process with only $n$
number of external photons, $m$ number of external gravitons and two external gluons,
\ba
\G_{\{\m_i\} \{\alpha_j \beta_j\}\n_1\n_2} = \frac{\dl^{ab}}{\mc N}
\left<0\left| {\sf T} \left[ A_{\m_1}\cdots A_{\m_n}G_{\alpha_1 \beta_1} \cdots G_{\alpha_m \beta_m}
g^a_{\n_1}g^b_{\n_2}\exp\left[i\int d^4x\, \mc L_{int}\right]\right]\right|0\right>\,,
\ea
where $\dl^{ab}$ appears because of the conservation of color.
Just like before we can incert ${\mc C}^\dag{\mc C}$'s to get
\ba
\G_{\{\m_i\} \{\alpha_j \beta_j\}\n_1\n_2} =
(-1)^n\left(\Lambda\right)^2 \G_{\{\m_i\}\{\alpha_j \beta_j\}\n_1\n_2} = (-1)^n\G_{\{\m_i\} \{\alpha_j \beta_j\}\n_1\n_2}\,,
\ea
if $\mc L_{int}$ is invariant under charge conjugation. We see that the proof still works
if we replace any two photons by gluons, {\it i.e.}, force the two gluons to go into a color singlet state.
Hence two gluons can not fuse into odd number of photons (or any C-odd boson) and any number of
gravitons or any other C-even boson. This is strictly true at one loop level. However as already
mentioned this result is valid at all orders of perturbation theory as long as
we don't include weak corrections, {\it i.e.}, the interaction terms remain invariant under CC.
\section{Graviton with a $Z$-boson}
\begin{figure}[t]
\bc
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=.49\linewidth]{sigma_ZG.eps}
\ec
\caption{Variation of $\s$ with $E_{cm}$ for the process $gg\to GZ$.}\label{fig:sigma_zg}
\end{figure}
The production of a graviton in association with a Z-boson can occur
at the tree level. One loop QCD corrections to this process have also been computed \cite{Kumar:2010kv,Kumar:2010ca}.
However, this radiative correction calculation did not include the the gluon fusion channel.
Because of the large gluon flux at the LHC, this production can make sizable correction
to the tree-level contribution. This calculation has recently been performed \cite{ambresh}.
The diagrams that contribute to the process $gg \to Z G$ belong to the same classes of the triangle and box diagrams as for
the process $gg \to h G$. Because of the Furry's theorem only the axial coupling of the
Z-boson contributes to the amplitude in this process.
There is also an additional complication -- although this process is UV finite, the triangle and box diagrams are
linearly divergent. Moreover the coupling to axial gauge current leads to
anomalies. Therefore, one has to be careful in carrying out the computation and
checking the gauge invariance. The contribution of the individual flavor of quarks
will give anomalous contribution, but this contribution must cancel when we
include the full generation of quarks. One also has to treat $\gamma_5$ in $d$-dimensions
more carefully and use proper prescription.
The computation was done for the ADD model. The details of the calculation
can be found in \cite{ambresh}. In Fig. \ref{fig:sigma_zg}, we have plotted the cross-section of the process
as a function of the center of mass energy for $d = 2$ and $M_{\rm S} = 2$ TeV. For this,
the following kinematic cuts were applied:
$$
P_T^Z > 30 \textrm{ GeV},\quad |\eta^Z| < 2.5 ,\quad M(GZ) \leq M_{\rm S} \textrm{ (truncated scheme)}.
$$
The factorization and the renormalization scales were chosen as
$\mu_f = \mu_R = E_T^Z \left(=\sqrt{M_Z^2 + (P_T^Z)^2}\right)$ and, just like the Higgs case, NLO
CTEQ6M PDFs were used. We note that at typical LHC
energy, the cross-section is of the order of few fb which is much smaller than expected.
The cross-section becomes small because of a two-orders of magnitude cancellation in the amplitude between the box-type
and triangle-type diagrams. It is similar to the case of $gg \to h G$
process. Still one may expect few hundred of such events
after a few years of LHC operation at 14 TeV CM energy.
Unlike the Higgs boson case where we don't find any decoupling of the heavy quark,
the heavy quark in the loop does decouple as its mass goes to infinity for this process.
\section{Conclusions}
We have examined the processes $gg \to h G, \gamma G, Z G$ at the
LHC. These processes, though leading order, occur at one loop. We have
generalized the Furry's theorem to processes containing arbitrary number of photons,
gravitons, and up to two gluons. According to this generalization, any process with
only two gluons, odd number of photons and any number of gravitons vanish at
one-loop order. This remains true to any order if we don't include CC-violating
interactions, such as weak interaction. As a consequence, the process
$gg \to \gamma G$ does not
get contribution at the one-loop level. In the calculation for the processes
$gg \to h G, Z G$, there is a cancellation of two orders of magnitude
between the box and the triangle-classes of diagrams. This reduces the cross-sections
to the order of 1 fb for these processes. Still, with few years of the operation
of LHC at the center of mass energy of $14$ TeV, one may be able to observe these
processes.
\section*{Acknowledgment}
We thank the organizers of RADCOR 2011 for their kind hospitality.
|
\section{INTRODUCTION}
Compact Symmetric Objects (CSOs) are a class of extragalactic radio sources that have sub-galactic ($\lesssim$1 kpc) sizes and are characterized by compact symmetric double components. They were first found in the VLBI observations made by Phillips \& Mutel (1980, 1982), and the term CSO was introduced by Wilkinson et al. (1994). The compact double components show steep radio spectra, similar to the lobes in large radio galaxies, and are extended regions of radio emitting plasma expanding into the interstellar medium (ISM) of the host galaxy. At higher radio frequencies, distinctive bright hot spots are found at the interface with the external ISM in the host galaxy \citep[e.g.,][]{Wil94,Tay96}. In some CSOs, the core is clearly visible because the emission from the core is Doppler boosted \cite{Pec00,Gug05}, whereas in most CSOs the central cores are too weak to be detected. A possible reason for the dimness of the core is the strong absorption by a dense circum-nuclear structure. Observations of broad H~I absorption lines (e.g., 1946+708: Peck et al. 1999; 0108+388, OQ208: Orienti, Morganti \& Dallacasa 2006b) and free-free absorption (e.g., OQ208: Kameno et al. 2000; 0108+388: Marr et al. 2001; 1511+0518: Orienti \& Dallacasa 2008) in some CSOs are in support of the existence of such an obscuring disk or torus. In a few other cases, the neutral and ionized gas in the innermost regions of the compact radio sources is in-homogenous and clumpy, as evidenced by interactions between the jet and off-nuclear clouds \cite{Ver03,Mor04,Mor05,Gup06,Lab06}. The integrated radio spectra of CSOs often show a peak around a few GHz frequency \cite{Mur03,Yang05}, which makes them part of the class of Gigahertz Peaked Spectrum (GPS) sources \citep[reviewed by][]{ODea98,Fanti09}.
Many of these larger-size GPS galaxies are also CSOs with compact double or triple source structures.
The sub-galactic source structure of CSOs poses some most intriguing questions. The symmetric double morphology and steep spectral index of CSOs are analogous to those of classical double radio sources \citep[e.g., FR II galaxies;][]{FR74}, but their sizes are 3--4 orders smaller than FR II galaxies. The "youth scenario" \citep[e.g.,][]{Phi82} considers that the small sizes of the CSOs result from their early evolutionary stage, and that they could eventually evolve into Mpc-scale extended radio sources. An alternative model, named the "frustration scenario", attributes the compactness of CSOs to retardation of the source expansion by the dense ISM within the host galaxy (e.g. O'Dea et al. 1991; Carvalho 1994, 1998). In the "frustration" scenario, GPS radio sources may never evolve into classical doubles. However, the physical properties such as the density structure of the dense ISM that confines these CSOs cannot be easily detected.
The two models predict distinctly different evolutionary fates and age determinations of CSOs provide a direct approach to discriminate between them. A ''kinematic age'' of CSOs may be derived from the propagation speed of the terminal hot spot with respect to the core and the projected distance of the hot spot from the core. In the absence of a visible core, the expansion speed of the hot spots is usually measured as the separation velocity between two hot spots using the brightest hot spot as the reference. Assuming that the two-sided jets expand with a same constant velocity, the kinematic age can be straightforwardly determined from multiple-epoch data. In addition, a ''radiative age'' of CSOs can also be estimated from their spectral break resulting from synchrotron aging of the relativistic electrons \cite{Mur99} assuming an equipartition magnetic field. In some CSOs with both kinematic and radiative age measurements, the two age estimates show good agreement ({\it e.g.}, 1943+546: Polatidis \& Conway 2003; Murgia 2003; 2352+495: Polatidis \& Conway 2003; Murgia et al. 1999).
The kinematic ages of CSOs derived from previous VLBI observations (Owsianik \& Conway 1998; Owsianik et al. 1998; Taylor et al.2000; Polatidis \& Conway 2003; Gugliucci et al. 2005; Polatidis 2009) range between 20 and 3000 years and provide strong evidence that some CSOs are really young radio sources. The histogram of CSO kinematic ages by Gugliucci et al. (2005) already shows an overabundance of ages lower than 500 year, suggesting part of the population consists of short-lived sources. Unfortunately only about two dozen CSOs with proper motion measurements are available to date and many of these are upper limits (Gugliucci et al. 2005; Polatidis \& Conway 2003; Giroletti \& Polatidis 2009). A large sample of CSOs with accurate proper motion measurements is critical for determining the age distribution, and for studying the dynamical evolution and physical properties of the CSOs in a statistical manner.
In addition, Stanghellini et al. (2009) recently revealed non-radial motion of the hot spots in three CSOs, which has been interpreted as a result of precessing jets and provides an evidence of jet confinement by the external medium. If the CSOs do not have a long-term nuclear activity and/or the jet is not powerful enough to break through the confinement of the dense ISM, the growth of the radio source will be smothered and the CSOs appear young but are intrinsically much older. High-precision proper motion measurements are needed to test for the existence of the frustrated objects using the transverse motions of hot spots, since the non-radial motion will not be as distinct as the radial motion.
In order to establish a more complete sample of CSO proper motion detections, we carried out VLBI observations of a sample of ten CSOs and CSO candidates in 2005 and 2009. The observations in 2005 were made with the VLBA at five frequencies of 1.7, 2.3, 5.0, 8.4 and 15.4~GHz with the major purpose to identify the CSOs and to locate the cores by virtue of simultaneous radio spectra. The observations in 2009 of four of the ten CSO candidates at 8.4 GHz using a combined VLBI array consisting of four Chinese and two European telescopes were aimed at determining the proper motions of the hot spots and internal jet components in the CSOs.
The current paper is the first of a series of studies and focuses on proper motion measurements of the ten sources based on our observations in 2005 and 2009 and in combination with available VLBI archival data.
The earliest VLBI observations of the sample sources trace back to 1993, allowing us to better constrain the separation velocities of hot spots with a maximum time baseline of about 16 years.
The results from the multiple-frequency VLBA observations in epoch 2005 will be presented in Yang et al. (in prep.; hereafter Paper II), and the detailed discussion of the physical properties and dynamical evolution of the CSOs will appear in An \& Baan (in prep., Paper III).
In Section 2 we describe the sample selection criteria and the observational data from in 2009. The observing results and error analysis are presented in Section 3. In Section 4 we comment on individual sources. The main results are summarized in Section 5. Throughout this paper, we assume H$_0$ = 73 km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$, $\Omega_M$= 0.27, and $\Omega_\Lambda$= 0.73. The radio spectral index is defined as $S_\nu \propto \nu^{-\alpha}$.
\section{OBSERVATIONAL DATA}
\subsection{Sample Selection}
CSOs are found to be a significant occurrence within the GPS galaxy sample \citep{Xiang02,Ori06a}. The GPS sample is an ideal source to provide CSOs or CSO candidates since GPS sources are relatively easily identified in multiple-frequency spectra from single-dish or interferometer observations. Our CSO candidate sample consists of ten GPS sources with characteristic CSO morphology (symmetric compact double or triple sources) selected from a complete northern-hemisphere sample of GPS sources \cite{Mar99}. These ten sources were observed using the VLBA at five frequencies in 2005 with the major purpose of determining spectral indices of the VLBI components and a secondary purpose of measuring hot spot separation velocities in combination with previous VLBI observations. Four sources (J0132+5620, J0518+4730, J1734+0926, J2203+1007) are also included in the COINS \citep[CSOs Observed in the Northern Sky;][]{Pec00} sample and have been previously observed by the VLBA during 1997 and 2002 \cite{Pec00}. A brief description of the sample sources is given in Table \ref{tab:sample}.
Four high-declination CSO candidates (J0132+5620, J1324+4048, J1756+5748, J2312+3847) from our sample were further observed at 8.4~GHz in 2009 using a VLBI array consisting of the four stations of the Chinese VLBI Network (CVN) and two stations of the European VLBI Network (EVN). With the new observations, we aim to determine or to better constrain the angular separation velocities of hot spots in these CSOs and candidates. These four sources have been selected using the following selection criteria:
\noindent
(1)
All four sources are located in the northern sky with $\delta>+30\degr$, so that observations of high-declination sources with the Chinese and European antennas provide optimized ({\it u,v}) coverage for mapping the fine structure of the CSOs;
\\
(2)
All sources show simple double or triple structures on milli-arcsecond (mas) scales in previous epoch VLBI images;
\\
(3)
No proper motions and kinematic ages have been reported in these sources yet.
The earliest VLBI observations of the CSO candidates in the current study were done in the early 1990s. Assuming a typical angular resolution of $\sim$1~mas of the observations and a signal-to-noise ratio of 20 for the hot spots, a proper motion accuracy of $\sim$1.3 $\mu$as yr$^{-1}$ may be achieved over a 16 year time span.
\\
(4)
All sources have a peak intensity higher than 100 mJy at 8.4 GHz. The high brightness of the sources guarantees a high position accuracy in an individual epoch. Because the sources themselves can serve as fringe fitting calibrators, most of the observing time may be spent on the target sources themselves.
\subsection{Observing Procedures in 2009}
\label{section:obs}
The observations of the four CSO candidates were carried out at 8.4 GHz on 2009 August 5 using four stations of the CVN, the Kunming 40m, Miyun 50m, Shanghai 25m, and Urumqi 25m radio telescopes, and two stations of the EVN, the Medicina 32m and Onsala 20m radio telescopes. The observing run lasted 24 hours. Since the CSO sources are strong enough at centimeter wavelengths to solve for fringe fitting solutions, we did not observe additional calibrators except for interspersing a few scans on fringe finders 4C~39.25 and DA~193. The effective on-source time was 3--4 hour for each of the target sources, which was split into about 18 scans. The observations of the four sources was interleaved and spread out in hour angle so as to acquire good ({\it u,v}) coverage. Figure \ref{fig:uvcov} shows an example of the ({\it u,v}) coverage of the observations. Right circular polarization (RCP) mode was used at all stations. The data were recorded in eight continuous channels of 8~MHz each, forming a total bandwidth of 64~MHz. Except for the Miyun and Kunming stations that recorded with 1 bit sampling, the other four stations used 2 bit sampling. The raw data were correlated at the Joint Institute for VLBI in Europe (JIVE), the Netherlands.
The post data reduction was carried out in the {\rm AIPS} software package \cite{Gre90} following the standard procedures (see the {\rm EVN} data analysis guide\footnote{http://www.evlbi.org/user\_guide/guide/userguide.html}). The amplitudes of the visibility data were calibrated using the system temperatures measured during the observations and the antenna gains. The visibility amplitudes of the calibrator DA~193 on each baseline were used to refine the amplitude scales for the Miyun and Kunming data. The parallactic angles were determined for each telescope and then used to correct the visibility phases. 4C~39.25 and DA 193 were applied to calibrate the complex bandpass response. Fringe fitting on DA~193 over a 10-min time span was used to align the phase delays between the channels. Global fringe fitting over the whole observing time with a solution interval of 2 minutes was used to solve for the delays and phase rates. After fringe fitting, the derived gain solutions were applied to the visibility data, which then were split into single-source data sets. The single-source data were imported to the DIFMAP software package \cite{She97,Pea94} to perform editing, self-calibration and imaging. For each source, a few iterations of phase-only self-calibration were applied to remove antenna-based residual phase errors. Next a few iterations of both amplitude and phase self-calibration were applied to eliminate amplitude calibration errors and to improve the dynamic range of the final image.
\section{RESULTS AND ANALYSIS}
\label{result}
\subsection{Images}
The analysis of the proper motions of the ten CSO candidates incorporates the data obtained from our observations in 2005 and 2009 as well as archival VLBA data, mainly from the VLBA Calibrator Search program \citep[{\rm VCS}:][]{Bea02,Pet08} and the {\rm COINS} program \cite{Pec00}. The total intensity images are displayed in Figures \ref{fig:j0017}--\ref{fig:j2312}. Table \ref{tab:map} lists the parameters of the images, including the restoring beam, the peak intensity ($I_{peak}$), the {\it rms} noise ($\sigma_{rms}$), and the contour levels.
Two sources (J1734+0926 and J2203+1007) have two compact components with sharp boundaries at the outer edges and with nearly equal brightness at 8.4 GHz. The simultaneous multiple-frequency observations indicate a steep spectral index for the symmetric components (Paper II), which identifies them as CSO hot spots. J1324+4048 is also characterized by two compact steep-spectrum components and is identified as a CSO candidate.
Four sources (J0132+5620, J0518+4730, J1335+5844, and J1511+0518) display a triple structure with two bright terminal hot spots and a central component located approximately at the geometric center. Contrary to the other three triple-morphology sources, the central component in J0518+4730 is the brightest one. While the central component in J1511+0518 is identified as the flat-spectrum core, the identification of the central components in the other three awaits more observations with appropriately high resolution and sensitivity. More detailed discussion of the radio structures will be given in Section \ref{section:individual}.
\subsection{Model fitting and error analysis}
The quantitative study of the kinematics of the compact VLBI components employed Gaussian model fitting with the visibilities using the program {\rm MODELFIT} in {\rm DIFMAP}. Elliptical Gaussian components were fitted and subtracted in sequence until the residual peak intensity in the map was lower than 5 times the {\it rms} noise. Components that were too extended and complex were fitted with circular Gaussians taking more care of their peak positions. The fitting of components with a deconvolved size much smaller than the restoring beam always degenerated into a linear structures. These sources were fitted with circular Gaussians and an upper limit was set to the source size following the approach described in \citep{Lob05}.
The identification of components is based on the (accurate) determination of their positions at all epochs. Multiple emission components having a similar size and flux density and a smaller difference in position between adjacent epochs have been identified as the same component.
Table \ref{tab:modfit} lists the fitted parameters with the uncertainties given in brackets. The uncertainty of the integrated flux density ($S_{int}$) of the Gaussian component arises from two components, the measurement error ($\sigma_{M}$) and calibration error ($\sigma_{C}$). The measurement error $\sigma_{M}$ of the integrated flux density is described by the post-fitted {\it rms} fluctuations ($\sigma_{m}$) in the residual map multiplied by the apparent source size $\theta_{app}$ versus the restoring beam, {\it i.e.}, $\sigma_{M}= \frac{\theta_{app}}{\theta_{FWHM}}\sigma_{m}$. The error $\sigma_{M}$ is very sensitive to the apparent source size: for compact components it roughly equals the {\it rms} noise, while for weak and extended components it may become much larger. The calibration error $\sigma_{C}$ is determined from the calibration of the visibility amplitude.
The amplitude calibration for the VLBI data was determined from system temperatures at two-minute intervals during the observations together with the antenna gain curves provided by each VLBI station. The amplitude calibration error may be estimated from the telescope amplitude correction factors during amplitude self-calibration. In most sources, this calibration error accounts for a few percent of the integrated flux density. Because of the diversity of the antenna performance of the Chinese and European antennas and the absence of large sensitive telescopes in the present observations, a conservative value was adopted for the average amplitude calibration uncertainty of 6 percent for the 8.4-GHz data. For the {\rm VLBA} data used in this analysis, the amplitude calibration uncertainty was assumed to be 5 percent at 5 GHz, 6 percent at 8.4 GHz and 7 percent at 15 GHz {\rm VLBA} calibration manual \cite{Ulv07}. The final error for the integrated flux density of the Gaussian component is expressed as $\sigma_{S_i} = \sqrt{\sigma_{M}^2 + \sigma_{C}^2}$.
The first order position uncertainty of the fitted components is represented by the ratio of the size of the restoring beam to the signal-to-noise ratio of the fitted component, $\frac{\theta_{FWHM}}{2 SNR}$, where $SNR=I_{peak} / \sigma_m$ \cite{Fom99}. Since the CSO core is always very weak, the relative proper motion of a jet or hot spot is actually measured with respect to a reference, which is often the brightest hot spot. Small deviations have been found for the fitted peak positions of the brightest VLBI components from the image centers at a level of a few tenths of a pixel size. This deviation of the peak position away from the image center has been treated as a systematic error of the reference point, which is included into the position errors of other components. For bright and compact components, the position error propagated from the reference point dominates over the position error defined by the signal-to-noise ratio. On the other hand, the first term of the position errors ($\frac{\theta_{FWHM}}{2 SNR}$) becomes dominant in extended components. The uncertainty of the separation $\sigma_{R}$ equals the position error, and the uncertainty of the position angle $\sigma_{\theta}$ has been defined as $atan(\frac{\sigma_R}{R}$).
\subsection{Proper motion determination}
The proper motions of VLBI components are determined as the rate of change in the separation of the component away from a reference point with time. The core is used as the reference when it is sufficiently bright and well confirmed. Otherwise, one of the terminal hot spots is used as the reference. For the sources with more than three-epoch data, linear regression fitting has been made to obtain the proper motion and also the epoch of zero separation. For sources with two-epoch data, the proper motions are calculated directly from the two data points. The proper motions are first determined separately along the relative ascension and declination directions ($\mu_\alpha$ and $\mu_\delta$), respectively. The motions of ($\mu_\alpha, \mu_\delta$) of each component are then converted to a representation along and perpendicular to the jet direction, {\it i.e.}, ($\mu_r, \mu_t$) using a Cartesian reference frame: $\mu_r = \mu_\alpha \sin(PA) + \mu_\delta\cos(PA)$, $\mu_t = -\mu_\alpha \cos(PA) + \mu_\delta\sin(PA)$. A mean position angle of the jet or hot spot is used in the calculations and the uncertainty in ($\mu_r, \mu_t$) is derived from the fitting errors of ($\mu_\alpha, \mu_\delta$) following standard error propagation. Tables \ref{tab:pm} and \ref{tab:pm2} present the proper motion measurements above 2$\sigma$.
\subsection{CSO identification}
A CSO is strictly defined by the presence of a compact, flat- or inverted-spectrum core located between two steep-spectrum jets or outer hot spots of scale size less than 1~kpc \citep{Wil94,Pec00}.
In this paper, the sources are identified as CSOs using two major criteria:
\newline (1) {\it Morphology and Spectral Index} -
The source is characterized by two symmetric, compact steep-spectrum lobes or hot spots, and in some cases, the central flat-spectrum core is also visible. The spectral indices of the VLBI components are derived from the multi-frequency data in epoch 2005 (Paper II);
\newline (2) {\it Kinematics} A mirror symmetric motion pattern of the hot spots relative to a central position, even if there is no radio emission detected, is indicative of the existence of a central core in a CSOs. Otherwise, a flat-spectrum component appearing at one end of the radio structure (as in radio-loud blazars) is classified as a "core-jet" source. In addition, for CSOs with visible cores, flux variability is also used as a cross check for core identification.
Following the above criteria, J1756+5748 and J2312+3847 (core-jet sources) have been ruled out for the CSO sample. The nature of J0017+5312 is considered doubtful. J1324+4048 is identified as a CSO candidate and the remaining six sources are identified as CSOs. The CSO sources J0132+5260 and J1511+0518 are confirmed as such for the first time.
\section{DESCRIPTION OF INDIVIDUAL SOURCES}
\label{section:individual}
\subsection{J0017+5312 (Core-Jet)}
\label{section:j0017}
The core-jet sourceJ0017+5312 is associated with a quasar at redshift $z=2.574$ (1 mas = 7.926 pc) \cite{SE05}. Its total flux density spectrum turns over at around 5 GHz \cite{Mar99}. The 1.5-GHz NVSS image shows a compact component with a flux density of $\sim$380 mJy and a weak extension $\sim$30\arcsec{} ($\sim$240 kpc) northwest of the core (Figure \ref{fig:j0017}-b) with a peak intensity of about 8 times the {\it rms} noise. However, this extended component is not detected in the VLA images at 8 and 43 GHz (VLA/NRAO archive) suggesting a steep spectrum. This extended feature may represent the relic from nuclear activity at a previous epoch. The morphology of a compact jet along with a distant extended lobe is common in core-jet sources in which the advancing jet is Doppler boosted, and it is also observed in other CSOs (J0108+388; Baum et al. 1990). In the 2.3-GHz VLBA images, J0017+5312 shows a slightly resolved structure with a projected source size of $\sim$40 pc (VCS archive).
As an example, Figure \ref{fig:j0017}-a shows the source structure derived from the 8.4-GHz observations in 1994 and 2005. Two compact components {\rm A} and {\rm B} dominate the total flux density, while the extension {\rm C} to the northwest (PA$=-65\degr$) aligns with the VLA extended feature.
Both {\rm A} and {\rm B} show inverted spectra with a turnover between 5 and 8 GHz, and the high-frequency spectral index, $\alpha^{15.4}_{8.4}\approx 0.7$, identifies both as steep-spectrum components. The weak component {\rm C} has a much steeper spectrum with $\alpha^{15.4}_{1.7}=1.1$ (Paper II).
Although the 8.4-GHz radio structure of J0017+5312 has the morphology of a typical CSO, the absence of a flat-spectrum central core renders the CSO identification less certain.
The spectral index map shows a hint of a flatter-spectrum region at the outer edge of the eastern lobe (Paper II), if it is not an artifact, invoking a core-jet interpretation of the source structure. In this scenario, the visible emission structure in VLBI images and the extended VLA feature are associated with a single-sided jet.
Similar to many other CSS quasars, the active nucleus of J0017+5312 is likely obscured by the bright innermost jet and the core itself is dimmed due to either synchrotron self-absorption or free-free absorption (as for the weak nucleus and the bright inner hot spot {\rm B} in 3C~48: An et al. 2010).
Although the possibility of a CSO classification for J0017+5312 is not fully excluded, we tentatively identify J0017+5312 as a core-jet source.
Besides the observational data in 2005, also the archival 8-GHz VLBA data of J0017+5312 observed in 1994 has been mapped. A direct comparison of the radio images in epochs 1994 and 2005 shows a shrinking of the source size (Figure \ref{fig:j0017}-a). The separation of {\rm B}--{\rm A} decreases by 0.132 mas and {\rm C}--{\rm A} decreases by 0.367 mas within a time span of 10.73 year. That gives rise to a relative proper motion of 12.3 $\mu$as yr$^{-1}$ ({\rm B}) and 34.1 $\mu$as yr$^{-1}$ ({\rm C}) toward {\rm A}, corresponding to apparent transverse velocities of $1.1\,c$ (B) and $3.2\,c$ (C), respectively. However, in analogy with previous reports of contraction of radio sources (e.g., J0650+6001: Akujor et al. 1996, Orienti \& Dallacasa 2010; J11584+2450: Tremblay et al. 2008), the apparent contraction in J0017+5312 may result from a bias resulting from the motion of the innermost jet, which is used as the reference for proper motion measurements. In this picture, the reference component {\rm A} in J0017+5312 is actually a combination of a bright moving component (jet knot) and a weak stationary component (core). A new and younger jet knot is created at a later epoch and an older hot spot has advanced out of the core and fades at a larger distance. Therefore, the apparent shrinking of the source size may actually reflect the motion of the internal jet knot and not the real contraction of the radio source.
\subsection{J0132+5620 (CSO)}
The optical redshift of the host galaxy of J0132+5620 is not available in the literature. This source was included in the {\rm COINS} sample and has been observed with $\sim$1\,mas resolution during 1997 and 2002 \cite{Pec00,Gug05}. It displays a symmetric double-source structure in the East-West direction at 2.3 GHz (VCS archive).
Figure \ref{fig:j0132} shows the 8.4-GHz images of J0132+5620 derived from the new 2009 observations and the previous ones made in 2000, 2002 and 2005 (Peck \& Taylor 2000; Gugliucci et al. 2005; the current paper). The source components identified with model fitting (see Table \ref{tab:modfit}) are labeled in the images following the nomenclature used in Peck \& Taylor (2000). The emission structure is dominated by two hot spots {\rm D1} at the western end and {\rm A} at the eastern end of the radio source, respectively. The continuous emission structure connecting {\rm D1} and {\rm A} present in the 2.3- and 5-GHz images has been resolved at 8.4 GHz. Four internal jet components are detected in the intermediate region between {\rm A} and {\rm D1}. There is a weak component {\rm B2} midway between the two hot spots.
The two lobes are separated by about 12\,mas, and the western one appears brighter with an intensity ratio $R_{W:E}\sim$1.2:1 at 2.3 GHz. Both lobes show a rising spectrum at lower frequencies
(eastern lobe: $\alpha^{2.3}_{1.7}=-0.4$; western lobe: $\alpha^{2.3}_{1.7}=-0.4$) and a steep spectrum at higher frequencies (eastern lobe: $\alpha^{15.4}_{5.0}=3.0$; western lobe: $\alpha^{15.4}_{5.0}=2.2$)
with turnovers around 2.3 GHz (the western lobe) and 5 GHz (the eastern lobe) (Paper II). At 5 GHz and higher frequencies, the western and eastern lobes are resolved into several sub-components. The simultaneous 5- and 8-GHz data in 2005 give rise to an upper limit of the spectral index of {\rm B2} $\alpha^{8.4GHz}_{5.0GHz}\lesssim0.0$ (Paper II). All other VLBI components show steep spectra. Since {\rm B2} is the only flat-spectrum VLBI component and lies near the geometric center of J0132+5620, it is most likely that {\rm B2} is associated with the core. Future simultaneous VLBI observations at 5 and 8.4 GHz with high sensitivity are needed to confirm the core identification of {\rm B2}.
The flux densities of lobe-dominated CSOs usually do not vary rapidly. Except for the earliest (1994 August 12, or 1994.609) and the latest epochs (2009 August 5, or 2009.593), the flux densities of the two hot spots from epoch 1998.204 to epoch 2005.339 show a variation of less than 5 percent (Table \ref{tab:modfit}). This variability level is within the amplitude calibration uncertainty of the VLBA data. The increase of the flux density of {\rm D2} and {\rm A} in epochs 2009.593 and 1994.609 may partly result from overestimated scaling of the visibility amplitude and/or mis-calibrated correction factors when using the amplitude self-calibration. The suspicious core {\rm B2}, due to its weakness, does not show any variability from the only two-epoch observations.
In combination with our observations of J0132+5620 in 2005 and 2009, six epochs VLBI data at 8.4 and 15.4 GHz have been collected from the NRAO archive with a maximum time span of $\sim$15 years. Figures \ref{fig:j0132}-e and \ref{fig:j0132}-f superpose the total intensity images derived from the observations in 2002 and 2000, as well as in 2009 and 2000, respectively. The images have been re-created with the same cutoffs of the ({\it u,v}) range, the same cell size and the same restoring beam. The source structures revealed by the three data sets are exactly consistent with each other, except that the 2009 image does not detect the central component {\rm B2}. The direct comparison of the images in different epochs suggests that the separation between the two hot spots, or the overall source size, does not change significantly over the 15-year time span. In contrast, the internal jet component {\rm B1} shows a clear motion to the East and the centroid of {\rm C} shifts to the West.
The available data have similar ({\it u,v}) coverage and angular resolutions and reveal self-consistent source structures, which allows for a linear regression analysis of the proper motions of VLBI components. As mentioned above, the suspicious core {\rm B2} is so weak that its position uncertainty accounts for (15--30)\% of the beam size. Such a large position uncertainty prohibits using {\rm B2} as the reference point in proper motion measurements. Instead the compact and bright hot spot {\rm A} has been used as a reference to determine the expansion rates of other components. Figure \ref{fig:j0132}-$g$ displays the 2-dimensional distribution of the VLBI components. The source exhibits a nearly aligned structure along a mean P.A. = $-80.7\degr$. Core component {\rm B2} does not show significant positional changes with respect to {\rm A} between the epochs 2000 and 2002. VLBI monitoring over an even longer time span is necessary to detect any small change of the separation between {\rm B2} and {\rm A}. The hot spot {\rm D1} at the western extreme of the source is not detected with any clear expansion along the jet axis either. On the contrary, {\rm D1} shows a motion to the northeast from epoch 1994 to 2005, in a direction perpendicular to the jet axis. Without including the data point in epoch 2009, which shows large deviation away from the other positions on earlier epochs, the linear regression fitting gives rise to the proper motions of {\rm D1}: $\mu_r=-4.9\pm1.3$ $\mu$as yr$^{-1}$ along the jet axis (toward the reference point), and $\mu_t=-3.7\pm1.3$ $\mu$as yr$^{-1}$ perpendicular to the jet direction. Using the 2-$\sigma$ proper motion uncertainty ($\sim$2.6 $\mu$as yr$^{-1}$) as an upper limit of the hot spot expansion rate, a lower limit of $4700/(1+z)$ year is found for the kinematic age of J0132+5620.
The other three jet components show proper motions in good alignment with the jet axis. This is in agreement with the general picture of young FR~II sources in which the jet material ejected from the central engine feeds the lobes through a channel in which the interstellar medium is swept by the expansion of the hot spots/lobes. Because the hot spot {\rm A} and the core {\rm B2} does not show significant relative motion, the derived proper motions of jet knots can be approximately converted to the velocities relative to the core so as to investigate the variation of jet velocities with the increasing radial distances. The magnitude of the proper motion of the jet components shows a decreasing trend with increasing separations from the core, i.e., $\mu_r=72.7\pm6.8$ $\mu$as yr$^{-1}$ ({\rm B1-B2}, $d\sim3.0$ mas), $\mu_r=59.6\pm4.0$ $\mu$as yr$^{-1}$ ({\rm C-B2}, $d\sim5.0$ mas), and $\mu_r=27.8\pm1.8$ $\mu$as yr$^{-1}$ ({\rm D2-B2}, $d\sim6.0$ mas). Such a systematic change in the jet proper motions does not likely result from geometric projection effects, since this source lies close to the plane of the sky. Moreover it seems unrealistic that the initial speeds of the jet knots change significantly within a few years.
A possible interpretation of this systematic change is that the jet components are ejected from the central nucleus at a constant
initial velocity, and they experience a deceleration process before reaching the terminal hot spot. A simple picture of the motion of a jet knot or condensation in the underlying jet flow calls for a balance of its internal jet pressure with the ram pressure $\rho_e v_j^2$, where $\rho_e$ is the density of the ISM surrounding the jet, and $v_j$ is the advancing speed or equivalently the bulk velocity of the jet knot. Assuming that the jet thrust ($F_j=\pi r_j^2 \rho_e v^2_j$) remains constant and the density $\rho_e$ is a weak function of the distance from the core, then the variation of the advancing speed of the jet knot is correlated with the change of the radius of the jet knot. It is reasonable to expect an increasing trend for the component size of the jet knot during its propagation outward, as a result, the advancing speed of the jet knot decreases with the increasing distance accordingly. Alternatively, the internal jet pressure remains unchanged and the jet is confined by ram pressure. The density of the ISM surrounding the jet knot will then increase with distance as the jet approaches the lobe due to enhanced back-flow. As the result, the jet experiences a deceleration when passing through the denser ISM.
The mirror symmetry of both the radio morphology and jet motions provides strong evidence for the presence of a central core between {\rm B1} and {\rm C}, most likely associated with {\rm B2}. The present kinematic study confirms the CSO identification of J0132+5620.
Assuming that the brighter hot spot {\rm D1} is associated with the advancing lobe and {\rm A}
represents the terminal hot spot in the receding lobe, we may derive constraints on the kinematic
parameters of the jet from the intensity ratio $R_i$ of the advancing and receding jets:
\begin{equation}
R_i=\frac{S_{adv}}{S_{rec}} = (\frac{1+\beta\cos\theta_v}{1-\beta\cos\theta_v})^{3+\alpha}
\label{equ:iratio},
\end{equation}
where $S_{adv}$ and $S_{rec}$ represent the flux density of the advancing and receding hot spots, $\theta_v$ is the viewing angle between the jet axis and the line of sight, and $\alpha$ is the spectral index of the jet, defined as $S\propto\nu^{-\alpha}$. Assuming the advancing and receding jets are ejected at an equal speed and the intensity difference between
hot spots is solely attributed to the Doppler boosting effect, the calculations using the intensity
ratio of $S_{D1}/S_{A}$ give rise to $\beta\cos\theta_v\sim0.24\,c$. This number suggests
mildly relativistic jet flow moving at a modest viewing angle.
The redshift of J0132+5620 is not known yet, therefore the conversion from the angular size to
physical size remains uncertain. Assuming a moderate viewing angle $\theta_v=45\degr$, we
get a jet velocity $\beta=0.34\,c$ and an apparent velocity $\beta_{app}=0.32\,c$. The mean
angular velocity of the internal jet knots is $53$ $\mu$as yr$^{-1}$, resulting in a conversion
factor of 1~mas yr$^{-1}=5.9\,c$. This would place J0132+5620 in the nearby Universe at a
redshift of $z\sim0.1$. Further optical spectroscopic observations of this source are necessary to
verify the redshift of this source.
\subsection{J0518+4730 (CSO)}
CSO source J0518+4730 is another source from the COINS sample \cite{Pec00} but it has no known optical redshift. The VLBI image derived from the present 8.4-GHz data displays a triple structure (Figure \ref{fig:j0518}), in good agreement with previous observations at similar frequencies (Peck \& Taylor 2000). The eastern and western components show a slight misalignment with a difference of $\sim17\degr$ in position angle. Gugliucci et al. (2005) classified J0518+4730 as a core-jet source and identified the easternmost component {\rm A} as the core.
However, the observations in 2005 indicate a steep spectrum for {\rm A} ($\alpha^{15.4}_{1.7}=1.2$) and {\rm C} ($\alpha^{15.4}_{1.7}=0.8$). The central component {\rm B} is the most compact component, but it also has a steep spectrum with $\alpha^{15.4}_{5.0}=0.7$ (Paper II). B is most likely associated with the innermost jet in the vicinity of the core. Therefore, J0518+4730 may be classified as a CSO with a triple morphology.
Using component {\rm B} as a reference, the proper motion of the hot spot {\rm A} is along the jet axis with an expansion velocity $\mu_r=29.8\pm2.9$ $\mu$as yr$^{-1}$. Component {\rm C} appears to move toward the core from epochs 1996 to 2005 at a rate of $25.7\pm1.9$ $\mu$as yr$^{-1}$. As discussed in Section \ref{section:j0017}, the apparent inward motion of the hot spot {\rm C} may be interpreted as a change in the emission structure of the hot spot within the lobe or the motion of the reference point {\rm B} itself. Both the flux density and component size of {\rm B} show a monotone increase at 8.4 GHz from epoch 1996 to epoch 2005. This provides a support for the creation of a new component at the jet base. When the newly formed jet component dominates the emission of the core, the propagation of the jet downstream would probably result in the observed shortening of the western arm {\rm B--C} if the reference point is bound to the moving component {\rm B}. If this scenario is correct, the observations suggest that the newly ejected jet knot {\rm B} moves at $\sim$27.8 $\mu$as yr$^{-1}$ to the southeast, and the two hot spots move at $\sim$2 $\mu$as yr$^{-1}$ away from the core assuming they have same expansion velocities. Inspection of the change of the {\rm A--C} arm length with time leads to an expansion rate of 3.6 $\mu$as yr$^{-1}$, in agreement with the above scenario that {\rm B} is a moving component in the vicinity of the core. The expansion velocity corresponds to a kinematic age of $\sim1200/(1+z)$ year. VLBI monitoring of the time evolution of the spectral index, the radio flux density, and the component size of {\rm B} will be needed to confirm the above interpretation of the jet kinematics and to further constrain the kinematic age of this source.
\subsection{J1324+4048 (CSO Candidate)}
CSO candidate source J1324+4048 is associated with a quasar at redshift of 0.496(1 mas = 5.898 pc) \cite{Ver96}. Figure \ref{fig:j1324}-a displays the 8.4-GHz image observed on 2009 August 5. The source is characterized by two compact components along PA=$-83\degr$ with a separation of 32.4~pc, in agreement with previous VLBI observations at close frequencies \citep{Hen95,Bri08}. These two components show a steep spectrum, {\it i.e.}, $\alpha^{15.4}_{2.3}=1.2$ (eastern) and $\alpha^{15.4}_{2.3}=0.7$ (western) (Paper II).
The symmetric morphology, edge-brightening and steep spectra of two components identify J1324+4048 as a CSO, even though a flat-spectrum core is not identifiable from these observations. However an alternative interpretation of a 'core-jet' source cannot be fully ruled out. In this scenario, the observed two components are bright knots in a single-sided jet, while the core, which is not detected in the present observations, lies at one end of the jet. In the current paper, J1324+4048 is regarded as a CSO candidate and the bright components are hot spots.
Figure \ref{fig:j1324}-b shows the positions of {\rm B} with {\rm A} as the reference. The separation between the two hot spots {\rm A} and {\rm B} does not show a significant change between epochs 1993 and 2005. This is consistent with the nondetection of radial expansion between 1993 and 1998 \citep{Bri08}. {\rm B} appears to move in a loop-like trajectory: after moving to the north from 1993 to 2005 it abruptly turns to the southwest in 2009. This wandering of the hot spot is indicative that the jet head impacts on a wall of external medium at different sites before finding a way to breaks through the obstacle, in analogy with the picture of the 'dentist's drill' model, first proposed to explain the multiple hot spots in FR II galaxies \cite{Sch82}. In order to avoid systematic errors of component positions due to frequency-dependence opacity, only 8.4-GHz data were used for the proper motion analysis. Linear regression fitting to the position variations of {\rm B} with the time gives a radial expansion velocity of $v_{r}=0.12\pm0.04\,c$, resulting in a kinematic age of $870\pm290$ years
Another interesting result is that both {\rm A} and {\rm B} show variability on time scales of a few years (shown in Figure \ref{fig:j1324}-$c$). The flux densities of {\rm A} and {\rm B} at both 5 and 8.4 GHz decrease since epoch 1993 until they reach a minimum in epoch 2005, reflecting the fading of the hot spots due to adiabatic expansion. After that, the flux densities of both components shows a significant increase (by 40 percent) in epoch 2009. A jet component {\rm B2} is detected at the starting of the western mini-lobe since 1998. Comparison of the epochs 2005 and 2009 data suggests a superluminal velocity of $v_{r}(B2)=2.2\pm0.5\,c$ along the jet axis. The feeding of the relativistic jet flow into the lobe may be responsible for the flux density increase of the hot spot {\rm B}. In addition, the flux ratio of two hot spots ($S_A/S_B$) flips after epoch 1998. Before 1998, the ratio was $S_A/S_B=1.2$ in epoch 1993 and changed to $\sim$0.96 in epochs 2005 and 2009. The flux density ratio flip invokes different jet power of the two-sided jets or a different conversion efficiency from jet kinetic energy to radiation energy in two lobes.
\subsection{J1335+5844 (CSO)}
The host galaxy of J1335+5844 (also named as 4C $+$58.26, $m_V=22$) was found to be too faint to measure the redshift.
Stanghellini et al. (2009) estimated a photometric redshift of 0.57 for this source (1 mas = 6.331 pc).
The source has been identified as a High Frequency Peaker (HFP) with a turnover frequency at about 5 GHz \cite{Dal00}.
The 8.4-GHz image derived from the VLBA observation in 2004 (see also Fig. 1 in Dallacasa et al. 2005, and Fig. 2 in Stanghellini et al. 2009) is shown in the left panel of Figure \ref{fig:j1335}. The VLBI image exhibits a triple source structure in a north-south direction with a total extent of $\sim$13 mas (84.5 pc). The northern component is characterized by a compact bright head which is fitted with three Guassian components {\rm A1}, {\rm A2} and {\rm A3}. The northern component shows an elongated extension tracing back to the central component {\rm C}, which is clearly detected in high-dynamic-range images in epochs 2004 and 2006, whereas there is only a hint of emission ($\lesssim 3\sigma$) at other epochs. Comparison of the epoch 2005 8.4-GHz image and the tapered 15.4-GHz image gives a rough estimate of the spectral index of {\rm C} with $\alpha^{15.4GHz}_{8.4GHz}\lesssim 0.4$. The recent multi-frequency VLBA observations of J1335+5844 made in 2010 confirm the flat spectral index of {\rm C} (D.~Dallacasa, private communication). Therefore, we consider J1335+5844 as a CSO in light of the compact symmetric structures with respect to a central component.
The southern component appears more extended to the west and the northeast, where {\rm B2} and {\rm B3} are fitted, respectively. The brightest northern subcomponent {\rm A1} shows a relatively flat spectrum with $\alpha_{8.4GHz}^{15GHz}\sim 0.02$, in agreement with previous measurements \cite{Ori06a}. The 15-GHz data present a deconvolved source size of $0.29\times0.13$ (mas) for {\rm A1}, corresponding to a brightness temperature of $7\times10^{10}$ K. A fit using the synchrotron self-absorption model to the spectrum of the entire northern component ('A1+A2+A3') gives a turnover frequency as high as 11 GHz (Paper II). The high turnover frequency and high brightness temperature of the northern bright head {\rm A1} are consistent with an interpretation that {\rm A1} represents a very compact hot spot \citep{Ori06a} and the flatness of the spectrum results from the injection of fresh particles from the central engine. If the spectrum turnover is dominantly due to synchrotron self-absorption, the observations would suggest a magnetic field with a strength of $B=0.05$ Gauss under the assumption of the equipartition between the magnetic field and particle energy. Such a high level of magnetic field strength seems to be common for HFPs \cite{OD08}.
J1335+5844 was observed at 8.4 GHz at five epochs between 1994 August and 2006 November and may be used for proper motion analysis. We note that the model fitting of weak components (e.g., {\rm A2} and {\rm A3}) is susceptible to the internal emission structure change of the close-by brightest component. Their fitted parameters show large fluctuations and prevent any reliable proper motion calculation. Moreover, model fitting in the visibility domain is sensitive to the {\it uv} sampling. For example, the component {\rm A4} failed to obtain good fits in epochs 1994 and 2005 due to relative poor {\it uv} coverage. For these reasons, the proper motions are only computed for the bright and compact components {\rm B1}, {\rm B2} and {\rm B3}. The right panel in Figure \ref{fig:j1335} displays the positions of VLBI components {\rm B1}, {\rm B2} and {\rm B3} with the northern hot spot {\rm A1} as a reference. The inner jet {\rm B3} moves much faster than the terminal hot spots. The secondary hot spot {\rm B2} moves faster than the primary hot spot {\rm B1}, which only shows marginal expansion along the jet axis. Interestingly, two hot spots {\rm B1} and {\rm B2} exhibit a dominant motion in the direction perpendicular to the jet axis. The present measurements of proper motions over a time span of 12.2 year confirm the transverse motion of the southern hot spots previously detected by Stanghellini et al. (2009) based on epochs 2004 and 2006 data. The kinematic properties of the hot spots, {\it i.e.} the dominant transverse motion and non-detection of significant radial expansion, are also measured using the 5 GHz data over a time span of 4.2 year \citep{Bri08}. The deceleration of the terminal hot spot and the significant transverse motion likely manifest a confinement of the hot spot expansion by the interstellar medium. The radial velocity of {\rm B1}, $\mu_r = 4.7\pm3.0$ $\mu$as yr$^{-1}$ ($v_r=0.16\pm0.10\,c$), results in a kinetic age of $1800\pm 1150$ year.
\subsection{J1511+0518 (CSO)}
CSO source J1511+0518 is associated with a Seyfert I galaxy at a redshift of 0.084 (1 mas = 1.527 pc; Chavushyan et al. 2001). It displays typical CSO morphological and spectral characteristics: the source is resolved into two hot spots {\rm A} and {\rm C} separated by $\sim$4.8 mas (or 7.3 pc) in East-West direction at 2.3 and 5.0 GHz, while the higher-resolution VLBI images at 8.4 and 15.4 GHz reveal a central component {\rm B} between the two lobes \citep[Figure \ref{fig:j1511}: the current paper; Paper II;][]{OD08}. {\rm A} and {\rm C} show convex spectra with a peak at about 8 and 5 GHz, respectively. {\rm B} exhibits a rising spectrum that probably breaks at $\gtrsim $15 GHz and identifies {\rm B} as the core of the CSO \citep[Paper II;][]{OD08}.
J1511+0518 has been extensively observed at 15 GHz (the MOJAVE campaign). Figure \ref{fig:j1511} shows the 2-dimensional distribution of the VLBI components derived from the archival 15-GHz data during 2005 and 2009.
The hot spot {\rm A} shows a marginal proper motion of $7.0\pm3.3$ $\mu$as yr$^{-1}$ (or $0.038\pm0.018\,c$) to the East. It is in agreement with the previous report of hotspot-hotspot expansion velocity of 0.1$c$ \cite{OD08}.
The arm length {\rm C1-B} is not found to change significantly in the jet-axis direction, but the peak position of {\rm C1} drifts through the lobe. The proper motion of {\rm C2} along the jet axis {\bf is} $v_r = 0.15\pm0.02\,c$. {\rm C2} seems to move away from the hot spot {\rm C1} and may represent a deflected outflow originating from the primary hot spot {\rm C1} \cite{Lai81,LB86}. The kinematic age based on the proper motion of {\rm A} is $300\pm140$ year.
\subsection{J1734+0926 (CSO)}
CSO source J1734+0926 (PKS 1732+094) is associated with a galaxy of magnitude $m_{R_C}=20.8$ and at redshift of 0.735 (1 mas = 7.086 pc) \cite{deV07}. The source is identified as a CSO based on the morphology with two edge-brightened hot spots
($\alpha^{15.4}_{2.3}(A)= 1.1$, $\alpha^{15.4}_{2.3}(B)= 1.3$: Paper II) and an extension toward the geometric center, where the core is too weak to be detected \citep{Sta99,Pec00}. Figure \ref{fig:j1734}(top) displays the radio structure of J1734+0926. The projected separation between two hot spots is about 100 pc. The positional variation of the hot spot {\rm A1} relative to {\rm B1} is displayed in the inset of Figure \ref{fig:j1734}(bottom). The separation of {\rm A1-B1} shows a back-and-forth oscillation with an overall expansion rate of $6.3\pm3.0$ $\mu$as yr$^{-1}$ (or $0.12\pm0.05\,c$), corresponding to a kinematic age of $1300\pm620$ year.
\subsection{J1756+5748 (Core-Jet)}
Core-jet source J1756+5748 has been identified with a high-redshift quasar ($z=2.11$; Henstock et al. 1997; 1 mas = 8.201 pc) of magnitude 18. The top panel in Figure \ref{fig:j1756} shows the 8.4-GHz image of J1756+5748 obtained from the observations in 2009. The radio structure is characterized by a series of bright knots in the East-West direction, consistent with previous observations at 5 GHz \citep{Tay94,Bri08}. From the observations reported in Paper II, the knot {\rm D1} at the western extreme of the source has the flattest spectral index $\alpha^{15.4GHz}_{8.4GHz}=0.0\pm0.1$, and is identified as the radio core. The other components show steep spectra with $\alpha^{15.4}_{2.3}>0.7$. J1756+5748 is classified as a core-jet source.
Figure \ref{fig:j1756}(bottom) displays the 2-dimensional distribution of the jet components and their general eastern motion relative to {\rm D1}. The component {\rm A1} moves to the northeast from epoch 1998 to 2005, whereas it appears to move backwards from 2005 to 2009. We note that this apparent backward motion of {\rm A1} probably results from internal changes of the emission structure in the eastern knots. {\rm A1} is located in the vicinity of the brightest VLBI component {\rm A2} and thus is prone to a change of the emission structure of {\rm A2}. The intensity change of the brightest jet knot {\rm A2} likely result in the apparent inward motion of {\rm A1}. A linear regression fit has been made to obtain the proper motion velocities of the components along the jet axis of $80\degr$: for {\rm A2} 31.8$\pm$1.3 $\mu$as yr$^{-1}$ , for {\rm B} 82.5$\pm$1.8 $\mu$as yr$^{-1}$, and for {\rm C} $34.0\pm7.2$ $\mu$as yr$^{-1}$. These angular velocities correspond to $2.6\,c$, $6.9\,c$ and $2.8\,c$ for A2, B and C, respectively. In 1994 and 1998, the inner jet knot {\rm D2} was still blended with the core {\rm D1}. Since epoch 2005, {\rm D2} has been well separated from {\rm D1}. The 2005 and 2009 data give a proper motion of {\rm D2} of $\mu_r=$25.5 $\mu$as yr$^{-1}$ to the northeast. The kinematic ages of the jet components derived from the proper motions are $116\pm5$ year (A2), $35\pm1$ year (B), $31\pm7$ year (C) and $\sim$11 year (D2). The proper motion direction and the gradually increasing kinematic ages downstream in the jet confirm the core-jet identification of the source.
\subsection{J2203+1007 (CSO)}
The CSO source J2203+1007 is likely associated with a galaxy of magnitude 22.02 at a redshift of 1.005 (1 mas = 7.830 pc) \cite{Hea08}. The radio spectrum of the source shows a convex spectrum with a peak at $\sim$5 GHz, which identifies it as a HFP \cite{Dal00}. The VLBI images of the source display a double-component morphology at 1.7 and 2.3 GHz.
At 5.0 GHz and higher frequencies, both the eastern and western component shows a steep spectrum with $\alpha^{15.4}_{5.0}=1.1\pm0.2$ (East) and $\alpha^{15.4}_{5.0}=1.3\pm0.2$ (West).
The morphology of both components (Figure \ref{fig:j2203}) display sharp outer edges and an extension toward the geometric center similar with that of J1734+0926. All the lobes and internal jet components are found to have steep spectral indices between 5.0 and 15.4 GHz ranging from 1.2 to 1.7 (Paper II). The central core probably lies between components {\rm B} and {\rm D2} but it is too weak to be detected. The western components {\rm D2} and {\rm D1} show relative proper motion of $21.1\pm4.8$ $\mu$as yr$^{-1}$ ($1.13\pm0.26\,c$: D2) and $10.3\pm3.6$ $\mu$as yr$^{-1}$ ($0.53\pm0.18\,c$: D1) with respect to {\rm A1}.
The angular velocity of {\rm D1} is consistent with the upper limit derived by Gugliucci et al. (2005).
The kinematic age for this source is about $500\pm180$ year.
\subsection{J2312+3847 (Core-Jet)}
Core-jet source J2312+3847 is a high-redshift ($z$=2.17; 1 mas = 8.171 pc) quasar with an optical magnitude of 17.5 \cite{Hew93}. The source exhibits a double-component structure in northeast-southwest direction at frequencies below 8 GHz, and the two components have almost equal flux densities (VCS archive). At 8.4 and 15.4 GHz, the southwest component is resolved into three sub-components, and the whole source displays a triple morphology \citep[Figure \ref{fig:j2312}: the current paper;][]{Hen95}. The radio structure of the source can be fitted with four components, namely {\rm A, B, C} and {\rm D} from northeast to southwest. {\rm D} has a flat spectrum with a spectral index $\alpha^{15.4GHz}_{8,4GHz}=-0.3$ and therefore is identified as the radio core (Paper II). The position angles of the jet components show an increasing trend from the innermost outwards, likely corresponding to a smooth jet bending.
Linear regression fitting gives a proper motion of A, $29.5\pm4.6$ $\mu$as yr$^{-1}$ (or $2.5\pm0.4\,c$) along a position angle 54\degr. The kinematic age of {\rm A} derived from the proper motion is 71$\pm$16 year.
Britzen et al. measured the expansion velocity of {\rm D} \citep[their definition 'C2':][]{Bri08} as $v_r=4.4\pm2.1\,c$ using component {\rm A} as a reference from 5-GHz VLBI data sets. This separation velocity of {\rm A-D} is consistent with ours within the uncertainty. The proper motion of {\rm B} is $61.3\pm4.7$ $\mu$as yr$^{-1}$ (or $5.2\pm0.4\,c$) along the jet axis, corresponding to a kinematic age of only 16$\pm$1 year. {\rm C} is the brightest component in J2312+3847 and moves to the northeast with a velocity of $23.0\pm4.3$ $\mu$as yr$^{-1}$ (or $1.9\pm0.4\,c$). The derived kinematic age of $\rm C$ of 26$\pm$5 year is a bit higher than that of $\rm B$. A possibility for the lower velocity (or higher age) of {\rm C} is that {\rm C} has passed through a stationary stage during the observing sessions. Stationary components located at the starting section of the supersonic jet seem to be common in blazars at a distance of a few parsecs away from the core \cite{Jor01}. Such stationary features could correspond to standing re-collimation shocks, which result from abrupt changes in the pressure of the external interstellar medium, or are generated as a result of deflection by dense clouds. In the re-collimation shocks or compressed shocks at the interface of jet-cloud interaction, both the particle density and magnetic field energy density might be substantially enhanced, resulting in brightening of the stationary jet components. If the jet losses a significant fraction of the kinetic power at the stationary shocks, the jet fluid may not maintain laminar flow and becomes turbulent downstream \cite{KB07}. In FR I jets, bright hot spots are often observed at the transition (hundred of parsecs from the core) between collimated and diffuse jet \citep[{\it e.g.}, hot spot B in 3C~48:][]{Wil91,Wor04,Feng05,An10}, indicating that jet kinetic energy is released through radiation at the standing shock.
\section{Summary and Conclusion}
New 8.4-GHz observations have been presented for four sources from a subsample of ten CSO candidates with a VLBI network consisting of four Chinese and two European telescopes on 2009 August 5. The four sources have been mapped with high sensitivity with a typical noise of 0.3 mJy beam$^{-1}$ and with sub-milliarcsecond resolution. The source structures are in excellent agreement with previous VLBI observations. The observations demonstrate that the inclusion of the two new Chinese telescopes (Miyun 50-meter and Kunming 40-meter) greatly improves the ({\it u,v}) coverage of the EVN-CVN on long baselines and significantly increases the detectability of the VLBI network to map fine structures of compact astronomical objects.
Use has also been made of earlier VLBA observational data in 2005 and archival data of ten CSO candidates to determine the expansion velocities of the hot spots. The long time baseline between the present observations and the earliest ones resulted in a better determination and constraint of the expansion velocities of hot spots and proper motions of the jet components with a highest accuracy of $\sim$1.3 $\mu$as yr$^{-1}$.
The major results from the current paper can be summarized as follows :
\newline
(1)
Six out of ten sources are identified as CSOs, and the expansion velocities or limits are determined for all ten sources.
Two of these CSOs (J1734+0926 and J2203+1007) are characterized by symmetric double hot spots with sharp leading edges and extensions toward the geometric center in the 8.4-GHz images, while the central cores are not detected at this frequency. The remaining four CSOs (J0132+5620, J0518+4730, J1335+5844, J1511+0518) show triple morphology with a central core and two lobes at about equal separations. J1324+4048 is identified as a CSO candidate, and further high-resolution observations are needed to clarify its nature. Two core-jet sources (J1756+5748 and J2312+3847) display one-sided knotty jets with the core at the end of the jet. J0017+5312 is likely a core-jet source, but an unambiguous CSO identification requires the detection of the central core from much higher-resolution observations.
Relative proper motions of the VLBI components in all ten sources have been measured or constrained. For the CSOs with known redshift, the kinematic ages in the source frame range from 300 to 1800 years. The core-jet sources show apparent superluminal motions, suggesting relativistic beaming of the jet flow in these sources.
The internal jet components in the CSO J0132+5620 shows mirror symmetry relative to the central position, confirming the CSO identification of the source. The proper motion velocities of the internal jet knots decrease with increasing distance from the core, likely reflecting the density gradient of the ISM surrounding in the host galaxy. The evolution of the jet velocity with time or radial distance is an important ingredient for sophisticated models describing the dynamical evolution of CSOs and the physical environment in the innermost host galaxies.
\noindent
(2)
The present work adds seven new CSOs with proper motion measurements to the CSO proper motion sample \citep[the current paper;][]{Tay00,Pol03,Gir03,Gug05,Nag06,GP09}. The number of CSOs with known expansion velocities (or limits) has grown from 30 to 37, an increase of 23\%. Among the CSO proper motion sample, 27 sources have redshifts and the source-frame kinematics ages. Eleven out of these 27 have kinematic ages less than 500 years, indicating an overabundance of the young CSOs, which confirms earlier results \cite{Gug05}.
An increasing sample of CSOs with known proper motions will be crucial for clarifying their physical nature and for understanding the dynamical evolution of this class of compact radio sources.
\noindent
(3)
Non-radial motion appears not to be unusual in CSOs. Transverse motions or jet head wandering have been found in both young and intermediate-age CSOs. The hot spots or lobes manifesting transverse motions are also found morphology distortion. Examples of such motions are found in the reflection of the western jet in J1511+0518, and the elongated trail perpendicular to jet axis in J1335+5844. A variety of mechanisms initially proposed for FR II lobes may also be responsible for these complex motion patterns of CSO hot spots, such as changes of the beam direction \cite{Sch82}, jet deflections \cite{LB86}, collimated outflow originating from the primary hot spot \cite{Lai81}, and others. In theoretical models of CSO evolution, a necessary requirement for a CSO to grow into an FR II galaxy is that the jet remains stable against the turbulence before escaping the host galaxy \cite{KA97, KB07}. In other words, the CSOs with distorted jet heads (hot spots) may develop turbulent flow during the CSO or CSS phase, and accordingly these sources will evolve into FR I sources. On the other hand, the CSOs with compact and well-defined lobes characterized by sharp edge-brightened interfaces maintain laminar jet flow and have a chance to evolve into FR IIs. The detailed discussion of the dynamic evolution of CSOs is presented in An \& Baan (in prep.).
\section*{Acknowledgement}
We would like to thank the anonymous referee for his/her constructive comments which help to clarify the paper.
The authors are grateful to the CVN and EVN staff for facilitating these observations, and to the JIVE staff for correlating the data and for help with coordinating the observations. T.A. thanks the Overseas Research Plan for CAS-Sponsored Scholars, the Netherlands Foundation for Sciences (NWO) and the China-Hungary Collaboration and Exchange Program of the CAS. T.A. thanks Carlo Stanghellini providing the epochs 2004 and 2006 data of J1335+5844 and Daniele Dallacasa for discussion of the CSO identification of J1335+5844. F.W. thanks the JIVE Summer Student Program. L.C. thanks the the program of the Light in China's Western Region (Grant No. XBBS201024). The European VLBI Network is a joint facility of European, Chinese, South African and other radio astronomy institutes funded by their national research councils. The National Radio Astronomy Observatory is a facility of the National Science Foundation operated under a cooperative agreement by Associated Universities, Inc. This research has made use of data from the MOJAVE database that is maintained by the MOJAVE team (Lister et al., 2009, AJ, 137, 3718). This research has made use of the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED), which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. This work is supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of Science and Technology of China (Grant No. 2009CB24900), the Science \& Technology Commission of Shanghai Municipality (06DZ22101), and the Knowledge Innovation Program of the Chinese Academy of Sciences.
\input{table}
\end{document}
|
\section{Introduction}
Game theory a branch of applied mathematics, was initially developed for use
in economics by von Neumann and Morgenstern [1] and important contributions
were given by John Nash [2]. It attempts to capture mathematical behavior in
strategic situations, in which an individual's success of making a choice
depends on the choice of the other players. It is usually used to model the
behavior of biological, economical and computer systems. During last few
years, a number of classical games has been converted into the realm of
quantum mechanics [3-18]. Recently, Miszczak et al. [19] has studied a qubit
flip game on a Heisenberg spin chain. They have shown that being well aware
of the dimensionality of the system, a player can achieve a mean payoff
equal to almost 1. More recently, Sharif et al. [20] has proposed the
quantum solution to a three-player Kolkata Restaurant problem. The Kolkata
Paise Restaurant (KPR) [21] is a repeated game similar to the Minority
games, played between a large number of agents having no interaction among
themselves. Since quantum minority games [22-25] has attracted much
attention in recent years. They have also been analyzed under the influence
of decoherence by Flitney and Hollenberg [26]. It is therefore, important to
study the behaviour of quantum restaurant problem in the presence of
environmental influences.
Since, it is\ not possible to completely isolate a quantum system from its
environment. Therefore, it is important to study the system-environment
dynamics in the presence of environmental effects. Quantum games may provide
a feasible platform for implementing quantum information processing in
physical systems [27] and can be used to probe the influence of decoherence
in such systems [6, 28-31]. In this connection, quantum channels provide a
natural theoretical framework for the study of decoherence in noisy quantum
communication systems. Quantum error correction [32-33] and entanglement
purifications [34] can be employed to avoid the problem of decoherence.
In this paper, the effect of quantum decoherence in a three-player quantum
Kolkata restaurant problem is studied using entangled qutrit states. By
considering different noisy qutrit channels parameterized by decoherence
parameter $p$ such that $p\in \lbrack 0,1]$. The lower and upper limits of
decoherence parameter represent the fully coherent and fully decohered
system, respectively. It is seen that for lower level of decoherence,
amplitude damping channel heavily influences the payoffs as compared to the
depolarizing and flipping channels. However, for higher level of
decoherence, the payoff is strongly affected by depolarizing noise. On the
other hand, the behaviour of phase damping channel is symmetrical around 50
\% decoherence. Furthermore, the Nash equilibrium of the problem does not
change under decoherence.
\section{Decoherence and quantum Kolkata restaurant problem}
In the Kolkata Paise Restaurant (KPR) problem, $N$ non-communicating agents
have to choose between $n$ choices. The agents receive a gain in their
utility if their choice is not too crowded, i.e. the number of agents that
made the same choice is under some threshold limit. The choices can also
have different values of utility associated with them, accounting for a
preference profile over the set of choices. Therefore, in KPR, $N$
prospective customers choose from $N$ restaurants each evening in a parallel
decision mode. Each restaurant have identical price but different rank $k$
(agreed by the all the $N$ agents) and can serve only one customer. If more
than one agents arrive at any restaurant on any evening, one of them is
randomly chosen and is served and the rest do not get dinner that evening.
For the sake of simplicity, let the three agents, Alice, Bob and Charlie
have three possible choices: security $0$, security $1$ and security $2$.
They receive a payoff $\$=1$ if their choice is unique, otherwise they
receive $\$=0$. Therefore, the game is a one shoot game, that is, it is a
non-iterative, and the agents have no information from previous rounds.
Since the agents cannot communicate, therefore, there is nothing left to do
other than randomizing between the choices. Randomization gives the agent $i$
an expected payoff of $E^{c}(\$)=4/9$, where the superscript $c$ represents
the classical strategy.
In this problem, let Alice, Bob and Charlie share a general tripartite
entangled qutrit state of the for
\begin{equation}
\rho _{in}=f|\Psi _{in}\rangle \left\langle \Psi _{in}\right\vert +\frac
(1-f)}{27}I_{27}
\end{equation
where the parameter $f$ controls the degree of entanglement and
\begin{equation}
|\Psi _{in}\rangle =\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}(|000\rangle +|111\rangle +|222\rangle
)
\end{equation
In order to analyze the effect of entanglement, another general initial
state is also considered as given belo
\begin{equation}
|\Psi _{in}\rangle =\sin \theta \cos \phi |000\rangle +\sin \theta \sin \phi
|111\rangle +\cos \theta |222\rangle \label{init}
\end{equation
where $0\leq \theta \leq \pi $ and $0\leq \theta \leq 2\pi .$\ If we set
\theta =\pi /4,$ $3\pi /4$ and $\phi =\pm \cos ^{-1}(1/\sqrt{3})$ in the
above equation, the three-qutrit state becomes the maximally entangled
state. The strategies of the players can be defined by the unitary operator
U$ acting on the initial qutrit state of the problem given as [35]
\begin{equation}
U=\left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
z_{1} & \bar{\omega}_{1} & \bar{z}_{2}\omega _{3}-\bar{z}_{3}\omega _{2} \\
z_{2} & \bar{\omega}_{2} & \bar{z}_{3}\omega _{1}-\bar{z}_{1}\omega _{3} \\
z_{3} & \bar{\omega}_{3} & \bar{z}_{1}\omega _{2}-\bar{z}_{2}\omega _{1
\end{array
\right]
\end{equation
where
\begin{equation}
\overrightarrow{z}=\left[
\begin{array}{c}
\sin \theta \cos \phi e^{i\alpha _{1}} \\
\sin \theta \sin \phi e^{i\alpha _{2}} \\
\cos \theta e^{i\alpha _{3}
\end{array
\right]
\end{equation
and
\begin{equation}
\overrightarrow{\omega }=\left[
\begin{array}{c}
\cos \chi \cos \theta \cos \phi e^{i(\beta _{1}-\alpha _{1})}+\sin \chi \sin
\phi e^{i(\beta _{2}-\alpha _{1})} \\
\cos \chi \cos \theta \sin \phi e^{i(\beta _{1}-\alpha _{2})}-\sin \chi \cos
\phi e^{i(\beta _{2}-\alpha _{2})} \\
-\cos \chi \sin \theta e^{i(\beta _{1}-\alpha _{3})
\end{array
\right]
\end{equation}
where $0\leq \chi \leq \pi /2$ and $0\leq \beta _{1},\beta _{2}\leq 2\pi .$
After the action of players unitary operators the state of the game
transform to
\begin{equation}
\rho _{\acute{f}}=(U_{A}^{\dag }\otimes U_{B}^{\dag }\otimes U_{C}^{\dag
})(\left\vert \Psi _{in}\right\rangle \left\langle \Psi _{in}\right\vert
)(U_{A}\otimes U_{B}\otimes U_{C})
\end{equation
The evolution of the state of a quantum system in a noisy environment can be
described by the super-operator $\Phi $ in the Kraus operator representation
as [1]
\begin{equation}
\tilde{\rho}_{f}=\Phi \rho _{f}=\sum_{k}E_{k}\rho _{f}E_{k}^{\dag }
\label{E5}
\end{equation
where the Kraus operators $E_{i}$ satisfy the following completeness relation
\begin{equation}
\sum_{k}E_{k}^{\dag }E_{k}=I \label{5}
\end{equation
We have constructed the Kraus operators for the game from the single qutrit
Kraus operators (as given in equations (9-11) below) by taking their tensor
product over all $n^{2}$ combination of $\pi \left( i\right) $ indices
\begin{equation}
E_{k}=\underset{\pi }{\otimes }e_{\pi \left( i\right) } \label{6}
\end{equation
where $n$ is the number of Kraus operators for a single qutrit channel. The
single qutrit Kraus operators for the amplitude damping channel are given by
[36]
\begin{equation}
E_{0}=\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & \sqrt{1-p} & 0 \\
0 & 0 & \sqrt{1-p
\end{array
\right) ,\ \ E_{1}=\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & \sqrt{p} & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 &
\end{array
\right) ,\ \ E_{2}=\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & 0 & \sqrt{p} \\
0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 &
\end{array
\right) \label{E7}
\end{equation
Similarly, the single qutrit Kraus operators for the phase damping channel
are given as [36]
\begin{equation}
E_{0}=\sqrt{1-p}\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 &
\end{array
\right) ,\ \ E_{1}=\sqrt{p}\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & \omega & 0 \\
0 & 0 & \omega ^{2
\end{array
\right) , \label{7}
\end{equation
where $\omega =e^{\frac{2\pi i}{3}}.$ The single qutrit Kraus operators for
the depolarizing channel are given by [37]
\begin{equation}
E_{0}=\sqrt{1-p}I,\ E_{1}=\sqrt{\frac{p}{8}}Y,\ E_{2}=\sqrt{\frac{p}{8}}Z,\
E_{3}=\sqrt{\frac{p}{8}}Y^{2},\ E_{4}=\sqrt{\frac{p}{8}}YZ
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
E_{5}=\sqrt{\frac{p}{8}}Y^{2}Z,\ E_{6}=\sqrt{\frac{p}{8}}YZ^{2},\ \ E_{7}
\sqrt{\frac{p}{8}}Y^{2}Z^{2},\ \ E_{8}=\sqrt{\frac{p}{8}}Z^{2} \label{E8}
\end{equation
where
\begin{equation}
Y=\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 \\
1 & 0 &
\end{array
\right) ,\ \ Z=\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & \omega & 0 \\
0 & 0 & \omega ^{2
\end{array
\right) \label{9}
\end{equation
The single qutrit Kraus operators for the phase flip channel are given by
\begin{equation}
E_{0}=\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & \sqrt{1-p} & 0 \\
0 & 0 & \sqrt{1-p
\end{array
\right) ,\ \ E_{1}=\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & \sqrt{p} & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 &
\end{array
\right) ,\ \ E_{2}=\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & 0 & \sqrt{p} \\
0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 &
\end{array
\right)
\end{equation
and the single qutrit Kraus operators for the trit-phase flip channel are
given by
\begin{eqnarray}
E_{0} &=&\sqrt{1-\frac{2p}{3}}\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 &
\end{array
\right) ,\ \ E_{1}=\sqrt{\frac{p}{3}}\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & 0 & e^{\frac{2\pi i}{3}} \\
1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & e^{\frac{-2\pi i}{3}} &
\end{array
\right) , \notag \\
E_{2} &=&\sqrt{\frac{p}{3}}\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & e^{\frac{-2\pi i}{3}} & 0 \\
0 & 0 & e^{\frac{2\pi i}{3}} \\
1 & 0 &
\end{array
\right) ,\ \ E_{3}=\sqrt{\frac{p}{3}}\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & e^{\frac{2\pi i}{3}} & 0 \\
0 & 0 & e^{\frac{-2\pi i}{3}} \\
1 & 0 &
\end{array
\right)
\end{eqnarray
where $p=1-e^{-\Gamma t}$ represents the quantum noise parameter usually
termed as decoherence parameter. Here the bounds $[0,1]$ of $p$ correspond
to $t=0$, $\infty $ respectively. The final state of the game after the
action of the channel can be written as
\begin{equation}
\rho _{f}=\Phi _{p}(\rho _{f})
\end{equation
where $\Phi _{\alpha }$ is the super-operator realizing the quantum channel
parametrized by the real number $p$ (decoherence parameter). The payoff
operator for $i^{\text{th}}$ player (say Alice) can be written as
\begin{eqnarray}
P_{A} &=&\sum\limits_{x_{3,}x_{2,}x_{1}=0}^{2}|x_{3}x_{2}x_{1}\rangle
\left\langle x_{3}x_{2}x_{1}\right\vert ,x_{3}\neq x_{2}\neq x_{1} \notag \\
+\sum\limits_{x_{3,}x_{2,}x_{1}=0}^{2}|x_{3}x_{2}x_{1}\rangle \left\langle
x_{3}x_{2}x_{1}\right\vert ,x_{3} &=&x_{2}\neq x_{1} \notag \\
&&
\end{eqnarray
The payoff of $i^{\text{th}}$ player can be calculated as
\begin{equation}
E_{i}(\$)=\text{Tr}\{P_{A}\tilde{\rho}_{f}\}
\end{equation
where Tr represents the trace of the matrix. The optimal strategy for
players is found to be $U_{\text{opt}}$ given b
\begin{eqnarray}
U_{\text{opt}}(\theta ,\phi ,\chi ,\alpha _{1},\alpha _{2},\alpha _{3},\beta
_{1},\beta _{2}) &=&(\frac{\pi }{4},\cos ^{-1}(1/\sqrt{3}),\frac{\pi }{4}
\frac{5\pi }{18},\frac{5\pi }{18},\frac{5\pi }{18},\frac{\pi }{3},\frac
11\pi }{6}) \notag \\
&&
\end{eqnarray
It is seen that the results are consistent with Ref. [20] for $p=0$.
In order to interpret the effect of decoherence on the three-player quantum
Kolkata restaurant problem, different graphs has been plotted as a function
of decoherence parameter. In figure (1), Alice's payoff is plotted as a
function of decoherence parameter $p$ for (a) $f=0.2,$ (b) $f=0.5,$ (c) $f=1$
and $\theta =\frac{\pi }{4},$ $\phi =\cos ^{-1}(1/\sqrt{3})$ for amplitude
damping, depolarizing, phase damping, trit-phase flip and phase flip
channels, where AD, Dep, PD, TPF and PF represent the amplitude damping,
depolarizing, phase damping, trit-phase flip and phase flip channels
respectively. It is seen that Alice's payoff is heavily influenced by the
amplitude damping channel as compared to the depolarizing and flipping
channels. In figures (2 and 3), Alice's payoff is plotted as a function of
\theta $ and $\phi $ for $p=0.3$ and $p=0.7$ (a) amplitude damping, (b)
phase damping, (c) depolarizing and (d) trit-phase flip channels,
respectively, for the state of equation (3). It is seen that for higher
level of decoherence (see figure 3), Alice's payoff is strongly affected by
depolarizing noise. Whereas the behaviour of phase damping channel remains
symmetrical around 50 \% decoherence. In figures (4), Alice's payoff is
plotted as a function of $\theta $ and $\phi $ for $p=1$ (a) amplitude
damping, (b) phase damping, (c) depolarizing and (d) trit-phase flip
channels, respectively. It is shown that for maximum decoherence i.e. $p=1,$
amplitude damping channel dominates over the depolarizing and flipping
channels having considerable reduction in the payoff. Whereas, phase damping
channel has no effect on the Alice's payoff. In case of phase damping
channel, the problem becomes noiseless at maximum decoherence. However,
maximal entanglement gives the maximum payoff\ ($6/9$ at $p=0$) and it
reduces as one changes the degree of entanglement from its maxima or
introduces the value of decoherence parameter $p>1$. Furthermore, the Nash
equilibrium of the problem does not change under decoherence.
\section{Conclusions}
Quantum three-player Kolkata restaurant problem is investigated in the
presence of decoherence using tripartite entangled qutrit states using
amplitude damping, depolarizing, phase damping, trit-phase flip and phase
flip channels. It is seen that for lower level of decoherence, amplitude
damping channel heavily influences the payoffs as compared to the
depolarizing and flipping channels. However, for higher level of
decoherence, the payoff is strongly affected by depolarizing noise. It is
also seen that for maximum level of decoherence, amplitude damping channel
dominates over the depolarizing and flipping channels. Whereas, phase
damping channel has no effect on the Alice's payoff at $p=1$. Therefore, the
problem becomes noiseless at maximum decoherence for phase damping channel
only. Furthermore, the Nash equilibrium of the problem does not change under
decoherence.
|
\section{Introduction}
The space of stability conditions $\Stab(\D)$ of a triangulated category $\D$ was introduced in \cite{B}. As a set it has a description as the pairs $(\A, Z)$ where $\A$ is the heart of a t-structure on $\D$, and $Z: K(\A) \isom K(\D) \to \C$ is a stability function on $\A$ known as the central charge. As the forgetful map $\Stab(\D) \to \Hom(K(\D), \C)$ remembering just the central charge is a local homeomorphism \cite[Prop 6.3]{B}, $\Stab(\D)$ has the structure of a complex manifold. It carries an action of the group of autoequivalences $\Aut(\D)$ and a free action of $\C$ for which $\Z \subset \C$ acts as the autoequivalence $[1]$, the shift functor of $\D$.
In this paper we compute a connected component $\Stab^0(\D)$ of the space of stability conditions of $\D = \D_{fd}(G A_2)$, the derived category of finite dimensional modules over the Ginzburg dg algebra of the $A_2$ quiver. This is a $\CY_3$ triangulated category generated (cf \cite[Sect 2]{KYZ}) by two objects $S$ and $T$ with
\[
\Hom(S,S) \isom \C \isom \Hom(T,T) \qquad \Ext^1(S,T) \isom \C
\]
We will call the heart $\A^0$ consisting of all modules supported in degree zero the standard heart. It is equivalent to the abelian category of finitely generated modules over the path algebra of the $A_2$ quiver, and its two simple objects are $S$ and $T$. We study the connected component $\Stab^0(\D)$ which contains stability conditions supported on the standard heart $\A^0$.
In section two we study the subquotient $\Aut^0(\D)$ of $\Aut(\D)$ of those autoequivalences preserving the connected component $\Stab^0(\D)$ modulo those which act trivially on it. We show that the set of hearts supporting a stability condition in $\Stab^0(\D)$ is an $\Aut^0(\D)$-torsor and deduce that
\begin{thm} \label{aut}
$\Aut^0(\D)$ is isomorphic to the braid group $\Br_3$ on three strings.
\end{thm}
In section three we show how to define central charges using periods of a meromorphic differential $\lambda$ on the universal family of framed elliptic curves $\E \to \widetilde{\M}$. Restricted to a fibre $E$, $\lambda$ has a single pole of order $6$ at the marked point $p$ and double zeroes at each of the half-periods. Using the framing $\{\alpha, \beta\}$ and the basis $\{[S], [T]\}$ of $K(\D)$ to identify the lattices $H_1(E \less p, \Z) \isom K(\D)$, we prove
\pagebreak
\begin{thm} \label{stab}
There is a biholomorphic map
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}[node distance=2cm, auto]
\node (A) {$\widetilde{\M}$};
\node (B) [right of=A] {$\Stab^0(\D)/ \C$};
\node (D) [below of=B] {$\Pb\Hom(K(\D),\C)$};
;
\draw[->] (A) to node {$f$} (B);
\draw[->] (A) to node [anchor=east] {$[\int_\alpha \lambda : \int_\beta \lambda] \: \:$} (D);
\draw[->] (B) to node {$[Z(S):Z(T)]$} (D);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
lifting the period map of $\lambda$. It is equivariant with respect to the actions of $\PSL(2,\Z)$ on the left by deck transformations and on the right by $\Aut^0(\D)/ \Z$ which are both determined by their induced actions on $K(\D)$.
\end{thm}
As a corollary we obtain a $\Br_3$-equivariant biholomorphism from the universal cover of the $\C^*$-bundle $L^*$ of non-zero holomorphic differentials on $\M$ to $\Stab^0(\D)$.
\begin{rmk} \label{painleve}
In \cite{vdPS} the authors list 9 families of rank two connections on $\Pb^1$ having at least one irregular singularity which have precisely a one-parameter family of isomonodromic deformations described by one of the Painlev\'{e} equations. To each such family we associate a quiver $Q$ as in \cite{GMN}, where $Q = A_2$ corresponds to the family whose isomonodromic deformations are given by solutions to the first Painlev\'{e} equation. It is anticipated that similar considerations to those of this paper will give a description of the space of numerical stability conditions of $\D_{fd}(GQ)$ as the universal cover of a $\C^*$-bundle of meromorphic differentials over a moduli space of elliptic curves. We intend to return to this in future work.
\end{rmk}
The author would like to thank his PhD supervisor Tom Bridgeland for suggesting the problem and for many helpful discussions, and the EPSRC for financial support.
\section{Autoequivalences}
In this section we prove Theorem \ref{aut}. We show that every heart supporting a stability condition in $\Stab^0(\D)$ is a translate of the standard heart $\A^0 = \Mod(\C A_2)$ by a composite of a spherical twist and the shift functor $[1]$. We deduce that every element of $\Aut^0(\D)$ is expressible in this way. The group of spherical twists $\Sph(\D)$ is a subgroup of $\Aut^0(\D)$ of index five, and we use a result of Seidel-Thomas that $\Sph(\D) \isom \Br_3$ to deduce that $\Aut^0(\D) \isom \Br_3$, the braid group on three strings.
\begin{defn}
An object $X \in \D$ is spherical if $\Hom_{\D}(X, X) \isom \C \oplus \C[-3]$. For $X$ spherical there is a twist functor $\Phi_X$ such that
\[
\Phi_X(Y) = \Cone(X \otimes \Hom(X,Y) \to Y)
\]
\end{defn}
There are two spherical objects $S$ and $T$ in $\D$ which are the simple objects in the standard heart $\A^0$. They form an $A_2$-collection \cite[Def 1.1]{ST} as $\Ext^1(S,T) \isom \C$.
\begin{thm} \cite[Thms 1.2, 1.3]{ST}
The spherical twists $\Phi_S, \Phi_T$ satisfy the braid relations
\[
\Phi_S \Phi_T \Phi_S = \Phi_T \Phi_S \Phi_T
\]
and generate a subgroup $\Sph(\D)$ of the group of autoequivalences $\Aut(\D)$ isomorphic to the braid group on three strings $\Br_3$.
\end{thm}
The braid group $\Br_3$ has the following presentation by generators and relations \cite[Sect 1.14]{KT}
\[
\langle \sigma_1, \sigma_2 \: | \: \sigma_1 \sigma_2 \sigma_1 = \sigma_2 \sigma_1 \sigma_2 \rangle
\]
Its centre is the infinite cyclic subgroup generated by the element $u = (\sigma_1 \sigma_2)^3$ \cite[Thm 1.24]{KT} giving us the short exact sequence
\[
1 \to \Z \to \Br_3 \to \PSL(2, \Z) \to 1
\]
where the quotient map sends the generators $\sigma_1, \sigma_2$ to
\[
\left ( \begin{array}{cc} 1 & 1 \\
0 & 1 \\
\end{array} \right )
\qquad \left ( \begin{array}{cc} 1 & 0 \\
-1 & 1\\
\end{array} \right )
\]
We note that the action of a spherical twist $\Phi_X$ on $K(\D)$ is given by the formula
\[
\Phi_X([Y]) = [Y] - \chi(X,Y) [X]
\]
and so the map $\Sph(\D) \to \PSL(2,\Z)$ sends a spherical twist to the matrix given by its action on the lattice $K(\D)$ with respect to the basis $\{[S], [T]\}$.
We now study the combinatorial backbone of the space of stability conditions, namely (a connected component of) the \emph{exchange graph} of hearts of $\D$.
\begin{defn} We say $\A'$ is a simple tilt of $\A$ at $S$ if either
\begin{itemize}
\item $\A'$ is the left tilt of $\A$ with respect to the torsion pair
\[
\T = \langle S \rangle = \{ S^{\oplus n} \: | \: n \in \N_0\} \qquad \F = \{X \: | \: \Hom_{\A}(S,X)=0\}
\]
\item $\A'$ is the right tilt of $\A$ with respect to the torsion pair
\[
\T = \{X \: | \: \Hom_{\A}(X,S)=0 \} \qquad \F = \langle S \rangle = \{ S^{\oplus n} \: | \: n \in \N_0\}
\]
\end{itemize}
\end{defn}
The relevance of simple tilts is that they occur precisely at the codimension $1$ components of the boundary of the space of stability conditions $U(\A)$ supported on a given heart $\A$ by \cite[Lemma 5.5]{Br2}. Thus $\Stab(\D)$ is glued together from the $U(\A)$ according to the exchange graph.
\begin{defn}
The exchange graph $\EG(\D)$ of $\D$ has vertices the set of hearts $\A \subset \D$ and an edge between any two hearts related by a simple tilt. Define $\EG^0(\D)$ to be the connected component containing the standard heart $\A^0$.
\end{defn}
\noindent We compute the four simple tilts of the standard heart $\A^0$.
\begin{prop}
Denote by $E$ and $X$ the unique non-trivial extensions up to isomorphism of $S$ by $T$ and $T$ by $S[1]$ respectively. Let $(A,B)_C$ denote the abelian category generated by two simple objects $A$ and $B$ having a unique up to isomorphism non-trivial extension $C$ of $B$ by $A$, so that the standard heart $\A^0 = (T,S)_E$. Then
\begin{align*}
& R_S(\A^0) = (S[1], T)_{X[1]} & L_T(\A^0) &= (T[-1], S)_{X} \\
& R_T(\A^0) = (E, T[1])_S & L_S(\A^0) &= (S[-1], E)_T
\end{align*}
Moreover the tilted hearts are obtained from $\A^0$ by applying the following autoequivalences.
\begin{align*}
& R_S(\A^0) = (\Phi_T \Phi_S \Phi_T) [3] \;(\A^0) & L_T(\A^0) &= ((\Phi_T \Phi_S \Phi_T) [3])^{-1} \;(\A^0) \\
& R_T(\A^0) = (\Phi_S \Phi_T) [2] \; (\A^0) & L_S(\A^0) &= ((\Phi_S \Phi_T) [2])^{-1} \;(\A^0)
\end{align*}
\end{prop}
We will prove the statement about the left tilt at $T$, the rest being similar. The torsion pair in this case is
\[
\T = \langle T \rangle \qquad \F = \{X \in \A^0 \: | \: \Hom_{\A^0}(T,X)=0 \} = \langle S \rangle
\]
We will use the long exact sequence in cohomology with respect to the original t-structure $\A^0$, the groups being non-zero only in degrees $0$ and $1$.
\begin{lemma}
$T[1]$ is simple in $L_T(\A^0)$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Consider a short exact sequence in $L_T(\A^0)$
\[
0 \to X \to T[-1] \to Y \to 0
\]
giving a long exact sequence in $\A^0$.
\[
0 \to H^0(X) \to H^0(T[-1]) \to H^0(Y) \to H^1(X) \to H^1(T[-1]) \to H^1(Y) \to 0
\]
We have $H^0(T[-1]) = 0$ so $H^0(X) = 0$. Splitting the remaining 4-term exact sequence into two short exact sequences
\begin{align*}
0 &\to H^0(Y) \to H^1(X) \to Z \to 0 \\
0 &\to Z \to T \to H^1(Y) \to 0
\end{align*}
$Z$ is either $0$ or $T$ as $T$ is simple in $\A^0$. But there are no non-zero maps from $H^0(Y) \in \F$ to $H^1(X) \in \T$ so $H^1(X) \isom Z$ so $X$ is either $0$ or $T[-1]$ and so $T[-1]$ is simple.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}
$S$ is simple in $L_T(\A^0)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} As $H^1(S) =0$ we have as before
\begin{align*}
0 &\to H^0(X) \to S \to Z \to 0 \\
0 &\to Z \to H^0(Y) \to H^1(X) \to 0
\end{align*}
Thus as $S$ is simple in $\A^0$, $H^0(X)$ is either $0$ or $S$, and so $Z$ is either $S$ or $0$. Then as there are no non-zero maps from $H^0(Y) \in \F$ to $H^1(X) \in T$, $H^1(X) = 0$ and so $S$ is simple in $L_T(\A^0)$.
\end{proof}
\noindent We remark that all four simple tilts of $\A^0$ are isomorphic to $\A^0$ so the above is the local structure of the exchange graph at any vertex of the connected component $\EG^0(\D)$.
\begin{defn}
Let $\Aut^0(\D)$ be the subquotient of $\Aut(\D)$ consisting of all autoequivalences preserving the connected component $\EG^0(\D)$ of the exchange graph modulo those acting trivially on it.
\end{defn}
\noindent We will see later that in fact $\Aut^0(\D)$ is the subquotient preserving the connected component $\Stab^0(\D)/ \C$ modulo those acting trivially on it.
\begin{prop}
The vertices of the connected component $\EG^0(\D)$ of the exchange graph are a torsor for $\Aut^0(\D)$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
From the above computation every heart in $\EG^0(\D)$ can be obtained by applying an autoequivalence in $\langle \Phi_S, \Phi_T, [1]\rangle$ to the standard heart $\A^0$. Thus $\Aut^0(\D)$ acts transitively on $\EG^0(\D)$ and acts freely by definition.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma} The centre of $\Sph(\D)$ is generated by $[-5]$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
As $\Sph(\D) \isom \Br_3$ the centre is generated by $\Phi = (\Phi_S \Phi_T)^3$. We compute $\Phi$ on $S$ and $T$
\begin{align*}
S \mapsto X\phantom{[-2]} \mapsto T[-1] \mapsto T[-3] \mapsto E[-3] \mapsto S[-3] \mapsto S[-5] \\
T \mapsto T[-2] \mapsto E[-2] \mapsto S[-2] \mapsto S[-4] \mapsto X[-4] \mapsto T[-5]
\end{align*}
Thus $\Phi = [-5]$ in $\Aut^0(\D)$.
\end{proof}
We note that $\Sph(\D)$ defines a subgroup of $\Aut^0(\D)$ isomorphic to $\Br_3$. The generators $\Phi_S$ and $\Phi_T$ are composites of two autoequivalences corresponding to simple tilts, e.g. $\Phi_S^{-1} = (\Phi_T \Phi_S \Phi_T [3]) (\Phi_S \Phi_T [2])$ and so preserve the connected component of the exchange graph. If an element of $\Sph(\D)$ acts trivially on $K(\D)$ then it belongs to the centre which we have just seen is generated by a non-trivial element of $\Aut^0(\D)$ so the only element of $\Sph(\D)$ acting trivially is the identity.
\begin{thm} The map $\Br_3 \to \Aut^0(\D)$ given by $(\sigma_1, \sigma_2) \mapsto (\Phi_S [1], \Phi_T [1])$ is an isomorphism.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
As the exchange graph is an $\Aut^0(\D)$-torsor we know that $\Aut^0(\D) =\langle \Phi_S, \Phi_T, [1]\rangle$. As the shift functor commutes with the spherical twists, we find that $((\Phi_S [1])(\Phi_T [1]))^3 = [-5][6] = [1]$ so $\Aut^0(\D) = \langle \Phi_S [1], \Phi_T [1] \rangle$. These two generators satisfy the braid relation as $\Phi_S, \Phi_T$ do.
Now consider a word $w$ in the generators $\Phi_S[1], \Phi_T[1]$ and their inverses which is equal to the identity of $\Aut^0(\D)$. As $[1]$ is in the centre of $\Aut^0(\D)$, we have $\Phi_S^{n_1} \ldots \Phi_T^{n_k} = [-1]^{\sum n_i}$ in $\Sph(\D)$. By the above lemma the centre of $\Sph(\D)$ is generated by $(\Phi_S \Phi_T)^3 = [-5]$, so the right hand side is equal to $[-5]^{(\sum_i n_i)/5}$. As the braid relation is homogeneous, every element of $\Sph(\D)$ has a well-defined word length in the generators $\Phi_S$ and $\Phi_T$. But applying the word length homomorphism gives $\sum_i n_i = \frac{6}{5} \sum_i n_i$ so $\sum_i n_i = 0$. Thus the relations satisfied by the generators $\Phi_S [1], \Phi_T [1]$ of $\Aut^0(\D)$ are precisely those satisfied by the generators $\Phi_S, \Phi_T$ of $\Sph(\D)$.
\end{proof}
To complete the picture we show that $\Sph(\D)$ is a normal subgroup of index $5$.
\begin{prop}
There is a short exact sequence
\[
1 \to \Sph(\D) \to \Aut^0(\D) \to \Z/5\Z \to 1
\]
where the quotient map $l$ is the modulo $5$ word length map in the generators $\Phi_S [1]$ and $\Phi_T [1]$
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
$\Sph(\D)$ is in the kernel of $l$ as
\[
l(\Phi_S) = l(\Phi_S[1]) - l([1]) = 1-6 = 0
\]
Conversely the smallest power of $[1]$ in the kernel is $[5]= (\Phi_S \Phi_T)^{-3} \in \Sph(\D)$ and so as $\Aut^0(\D) = \langle \Phi_S, \Phi_T , [1] \rangle$ the kernel is contained in $\Sph(\D)$.
\end{proof}
\begin{rmk}
By Sabidussi's Theorem \cite[Thm 4]{Sab}, $\EG^0(\D)$ is isomorphic to the Cayley graph of the braid group $\Br_3$ with respect to the generators $\Delta = (\Phi_T \Phi_S \Phi_T) [3]$ and $\Sigma=(\Phi_S \Phi_T) [2]$ which give the simple tilted hearts. Indeed this gives an alternative presentation of $\Br_3$ \cite[Sect 1.14]{KT}
\[
\langle \Sigma, \Delta \: | \: \Sigma^3 = \Delta^2 \rangle
\]
The quotient of $\EG^0(\D)$ by $\Sph(\D)$ is the $A_2$ cluster exchange graph which is isomorphic to the Cayley graph of $\Z/{5\Z}$. This recovers a special case of a result of Keller and Nicolas \cite[Thm 5.6]{K}.
\end{rmk}
\section{Stability conditions}
In this section we prove Theorem \ref{stab}. We derive the Picard-Fuchs equations satisfied by the periods of the family of meromorphic differentials $\lambda$ on the fibres $E$ of the universal family of framed elliptic curves $\E \to \widetilde{\M}$. Identifying the lattices $H_1(E, \Z) \isom K(\D)$, the image in $\Pb\Hom(K(\D), \C)$ of a certain branch of the period map is a double of the Schwarz triangle with angles $(\pi, \pi/3, \pi/2)$. We show that this coincides with the image under the local homeomorphism $\bar{Z}: \Stab^0(\D) / \C \to \Pb \Hom(K(\D), \C)$ of a fundamental domain for the action of $\Aut^0(\D)/ \Z \isom \PSL(2, \Z)$ on $\Stab^0(\D) / \C$. We use our understanding of the exchange graph of $\D$ to lift the period map to our desired biholomorphism $f: \widetilde{\M} \to \Stab^0(\D) / \C$.
\begin{defn}
On an elliptic curve $y^2 = z^3 + az+ b$ define the meromorphic differential $\lambda = y \: dz$
\end{defn}
This has a pole of order $6$ at the point at infinity and double zeroes at each of the three other branch points of $y$. This is the divisor of the function $y^2$. It is the unique differential up to scale with this property as the above divisor has degree zero.
Define the coordinates $j$ and $u$ on $\widetilde{\M}$ by
\begin{equation} \label{u}
J = 1728/j \qquad j = 4u(1-u)
\end{equation}
where $J$ denotes the usual $J$-invariant. We note that the family of differentials $\lambda= \sqrt{z^3 -3z + (4u - 2)} \: dz$ satisfy $2 \del_u \lambda = \omega$, where $\omega = dz/y$ is the family of holomorphic differentials on $\widetilde{\M}$. Using this we show that the periods of $\lambda$ satisfy hypergeometric equations in $u$ and $j$.
\begin{defn}
A hypergeometric differential equation is a second order ordinary differential equation on $\Pb^1$ of the form
\[
w(1-w) f'' + (\gamma - (\alpha + \beta - 1) w )f' - \alpha \beta w = 0
\]
with $\alpha, \beta, \gamma \in \R$.
\end{defn}
It has regular singularities at $0$, $\infty$ and $1$ with exponents
\[
\lambda = 1 - \gamma \qquad \mu = \alpha - \beta \qquad \nu = \gamma - \alpha - \beta
\]
\begin{lemma}
The periods of $\lambda$ satisfy the hypergeometric equation in $j$ with exponents $(1,\frac{1}{3},\frac{1}{2})$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Suppose the periods of $\lambda$ satisfy the hypergeometric equation in $u$
\[
u(1-u) \del^2_u f + (\gamma - (\alpha + \beta - 1) j ) \del_u f - \alpha \beta f = 0
\]
Taking the derivative with respect to the dependent variable $u$, we find that the periods of $\omega$ must satisfy
\[
u(1-u) \del^2_u f + (1-2u)\del_u f + (\gamma - (\alpha + \beta - 1) u )\del_u f -(\alpha +\beta-1) f - \alpha \beta f = 0
\]
which is hypergeometric of the form
\[
u(1-u) \del^2_u f + ((\gamma+1) - ((\alpha+1) + (\beta+1) - 1) u ) \del_u f - (\alpha+1) (\beta+1) f = 0
\]
It is well-known the periods of $\omega$ satisfy the hypergeometric equation in $j$ with exponents $(0, \frac{1}{3}, \frac{1}{2})$. Then by the quadratic transformation law for the change of variable given above \cite[Eq 2]{V}, they satisfy the hypergeometric equation in $u$ with exponents $(0, \frac{1}{3}, 0)$. By the above computation, the periods of $\lambda$ satisfy the hypergeometric equation with exponents $(1, \frac{1}{3},1)$ and so reversing the change of variable gives the result.
\end{proof}
\begin{rmk}
The coordinate transformation (\ref{u}) defines a double cover $B \to M_{1,1}$ of the coarse moduli space of elliptic curves. There is a family of elliptic curves on $B$ whose total space is the complement of the three singular fibres of types $(I_1, I_1, II^*)$ over $u=0,1$ and $\infty$ respectively of a rational elliptic surface $\Sigma_u \to \Pb^1_u$. This is the smooth part of Hitchin's fibration of the moduli space of meromorphic $\SU(2)$-Higgs bundles on $\Pb^1_z$ with a single pole of order $4$ at $z =\infty$ whose leading term is nilpotent. The meromorphic differential $\lambda$ is the Seiberg-Witten differential of this integrable system, that is the exterior derivative of $\lambda$ defines a holomorphic symplectic form on $\Sigma$.
In fact $\Sigma$ is a hyperk\"{a}hler manifold \cite{W}, which was studied in \cite[Sect 9.3.3]{GMN}. In another complex structure $\Sigma$ is isomorphic to the moduli space of flat $\SL(2, \C)$-connections on $\Pb^1_z$ with a single pole at $z= \infty$ of Katz invariant $5/2$. This complex manifold was studied in \cite{S,vdPS} as the moduli space of initial conditions of the first Painlev\'{e} equation (cf Remark \ref{painleve}). Its image under the Riemann-Hilbert map is an affine cubic surface which is isomorphic as a complex variety to the cluster algebra of $A_2$.
\end{rmk}
Now consider the moduli space of elliptic curves $\M \isom \Pb(2,3) \less \{ \circ\}$ where $\circ$ is the point corresponding to $j= 0$. We make branch cuts on $\M$ along the line $\Im(j) = 0$ between $\circ$ and each of the $\Z_2$ and $\Z_3$ orbifold points $\times$, $*$ at $j=1, \infty$. We deduce the image of this branch of the period map $p$ of $\lambda$ from the Schwarz triangle theorem.
\begin{thm} \cite[p 206]{N}
Suppose $f_1$, $f_2$ are linearly independent solutions to the hypergeometric equation with exponents $(\lambda, \mu, \nu)$. Suppose further that their ratio $s= f_1/ {f_2}$ restricted to the upper-half plane $\h \subset \Pb^1 \less \{0, \infty, 1\}$ is an injection. Then $s$ maps $\h$ biholomorphically onto the interior of a curvilinear triangle $\Delta_{\lambda, \mu, \nu}$ of angles $(\lambda \pi, \mu \pi, \nu \pi)$.
\end{thm}
The image is determined up to a M\"{o}bius map and so specified uniquely by the positions of the three vertices of the triangle $\Delta$. By the Schwarz reflection principle we have
\begin{cor}
The image $\lozenge = p(\M)$ is the double of the curvilinear triangle $\Delta_{1, \frac{1}{3}, \frac{1}{2}}$ along the edge connecting the image of the two orbifold points $\times$ and $*$.
\end{cor}
We now define a fundamental domain $V=V(\Abar^0)$ for the action of $\Aut^0(\D) / \Z$ on $\Stab^0(\D) / \C$ which maps bijectively under the local homeomorphism $\bar{Z}$ to $\lozenge$. Although the vertices of the quotient of the exchange graph $\overline{\EG^0}(\D) = \EG^0(\D) / {\Z[1]}$ are indeed an $\Aut^0(\D)/ \Z$-torsor, the notion of a projective stability condition $\sigmabar \in \Stab^0(\D)/\C$ being supported at a given vertex $\Abar$ of $\overline{\EG^0}(\D)$ is not a priori well-defined. This is because points of $\Stab^0(\D)$ in the same $\C$-orbit can be supported on different hearts, even modulo the shift functor. We \emph{define} $\sigmabar$ to be supported on $\Abar$ using the following width function.
\begin{defn}
Define the width $\varphi$ of a stability condition $\sigma = (Z, \A) \in \Stab(\D)$
\[
\varphi(\sigma) = \phi^+(\sigma) - \phi^-(\sigma)
\]
where $\phi^+(\sigma)$ and $\phi^-(\sigma)$ denote the maximal and minimal phases respectively of an object in $\A$.
\end{defn}
\noindent The width is the angle of the image under $Z$ of the cone $C(\A) \subset K(\A)$ generated by classes of objects in $\A$.
\begin{defn}
We say that $\sigmabar \in \Stab^0(\D) / \C$ is supported on $\Abar$ if the width function is minimised on a lift $\A$ of $\Abar$.
\end{defn}
\noindent Note that $\sigmabar$ is supported on more than one $\Abar$ where the width function is minimised on more than one such $\Abar$. We will write $V(\Abar) \subset \Stab^0(\D) / \C$ for the subset supported uniquely on $\Abar$, whose closure $\bar{V}(\Abar)$ is the subset supported on $\Abar$.
\begin{prop}
$V = V(\Abar^0)$ is the interior of a fundamental domain for the action on $\Aut^0(\D) / \Z$ on $\Stab^0(\D) / \C$
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
As the vertices of $\overline{\EG}^0(\D)$ are an $\Aut^0(\D)/ \Z$-torsor, every point in the set $T=\coprod_{\Abar} V(\Abar)$ belongs to a unique $V(\Abar)$. The points $\sigmabar$ in $\bar{V} \less V$ lie on the three codimension 1 walls pictured below where $\sigmabar$ is also supported on some other $\Abar$ for some simple tilt $\A$ of $\A^0$. These walls of the $V(\Abar)$ are locally finite as there is only one other wall intersecting $\bar{V}$, namely $\bar{V}(L_S(\Abar^0)) \cap \bar{V}(R_T(\Abar^0))$. Thus the closure $\bar{T} = \coprod_{\Abar} \bar{V}(\Abar)$. But $\bar{T}$ is clearly open and so is the entire connected component $\Stab^0(\D)/ \C$.
\end{proof}
\begin{rmk} The above proof shows that an autoequivalence $\Phi$ which preserves $\overline{\EG}^0(\D)$ preserves the connected component $\Stab^0(\D)/ \C$. Also if $\Phi$ acts trivially on $\overline{\EG}^0(\D)$ then $\Phi$ fixes the central charge $\bar{Z}$ and so $\Phi$ acts trivially on $\Stab^0(\D)/ \C$.
\end{rmk}
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw (-1.1,0) -- (1.1,0);
\draw (0,-0.1) -- (0,2.1);
\draw [->,thick](0,0) -- (0,1.5) node [anchor=east]{$S$};
\draw [->,thick] (0,0) -- (0.5,0) node [anchor = north]{$T$};
\draw (2.9,0) -- (5.1,0);
\draw (4,-0.1) -- (4,2.1);
\draw [->,thick](4,0) -- (4.25,1) node [anchor=west]{$E$};
\draw [->,thick](4,0) -- (3.75,1) node [anchor=east]{$S$};
\draw [->,thick] (4,0) -- (4.5,0) node [anchor = north]{$T$};
\draw [->,thick, dashed](4,0) -- (4,2) node [anchor=south]{$E+S$};
\draw (6.9,0) -- (9.1,0);
\draw (8,-0.1) -- (8,2.1);
\draw [->,thick](8,0) -- (8.25,1) node [anchor=west]{$E$};
\draw [->,thick](8,0) -- (7.75,1) node [anchor=east]{$T$};
\draw [->,thick] (8,0) -- (8.5,0) node [anchor = north]{$S[-1]$};
\draw [->,thick, dashed](8,0) -- (8,2) node [anchor=south]{$E+T$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
\caption{Typical stability conditions on the three boundary components of $V(\bar{\A^0})$. The first $\bar{V}(\Abar^0) \cap \bar{V}(R_S(\Abar^0)) = \bar{V}(\Abar^0) \cap \bar{V}(L_T(\Abar^0))$ occurs where the only stable objects are $S$ and $T$. The other two $\bar{V}(\Abar^0) \cap \bar{V}(R_T(\Abar^0))$ and $\bar{V}(\Abar^0) \cap \bar{V}(R_T(\Abar^0))$ lie in the region where $S, T$ and $E$ are stable.}
\end{figure}
\noindent This means that $\Stab^0(\D)/ \C$ is glued together from the $V(\Abar)$ according to the quotient of the exchange graph $\overline{\EG}^0(\D)$ just as $\Stab^0(\D)$ is glued from the $U(\A)$ according to $\EG^0(\D)$.
\begin{prop} The image of $V$ under the map $\bar{Z}$ is $\lozenge$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof} The boundary of $V$ consists of stability conditions supported on one of the three walls which we picture below, whose image under $\bar{Z}$ is the boundary of $\lozenge$.
\end{proof}
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\pgfmathparse{{2}}\global\let\r\pgfmathresult
\draw (0,0) circle (\r cm) ;
\pgfmathparse{{\r*tan(67.5)}}\global\let\rt\pgfmathresult
\pgfmathparse{(\rt - sqrt(\rt^2-\r^2))}\global\let\x\pgfmathresult
\begin{scope}
\clip (0,0) circle (\r cm) ;
\fill[lightgray] (0,0) circle (\r cm) ;
\fill[white] (\rt, \r) circle (\rt cm) ;
\fill[white] (\rt, -\r) circle (\rt cm) ;
\draw (0,0) circle (\r cm) ;
\draw [dotted](-\r,0) -- (\x,0);
\draw [densely dashed](\r,0) -- (\x,0);
\begin{scope}
\clip (\x, -\r) rectangle (\r, \r);
\draw [dotted](\rt, \r) circle (\rt cm) ;
\draw [dotted](\rt, -\r) circle (\rt cm) ;
\end{scope}
\begin{scope}
\clip (-\r, -\r) rectangle (\x, \r);
\draw [densely dashed](\rt, \r) circle (\rt cm) ;
\draw [densely dashed](\rt, -\r) circle (\rt cm) ;
\end{scope}
\end{scope}
\draw (0,0) circle (\r cm) ;
\fill[white] (0, \r) circle (\r*0.03 cm) ;
\draw (0, \r) circle (\r*0.03 cm) ;
\fill[white] (0, -\r) circle (\r*0.03 cm) ;
\draw (0, -\r) circle (\r*0.03 cm) ;
\draw (0,\r) node [anchor = south] {$S$} ;
\draw (0, -\r) node [anchor=north] {$T$} ;
\draw (\r,0) node [anchor = west] {$E$} ;
\draw (\x,0) node {$*$} ;
\draw (\r,\r) node {$\h^+$} ;
\begin{scope}
\clip (-2*\r-1, 0) circle (\r cm);
\fill[lightgray] (-3*\r-1,-\r) rectangle (-2*\r-1, \r);
\draw (-2*\r-1, 0) circle (\r cm);
\draw [densely dashed] (-2*\r-1,-\r) -- (-2*\r-1,\r);
\draw (-\r-1,\r) node {$\h^-$};
\draw (-2*\r-1, 0) node {$\times$} ;
\draw [dotted] (-3*\r-1,0) -- (-2*\r-1,0);
\end{scope}
\draw (-2*\r-1, 0) circle (\r cm);
\draw (-\r-1,\r) node {$\h^-$} ;
\fill[white] (-2*\r-1, \r) circle (\r*0.03 cm) ;
\draw (-2*\r-1, \r) circle (\r*0.03 cm) ;
\fill[white] (-2*\r-1, -\r) circle (\r*0.03 cm) ;
\draw (-2*\r-1, -\r) circle (\r*0.03 cm) ;
\draw (-2*\r-1,\r) node [anchor = south] {$S$} ;
\draw (-2*\r-1, -\r) node [anchor=north] {$T$} ;
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
\caption{The fundamental domain $V(\bar{\A}^0) \isom \lozenge$ under the map $\bar{Z}: \Stab^0(\D)/\C \to \Pb^1$. We picture $\Pb^1 = \h^+ \cup \h^-$ as the union of two discs where the imaginary part of the coordinate $\bar{Z}$ is positive and negative respectively. They are glued along the line $\bar{Z} \in \R$, which is the image of all walls of marginal stability in $\Stab(\D)/ \C$. The region $\h^-$ where only two objects are stable contains the first wall passing through the image of $\times$. The region $\h^+$ contains the other two walls of $V(\bar{\A}^0)$ which meet at the image of $*$. We label points on the boundary by the object whose central charge vanishes there.}
\end{figure}
{
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{stab}]
Using the identification $V(\A) \isom \lozenge = p(\M)$, we can extend the branch of the period map to a map $f:\widetilde{\M} \to \Stab(\D) / \C$ by equivariance. We only have to check continuity on the boundary of $\M$, i.e. the action of the monodromy on $H_1(E, \Z)$ on crossing one of the two branch cuts in either direction is identical to the action of the four simple tilts on $K(\D)$. But these both act by
\[
\left ( \begin{array}{cc} 0 & -1 \\
1 & 0 \\
\end{array} \right )
\qquad \left ( \begin{array}{cc} 0 & 1 \\
-1 & 1\\
\end{array} \right )
\]
and their inverses.
\end{proof}
}
\begin{figure}[h] \label{orb}
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw (-1.5,0) -- (1.5,0);
\draw (0,-0.1) -- (0,1.5);
\draw [->,thick](0,0) -- (0,1) node [anchor=east]{$T$};
\draw [->,thick] (0,0) -- (1,0) node [anchor = north]{$S$};
\draw (2.5,0) -- (5.5,0);
\draw (4,-0.1) -- (4,1.5);
\draw [->,thick](4,0) -- (4.5,0.86) node [anchor=west]{$E$};
\draw [->,thick](4,0) -- (3.5,0.86) node [anchor=east]{$S$};
\draw [->,thick] (4,0) -- (5,0) node [anchor = north]{$T$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
\caption{The image of the $\Z/2$- and $\Z/3$-orbifold points $\times$ and $*$}
\end{figure}
We denote by $L^\times$ the total space of the $\C^*$-bundle of non-zero holomorphic differentials on $\widetilde{M}$. It is isomorphic to the complement of the discriminant locus in the space $\C^2_{a,b}$ of cubic polynomials $z^3 + az + b$. The fundamental group of $L^\times$ is isomorphic to the braid group $\Br_3$ as the discriminant locus describes the trefoil knot.
\begin{cor}
There is a biholomorphic map
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}[node distance=2cm, auto]
\node (A) {$\widetilde{L^\times}$};
\node (B) [right of=A] {$\Stab^0(\D)$};
\node (D) [below of=B] {$\Hom(K(\D),\C)$};
;
\draw[->] (A) to node {$F$} (B);
\draw[->] (A) to node [anchor=east] {$(\int_\alpha \lambda, \int_\beta \lambda) \: \:$} (D);
\draw[->] (B) to node {$(Z(S),Z(T))$} (D);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
lifting the periods of the differential $\lambda$. It is equivariant with respect to the actions of $\Br_3$ on the left by deck transformations and on the right by $\Aut(\D)$.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
We can lift the map $f: \widetilde{\M} \to \Stab^0(\D) / \C$ to the desired $F$ by equivariance with respect to the $\C$-actions on both sides. It is a bijection as both $\C$-actions are free, and holomorphic as it is locally given by the periods of $\lambda$. We know that the two braid groups act identically on $K(\D)$ via their maps to $\PSL(2,\Z)$ and so define identical actions on the $\C^*$-bundle $L^\times$. Also the actions of the central subgroup $\Z \subset \Br_3$ are identical by construction as it acts as $\Z \subset \C$. But given these data the actions are determined by a group homomorphism $\PSL(2, \Z) \to \Z$ giving a lifting of the $\Br_3$-action on the $\C^*$ bundle $L^\times$ factoring through $\PSL(2, \Z)$ to the universal cover. As the only such homomorphism is the trivial one the two $\Br_3$ actions are identical.
\end{proof}
\bibliographystyle{hplain}
|
\section{Introduction}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
The discovery of
the color-kinematic (BCJ) duality of gauge theory
and the double-copy property of gravity \cite{Bern:2008qj,Bern:2010ue}
constitutes only the most recent chapter of the tremendous
advances that have occurred in our understanding of
perturbative gauge and gravity amplitudes over the last decade.
Tree-level relations implied by the BCJ conjecture
have been verified in
refs.~\cite{BjerrumBohr:2009rd,Stieberger:2009hq,Feng:2010my,Chen:2011jxa},
and the BCJ conjecture has also been tested at loop level
for four-\cite{Bern:2010ue,Carrasco:2011hw}
and five-point \cite{Carrasco:2011mn,Bern:2011rj} amplitudes
of $ {\cal N} =4$ supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory.
This subject has been reviewed in
refs.~\cite{Carrasco:2011hw,Sondergaard:2011iv},
which also contain references to other work on the subject.
The color structure of a gauge theory amplitude
may be expressed by decomposing the amplitude
in either a trace basis \cite{Bern:1990ux}
or a basis of color factors \cite{DelDuca:1999ha,DelDuca:1999rs}.
An advantage of the trace basis decomposition
is that its coefficients, called color-ordered amplitudes,
are individually gauge-invariant.
The trace basis is also conducive to exhibiting the $1/N$ expansion
of the gauge theory, and moreover has a close connection to the
string theory expansion of the scattering amplitudes.
Color-kinematic duality implies the existence of
linear constraints among tree-level color-ordered amplitudes,
which were proven in
refs.~\cite{BjerrumBohr:2009rd,Stieberger:2009hq,Feng:2010my,Chen:2011jxa}.
Even before BCJ duality is imposed, however,
the color-ordered gauge theory amplitudes
are known to obey various constraints
solely as a consequence of SU($N$) group theory.
At tree level, these include the U(1)
decoupling \cite{Green:1982sw,Mangano:1990by}
and Kleiss-Kuijf relations \cite{Kleiss:1988ne}.
These and similar group-theory relations for one-loop
amplitudes \cite{Bern:1990ux,Bern:1994zx}
can be elegantly derived using the alternative
color decomposition of the amplitude \cite{DelDuca:1999ha,DelDuca:1999rs}.
Four-point color-ordered amplitudes
are also known to obey group-theory relations at two loops \cite{Bern:2002tk},
and these were recently generalized to all loop orders,
where it was shown that there exist four relations
among color-ordered four-point amplitudes
for each $L \ge 2$ \cite{Naculich:2011ep}.
Other recent work on constraints among loop-level amplitudes
includes refs.~\cite{BjerrumBohr:2011xe,Feng:2011fja,Boels:2011tp,Boels:2011mn}.
The purpose of this paper is to derive
all SU($N$) group theory relations
satisfied by five-point color-ordered amplitudes
at two and higher loops, generalizing the
known relations at tree level and one loop.
We employ a recursive approach \cite{Naculich:2011ep}
to derive the constraints satisfied by any $L$-loop diagram
(containing only adjoint fields)
that can be obtained by
attaching a rung between two external legs
of an $(L-1)$-loop diagram.
We assume that the most general $L$-loop color
factor can be obtained from this subset using Jacobi relations.
Then, by seeding the recursion relation with
the six known constraints on tree-level five-point amplitudes,
we show that there are ten constraints among
color-ordered five-point amplitudes at each odd loop order,
and twelve constraints at each even loop order.
In order to state our results up front,
we define $A^{(L,k)}$ as the part of the
$L$-loop five-point amplitude that is suppressed by $0 \le k \le L$
powers of $N$ relative to the leading planar amplitude,
and $A^{(L,k)}_\lambda$ as the coefficients of this amplitude
in a trace basis consisting of single-trace terms for $\lambda=1, \cdots, 12$
and double-trace terms for $\lambda=13, \cdots, 22$.
(A precise definition of this trace basis is given in the main
body of the paper.)
The six tree-level U(1) decoupling relations
\cite{Mangano:1990by}
can be expressed as
\begin{equation}
\sum_{\lambda=1}^{12} A^{(0)}_\lambda x^{(0)}_{\lambda j}=0,
\qquad\qquad j = 1, \cdots 6
\end{equation}
where $x^{(0)}$ are constants defined in \eqn{defxzero}.
The ten one-loop U(1) decoupling relations \cite{Bern:1990ux}
can be expressed as
\begin{equation}
A^{(1,1)}_\lambda
= \sum_{\kappa=1}^{12} A^{(1,0)}_{\kappa} m^{(1)}_{\kappa, \lambda-12},
\qquad\qquad \lambda = 13, \cdots, 22
\end{equation}
where $m^{(1)}$ are constants defined in \eqn{nullonealt}.
In this paper, we show that, for all odd loop orders,
the most-subleading-color five-point amplitudes are given by
\begin{equation}
A^{(L,L)}_\lambda
= \sum_{\kappa=1}^{12} A^{(L,L-1)}_{\kappa} m^{(1)}_{\kappa, \lambda-12},
\qquad\qquad \lambda = 13, \cdots 22, \qquad {\rm odd~}L
\label{oddloopdecoupling}
\end{equation}
and for all even loop orders, the most-subleading-color amplitudes
obey the six constraints\footnote{This
relation was previously observed for $L=2$ in ref.~\cite{Feng:2011fja}.}
\begin{equation}
\sum_{\lambda=1}^{12} A^{(L,L)}_\lambda x^{(0)}_{\lambda j}=0,
\qquad\qquad j = 1, \cdots 6, \qquad {\rm even~}L\ge 2 \,.
\label{evenloopdecoupling}
\end{equation}
We show that five-point amplitudes obey six additional constraints
at all even loop orders\footnote{The $L=2$ constraints
have been independently obtained by C.~Boucher-Veronneau and L.~Dixon
\cite{BVD}.}
\begin{equation}
\sum_{\lambda=1}^{12}
\left( 10 A^{(L,L-2)}_\lambda x^{(0)}_{\lambda j}
+ A^{(L,L)}_\lambda x^{(2)}_{\lambda j} \right)
+\sum_{\lambda=13}^{22} A^{(L,L-1)}_\lambda x^{(1)}_{\lambda-12,j}=0, \
\quad\qquad
j = 1, \cdots 6, \qquad {\rm even~} L \ge 2
\label{newevenloop}
\end{equation}
where $x^{(1)}$ and $x^{(2)}$ are constants defined in \eqns{defxyone}{defxtwo}.
\Eqns{evenloopdecoupling}{newevenloop} may be combined to
express each of the most-subleading-color amplitudes $A^{(L,L)}$
as linear combinations of
$A^{(L,L-1)}$ and $A^{(L,L-2)}$, using the constants $m^{(2)}$ defined
in \eqn{defmtwo}.
We have obtained the relations
(\ref{oddloopdecoupling})--(\ref{newevenloop})
by using the connection between the color basis
\cite{DelDuca:1999ha,DelDuca:1999rs}
and the trace basis of gauge theory amplitudes.
Since the independent color basis at $L$ loops is smaller than the trace basis,
the null eigenvectors of the transformation matrix from one basis to the other
imply constraints among the trace basis coefficients.
One can alternatively obtain some, but not all, of these constraints
by expanding the amplitude in a U($N$) trace basis,
and observing that an amplitude containing one or more photons
vanishes since the U(1) structure constants are
zero \cite{Bern:1990ux,Feng:2011fja}.
Such U(1) decoupling relations can be used to derive
\eqns{oddloopdecoupling}{evenloopdecoupling},
but not \eqn{newevenloop}.
The constraints
(\ref{oddloopdecoupling})--(\ref{newevenloop})
reduce the number of independent $L$-loop color-ordered five-point amplitudes
from $d(L)$ to $d(L-1)$ where
$d(L) = 10 L + 2 \lfloor \frac{L}{2} \rfloor + 12$.
No further constraints on $L$-loop color-ordered
five-point amplitudes arise from group theory alone.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows.
In sec.~\ref{sect-trace}, we review the trace basis
for five-point amplitudes at arbitrary loop order.
In sec.~\ref{sect-color}, we describe the color basis
and explain how each null eigenvector of the transformation matrix
from the color basis to the trace basis implies a
constraint among color-ordered amplitudes.
Finally, in sec.~\ref{sect-recursive}, we utilize a recursive approach
to derive the all-loop group-theory constraints on
five-point color-ordered amplitudes.
\section{The trace basis for all-loop five-point amplitudes}
\label{sect-trace}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
In this section, we review the trace and $1/N$ decomposition
of five-point amplitudes.
Five-point amplitudes of an SU($N$) gauge theory can be
expressed in terms of a basis $\{T_\lambda\}$, $\lambda = 1, \cdots, 22$,
of single and double traces.
We choose an explicit basis \cite{Naculich:2011fw} given by
\begin{eqnarray}
T_1 &=& \left[\mathop{\rm Tr}\nolimits (12345) - \mathop{\rm Tr}\nolimits(15432)\right],\qquad\qquad
T_7 = \left[\mathop{\rm Tr}\nolimits (12543) - \mathop{\rm Tr}\nolimits(13452)\right],\nonumber\\
T_2 &=& \left[\mathop{\rm Tr}\nolimits (14325) - \mathop{\rm Tr}\nolimits(15234)\right],\qquad\qquad
T_8 = \left[\mathop{\rm Tr}\nolimits (14523) - \mathop{\rm Tr}\nolimits(13254)\right],\nonumber\\
T_3 &=& \left[\mathop{\rm Tr}\nolimits (13425) - \mathop{\rm Tr}\nolimits(15243)\right],\qquad\qquad
T_9 = \left[\mathop{\rm Tr}\nolimits (13524) - \mathop{\rm Tr}\nolimits(14253)\right],\nonumber\\
T_4 &=& \left[\mathop{\rm Tr}\nolimits (12435) - \mathop{\rm Tr}\nolimits(15342)\right],\qquad\qquad
T_{10} = \left[\mathop{\rm Tr}\nolimits (12534) - \mathop{\rm Tr}\nolimits(14352)\right],\nonumber\\
T_5 &=& \left[\mathop{\rm Tr}\nolimits (14235) - \mathop{\rm Tr}\nolimits(15324)\right],\qquad\qquad
T_{11} = \left[\mathop{\rm Tr}\nolimits (14532) - \mathop{\rm Tr}\nolimits(12354)\right],\nonumber\\
T_6 &=& \left[\mathop{\rm Tr}\nolimits (13245) - \mathop{\rm Tr}\nolimits(15423)\right],\qquad\qquad
T_{12} = \left[\mathop{\rm Tr}\nolimits (13542) - \mathop{\rm Tr}\nolimits(12453)\right],
\label{singletrace}
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
T_{13} &=& \mathop{\rm Tr}\nolimits (12) \left[ \mathop{\rm Tr}\nolimits(345) - \mathop{\rm Tr}\nolimits(543) \right], \qquad\qquad
T_{18} = \mathop{\rm Tr}\nolimits (13) \left[ \mathop{\rm Tr}\nolimits(245) - \mathop{\rm Tr}\nolimits(542) \right], \nonumber\\
T_{14} &=& \mathop{\rm Tr}\nolimits (23) \left[ \mathop{\rm Tr}\nolimits(451) - \mathop{\rm Tr}\nolimits(154) \right], \qquad\qquad
T_{19} = \mathop{\rm Tr}\nolimits (24) \left[ \mathop{\rm Tr}\nolimits(351) - \mathop{\rm Tr}\nolimits(153) \right], \nonumber\\
T_{15} &=& \mathop{\rm Tr}\nolimits (34) \left[ \mathop{\rm Tr}\nolimits(512) - \mathop{\rm Tr}\nolimits(215) \right], \qquad\qquad
T_{20} = \mathop{\rm Tr}\nolimits (35) \left[ \mathop{\rm Tr}\nolimits(412) - \mathop{\rm Tr}\nolimits(214) \right], \nonumber\\
T_{16} &=& \mathop{\rm Tr}\nolimits (45) \left[ \mathop{\rm Tr}\nolimits(123) - \mathop{\rm Tr}\nolimits(321) \right], \qquad\qquad
T_{21} = \mathop{\rm Tr}\nolimits (41) \left[ \mathop{\rm Tr}\nolimits(523) - \mathop{\rm Tr}\nolimits(325) \right], \nonumber\\
T_{17} &=& \mathop{\rm Tr}\nolimits (51) \left[ \mathop{\rm Tr}\nolimits(234) - \mathop{\rm Tr}\nolimits(432) \right], \qquad\qquad
T_{22} = \mathop{\rm Tr}\nolimits (52) \left[ \mathop{\rm Tr}\nolimits(134) - \mathop{\rm Tr}\nolimits(431) \right],
\label{doubletrace}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\mathop{\rm Tr}\nolimits(12\cdots) \equiv \mathop{\rm Tr}\nolimits( T^{a_1} T^{a_2} \cdots )$,
and the matrices $T^a$ are the generators in the defining representation
of SU($N$), normalized according to $\mathop{\rm Tr}\nolimits(T^a T^b) = \delta^{ab}$.
All other possible trace terms vanish in SU($N$) since $\mathop{\rm Tr}\nolimits(T^a)=0$.
The $L$-loop amplitude may be further decomposed \cite{Bern:1997nh}
in powers of $N$ as
\begin{equation}
{\cal A} ^{(L)} =
\sum_{\lambda = 1}^{12}
\left( \sum_{k=0}^{\lfloor \frac{L}{2} \rfloor} N^{L-2k} A^{(L,2k)}_\lambda \right) T_\lambda
+ \sum_{\lambda = 13}^{22}
\left( \sum_{k=0}^{\lfloor \frac{L-1}{2} \rfloor}N^{L-2k-1} A^{(L,2k+1)}_\lambda\right) T_\lambda
\label{Ndecomp}
\end{equation}
where $A^{(L,0)}_\lambda$ are leading-color (planar) amplitudes,
and $A^{(L,k)}_\lambda$, $k = 1, \cdots, L$, are subleading-color amplitudes,
yielding in total $d(L)$ color-ordered amplitudes at $L$ loops, where
\begin{equation}
d(L) =
\begin{cases}
11 L + 12, & L {\rm ~even} \,, \\
11 L + 11, & L {\rm ~ odd} \,.
\end{cases}
\label{defd}
\end{equation}
The $1/N$ expansion (\ref{Ndecomp}) suggests enlarging
the 22-dimensional basis (\ref{singletrace}) and (\ref{doubletrace})
to a $d(L)$-dimensional basis which takes into account powers of $N$:
\begin{eqnarray}
t^{(L)}_{\lambda+ 22k} &=& N^{L - 2k} \, T_\lambda \,,
\quad\qquad \lambda = 1, \cdots, 12,
\ \qquad k = 0, \cdots, \lfloor \frac{L}{2} \rfloor,
\nonumber\\
t^{(L)}_{\lambda+ 22k} &=& N^{L-2k-1} \, T_\lambda \,,
\qquad \lambda = 13, \cdots, 22,
\qquad k = 0, \cdots, \lfloor \frac{L-1}{2} \rfloor \,.
\label{tracebasis}
\end{eqnarray}
We then write
\begin{equation}
{\cal A} ^{(L)} = \sum_{\lambda =1}^{d(L)} A^{(L)}_\lambda t^{(L)}_\lambda,
\qquad
{\rm where}
\qquad
A^{(L)}_{\lambda + 22k}=
\begin{cases}
A^{(L,2k)}_\lambda , & \lambda = 1, \cdots, 12 \,,\\
A^{(L,2k+1)}_\lambda, & \lambda =13, \cdots, 22\,.
\end{cases}
\label{tracedecomp}
\end{equation}
In the remainder of the paper, we demonstrate that
these $d(L)$ color-ordered amplitudes $A^{(L)}_{\lambda}$
obey a set of group-theory constraints
\begin{equation}
\sum_{\lambda=1}^{d(L)}
A^{(L)}_{\lambda} r^{(L)}_{\lambda j} = 0, \qquad \qquad j = 1, \cdots,
\begin{cases}
12, & {\rm even~} L \ge 2\,,\\
10, & {\rm odd~} L \,.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
In particular, these constraints can be used to
express the most-subleading color amplitudes $A^{(L,L)}$
at each loop order as linear combinations of $A^{(L,L-1)}$
for $L$ odd,
and in terms of $A^{(L,L-1)}$ and $A^{(L,L-2)}$ for $L$ even.
\section{The color basis for five-point amplitudes}
\label{sect-color}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
In this section, we review the
decomposition of the amplitude in a basis
of color factors \cite{DelDuca:1999ha,DelDuca:1999rs}.
The $n$-point amplitude in a gauge theory
containing only fields in the adjoint representation of SU($N$)
(such as pure Yang-Mills or supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory)
can be written in a loop expansion,
with the $L$-loop amplitude given by
a ``parent-graph'' decomposition \cite{Bern:2010tq}
\begin{equation}
{\cal A} ^{(L)} = \sum_i a^{(L)}_i c^{(L)}_i \,.
\label{colordecomp}
\end{equation}
Here $\{ c_i^{(L)} \}$ represents a
complete set\footnote{This set of color factors
need not be independent but may satisfy constraints
$\sum_i \ell_i c_i = 0$.
Such an overcomplete basis is usually required
to make color-kinematic duality manifest \cite{Bern:2008qj,Carrasco:2011mn}.}
of $L$-loop $n$-point diagrams built from cubic vertices
with a factor of the SU($N$) structure constants $\tilde{f}^{abc}$ at each vertex;
we have suppressed all momentum and spin dependence.
(Contributions from Feynman diagrams containing
quartic vertices with factors of
$\tilde{f}^{abe} \tilde{f}^{cde}$, $\tilde{f}^{ace} \tilde{f}^{bde}$, and $\tilde{f}^{ade} \tilde{f}^{bce}$
can be parceled out among other diagrams containing only cubic
vertices.)
The two decompositions (\ref{tracedecomp}) and (\ref{colordecomp})
may be related by expressing
the color factors as linear combinations
of the trace basis (\ref{tracebasis})
\begin{equation}
c_i^{(L)} = \sum_{\lambda=1}^{d(L)} M^{(L)}_{ i \lambda } t^{(L)}_\lambda \,.
\label{tx}
\end{equation}
Combining \eqns{colordecomp}{tx} then yields
\begin{equation}
A^{(L)}_\lambda = \sum_i a^{(L)}_i M^{(L)}_{i \lambda} \,.
\label{Aa}
\end{equation}
The number of independent color factors $n^{(L)}_{\rm color}$
is less than the dimension of the trace basis $d(L)$,
so the transformation matrix $M^{(L)}_{i \lambda}$
will have a set of $n^{(L)}_{\rm con}$ right null
eigenvectors\footnote{Constraints $\sum_i \ell_i c_i = 0$
among the color factors correspond to left null eigenvectors
of the transformation matrix: $\sum_i \ell_i M_{i \lambda} = 0.$}
\begin{equation}
\sum_{\lambda=1}^{d(L)} M^{(L)}_{ i \lambda } r^{(L)}_{\lambda j} =0\,, \qquad
j= 1, \cdots, n^{(L)}_{\rm con},
\qquad\qquad {\rm where} \quad n^{(L)}_{\rm con} = d(L) - n^{(L)}_{\rm color} \,.
\label{rightnull}
\end{equation}
In other words, the vectors $r^{(L)}_{\lambda j}$, $j = 1, \cdots, n^{(L)}_{\rm con}$
span the kernel
of the transformation matrix.
\Eqn{Aa} then implies $n^{(L)}_{\rm con}$ constraints
on the color-ordered amplitudes
\begin{equation}
\sum_{\lambda=1}^{d(L)}
A^{(L)}_\lambda r^{(L)}_{\lambda j} = 0, \qquad\qquad j = 1, \cdots, n^{(L)}_{\rm con} \,.
\label{rightrelations}
\end{equation}
Hence, the kernel of the transformation matrix determines the
group-theory constraints on the color-ordered amplitudes.
At tree level, we may choose an independent basis\footnote{A
larger, fifteen-dimensional basis is required to manifest
color-kinematic duality \cite{Bern:2008qj}.}
of color factors to be \cite{DelDuca:1999ha,DelDuca:1999rs}
\begin{eqnarray}
&&
c^{(0)}_{1} = \tilde{f}^{a_1 a_2 b}\tilde{f}^{b a_3 c}\tilde{f}^{c a_4 a_5}\,, \hskip 0.8cm
c^{(0)}_{2} = \tilde{f}^{a_1 a_4 b}\tilde{f}^{b a_3 c}\tilde{f}^{c a_2 a_5}\,, \hskip 0.8cm
c^{(0)}_{3} = \tilde{f}^{a_1 a_3 b}\tilde{f}^{b a_4 c}\tilde{f}^{c a_2 a_5}\,, \nonumber \\
&&
c^{(0)}_{4} = \tilde{f}^{a_1 a_2 b}\tilde{f}^{b a_4 c}\tilde{f}^{c a_3 a_5}\,, \hskip 0.8cm
c^{(0)}_{5} = \tilde{f}^{a_1 a_4 b}\tilde{f}^{b a_2 c}\tilde{f}^{c a_3 a_5}\,, \hskip 0.8cm
c^{(0)}_{6} = \tilde{f}^{a_1 a_3 b}\tilde{f}^{b a_2 c}\tilde{f}^{c a_4 a_5}\,.
\end{eqnarray}
By writing
\begin{equation}
\tilde{f}^{abc} = i \sqrt2 f^{abc} = \mathop{\rm Tr}\nolimits( [T^a, T^b] T^c )
\end{equation}
and using the SU($N$) identities
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathop{\rm Tr}\nolimits(P T^a) \mathop{\rm Tr}\nolimits(Q T^a) &=& \mathop{\rm Tr}\nolimits (PQ) - {1 \over N} \mathop{\rm Tr}\nolimits(P) \mathop{\rm Tr}\nolimits(Q)
\nonumber\\
\mathop{\rm Tr}\nolimits(P T^a Q T^a) &=& \mathop{\rm Tr}\nolimits (P) \mathop{\rm Tr}\nolimits(Q) - {1 \over N} \mathop{\rm Tr}\nolimits(P Q)
\end{eqnarray}
we find that
\begin{equation}
c_i^{(0)} = \sum_{\lambda=1}^{12} M^{(0)}_{ i \lambda } t^{(0)}_\lambda
\qquad {\rm with} \qquad
M^{(0)}
= \begin{pmatrix} {\,\hbox{1\kern-.8mm l}}_{6 \times 6} & m^{(0)} \end{pmatrix}
\label{txzero}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
m^{(0)} =
\left(
\begin{array}{cccccc}
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 \\
0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\
1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 \\
0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 \\
1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right) \,.
\label{defmzero}
\end{equation}
We denote the six right null eigenvectors of $M^{(0)}$ by
$x_{\lambda j}^{(0)}$, $j=1, \cdots, 6$, where
\begin{equation}
x^{(0)}
= \begin{pmatrix} m^{(0)} \\ - {\,\hbox{1\kern-.8mm l}}_{6 \times 6} \end{pmatrix}
= \left(
\begin{array}{rrrrrr}
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 \\
0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\
1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 \\
0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 \\
1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\ [2mm]
-1& 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 &-1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 &-1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 &-1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 &-1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 &-1
\end{array}
\right) \,.
\label{defxzero}
\end{equation}
The six constraints on color-ordered
tree amplitudes implied by these null vectors
\begin{equation}
\sum_{\lambda=1}^{12} A^{(0)}_\lambda x^{(0)}_{\lambda j}=0,
\qquad\qquad j = 1, \cdots 6
\label{treeleveldecoupling}
\end{equation}
are precisely the tree-level U(1) decoupling relations for
five-point amplitudes \cite{Mangano:1990by}.
In the next section, we will use \eqns{txzero}{defmzero} as the
starting point of a recursive procedure to derive
higher-loop relations among five-point amplitudes.
\section{Relations among $L$-loop five-point amplitudes}
\label{sect-recursive}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
In this section, we employ a recursive procedure \cite{Naculich:2011ep}
to obtain the set of right null eigenvectors at
arbitrary loop level,
which then determine the constraints
on the color-ordered amplitudes.
An $(L+1)$-loop diagram may be obtained from an $L$-loop diagram by
attaching a rung between
two of its external legs, $i$ and $j$.
This corresponds to contracting its color factor with
$e_{ij} \tilde{f}^{a_i a'_i b} \tilde{f}^{b a'_j a_j}$.
If $i$ and $j$ are not adjacent, this will convert a planar diagram into
a nonplanar diagram.
First consider the effect of this procedure on the trace basis
(\ref{singletrace})-(\ref{doubletrace})
\begin{equation}
T_\lambda \longrightarrow \sum_{\kappa=1}^{22} G_{\lambda\kappa} T_\kappa
\, , \qquad\qquad {\rm with} \qquad\qquad
G =
\begin{pmatrix}
N A & B \\ C & N D
\end{pmatrix}
\label{defG}
\end{equation}
where explicit expressions for the submatrices $A$, $B$, $C$, and $D$
are given in the appendix.
On the expanded basis (\ref{tracebasis}),
the same procedure yields
\begin{equation}
t^{(L)}_\lambda \to \sum_{\kappa=1}^{d(L+1)} g_{\lambda\kappa} t^{(L+1)}_\kappa
\end{equation}
where $g^{(L)}$ is the $d(L) \times d(L+1)$ matrix
\begin{equation}
g^{(L)} = \left( \begin{array}{cccccc}
A & B & 0 & 0 & 0 & \hdots \\
0 & D & C & 0 & 0 & \hdots \\
0 & 0 & A & B & 0 & \hdots \\
0 & 0 & 0 & D & C & \hdots \\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \ddots \\
\end{array} \right) \,.
\end{equation}
Now consider a complete set $\{ c_i^{(L)} \}$ of $L$-loop
color factors, expressed in terms of the trace basis via \eqn{tx}.
Attaching a rung between two external legs of $c_i^{(L)}$
yields
\begin{equation}
c_i^{(L)} \to \sum_{\lambda=1}^{d(L)} \sum_{\kappa=1}^{d(L+1)}
M^{(L)}_{ i \lambda } g^{(L)}_{\lambda\kappa} t^{(L+1)}_\kappa \,.
\end{equation}
If we assume that this procedure generates a complete set of
$(L+1)$-loop color factors $\{ c_i^{(L+1)} \}$,
then the kernel of $M^{(L+1)}_{i \kappa}$
is the kernel of $\sum_{\lambda=1}^{d(L)} M^{(L)}_{ i \lambda } g^{(L)}_{\lambda\kappa}$;
in other words,
\begin{equation}
\sum_{\lambda=1}^{d(L)} \sum_{\kappa=1}^{d(L+1)} M^{(L)}_{i \lambda} g^{(L)}_{\lambda \kappa} r^{(L+1)}_{\kappa j} = 0 \,.
\label{recursion}
\end{equation}
The solutions $r^{(L+1)}_{\kappa j}$ of this equation are given by the solutions of
\begin{equation}
\sum_{\kappa=1}^{d(L+1)} g^{(L)}_{\lambda \kappa} r^{(L+1)}_{\kappa j} = {\rm linear~combination~of~} \{ r^{(L)}_{\lambda j'} \}
\label{recursive}
\end{equation}
by virtue of \eqn{rightnull}.
We stress that \eqns{recursion}{recursive}
must hold for arbitrary values of the parameters
$e_{ij}$ in the matrices (\ref{defABCD}).
Our task is now to solve \eqn{recursive} recursively.
We begin with the tree-level
transformation matrix $M^{(0)}$ given in \eqns{txzero}{defmzero}.
At one loop, there are ten solutions of
\begin{equation}
\sum_{\lambda=1}^{12} \sum_{\kappa=1}^{22}
M^{(0)}_{i \lambda} g^{(0)}_{\lambda \kappa} r^{(1)}_{\kappa j} = 0
\label{onelooprecursion}
\end{equation}
where $g^{(0)} = (A \quad B)$;
these null eigenvectors are given by
\begin{equation}
r^{(1)} = \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
10 x^{(0)} & 0 \\
x^{(1)} & y^{(1)}
\end{array}
\right)
\label{nullone}
\end{equation}
where $x^{(0)}$ was defined in \eqn{defxzero}, and
$x^{(1)}$ and $y^{(1)}$ are given by\footnote{Each
$x^{(1)}_j$ is defined only up to the addition of arbitrary linear
combinations of the $y_j^{(1)}$.
This freedom could be used, for example,
to set the bottom four entries of $x_j^{(1)}$ to zero.
We have chosen the $x_j^{(1)}$ to be consistent with the two-loop eigenvectors
given below.}
\begin{equation}
x^{(1)} = \left(
\begin{array}{rrrrrr}
-2 & 0 & 0 & 2 & 1 & -1 \\
-2 & -1 & -2 & -2 & -1 & -2 \\
-1 & -2 & -2 & -1 & -2 & -2 \\
1 & 2 & 0 & 0 & -2 & -1 \\
-1 & 1 & -1 & 1 & -1 & 1 \\
-1 & 1 & 2 & 0 & 0 & -2 \\
-2 & -2 & -1 & -2 & -2 & -1 \\
0 & 0 & 2 & 1 & -1 & -2 \\
0 & 2 & 1 & -1 & -2 & 0 \\
-2 & -1 & 1 & 2 & 0 & 0 \\
\end{array}
\right),
\qquad\qquad
y^{(1)} = \left(
\begin{array}{rrrr}
1 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 0 & 1 \\
-1 & -1 & 0 & -1 \\
1 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\
-1 & 0 & -1 & -1 \\
-1 & -1 & -1 & -1 \\
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1
\end{array}
\right) \,.
\label{defxyone}
\end{equation}
The last four eigenvectors of \eqn{nullone} imply constraints
among the one-loop double-trace coefficients
\begin{equation}
\sum_{\lambda=13}^{22} A^{(1,1)}_\lambda y^{(1)}_{\lambda-12,j}=0,
\qquad\qquad j = 1, \cdots 4
\end{equation}
while the other six eigenvectors imply relations
between the one-loop single-trace and double-trace coefficients.
Equivalently we can write the ten one-loop null eigenvectors \eqn{nullone} as
\begin{equation}
r^{(1)}
= \begin{pmatrix} m^{(1)} \\ - {\,\hbox{1\kern-.8mm l}}_{10 \times 10} \end{pmatrix},
\qquad
{\rm where}
\quad
m^{(1)} =\left(
\begin{array}{rrrrrrrrrr}
1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 \\
-1 & 1 & 1 & -1 & -1 & -1 & 1 & -1 & -1 & -1 \\
1 & 1 & 1 & -1 & 1 & -1 & 1 & -1 & -1 & 1 \\
-1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & -1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & -1 \\
-1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & -1 & 1 & -1 & 1 & -1 \\
1 & 1 & 1 & -1 & -1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & -1 & 1 \\
-1 & -1 & 1 & 1 & -1 & -1 & -1 & 1 & -1 & -1 \\
1 & 1 & -1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & -1 & -1 & 1 & -1 \\
-1 & -1 & -1 & -1 & -1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 \\
1 & -1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & -1 & -1 & 1 & -1 & 1 \\
1 & 1 & -1 & -1 & -1 & 1 & -1 & -1 & -1 & -1 \\
-1 & -1 & -1 & -1 & 1 & -1 & 1 & -1 & 1 & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right) \,.
\label{nullonealt}
\end{equation}
These eigenvectors allow us to express each of
$A^{(1)}_{13}$ through $A^{(1)}_{22}$
(which correspond to double-trace coefficients)
in terms of a linear combination of
$A^{(1)}_{1}$ through $A^{(1)}_{12}$
(which correspond to single-trace coefficients)
namely
\begin{equation}
A^{(1,1)}_\lambda
= \sum_{\kappa=1}^{12} A^{(1,0)}_{\kappa} m^{(1)}_{\kappa, \lambda-12},
\qquad\qquad \lambda = 13, \cdots, 22 \,.
\label{oneloopdecoupling}
\end{equation}
These are precisely the one-loop
U(1) decoupling relations \cite{Bern:1990ux}
as previously observed \cite{Naculich:2011fw}.
Next we turn to the two-loop case.
The two-loop null eigenvectors $r^{(2)}$ satisfy
\begin{equation}
\sum_{\lambda=1}^{22} \sum_{\kappa=1}^{34}
M^{(1)}_{i \lambda} g^{(1)}_{\lambda \kappa} r^{(2)}_{\kappa j} = 0,
\qquad {\rm where} \qquad
g^{(1)} = \left( \begin{array}{ccc}
A & B & 0 \\
0 & D & C
\end{array} \right) \,.
\label{twolooprecursion}
\end{equation}
In ref.~\cite{Naculich:2011fw}, the form of $M^{(1)}$ was obtained by
expressing the independent twelve-dimensional basis
of pentagon color factors in terms of the one-loop trace basis.
In this paper, we instead (and equivalently) construct $M^{(1)}$
as the matrix that annihilates the set of
known one-loop null eigenvectors (\ref{nullonealt}),
namely,
\begin{equation}
M^{(1)}
= \begin{pmatrix} {\,\hbox{1\kern-.8mm l}}_{12 \times 12} & m^{(1)} \end{pmatrix} \,.
\end{equation}
Then one finds that \eqn{twolooprecursion} has twelve solutions
\begin{equation}
r^{(2)} = \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
10 x^{(0)} & 0 \\
x^{(1)} & 0 \\
x^{(2)} & x^{(0)} \\
\end{array}
\right) \,,
\label{nulltwo}
\end{equation}
where
$x^{(0)}$ and $x^{(1)}$ were given in \eqns{defxzero}{defxyone},
and $x^{(2)}$ is given by
\begin{equation}
x^{(2)} = \left(
\begin{array}{rrrrrr}
1 & 2 & 4 & 2 & 1 & 0 \\
2 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 2 & 4 \\
1 & 0 & 1 & 2 & 4 & 2 \\
2 & 4 & 2 & 1 & 0 & 1 \\
4 & 2 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 2 \\
0 & 1 & 2 & 4 & 2 & 1 \\ [2mm]
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0
\end{array}
\right) \,.
\label{defxtwo}
\end{equation}
We observe that the last six eigenvectors of \eqn{nulltwo}
imply constraints
among $A^{(L)}_{23}$ through $A^{(L)}_{34}$,
that is, among the two-loop subleading-color single-trace coefficients:
\begin{equation}
\sum_{\lambda=1}^{12} A^{(2,2)}_\lambda x^{(0)}_{\lambda j}=0,
\qquad\qquad j = 1, \cdots 6 \,.
\label{twoloopdecoupling}
\end{equation}
These are simply the two-loop U(1) decoupling relations,
analogous to the tree-level U(1) decoupling relations
(\ref{treeleveldecoupling}),
and can be obtained by an extension of the arguments
of ref.~\cite{Bern:1990ux}.
\Eqn{twoloopdecoupling}
was previously observed in ref.~\cite{Feng:2011fja}.
In that paper, it was also shown that analogs of the Kleiss-Kuijf relations
hold for the two-loop subleading-color single-trace coefficients
through seven points, but are modified for eight-point functions.
The first six eigenvectors of \eqn{nulltwo}
correspond to additional relations among
two-loop leading-color and subleading-color
five-point amplitudes\footnote{C.~Boucher-Veronneau and
L.~Dixon have independently obtained these relations
by recasting an independent two-loop color basis into the trace basis
\cite{BVD}.}
\begin{equation}
\sum_{\lambda=1}^{12}
\left( 10 A^{(2,0)}_\lambda x^{(0)}_{\lambda j}
+ A^{(2,2)}_\lambda x^{(2)}_{\lambda j} \right)
+\sum_{\lambda=13}^{22} A^{(2,1)}_\lambda x^{(1)}_{\lambda-12,j}=0,
\qquad\qquad
j = 1, \cdots 6 \,.
\end{equation}
These constraints, however, cannot be obtained by U(1) decoupling
arguments.
The twelve two-loop null eigenvectors (\ref{nulltwo})
can equivalently be expressed as
\begin{equation}
r^{(2)}
= \begin{pmatrix} m^{(2)}\\
-2 \!\times\!\! {\,\hbox{1\kern-.8mm l}}_{12 \times 12}
\end{pmatrix}
\label{nulltwoalt}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
m^{(2)} = \left(
\begin{array}{rrrrrrrrrrrr}
0 & -2 & -4 & 2 & -4 & 2 & -2 & -4 & -10 & -4 & -2 & 4 \\
-2 & 0 & 2 & -4 & 2 & -4 & -4 & -2 & 4 & -2 & -4 & -10 \\
-4 & 2 & 0 & -2 & -4 & 2 & -2 & 4 & -2 & -4 & -10 & -4 \\
2 & -4 & -2 & 0 & 2 & -4 & -4 & -10 & -4 & -2 & 4 & -2 \\
-4 & 2 & -4 & 2 & 0 & -2 & -10 & -4 & -2 & 4 & -2 & -4 \\
2 & -4 & 2 & -4 & -2 & 0 & 4 & -2 & -4 & -10 & -4 & -2 \\
-2 & -4 & -2 & -4 & 10 & 4 & 0 & -2 & 4 & 2 & 4 & -2 \\
-4 & -2 & 4 & 10 & -4 & -2 & -2 & 0 & -2 & 4 & 2 & 4 \\
10 & 4 & -2 & -4 & -2 & -4 & 4 & -2 & 0 & -2 & 4 & 2 \\
-4 & -2 & -4 & -2 & 4 & 10 & 2 & 4 & -2 & 0 & -2 & 4 \\
-2 & -4 & 10 & 4 & -2 & -4 & 4 & 2 & 4 & -2 & 0 & -2 \\
4 & 10 & -4 & -2 & -4 & -2 & -2 & 4 & 2 & 4 & -2 & 0 \\ [2mm]
1 & 1 & -1 & -1 & 1 & -1 & -1 & -1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & -1 \\
1 & 1 & -1 & -1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 \\
1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & -1 & -1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 \\
1 & 1 & 1 & -1 & -1 & -1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & -1 & -1 & -1 \\
1 & -1 & 1 & -1 & 1 & -1 & 1 & -1 & 1 & -1 & 1 & -1 \\
-1 & 1 & -1 & -1 & 1 & 1 & -1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & -1 & -1 \\
-1 & -1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 \\
-1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & -1 & -1 & -1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & -1 & -1 \\
-1 & -1 & 1 & -1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & -1 & -1 & -1 \\
-1 & -1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & -1 & -1 & -1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & -1 \\
\end{array}
\right) \,.
\label{defmtwo}
\end{equation}
These allow one to express all of the
most-subleading-color amplitudes $A^{(2,2)}$
in terms of linear combinations of $A^{(2,0)}$ and $A^{(2,1)}$.
Three-loop eigenvectors are the solutions of
\begin{equation}
\sum_{\lambda=1}^{34} \sum_{\kappa=1}^{44}
M^{(2)}_{i \lambda} g^{(2)}_{\lambda \kappa} r^{(3)}_{\kappa j} = 0 \,.
\label{threelooprecursion}
\end{equation}
One could construct $M^{(2)}$ from an independent
basis of two-loop color factors,
but instead we simply write it as the matrix whose kernel is
given by \eqn{nulltwoalt},
namely
\begin{equation}
M^{(2)}_{i\lambda}
= \begin{pmatrix} 2\! \times\!\!{\,\hbox{1\kern-.8mm l}}_{22 \times 22} & m^{(2)} \end{pmatrix} \,.
\end{equation}
One then finds that \eqn{threelooprecursion} has precisely
ten solutions,
\begin{equation}
r^{(3)} =
\left(
\begin{array}{rr}
0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 \\
10 x^{(0)} & 0 \\
x^{(1)} & y^{(1)}
\end{array}
\right)
\label{nullthree}
\end{equation}
where $x^{(0)}$, $x^{(1)}$, and $y^{(1)}$ were given
in \eqns{defxzero}{defxyone}.
These are exactly analogous to the one-loop null eigenvectors (\ref{nullone}).
The fact that there are no three-loop null eigenvectors
with non-zero entries in the top two blocks makes it
possible to solve the recursion relations to all loop orders.
This is based on the following observation.
We have written the $L$-loop null eigenvectors in block form,
with $r^{(L)}$ having $(L+1)$ blocks of alternating height 12 and 10.
By setting $e_2=e_3=e_4=e_5=1$
in the matrices (\ref{defABCD}),
one obtains $A = D = {\,\hbox{1\kern-.8mm l}}$ and $B = C = 0$.
Then \eqn{recursive} implies that the top $L$ blocks
of $r^{(L)}$ must be a linear combination of
$(L-1)$-loop null eigenvectors.
Then, since the top two blocks of $r^{(3)}$ vanish,
the top two blocks of $r^{(4)}$ must also vanish,
so that \eqn{recursive} for $r^{(4)}$
is precisely equivalent to \eqn{recursive} for $r^{(2)}$.
Similarly, \eqn{recursive} for $r^{(5)}$
is precisely equivalent to \eqn{recursive} for $r^{(3)}$,
and so forth.
Thus, there are ten null eigenvectors at each odd-loop order
and twelve null eigenvectors at each even-loop order
(except at tree level, where there are six),
which are given explicitly by
\begin{equation}
r^{(2\ell+1)}=
\left(
\begin{array}{rr}
\vdots & \vdots \\
0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 \\
10 x^{(0)} & 0 \\
x^{(1)} & y^{(1)}
\end{array}
\right),
\qquad
r^{(2\ell+2)}=
\left(
\begin{array}{rr}
\vdots & \vdots \\
0 & 0 \\
10 x^{(0)} & 0 \\
x^{(1)} & 0 \\
x^{(2)} & x^{(0)} \\
\end{array}
\right) \,.
\end{equation}
Finally, the $L$-loop relations among color-ordered five-point amplitudes
implied by these null eigenvectors
are given in
eqs.~(\ref{oddloopdecoupling})--(\ref{newevenloop}).
\section{Conclusions}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
In this paper, we have derived group-theory identities
for color-ordered five-point amplitudes
in SU($N$) gauge theories at all loop orders.
We used a recursive procedure
to derive the constraints on $L$-loop color factors
that are generated by
attaching a rung between
two external legs of an $(L-1)$-loop color factor.
Assuming that all $L$-loop color factors are linear
combinations of those just described (i.e., via Jacobi
relations), the constraints derived
apply to all $L$-loop color-ordered amplitudes.
At odd-loop levels, we obtained ten relations,
analogous to the one-loop U(1) decoupling relations,
which allow one to express the most-subleading-color amplitudes
$A^{(L,L)}$ in terms of the second-most-subleading-color
amplitudes $A^{(L,L-1)}$.
At even-loop levels, we obtained six relations
that relate the most-subleading-color amplitudes $A^{(L,L)}$
to one another,
analogous to the tree-level U(1) decoupling relations.
For even $L \ge 2$, we obtained six additional
relations relating $A^{(L,L)} $ to other amplitudes,
which cannot be obtained by U(1) decoupling.
All twelve of the even-loop relations can be combined to express
$A^{(L,L)}$ as linear combinations
of $A^{(L,L-1)}$ and $A^{(L,L-2)}$.
It would clearly be of interest to extend these results
to six-point amplitudes and beyond.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
It is a pleasure to thank C.~Boucher-Veronneau for
discussions and for useful comments on the manuscript.
\vfil\break
|
\section{Introduction}
The distinction between quantum and classical correlations in the state of a multipartite physical system is a fundamental problem with far-reaching implications \cite{OZ,HV}. Correlations can be regarded as genuinely classical if they are essentially revealed by classical information theory tools as analogues of correlations between random variables. On the other hand, entangled states have been traditionally considered as the only quantum-correlated class of states \cite{Werner89}, but this statement has recently proven to be misleading. Several features of separable (i.e. unentangled) states are incompatible with a purely classical description. To mention a few, an ensemble of separable nonorthogonal states cannot be discriminated perfectly \cite{nonlocwithoutent}, general separable states may have off-diagonal coherences in any product basis \cite{piani}, or, more practically, a measurement process on part of a composite system in a separable state may (and in general does) induce disturbance on the state of the complementary subsystems \cite{MID}. These are some genuine signatures of nonclassicality of correlations in the considered states, yet without any entanglement.
A renewed attention towards the properties and the usefulness of such general quantum correlations in separable (and entangled) states has been triggered by the observation that, in mixed-state models of quantum computation (e.g. the so-called DQC1), such general quantum correlations may be at the root of a speed-up compared to classical scenario, despite the presence of zero or nearly vanishing entanglement \cite{dattabarbieriaustinchaves,dqc1discord}.
In general, it still remains an open issue whether such general quantum correlations are just related to the statistical properties of a state, or represent truly some stronger, physical correlations of quantum nature that reduce to the entanglement in some cases, and go beyond it in general \cite{merali}.
It is clear that on pure bipartite states of arbitrary quantum systems, entanglement and quantum correlations are just synonyms. Both of them collapse onto the notion of lack of information about the system under scrutiny, when only a subsystem is probed. Quantitatively, this implies that any meaningful measure of entanglement or general quantum correlations should just reduce to some monotonic function of the marginal entropy of each reduced subsystem, when applied to pure bipartite states. The question becomes significantly more interesting for mixed bipartite states. One would expect to find, in general, an amount of quantum correlations that is no less than some valid entanglement monotone. In this paper we prove such an intuition to hold true for a particular choice of quantifiers of entanglement and quantum correlations, on arbitrary two-qubit states and on a relevant subclass of two-qudit states.
We recall that, in the last decade, a zoo of entanglement measures (say ${\cal E}$ the amount of entanglement they aim to quantify) have been introduced \cite{PlenioVirmani}, and in a more recent drift several measures have been proposed as well to evaluate the degree of general quantum correlations (say ${\cal Q}$) in composite systems \cite{OZ,HV,MID,altremisure,req,modi,dakic,genio}. It seems reasonable to expect that
\begin{equation}
{\cal Q} \geq {\cal E}
\label{equestion}
\end{equation}
should hold for a {\it bona fide} chosen pair of quantifiers (see also \cite{nuovogenio}).
However, this claim turns out to be not mathematically fulfilled in some canonical cases. Selecting for instance two well-established entropic quantifiers such as the ``entanglement of formation'' \cite{eof} as an entanglement monotone, and the ``quantum discord'' \cite{OZ,HV} as a measure of quantum correlations, one finds that the latter can be greater as well as smaller than the former depending on the states, and no clear hierarchy can be established, even in the simple cases of two-qubit systems \cite{alqasimi} or two-mode Gaussian states \cite{AD_10}. An interesting study has recently succeeded in describing entanglement, classical and quantum correlations under a unified geometric picture \cite{modi}, by quantifying each type of correlations in terms of the smallest distance (according to the relative entropy) from the corresponding set of states without that type of correlations. For example, the amount of entanglement in a state $\rho$ is given by the relative-entropic distance between $\rho$ and its closest separable state, and it is called relative entropy of entanglement \cite{vedralrelent}. In this context, our expectation holds: the relative entropy of entanglement ${\cal E}_R$ is automatically smaller in general than the so-called relative entropy of quantumness ${\cal Q}_R$ \cite{req}, which in turn quantifies the minimum relative entropic-distance from the set of purely classically correlated states (a null-measure subset of the convex set of separable states \cite{acinferraro}). The latter measure ${\cal Q}_R$ has been recently interpreted operationally within an `activation' framework that recognizes the value of general quantum correlations as resources to generate entanglement with an ancillary system \cite{genio} (see also \cite{bruss,genioij}). Such a protocol is sufficiently general to let one define, in a natural way, quantumness measures ${\cal Q_E}$ associated to any proper entanglement monotone ${\cal E}$. In this way the question of the validity of \eq{equestion} becomes especially meaningful given the natural compatibility of the involved quantifiers \cite{nuovogenio}. However, there is a nontrivial optimization step required for the calculation of each ${\cal Q_E}$ that hinders the explicit computability of the desired resources.
In this paper, we choose {\it computable} measures for entanglement and general quantum correlations. In the case of entanglement, we adopt the squared ``negativity'' ${\cal N}^2$ \cite{vidwer}, which is a measure of abstract algebraic origin, quantifying how much a bipartite state fails to satisfy the positivity of partial transpose (PPT) criterion for separability introduced by Peres and the Horodeckis \cite{PPT}. In the case of quantum correlations, we pick the ``geometric quantum discord'' $D_G$ \cite{dakic}, which measures (as suggested by the name) the minimum distance of a state from the set of classically correlated states, in terms of the squared Hilbert--Schmidt norm. Both measures are taken to be normalized between $0$ and $1$. Despite the very different origin and nature of these two measures, we prove that \eq{equestion} holds, namely $D_G \ge {\cal N}^2$, for arbitrary mixed states of two qubits.
We remark that both measures play key roles in the quantum correlation scenario, especially for their observability and usefulness in quantum information applications. In fact, the negativity is a popular entanglement measure, operationally related to the entanglement cost under PPT preserving operations \cite{pptcost}, and amenable of experimental estimation via quantitative entanglement witnesses (which provide measurable lower bounds to ${\cal N}$) \cite{quantwit}. On the other hand, the geometric discord, operationally interpreted in \cite{luofu}, also admits a tight lower bound $Q$ \cite{pirla} (which is by itself a faithful, observable quantifier of general quantum correlations), whose detection---not requiring complete state tomography---currently constitutes the optimal pathway to reveal and quantitatively estimate nonclassical correlations in quantum algorithms such as DQC1 mixed-state quantum computation \cite{dqc1discord}. In this respect, we show specifically that the chain $D_G\geq Q\geq {\cal N}^2$ holds on general two-qubit states (where the leftmost inequality is analytical \cite{pirla} and the rightmost one is corroborated by numerical simulations).
Furthermore, we prove that the inequality $D_G \ge {\cal N}^2$ extends to arbitrary pure, Werner \cite{Werner89} and isotropic states \cite{isot} of two qudits for any higher dimension $d$. We further provide numerical evidence that supports the validity of the inequality also in generic states of $2 \otimes 3$ systems. We then conjecture that $D_G \ge {\cal N}^2$ should hold for arbitrary mixed states of $d \otimes d'$ bipartite system. Our results demonstrate an interesting hierarchy between two apparently unrelated quantifiers of nonclassicality, for both of which closed formulas (and experimentally friendly detection schemes) are available on the classes of states considered here.
The fact that the geometric discord stands as a sharp upper bound on a computable measure of entanglement such as the (squared) negativity, is a worthwhile issue to impose a rigorous ordering of resources, for all those applications where the performance of a quantum information and communication primitive relies on the amount and the nature of nonclassical correlations between the involved parties \cite{dattacommun}.
The paper is organized as follows. Sec.~\ref{SecMeas} recalls the definitions of negativity and geometric discord. In Sec.~\ref{SecQub} we compare the two measures on arbitrary states of two qubits. In Sec.~\ref{SecQud} we extend our analysis to higher-dimensional systems. We summarize our results and discuss future perspectives in Sec.~\ref{SecConcl}.
\section{Measures of entanglement and quantum correlations}\label{SecMeas}
\subsection{Negativity}
According to the PPT criterion \cite{PPT}, if a state $\rho_{AB} \equiv \rho$ of a bipartite quantum system is separable, then the partially transposed matrix $\rho^{t_A}$ is still a valid density operator, namely it is positive semidefinite. In general, $\rho^{t_A}$ is defined as the result of the transposition performed on only one ($A$, in this case) of the two subsystems in some given basis. Even though the resulting $\rho^{t_A}$ does depend on the choice of the
transposed subsystem and on the transposition basis, the statement $\rho^{t_A}\ge0$ is invariant under such
choices \cite{PPT}. For $2 \otimes 2$ and $2 \otimes 3$ mixed states \cite{PPT}, for arbitrary $d \otimes d'$ pure states, and for all Gaussian states of $1 \otimes n$ mode continuous variable systems \cite{Simonwerwolf}, the PPT criterion is a necessary and sufficient condition for separability and, at the same time, its failure reliably marks the presence of entanglement. In all the other cases, there exist states which can be entangled yet with a positive partial transpose: they are so-called bound entangled states, whose entanglement cannot be distilled by means of local operations and classical communications (LOCC) \cite{bound}.
On a quantitative level, the negativity of the partial transpose, or, simply, ``negativity'' ${\cal N}(\rho)$ \cite{zircone,vidwer} can be adopted as a valid, computable measure of (distillable) entanglement for arbitrary bipartite systems. The negativity of a quantum state $\rho$ of a bipartite $d \otimes d$ system can be defined as
\begin{equation}\label{nega}
{\cal N}(\rho) = \frac{1}{d-1} (\|\rho^{t_A}\|_1 -1)\,,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}\label{norm1}
\|M\|_1=\text{Tr}|M| = \sum_i |m_i|\
\end{equation}
stands for the $1$-norm, or trace norm, of the matrix $M$ with eigenvalues $\{m_i\}$.
The quantity ${\cal N} (\rho)$ is proportional to the modulus of the sum of the negative
eigenvalues of $\rho^{t_A}$, quantifying the extent to which
the partial transpose fails to be positive.
The negativity ${\cal N}$ is in general an easily computable entanglement measure, and it has been proven to be (along with its square ${\cal N}^2$) convex and monotone under LOCC \cite{vidwer}. The squared negativity ${\cal N}^2$ satisfies a monogamy inequality on the sharing of entanglement for multiqubit systems \cite{ckwyongche}.
\subsection{Geometric quantum discord}
The ``geometric quantum discord'' $D_G$ has been recently introduced as a simple geometrical quantifier of general nonclassical correlations in bipartite quantum states \cite{dakic}. Let us suppose to have a bipartite system $AB$ in a state $\rho$ and to perform a local measurement on the subsystem $B$. Almost all (entangled or separable) states will be subject to some disturbance due to such a measurement \cite{acinferraro}. However, there is a subclass of states which is left unperturbed by at least one measurement: it is the class of the so-called ``classical-quantum'' states \cite{piani}, whose representatives have a density matrix of this form
\begin{eqnarray}\label{cq}
\rho = \sum _i p_i \rho _{Ai}\otimes |i\rangle \langle i | ,
\end{eqnarray}
where $p_i$ is a probability distribution, $\rho_{Ai}$ is the marginal density matrix of $A$ and $\{|i\rangle\}$ is an orthonormal vector set.
Letting $\Omega$ be the set of classical-quantum states, and $\chi$ be a generic element of this set, the geometric discord $D_G$ is defined as the distance between the state $\rho$ and the closest classical-quantum state. In the original definition \cite{dakic}, the (unnormalized) squared Hilbert--Schmidt distance is adopted. We employ here a normalized version of the geometric quantum discord for arbitrary mixed states $\rho$ of a $d \otimes d$ quantum system,
\begin{equation}\label{dgeom}
D_G(\rho)=\frac{d}{d-1} \min_{\chi \in \Omega} \|\rho -\chi \|_2^2\,.
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}\label{norm2}
\|M\|_2=\sqrt{\text{Tr}(M M^\dagger)} = \sqrt{\sum_i m_i^2}\,,
\end{equation}
stands for the $2$-norm, or Hilbert--Schmidt norm, of the matrix $M$ with eigenvalues $\{m_i\}$.
The quantity $D_G (\rho)$ in \eq{dgeom} is normalized between $0$ (on classical-quantum states) and $1$ (on maximally entangled states $\rho=\ket{\psi}\!\bra{\psi}$, $\ket{\psi} = d^{-1/2} \sum_{j=0}^{d-1} \ket{j}\ket{j}$).
The geometric discord can be re-interpreted as the minimal disturbance, again measured according to the squared Hilbert--Schmidt distance, induced by any projective measurement $\Pi^B$ on subsystem $B$ \cite{luofu},
$$ D_G(\rho)=\frac{d}{d-1} \min_{\Pi^B} \|\rho -\Pi^B(\rho) \|_2^2\,.$$
We notice that the geometric discord is not symmetric under a swap of the two parties, $A \leftrightarrow B$.
The minimization involved in the definition of the geometric quantum discord can be solved exactly for arbitrary two-qubit states \cite{dakic} and pure two-qudit states \cite{luofu,luoMIL}, leading to computable formulas, as detailed in the following Sections. In the remainder of the paper, we will compare entanglement --- quantified by ${\cal N}^2$ --- and quantum correlations --- quantified by $D_G$. The latter will be shown to majorize the former. We observe that picking the square of the negativity as entanglement measure is unconventional, yet necessary in this case: we want to make a mathematically consistent comparison of measures, both acting quadratically on the eigenvalues of the involved matrices [compare Eqs.~(\ref{nega}) and (\ref{dgeom})].
\section{Geometric discord versus negativity in two-qubit systems}\label{SecQub}
The main result of this Section is the following.
\begin{Theorem}\label{teo1}For every general two-qubit state $\rho$, the geometric quantum discord is always greater or equal than the squared negativity,
\begin{equation}\label{tesi}
D_G(\rho) \geq {\cal N}^2(\rho)\,.
\end{equation}
\end{Theorem}
Let us review the formulas needed to evaluate the two chosen measures for generic two-qubit states.
The geometric discord $D_G$ admits an explicit closed expression for two-qubit states \cite{dakic}. First, one needs to express the $4\times 4$ density matrix $\rho$ of a two-qubit state in the so-called Bloch basis (or $R$-picture) \cite{verstraete}:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{bloch}
\rho&=& \frac14 \sum_{i,j=0}^3 R_{ij} \sigma_i \otimes \sigma_j \\
\nonumber &=& \frac 14\bigg(\mathbb{I}_{4}+\sum_{i=1}^3 x_i\sigma_i \otimes \mathbb{I}_{2} \\ \nonumber
& & \quad +\sum_{j=1}^3 y_j \mathbb{I}_{2}\otimes \sigma_j+\sum_{i,j=1}^3 t_{ij} \sigma _i\otimes\sigma_j\bigg),
\end{eqnarray}
where $R_{ij}=\text{Tr}[\rho(\sigma_i\otimes \sigma_j)]$, $\sigma_0=\mathbb{I}_{2}$, $\sigma _i$ ($i=1,2,3$) are the Pauli matrices, $\vec{x}=\{x_i\},\vec{y}=\{y_i\}$ are the three-dimensional Bloch column vectors associated to the subsystems $A,B$, and $t_{ij}$ denote the elements of the correlation matrix $T$. Then, following \cite{dakic}, the normalized geometric discord $D_G$, \eq{dgeom}, takes the form
\begin{equation}\label{dgformula}
D_G(\rho)= \frac 12(\|\vec y\|^2 + \|T\|_2^2 -k),
\end{equation}
with $k$ being the largest eigenvalue of the matrix $\vec y {\vec y}^t+ T^t T$.
The expression in \eq{dgformula} can be also recast as the solution to a variational problem \cite{luofu}; namely, for two qubits,
\begin{equation}\label{dgformula2}
D_G(\rho)= 2 \left[\text{Tr}(C^t C) - \max_A \text{Tr}(A C^t C A^t)\right]\,,
\end{equation}
where $C=R/2$ and the maximum is taken over all $2\times 4$ isometries $A = \frac{1}{\sqrt2}\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & \vec a \\
1 & -\vec a \\
\end{array}
\right)
$, with $\vec a$ a three-dimensional unit vector.
Concerning the negativity ${\cal N}$, \eq{nega}, it is known that a two-qubit state $\rho$ is separable if and only if $\rho^{t_A} \ge 0$ \cite{PPT}, and, for entangled two-qubit states $\rho$, at most one eigenvalue of the partial transpose $\rho^{t_A}$ can be negative \cite{verstraete}. Denoting by $\{\lambda_i\}$ the eigenvalues of $\rho^{t_A}$ in decreasing order, for two-qubit entangled states we have $\lambda_1 \ge \lambda_2 \ge \lambda_3 \ge 0\ge \lambda_4$ and the negativity of $\rho$ takes the form \cite{vidwer}
\begin{equation}\label{negaformula}
{\cal N}(\rho)= \|\rho ^{t_A}\|_1-1=2 |\lambda_4| \,,
\end{equation}
while for separable states ($\lambda_4 \ge 0$) one has
${\cal N}(\rho)=0$.
We first compare entanglement and quantum correlations in the simple instance of pure two-qubit states $\rho^p=\ket{\psi}\!\bra{\psi}$. Up to local unitary operations (which leave correlations invariant), a two-qubit pure state can be written in its Schmidt decomposition, corresponding to a density matrix of the form
\begin{equation}\label{rhopure}
\rho^p=
\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
\frac{1}{2} \left(\sqrt{1-\mathcal{N}^2}+1\right) & 0 & 0 & \frac{\mathcal{N}}{2} \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
\frac{\mathcal{N}}{2} & 0 & 0 & \frac{1}{2} \left(1-\sqrt{1-\mathcal{N}^2}\right)
\end{array}
\right)
\end{equation}
It is straightforward to show that in this case,
\begin{equation}
D_G(\rho^p)={\cal N}^2(\rho^p) \equiv S_L(\rho^p_A)\,,\label{pured}
\end{equation}
where $S_L(\rho^p_A)=4 \det(\rho^p_A)$ denotes the marginal linear entropy of one subsystem in its reduced state. As expected, entanglement and quantum correlations correctly coincide for pure two-qubit states, and specifically the two chosen measures (geometric discord and squared negativity) collapse onto the very same quantifier of local lack of purity.
For general two-qubit mixed states, our intuition dictates that the amount of quantum correlations should exceed entanglement. This is formalized in Theorem~\ref{teo1}, which we are now ready to prove.
\begin{proof}
We focus on the case of entangled states, as \eq{tesi} trivially holds when $\rho$ is separable. \\
First, we have a look at the original formulation of geometric discord in \cite{dakic}: the closest classical-quantum state $\bar{\chi}$ that achieves the minimum of the Hilbert--Schmidt norm $||\rho - \chi||_2^2$ is such that $\text{Tr}[\rho{\bar{\chi}}]=\text{Tr}[{\bar{\chi}}^2]$. Thus, we can rewrite \eq{dgeom} as
\begin{eqnarray}\label{semp}
D_G&=&2\ \min_{ \chi \in \Omega}\|\rho - \chi\|_2^2 = 2\left(\text{Tr}[\rho^2]-\text{Tr}[{\bar{\chi}}^2]\right)\nonumber\\
&=&2\left(\text{Tr}[\rho^{t_A\ 2}]-\text{Tr}[{\bar{\chi}}^2]\right).
\end{eqnarray}
Then, denoting (as before) by ${\bf \lambda}=\{\lambda_i\}$ the vector of eigenvalues of $\rho^{t_A}$ in decreasing order ($\lambda_1 \geq\lambda_2\geq\lambda_3\geq 0\geq \lambda_4$), and similarly denoting by ${\bf \varsigma}=\{\varsigma_i\}$ the vector of eigenvalues of ${\bar{\chi}}$ ($\varsigma_1 \geq\varsigma_2\geq\varsigma_3\geq \varsigma_4\geq 0$), recalling that the Hilbert--Schmidt norm is invariant under partial transposition \cite{geover}, we obtain $\sum_{i=1}^4\varsigma_i^2= \text{Tr}[\rho^{t_A}{\bar{\chi}}]$. We can further exploit the Hoffman--Wielandt theorem \cite{horn}, which implies that
\begin{equation}\label{resparz}
\|\rho^{t_A}-{\bar{\chi}}\|_2^2 \geq \sum_{i=1}^4|\lambda_i-\varsigma_i|^2 =\sum_{i=1}^3 |\lambda_i-\varsigma_i|^2 + (|\lambda_4|+\varsigma_4)^2.
\end{equation}
Thus, from (\ref{semp}) and (\ref{resparz}) we have
\begin{eqnarray}\label{ermetodo}
\sum_{i=1}^4 \varsigma_i^2 = \sum_{i=1}^4 \lambda_i\varsigma_i.
\end{eqnarray}
Now, let us consider the function
\begin{eqnarray}
f({\bf \lambda},{\bf \varsigma})=\sum_{i=1}^3\lambda_i|\lambda_i-\varsigma_i| -|\lambda_4|(|\lambda_4|-\varsigma_4);
\end{eqnarray}
it is easy to see that, performing an optimization by the Lagrange multipliers method, the minimum of $f$ keeping fixed $|\lambda_4|$ and $\varsigma_4$ (say $f'$) is reached when $\lambda_1=\lambda_2=\lambda_3=\frac{(1+|\lambda_4|)}3$ and $\varsigma_1=\varsigma_2=\varsigma_3=\frac{1-\varsigma_4}{3}$. Hence, we have
\[
f'(|\lambda_4|,\chi_4)=(1+|\lambda_4|)\left(\frac{1+|\lambda_4|}3-\frac{1-\varsigma_4}3\right)-|\lambda_4|(|\lambda_4|-\varsigma_4).
\]
Furthermore, optimizing over $\varsigma_4$ we obtain $f''$, which is the minimum of $f$ at fixed $|\lambda_4|$ (i.e. at fixed negativity):
\begin{eqnarray}
f''(|\lambda_4|)= \frac{1+|\lambda_4|}3 -|\lambda_4|\geq 0.
\end{eqnarray}
Finally, the last inequality implies
$\sum_{i=1}^3\lambda_i|\lambda_i-\varsigma_i| \geq |\lambda_4|(|\lambda_4|-\varsigma_4)$, i.e.,
\[
\sum_{i=1}^3\lambda_i|\lambda_i-\varsigma_i| +|\lambda_4|(|\lambda_4|+\varsigma_4)\geq 2|\lambda_4|^2,
\]
and thanks to \eq{ermetodo} this yields
\begin{equation}
\sum_{i=1}^4|\lambda_i-\varsigma_i|^2 \geq 2|\lambda_4|^2\,,
\end{equation}
which is equivalent to \eq{tesi}, thus demonstrating the claim.
This concludes the proof of Theorem \ref{teo1} for all two-qubit mixed states.
\end{proof}
To illustrate the comparison between geometric discord and squared negativity, we plot in Fig.~\ref{figqubits} the physical region filled by $10^5$ randomly generated two-qubit states in the space $D_G$ versus ${\cal N}^2$. Along with the (red online) lower bound emerging from Theorem \ref{teo1}, saturated by pure states [\eq{rhopure}] for which $D_G = {\cal N}^2$, we notice the existence of an upper bound as well on $D_G$ at fixed negativity. This shows that the quantum correlations in excess of entanglement or, in general, beyond entanglement are somehow constrained. Two-qubit states saturating the (green online) upper bound can be sought within the class of rank-two $X$-shaped density matrices of the form
\begin{equation}
\label{X2}
\rho^X=\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
a & 0 & 0 & \sqrt{a d} \\
0 & b & \sqrt{b c} & 0 \\
0 & \sqrt{b c} & c & 0 \\
\sqrt{a d} & 0 & 0 & d
\end{array}
\right)\,,
\end{equation}
where $d=1-a-b-c$ and $b=\big[2-2 a-2 c+2 \big(-1+6 a-7 a^2+6 c-18 a c-7 c^2+4 \sqrt{2} \sqrt{a c (-1+2 a+2 c)^2}\big)^{\frac12}\big]/4$, with $a$ and $c$
varying in the parameter range $0 \le a,c \le 1/2,\, -1+6 a-7 a^2+6 c-18 a c-7 c^2+4 \sqrt{2} \sqrt{a c} |2 a+2 c-1| \ge 0$. The remaining optimization of $D_G$ at fixed ${\cal N}^2$ can be efficiently done numerically.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=8.2cm]{figqubits.pdf}\label{figqubits}}\hspace*{1.3cm}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=8.2cm]{qvsneg.pdf}\label{qvsneg}}
\caption{(Color online) Geometric quantum discord $D_G$ (a) and its observable lower bound $Q$ (b) versus squared negativity ${\cal N}^2$ for $10^5$ randomly generated states of two qubits. The lower boundary (red online) in both plots accommodates pure states. In panel (a), the upper boundary (green online) can be saturated by a subclass of rank-two states of the form \eq{X2}; while the side (magenta online) vertical line at ${\cal N}^2=0$ is filled by separable states yet with nonzero quantum correlations, which reach up to the value $D_G = 1/4$ on states of the form \eq{sepopt}. All the quantities plotted are dimensionless. }\label{fig1ab}
\end{figure*}
In the limiting case of separable two-qubit states, ${\cal N}(\rho^{sep})=0$, the maximum value of the (normalized) geometric discord can be analytically found to be \cite{notevlatko} \begin{equation}
D_G(\rho^{sep}_{opt})=\frac14\,.
\end{equation}
This is achieved by imposing the edge of separability, $\lambda_4=0$, that corresponds to $a d = b c$ in \eq{X2}. The maximum $D_G$ is then reached e.g. for $a=c=\frac{1}{8} \left(2+\sqrt{2}\right)$. Notice that the corresponding state $\rho^{sep}_{opt}$,
\begin{equation}
\label{sepopt}
\rho^{sep}_{opt}= \left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
\frac{1}{8} \left(2+\sqrt{2}\right) & 0 & 0 & \frac{1}{4 \sqrt{2}} \\
0 & \frac{1}{8} \left(2-\sqrt{2}\right) & \frac{1}{4 \sqrt{2}} & 0 \\
0 & \frac{1}{4 \sqrt{2}} & \frac{1}{8} \left(2+\sqrt{2}\right) & 0 \\
\frac{1}{4 \sqrt{2}} & 0 & 0 & \frac{1}{8} \left(2-\sqrt{2}\right)
\end{array}
\right),
\end{equation}
upon swapping the subsystems $A$ and $B$, becomes of the classical-quantum form of \eq{cq}, i.e., a state with zero $D_G$. This suggests that the maximum geometric discord for general two-qubit separable states, is obtained on an extremally asymmetric state (the marginal state ${\rho^{sep}_{opt}}_A$ is maximally mixed, while the marginal state of subsystem $B$ is quasi-pure, $\text{Tr}\big({{\rho^{sep}_{opt}}_B}^2\big)=3/4$), that displays no signature of quantum correlations at all if subsystem $A$ rather than $B$ is probed by local measurements. The example in \eq{sepopt} is just one of an entire class of two-qubit states that enjoy the same property \cite{genioij}.
The full allowed range $0 \le D_G \le 1/4$ for the geometric discord of separable states (magenta line in Fig.~\ref{figqubits}) can be spanned for instance by mixtures of the form $\rho^{sep}_p = p \rho^{sep}_{opt} + (1-p) I/4$, with $0 \le p \le 1$, for which $D_G(\rho^{sep}_p)=p^2/4$.
We can refine the hierarchy proven in this Section by taking into account the observable measure of quantum correlations $Q$ introduced in \cite{pirla}. In particular, for arbitrary two-qubit states this quantity takes the form of a state-independent function of the density matrix elements given by
\begin{eqnarray}
Q=\frac 23\left(\text{Tr}[S]-\sqrt{6\text{Tr}[S^2]-2(\text{Tr}[S])^2}\right),
\end{eqnarray}
where $S=\frac 14( \vec{y}\vec{y}^t+T^tT)$. We have shown in \cite{pirla} how to recast $Q$ in terms of observables that can be measured experimentally via simple quantum circuits. We also proved that $Q$ is a tight lower bound to the geometric discord, i.e. $D_G\geq Q$, where the inequality is saturated for pure states and $Q=0\iff D_G =0$. In Fig.~\ref{qvsneg} we plot $Q$ versus the squared negativity: numerics confirm that this novel quantity is still an upper bound to ${\cal N}^2$. Therefore, the following hierarchical ordering is satisfied for all two-qubit states: $D_G \geq Q\geq {\cal N}^2$, while all the quantifiers become equal for pure states.
\section{Geometric discord versus negativity in higher-dimensional systems}\label{SecQud}
Here we provide extensions of the results of the previous Section to $d \otimes d$ and $d \otimes d'$ systems.
\subsection{Pure $\boldsymbol{d \otimes d}$ states}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\includegraphics[width=16cm]{figqudits.pdf}
\caption{(Color online) Geometric quantum discord versus squared negativity for $3 \times 10^4$ (per panel) randomly generated states pure states of two qudits with $d=2,\ldots,7$. The two measures coincide for $d=2$ (pure two-qubit states). In general, the line (dashed red online) $D_G={\cal N}^2$ is not attainable for intermediate values of both measures, while a tighter lower bound (solid green online) on $D_G$ exists at fixed negativity, given by \eq{lboundd}. Such a bound is saturated by states with Schmidt decomposition as in \eq{saturi}. The upper bound on $D_G$ at fixed negativity is more structured. Notice that the plots in this Figure can be also interpreted as the span of the pair of entanglement measures $\tau_2$ \cite{zik2} versus ${\cal N}^2$ \cite{vidwer} for two-qudit pure states. All the quantities plotted are dimensionless. }\label{figqudits}
\end{figure*}
We first generalize Theorem \ref{teo1} to arbitrary pure states of two qudits. Namely, we prove the following.
\begin{Theorem}\label{teo2}For every pure two-qudit state $\ket{\psi} \in {\mathbb{C}^d \otimes \mathbb{C}^d}$, the geometric quantum discord is always greater or equal than the squared negativity,
\begin{equation}\label{tesi2d}
D_G(\psi) \geq {\cal N}^2(\psi)\,.
\end{equation}
\end{Theorem}
\begin{proof}
Any pure state $\ket{\psi} \in \mathbb{C}^d \otimes \mathbb{C}^d$ can be written without loss of generality in the Schmidt decomposition
\begin{equation}
\label{schd}
{\ket{\psi}} = \sum_{j=0}^{d-1} \sqrt{\alpha_j} \ket{j}\ket{j}\,,
\end{equation}
where the Schmidt coefficients are probability amplitudes, $\sum_j \alpha_j = 1$.
The geometric discord [\eq{dgeom}] can be computed in this case following Luo and Fu \cite{luofu,luoMIL}. The closest classical state to $\ket{\psi}$, entering the definition [\eq{dgeom}], turns out to be the completely uncorrelated state $\rho^{\otimes} = \rho_A \otimes \rho_B$, obtained as the tensor product of the marginal states $\rho_{A} = \text{Tr}_{B} (\ket{\psi}\!\bra{\psi})$ and $\rho_{B} = \text{Tr}_{A} (\ket{\psi}\!\bra{\psi})$. This implies
\begin{equation}\label{dgd}
D_G(\psi) = \frac{d}{d-1}\left(1-\sum_i \alpha_i^2\right) = \frac{2d}{d-1} \sum_{j>i}\alpha_i\alpha_j\,.
\end{equation}
Meanwhile, the negativity [\eq{nega}] is given by \cite{vidwer}
\begin{eqnarray}\label{nd}
{\cal N}(\psi)&=&\frac{1}{d-1}\left[\left(\sum_i \sqrt{\alpha_i}\right)^2 -\sum_i \alpha_i\right]\nonumber\\
&=&\frac{1}{d-1}\left[\left(\sum_i \sqrt{\alpha_i}\right)^2-1\right].
\end{eqnarray}
We know from \cite{qudits} that the following inequality holds:
\begin{eqnarray}
4\sum_{j>i}\alpha_i\alpha_j \geq \frac 2{d(d-1)}\left[\left(\sum_i \sqrt{\alpha_i}\right)^2-1\right]^2,
\end{eqnarray}
therefore we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
2 \frac{d}{d-1}\sum_{j>i}\alpha_i\alpha_j \geq \frac 1{(d-1)^2}\left[\left(\sum_i \sqrt{\alpha_i}\right)^2-1\right]^2.
\end{eqnarray}
The left side is the normalized geometric discord, while on the right we have the normalized squared negativity.
\end{proof}
We have already seen that for $d=2$, the two measures $D_G$ and ${\cal N}^2$ indeed coincide on pure states. However, for any $d>2$, the geometric discord is in general strictly larger than the negativity. This seems to go against the expectation that quantum correlations should reduce to entanglement on pure states. In fact, $D_G$ does reduce to an entanglement measure on general two-qudit pure states, but such a measure is in general different from the squared negativity for $d \ge 3$. The pure-state entanglement monotone that takes the very same expression as in \eq{dgd} is a particular coefficient $\tau_2$ of the characteristic polynomial of the nontrivial block of the Gram matrix of pure two-qudit states (see \cite{zik2} for details). Such a measure has not been studied for mixed states, and it is an interesting (yet technically challenging) open problem to see whether the hierarchy $D_G \ge \tau_2$ holds for general two-qudit mixed states beyond $d=2$.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\includegraphics[width=17.8cm]{figweriso.pdf}
\caption{(Color online) Top row: Geometric quantum discord versus squared negativity (solid blue line) [Eq.~(\ref{dgnweriso})] for $d \otimes d$ Werner states with dimensions $d=2,3,10,99$ (from left to right); the dashed red line of equation $D_G={\cal N}^2$ is just a guide to the eye. The corresponding plots for isotropic states are identical, apart from the extra vertical branch at ${\cal N}=0$ which is absent in those cases.
Middle row: $D_G$ (solid blue line) and ${\cal N}^2$ (red dashed line) for $d \otimes d$ Werner states \eqref{swer} plotted as a function of the parameter $k \in [-1,1]$.
Bottom row: $D_G$ (solid blue line) and ${\cal N}^2$ (red dashed line) for $d \otimes d$ isotropic states \eqref{siso} plotted as a function of the parameter $p \in [0,1]$.
All the quantities plotted are dimensionless. }\label{figweriso}
\end{figure*}
Coming back to our measures of choice in this work, geometric discord and squared negativity, we can visualize their interplay on pure two-qudit states with increasing $d$. We have generated a large ensemble of two-qudit states up to $d=7$ with random Schmidt coefficients. At fixed negativity, the geometric discord displays both upper and lower bounds. The upper bounds are multi-branched, with an increasing number of nodes appearing with increasing $d$. The lower bounds are regular curves lying in general strictly above the bisectrix for any $d>2$, with $D_G = {\cal N}^2$ occurring only at the extremal points where both vanish (on factorized states) or both reach the maximum (on maximally entangled states).
We find that, for any $d$, the pure two-qudit states that achieve the minimum geometric discord at fixed negativity (green curve in Fig.~\ref{figqudits}) have a peculiar distribution of Schmidt coefficients:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{saturi}
\alpha_0&=&\sin^2\theta\,, \\
\alpha_i &=& \frac{\cos^2\theta}{d-1}\ \ \forall\, i=1,\ldots,d-1\,, \nonumber
\end{eqnarray} with $\arccos\sqrt{(d-1)/d} \le \theta \le \pi/2$. Since this is true for every pure state in the special case $d=2$, this is a further proof that on two-qubit pure states $D_G$ equals ${\cal N}^2$ as observed in the previous Section.
In general, the lower bound on $D_G$ at fixed ${\cal N}$ as saturated by the states of \eq{saturi} is given by
\begin{eqnarray}\label{lboundd}
D_G^{low}({\cal N}) &=& \left[2 (d-R-1)+(d-2) (d-1) \mathcal{N}\right] \nonumber \\
& \times & \left[2 \left((d-1)^2+R\right)-(d-2) (d-1) \mathcal{N}\right] \\
& \times & \left[(d-1)^2 d^2\right]^{-1}\,, \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
with $R=\sqrt{(d-1)^2 (1-\mathcal{N}) [1+(d-1) \mathcal{N}]}$.
\subsection{Werner and isotropic $\boldsymbol{d \otimes d}$ states}
The ordering relationship between geometric discord and squared negativity can be further extended rigorously to two special classes of {\it mixed} $d \otimes d$ highly symmetric states, namely the Werner states \cite{Werner89} and the isotropic states \cite{isot}. We recall that for both families of states the PPT criterion is necessary and sufficient for separability \cite{voll}.
The Werner states in arbitrary $d$ dimension take the form \cite{Werner89}
\begin{eqnarray}\label{swer}
\rho_w=\frac{d+k}{d^3-d}\mathbb{I}_{d}+\frac{-d k -1}{d^3-d}| \Phi\rangle\langle \Phi|,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\ket\Phi =\sum_{i,j=0}^{d-1}(|i j\rangle+|j i\rangle)$ and $k\in [-1,1]$ with $0< k \leq 1$ for entangled states. The geometric discord calculated in \cite{luofu} and then normalized is
\begin{eqnarray}
D_G(\rho_w)=\frac{(d k+1)^2}{(d+1)^2},
\end{eqnarray}
while after simple algebra we obtain the following expression for the (normalized) negativity:
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal N}(\rho_w)=\max\left\{0, k \right\}.
\end{eqnarray}
The isotropic states can be instead defined as \cite{isot}
\begin{eqnarray} \label{siso}
\rho_i=\frac{1-p}{d^2-1}\mathbb{I}_{d}+\frac{d^2 p -1}{d^2-1}| \Psi\rangle\langle \Psi|,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\ket\Psi =\frac{1}{\sqrt{d}}\sum_{i=0}^{d-1}|i i\rangle$ and $p\in [0,1]$, with the states being entangled for $p > 1/d$.
In such a case the (normalized) geometric discord \cite{luofu} is
\begin{eqnarray}
D_G(\rho_i)=\frac{(d^2 p-1)^2}{(d^2-1)^2},
\end{eqnarray}
and the negativity is given by \cite{lee}
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal N}(\rho_i)= \max\left\{0,\frac{d p-1}{d-1}\right\}.
\end{eqnarray}
Interestingly, for both classes of states (in the nontrivial region of parameters where they are entangled) some straightforward algebra shows that the simple relationship
\begin{equation}
D_G(\rho_{w,i})=\left[\frac{1+d\ {\cal N}(\rho_{w,i})}{1+d}\right]^2 \ge {\cal N}^2(\rho_{w,i})
\label{dgnweriso}
\end{equation}
holds, thus establishing once again the desired hierarchy.
We notice a radical difference between quantum correlations of Werner and isotropic states in the region in which they are separable. Namely, for Werner states the quantum correlations measured by the geometric discord can grow approaching the maximum (which is one in normalized units) even without entanglement, with increasing dimension $d$, so that $\lim_{d \rightarrow \infty} D_G(\rho_w) = k^2$ in the full range $k \in [-1,1]$, half of which contains separable states. Therefore Werner states with high dimension and $k \rightarrow -1$ are examples of highly mixed, completely separable states whose quantum correlations are asymptotically as big as those of pure maximally entangled states, as predicted in \cite{genio} (see also \cite{chita}). On the other hand, for isotropic states, with increasing $d$ the separability region ($0\leq p \leq 1/d$) just shrinks to zero, meaning that in such a case the geometric discord just converges to the squared negativity in the full parameter range, with no significant signatures of quantum correlations exhibited in absence of entanglement. Note that the two families of states are instead completely equivalent in the limiting case $d=2$ (upon identifying $k=2p-1$). The interplay between $D_G$ and ${\cal N}^2$ for Werner and isotropic states of varying dimension is illustrated in Fig.~\ref{figweriso}.
\subsection{Generic $\boldsymbol{d \otimes d'}$ states}
Encouraged by the previous results, we now wish to test the validity of the inequality $D_G\geq{\cal N}^2$ for generic mixed states of arbitrary $d \otimes d'$ dimensional systems. Specifically, we run a numerical exploration of the $D_G$ versus ${\cal N}^2$ plane for randomly generated mixed states of $2 \otimes 3$ systems. In this case, the geometric discord can be computed according to the prescription of Ref.~\cite{rau}, while the negativity still captures all entanglement potentially present in the states \cite{PPT}. Remarkably, based on extensive numerical evidence (see Fig.~\ref{duepertre}), we find that the hierarchy between geometric discord and squared negativity holds as well for arbitrary states of a qubit and a qutrit. This finding, in addition to the results of the previous Sections, motivates us to conjecture that $D_G\geq{\cal N}^2$ might be a universal ordering relationship for arbitrary $d \otimes d'$ dimensional systems. A general proof of this statement would be very valuable, and an interesting, related open question concerns investigating the role of bound entanglement in higher dimensions and its interplay (not captured by the negativity) with geometric measures of quantum correlations.
\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[width=8.2cm]{2x3gdvsneg.pdf}
\caption{Geometric discord versus squared negativity for $2\times 10^5$ mixed states of $2\otimes 3$ systems, randomly generated by using the \emph{Mathematica} package available in \cite{pacco}. All the quantities plotted are dimensionless.}
\label{duepertre}
\end{figure}
\section{Concluding remarks}\label{SecConcl}
We have presented a qualitative and quantitative study of entanglement and general quantum correlations for arbitrary two-qubit states and for relevant instances of higher-dimensional states.
First, we identified a computable measure of entanglement, the squared negativity ${\cal N}^2$ \cite{vidwer}, and proved that it is always majorized by a compatible measure of quantum correlations, the geometric discord $D_G$ \cite{dakic}, in the case of generic two-qubit states. The inequality is saturated for pure states. We also provided numerical evidence that the squared negativity is still majorized by a tight lower bound $Q$ to the geometric discord, recently proposed as observable measure of quantum correlations \cite{pirla}. Thus, the chain $D_G\geq Q \geq {\cal N}^2$ holds for two-qubit states.
Then, we explored the pattern of the plane $D_G$ vs ${\cal N}^2$, identifying the classes of two-qubit states with maximal geometric discord at fixed negativity. In particular, the bound is reached by a family of $X$ states given in \eq{X2}. Remarkably, for separable states the upper bound accomodates a fully asymmetric state, i.e. a state becoming a zero-discord classical-quantum state upon swapping of the subsystems.
Finally, we extended our analysis to arbitrary $d\otimes d'$ systems. For two-qudit pure states, we found that the hierarchy between geometric discord and squared negativity still holds rigorously. We characterized the states with minimal $D_G$ at fixed ${\cal N}^2$: they present an elegant parametrization of the distribution of their Schmidt coefficients, allowing to express analytically the lower bound in the $D_G$ vs ${\cal N}^2$ plane for any $d$ as in \eq{lboundd}. In the mixed-state case, the inequality is still valid for Werner and isotropic $d \otimes d$ states, for which $D_G$ is a simple function of the negativity for each dimension $d$. We further provided numerical evidence supporting the validity of the hierarchy between geometric discord and squared negativity for general mixed states of $2 \otimes 3$ systems. In all the instances analyzed in this paper, $D_G$ and ${\cal N}$ were computable in closed form, and were always found to obey the ordering relationship $D_G \ge {\cal N}^2$. We thus conjecture its validity on arbitrary bipartite states of any dimension, leaving open at the present stage the task of providing a rigorous general proof (or a counterexample) to our claim.
Our results agree with the intuitive prediction that general quantum correlations should be somehow related to entanglement and definitely incorporate it \cite{nuovogenio}. Geometric discord \cite{dakic} (or its lower bound $Q$ \cite{pirla}) and negativity \cite{vidwer} are two computable, observable and experimentally friendly measures of quantum correlations whose interplay, explored in this paper, is important to get a quantitative grip on the performance of several quantum information protocols, ranging from quantum computation to quantum metrology and state discrimination \cite{dattacommun}. Understanding the nature of nonclassical correlations and their role in determining advantages over fully classical scenarios is a central issue in quantum information processing and communication \cite{merali}. On a more fundamental level, our findings suggest that nonclassical correlations measured by geometric discord could be regarded as a more general feature that somehow incorporates entanglement and state mixedness, following the intuition advanced in \cite{genio}. Encouraging preliminary evidence that (the lower bound $Q$ to) the geometric discord can be employed to characterize the dynamics of quantum correlations in open systems, and possibly other relevant features of open systems themselves (e.g. non-Markovianity \cite{nonM}), has been recently presented in \cite{pirla}. In this respect, the ordering relations we found suggest that entanglement and general quantum correlations as well can be both interrelated to such properties of open systems.
Encouraged by the hierarchy pointed out in this paper, we believe it becomes even more meaningful to keep searching for simple but universal, physically motivated and mathematically accessible, unifying measures of ``quantumness'' of the correlations, along the spirit of Refs.~\cite{modi,genio,bruss,nuovogenio}.
\acknowledgments{We acknowledge fruitful discussions with Shunlong Luo, Marco Piani, and Karol \.Zyczkowski. We thank the University of Nottingham for financial support through an Early Career Research and Knowledge Transfer Award and a Graduate School Travel Prize Award.}
|
\section{Introduction}
The r-process has been understood for many years to (1) synthesize
half the nuclides heavier than iron, (2) synthesize all of the nuclides
heavier than $^{209}$Bi, and (3) be primary in the sense that its nucleosynthesis
does not appear to depend on preexisting nuclides
\citep{b2fh,woosley94,wallerstein97,farouqi09}. In this latter
context, its production of the heavier r-process nuclides in many metal poor stars
appears to be very uniform \citep{sneden03a}, and it also produces relative
r-process abundances that are essentially the same as those found in more modern stars.
A standard interpretation of the r-process suggests that it occurs in the neutrino
wind that emanates from core-collapse supernovae
\citep{woosley94, takahashi94,farouqi09}, although that interpretation is not
without its issues \citep{qian96, meyer98, hudepohl10a,hudepohl10b, fischer10, roberts10}.
Even with these difficulties,
though, there are a sufficient number of uncertainties, e.g., the possibility of
sterile neutrinos \citep{mclaughlin99, mclaughlin03}, that this r-process site might turn out to be viable.
At the same time, other metal poor stars exhibit some of the features of r-process
nucleosynthesis, but their abundances represent a surprisingly poor match with
the ``standard'' abundance template \citep{aoki00, honda07, roederer10a},
perhaps most frequently identified as that observed in
CS-22892-052 \citep{sneden03a}. A recent paper \citep{roederer10a}
has summarized the situation that exists for metal-poor stars. The data in that paper seem
to suggest that a distribution of r-process abundances exists in metal poor stars,
with some resembling the standard abundance set, but with a significant fraction
of stars having abundances that do not match the standard template. These latter
stars appear to favor the lighter r-process nuclides at varying levels, and many
seem to have abundance patterns that terminate around Dy, that is, around mass 160.
In this Letter we point out that the abundance patterns observed for the stars that
do not fit the standard r-process template could be produced by stars that are
sufficiently massive that their core collapse first produce neutron stars
but that the infall that occurs following the formation of the neutron star subsequently
results in collapse to a black hole - so called ``fallback supernovae.''
This class of stars spans a mass range from roughly 25 to 40 solar
masses \citep{heger92} for low-metallicity stars.
When the neutron star collapses to a black
hole the r-process enrichment of the interstellar medium would cease,
terminating either when the r-processed regions were swallowed by the black hole,
or when the electron antineutrinos fell below the event horizon \citep{sasaqui05}.
Thus, this truncated r-process, or tr-process, nucleosynthesis would terminate at
different stages of that process,
depending on the precise time at which the black hole prevented
further r-process production or emission of nuclides into the interstellar medium.
We suggest that the delayed collapse to the black hole,
combined with another effect, namely, the difficulties in observing the higher mass
rare earths, could produce the cutoff in the r-process distributions observed around 160 u.
The general scenario we envision merely assumes that mass elements that predominantly produce the
lighter r-process nuclei are ejected before the mass elements that produce the heavier r-process nuclides.
Any setting within a core-collapse supernova that satisfies this condition would allow for
a truncated r-process. To evaluate this idea quantitatively, however, we apply the
neutrino-driven wind model for the r-process. Although, as noted above, this model
is not without issues; it is plausible and well discussed in the literature and makes a good setting for discussing
the truncated r-process.
\section{Neutrino Wind Model of the r-Process}
In the neutrino wind scenario of the r-process, neutrinos from the nascent neutron
star heat material at the neutron star surface and drive it away in a wind. As a wind
element leaves the neutron star surface, it expands and cools. Nucleons in the
wind element assemble into heavier nuclei, which serve as the seeds for the subsequent
r-process \citep{woosley94}. Importantly, the abundance pattern for the seed nuclei
is well-described by a quasi-equilibrium, which, for the entropy and neutron richness
characteristic of neutrino-driven wind envirnoments, has a relatively sharp
abundance peak near A$\sim$100. As the temperature in the wind element falls further,
charged-particle reactions freeze out. If a high neutron density accompanies
the seed nuclei, neutron captures and beta decays successively promote
the seed nuclei to higher mass. This upwards flow in mass slows
at the neutron closed shells at 82 and then 126 neutrons, and
thereby produces the r-process abundance peaks at A$\sim$130 and 195 u
\citep{woosley94, wanajo02}.
For what follows, it is essential to note that the neutrino-driven wind leaves the
star over a period of several seconds. In the standard scenario
\citep{meyer92, woosley94, takahashi94}, the wind elements that leave the star early
have lower entropy and a lower degree of neutron richness. As the neutron star
evolves, the wind elements that leave later have higher entropy and a greater
degree of neutron richness. It is in these latter wind elements that the heaviest
nuclei are made. The lower-entropy, less neutron rich wind elements that leave
the neutron star earlier produce ligher nuclei. If the neutron star collapses to a
black hole after the lower-entropy elements leave the star but before the higher-entropy
do, then the r-process has been truncated, and the abundance pattern will be dominated
by lighter r-process nuclei.
Current supernova models do not naturally produce the parameters
required to produce a successful r-process, most notably the entropy, but
also the requisite neutron richness. While it may in fact be the case that
core-collapse supernovae are not the site of the r-process, it may also be that
current supernova models are not sufficiently detailed to provide an adequate
description of the r-process conditions in core-collapse events.
For example, results from multidimensional hydrodynamics calculations suggest that the
instabilities resulting from those calculations may ultimately be shown to produce
the entropy required for making the heaviest r-process nuclei \citep{burrows06}.
Interestingly, these instabilities may generate the neutron star
kicks \citep{burrows06, guilet10} that give rise to high space velocities of some
pulsars \citep{arzou02}.
It will also be necessary
to include all of the detailed neutrino physics \citep{burrows02, roberts10, liebendoerfer05}
to adequately characterize the neutron richness in matter expelled from the supernova.
Future work will determine whether more advanced core-collapse supernova models will provide the
conditions needed for the r-process. For the purposes of the present paper,
we will simply assume that
neutrino-driven winds in core-collapse supernovae are at least one of the sites of
r-process nucleosynthesis.
\section{Model Calculations}
To study the truncated r-process in the neutrino-driven wind,
we applied the basic idea behind the study of \citet{woosley94},
which assumed that the r-process occurred in the neutrino wind from a core collapse supernova. In that
study, a succession of 40 ``trajectories'' (that is, thin shell wind elements), all assumed to
have originated deep within the (assumed spherically symmetric) star, but
having initially different conditions of density,
temperature, entropy, and electron fraction, were emitted into the
interstellar medium, thus contributing
to the total r-process nucleosynthesis. The bubble
was evolving in time, so that the conditions under which the individual trajectories were
processed changed with the identity
of the trajectory. We assumed that the different
trajectories were emitted
from the star successively, but ceased to be emitted when the collapse to the black hole
occurred. This would be consistent with \citet{woosley94}, who assumed successive
emissions of the trajectories to generate what turned out to be a good representation of
the Solar r-process abundances.
For our r-process calculations, we used a network code
based on libnucnet, a library of C codes for storing and managing nuclear reaction
networks \citep{meyer07}. The nuclear and reaction data for the calculations were
taken from the JINA reaclib database \citep{cyburt10}.
We performed calculations for trajectories
24 - 40 in the \citet{woosley94} hydrodynamics model.
For each trajectory, reaction network calculations were
performed for T$_9<$2.5 using initial abundances derived from the \citet{woosley94}
results. Our calculations were simplified by assuming an initial abundance of massive
nuclei from a single nucleus heavy seed with a mass A equal to the average mass at
T$_9$=2.5 and an atomic number derived from the average mass number, the Y$_e$, and
the neutron and alpha mass fractions at T$_9$=2.5 in \citet{woosley94}. We justify
this by noting that the heavy-nuclide distribution is typically sharply peaked near T$_9$=2.5.
An adiabatic expansion was assumed for each trajectory in the nucleosynthesis, with entropy
constant within a trajectory but varying between trajectories, again consistent with
the approach of \citet{woosley94} for times at which the temperature T$_9<$2.5.
The material was taken to expand at constant velocity on a timescale consistent with
that derived from \citet{woosley94}.
For each trajectory the calculation was continued
until neutron capture reactions had ceased and the abundance distribution versus
mass number had frozen out. Our representation of the
full r-process abundances, shown as the dots in Figure \ref{woo_traj},
is not as good as that
achieved by \citet{woosley94},
but our calculations do produce the basic features of the
full r-process, namely the mass 130 and 195u peaks.
The simulation of \citet{woosley94} that produced a good r-process representation
began with trajectory number 24 and summed the nucleosynthesis yields from the remaining
16 elements since all of these trajectories would have been ejected into the interstellar
medium. We also began with trajectory 24, and
performed a mass weighted sum of the nucleosynthesis from the trajectories up to some
higher number trajectory to observe the resulting nucleosynthesis when the trajectories
beyond our maximum trajectory were assumed to be consumed by the collapse to a black
hole.
This produced a result similar to that of \citet{woosley94} when all trajectories
from 24 to 40 were included. The results are shown in Figure \ref{woo_traj}. There it can be seen that
truncating the r-process at increasing trajectory number does terminate the r-process nucleosynthesis
at increasingly higher nuclear mass. Note that although the curve representing trajectories
24 through 31 does reach the mass 195u peak, the abundance produced in that calculation
is nearly two orders of magnitude below that of the full r-process, which would render the
higher mass nuclides difficult to observe.
The abundances for that calculation would therefore appear observationally
to terminate at a mass of about 140 u.
In Figure \ref{ele_abun} we compare several tr-process calculations with the derived elemental
abundance pattern in the metal poor halo star HD 122563. This low-metallicity star ([Fe/H]
= -2.7) is deficient in the heavy neutron-capture elements (Ba and heavier) relative to the
light neutron-capture elements (Sr through Cd) when compared with the scaled Solar
r-process pattern. The HD 122563 abundances are a very poor match to the scaled Solar
s-process pattern. Its abundance pattern matches the scaled Solar r-process pattern
better up to an atomic mass of about 70 (mass of $\sim$174 u), but even this fit is
unsatisfying \citep{sneden83, honda06}. Stars like
HD 122563 may be candidates for enrichment by the tr-process. Figure \ref{ele_abun} demonstrates
that the tr-process predictions, while far from a perfect match to the individual
abundances, can reproduce the relative downward trend in abundance with increasing
atomic number seen in some metal poor stars. More exploration of tr-process calculations
is obviously needed, but the general trend is encouraging.
\section{Probability of Occurence of tr-Process Stars}
In principle, a test of the tr-process model would be provided by a large set of
data for metal poor stars that spans the masses of the nuclides produced in the
r-process from mass $\sim$80 to the heaviest observable nuclides that the r-process
synthesizes, usually thorium. Unfortunately this is challenging due to the difficulty
of observing the higher mass rare-earth nuclides, starting at mass $\sim$160. Thus all
r-process events that terminate at masses between 160 and lead would appear to terminate
at mass 160, producing the effect observed by \citet{roederer10a}.
Any standard initial mass function (IMF) reflects the fact that less-massive stars are
more numerous than more-massive stars. Assuming that stars from 8 to 40 solar
masses may produce comparable amounts of r-process material, we can use the IMF
to estimate the fraction of stars whose r-process may be truncated by collapse to a
black hole. We adopt the \citet{salpeter54} IMF, for which dN/dm $\propto$ m$^{-2.35}$
for massive stars, where m is the stellar mass in units of the solar mass, and N is the
number of stars of a given mass per unit volume. The ratio of the number of stars that
would be expected to collapse to black holes (25-40 solar masses) to those expected to
collapse to neutron stars (8-25 solar masses) is 0.13 in a well-sampled IMF.
While a number of r-process rich stars (here taken to mean stars with [Eu/Fe] $>$ +1.0)
have been discovered and studied in detail in the last two decades, these stars constitute
a relatively minor fraction of all metal-poor stars. More unbiased samples
\citep{mcwilliam95, barklem05} find that stars with [Eu/Fe] $>$ +1.0 comprise $<$10\%
of all stars with [Fe/H] $<$ -2.0. Figure 11 of \citet{roederer10a} suggests that stars
with [Eu/Fe] $<$ 0 are candidates for enrichment by a truncated r-process. Difficulties
in detecting Eu in metal-poor stars with [Eu/Fe] $<$ 0 make it even more challenging to
estimate how numerous these stars are. Ba is more easily detected and may be used to
represent Eu and other heavy elements in stars lacking s-process enrichment. From the
Ba abundances in the large survey of \citet{barklem05} we estimate a lower limit of
$\sim$55\% of metal-poor stars as candidates for enrichment by a truncated r-process.
This is significantly higher than the 13\% derived above
assuming a Salpeter IMF, yet Figure \ref{ele_abun} demonstrates that a
tr-process may be one way to produce the heavy nuclides observed in
some metal-poor stars. The discrepancy in these fractions could indicate that additional
nucleosynthesis channels, such as those proposed by, e.g.,
\citet{qian08}, \citet{farouqi09}, \citet{wanajo11}, or \citet{nakamura11},
together with the tr-process may contribute to the chemical enrichment of the early
Galaxy.
Given that massive stars with short lifetimes will dominate the chemical
enrichment at early times, though, the tr-process may very well have been a major source of
heavy nuclei at these epochs.
\section{Other r-Process Issues}
As a possible additional benefit of the tr-process, we note that the stars that were
truncated at mass points 28 or less produced no nuclides in the mass 130 peak or beyond.
This would have the effect of boosting the yields of the lighter r-process nuclides
relative to the heavier ones, filling in the mass 110 to 120 u region. It has been known
for some time that r-process calculations that produce a mass 195 u peak underproduce
the nuclides in the 110-120 mass region. The r-process nuclides that were even
lighter than those were underproduced by an even larger factor, but this would
also be consistent with distributed cutoffs of the r-process nucleosynthesis. Thus,
again guided by the IMF, but along with the mass dependent cutoff times, the tr-process
might potentially solve this troublesome aspect of current r-process analyses
\citep{kratz07,farouqi09}.
Conclusions in this regard, however, must
await more detailed analyses.
An obvious test of the tr-process model could occur from renewed effort to observe the
higher mass rare earth elements in very metal poor stars with low [Eu/Fe] ratios. If
elements in that mass region can be observed, and the tr-process is correct, additional
observations would be expected to map out the black hole collapse times over that region.
While no doubt challenging, a relationship between observations and black hole collapse
times would be of great interest.
\acknowledgments
RNB's work has been supported under the auspices of the Lawrence Livermore
National Security, LLC (LLNL) under Contract No. DE-AC52-07NA27344; MF's
by National Science Foundation grant PHY-0855013; BSM's by NASA grant
NNX10AH78G; YM's by the NEXT Program of JSPS and CSTP (GR098);
TK's by Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research of JSPS (20244035),
Scientific Research on Innovative Area of MEXT (20105004), and Heiwa Nakajima
Foundation; and IUR's by the Carnegie Institution of Washington through the
Carnegie Observatories Fellowship. This is document LLNL-JRNL-491647.
|
\section{Introduction}
The recent experimental observation of disappearance of the away side peak in di-hadron
angular correlation in the forward rapidity region in deuteron-gold collisions at
RHIC~\cite{star} has generated a lot of interest in multi-parton correlations at high energy (small $x$).
Unlike structure functions in DIS and single inclusive particle production in hadronic
collisions which are sensitive to dipoles (normalized trace of two Wilson lines), di-hadron
correlations probe correlators of higher number of Wilson lines~\cite{jjmyk1,rev}. Therefore one has the
opportunity, for the first time, to investigate these higher correlators experimentally
through studies of angular and rapidity correlations in di-hadron production cross section
in high energy hadronic collisions. Such studies can teach us much about the intrinsic
correlations in the hadronic or nuclear wave functions which are not accessible in single
inclusive particle production or in studies of structure function in DIS.
Higher correlators of Wilson lines appear in two-hadron production cross section in any
dilute-dense collision at high energy where analytic calculations are possible. Classic
examples of such asymmetric collisions are proton-nucleus collisions (see~\cite{jjmyk} for a review)
in the fragmentation region of the proton, and in DIS close to the virtual photon remnants~\footnote{Particle
production in the very forward rapidity region in proton-proton collisions at very high
energy falls into this category also.}. Two-gluon production cross section in DIS has been
considered in~\cite{jjmyk1} while two-parton production cross section in proton-nucleus
collisions has been investigated in~\cite{jjmyk1,akml,corr_cgc,other_qg,sxy}. In all cases, the cross section
involves correlators of higher (more than two) number of Wilson lines, the most important being
the quadrupole operator. Evolution equations for these higher point correlators have been
derived~\cite{jjmyk1,adjjm,dmmx} and approximate analytic expressions for them have been developed
using a Gaussian model~\cite{dmxy} and approximate analytic solutions have been proposed~\cite{eidt}.
Very recently, powerful lattice gauge theory techniques have been applied to solve the JIMWLK evolution
equation which then allows a systematic and detailed numerical study of the properties of these higher point
correlators~\cite{djlsv}.
Here we study the evolution equation for the quadrupole operator in the weak field limit.
A first study of this has already been performed in~\cite{dmmx} where it is shown that the
quadrupole evolution equation reduces to a sum of BFKL equations for the dipole operator
in the limit where the dipole is expanded in powers of the gluon field and quadratic
terms in gluon field are kept. Here, we go beyond the quadratic expansion and show that the
quartic terms in the expansion of the linearized quadrupole evolution equation satisfy an equation which
is identical to the BJKP equation~\cite{multigluon,chen-al} for the imaginary part of the four-reggeized gluon exchange
amplitude. This should be very useful since there is an extensive literature on the properties
of the BJKP equation which may give us further insight on the properties of the JIMWLK equation in the
limit where one may ignore non-linear terms.
\section{Quadrupole Evolution equation}
We start by defining the quadrupole operator $Q$ as
\begin{equation}
Q (r, \bar{r},\bar{s},s) \equiv {1\over N_c}
{\rm tr} V_r\, V^\dagger_{\bar{r}} \, V_{\bar{s}} \, V_s^\dagger
\label{eq:S_4}
\end{equation}
where $V_r \equiv V (r_t)$ is a Wilson line in the fundamental
representation in the covariant gauge
\begin{equation}
V (r_t) \equiv \hat{P} e^{- i g \int d x^- \, A^+}
\label{wilson}
\end{equation}
and $A^\mu (x^-, r_t) = \delta^{\mu\,+} \, \delta (x^-) \alpha (r_t)$. The gauge field $\alpha (r_t)$
is related to the color charge density via $\partial_t^2 \, \alpha^a (r_t) \sim g\, \rho^a (r_t)$
and $r,\bar{r}, \bar{s},s$ etc. denote two-dimensional coordinates on the
transverse plane. The evolution equation for the quadrupole was derived in~\cite{jjmyk1}
in the large $N_c$ limit and using Feynman diagram techniques. It has been recently
re-derived~\cite{dmmx} using the JIMWLK equation where it was shown that there are no
$N_c$ suppressed corrections. Here we outline the derivation using the JIMWLK formalism~\cite{jimwlk}
where the evolution ($y = log 1/x$) of any operator is given by
\begin{equation}
\frac{d}{dy} \langle O \rangle =
\frac{1}{2} \left< \int d^2x \, d^2y \, \frac{\delta}{\delta\alpha_x^b}
\, \eta^{bd}_{xy} \, \frac{\delta}{\delta\alpha_y^d} \, O \right>~,
\label{eq:ham}
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
\eta^{bd}_{xy} = \frac{1}{\pi} \int \frac{d^2z}{(2\pi)^2}
\frac{(x-z)\cdot(y-z)}{(x-z)^2 (y-z)^2} \left[
1 + U^\dagger_x U_y - U^\dagger_x U_z - U^\dagger_z U_y
\right]^{bd} ~.
\label{eq:eta}
\end{equation}
and $U$ is a Wilson line in the adjoint representation. The derivation of the
quadrupole evolution equation is straightforward but tedious. It involves functional
differentiation of the Wilson lines and repeated use of the identity
$[U (r)]^{ab} \, t^b = V^\dagger (r) \, t^a\, V (r)$. The result is
\begin{eqnarray}
{d\over dy} \left< Q (r, \bar{r},\bar{s},s)\right> &=&
{N_c\, \alpha_s \over (2\pi)^2} \int d^2 z \Bigg\{ \Bigg<\!\!
\left[ {(r - \bar{r})^2 \over (r - z)^2 (\bar{r} - z)^2} +
{(r - s)^2 \over (r - z)^2 (s - z)^2} -
{(\bar{r} - s)^2 \over (\bar{r} - z)^2 (s - z)^2} \right] \,
Q (z, \bar{r},\bar{s},s)\, S (r,z) \nonumber \\
&+&
\left[{(r - \bar{r})^2 \over (r - z)^2 (\bar{r} - z)^2} +
{(\bar{r} - \bar{s})^2 \over (\bar{r} - z)^2 (\bar{s} - z)^2} -
{(r - \bar{s})^2 \over (r - z)^2 (\bar{s} - z)^2} \right] \,
Q (r, z,\bar{s},s)\, S (z,\bar{r})
\nonumber \\
&+&
\left[ {(\bar{r} - \bar{s})^2 \over (\bar{r} - z)^2 (\bar{s} - z)^2} +
{(s - \bar{s})^2 \over (s - z)^2 (\bar{s} - z)^2} -
{(\bar{r} - s)^2 \over (s - z)^2 (\bar{r} - z)^2} \right] \,
Q (r, \bar{r},z,s)\, S (\bar{s},z) \nonumber \\
&+&
\left[ {(r - s)^2 \over (r - z)^2 (s - z)^2} +
{(s - \bar{s})^2 \over (s - z)^2 (\bar{s} - z)^2} -
{(r - \bar{s})^2 \over (r - z)^2 (\bar{s} - z)^2} \right] \,
Q (r, \bar{r},\bar{s},z)\, S (z,s) \nonumber \\
&-&
\left[ {(r - \bar{r})^2 \over (r - z)^2 (\bar{r} - z)^2} +
{(s - \bar{s})^2 \over (s - z)^2 (\bar{s} - z)^2} +
{(r - s)^2 \over (r - z)^2 (s - z)^2} +
{(\bar{r} - \bar{s})^2 \over (\bar{r} - z)^2 (\bar{s} - z)^2} \right]
\, Q (r, \bar{r},\bar{s},s) \nonumber \\
&-&
\left[ {(r - s)^2 \over (r - z)^2 (s - z)^2} +
{(\bar{r} - \bar{s})^2 \over (\bar{r} - z)^2 (\bar{s} - z)^2} -
{(\bar{r} - s)^2 \over (\bar{r} - z)^2 (s - z)^2} -
{(r - \bar{s})^2 \over (r - z)^2 (\bar{s} - z)^2} \right] \,
S (r,s)\, S (\bar{r},\bar{s}) \nonumber \\
&-&
\left[ {(r - \bar{r})^2 \over (r - z)^2 (\bar{r} - z)^2} +
{(s - \bar{s})^2 \over (s - z)^2 (\bar{s} - z)^2} -
{(r - \bar{s})^2 \over (r - z)^2 (\bar{s} - z)^2} -
{(\bar{r} - s)^2 \over (\bar{r} - z)^2 (s - z)^2} \right] \,
S (r,\bar{r})\, S (\bar{s},s)
\!\!\Bigg> \!\! \Bigg\}
\label{eq:Q_evo}
\end{eqnarray}
where the $S$ matrix is defined as
\begin{equation}
S (r, \bar{r}) \equiv {1\over N_c} {\rm tr} V_r \, V^\dagger_{\bar{r}}
\label{eq:s}
\end{equation}
We will refer to the first four lines in this equation as "real" and the
last three terms as "virtual" terms in coordinate space. This is to distinguish
them from the real and virtual terms in momentum space after we Fourier transform
the equation since there is no one to one correspondence between the real and
virtual terms in coordinate and momentum spaces. We have also verified that this
equation is exact in the sense that there are
no $N_c$ suppressed terms in the equation itself (note that models used
to evaluate the color averaging denoted by $< \cdots >$ may introduce
sub-leading $N_c$ terms). It also agrees with the previous results for the
quadrupole evolution equation~\cite{jjmyk1,dmmx}. The $S$ matrix satisfies the BK evolution
equation~\cite{bk} given by
\begin{equation}
{d\over dy} \left< S (r - s)\right> = {N_c\, \alpha_s \over 2\pi^2} \;
\int d^2 z \,
{(r - s)^2 \over (r - z)^2 (s - z)^2}\,\bigg[
\left< S (r -z)\right> \, \left< S (z - s)\right> -
\left< S (r -s)\right>
\bigg]
\label{eq:bk}
\end{equation}
Unlike the dipole kernel in the BK equation which allows a probabilistic
interpretation in coordinate space, the same is not true in the quadrupole
evolution equation due to terms with negative signs. Even though the individual
kernels in eq. (\ref{eq:Q_evo}) are just the standard dipole kernels~\cite{dipole_model},
it is still perhaps useful to explain in a more intuitive way, the various terms that
appear in eq. (\ref{eq:Q_evo}). The first four lines in eq. (\ref{eq:Q_evo})
are the "real" corrections and come from the third and fourth terms in eq. (\ref{eq:eta}).
One can rewrite any kernel in eq. (\ref{eq:Q_evo}) in a way which may look more familiar
and facilitates the comparison with the standard dipole emission kernel.
For example, the kernel in the first line on the right hand side of eq. (\ref{eq:Q_evo})
can be written as as
\begin{equation}
\sim 2 \left[{1 \over (r - z)^2} - {(r - z)\cdot (\bar{r} -z) \over (r - z)^2 (\bar{r} - z)^2}
-
{(r - z)\cdot (s -z) \over (r - z)^2 (s - z)^2}
+
{(\bar{r} - z)\cdot (s - z) \over (\bar{r} - z)^2 (s - z)^2} \right]
\label{eq:kernel_1}
\end{equation}
with a similar form for all the other kernels. Here the first term corresponds
to a gluon being radiated by a quark line represented by $V (r)$. If it is absorbed by
the same quark line in the amplitude, it leaves the quadrupole unchanged and will correspond
to a "virtual" correction. On the other hand if it is absorbed by the same quark line but
in the complex conjugate amplitude (so the gluon line crosses the cut), it will multiply
the quadrupole with the coordinate $r$ replaced by $z$ and a dipole with coordinates $r,z$.
This will be part of the "real" corrections. The second term above corresponds to the case
when the quark line, represented by $V (r)$, in the quark anti-quark system represented by
$V (r)$ and $V (\bar{r})$ radiates a gluon with transverse coordinate $z$. If the radiated
gluon does not cross the cut line and is absorbed by the anti-quark line at $\bar{r}$ it becomes
part of the "virtual" corrections. On the other hand if the radiated gluon at $z$ crosses the cut
and is then absorbed by an anti-quark line in the complex conjugate amplitude, it breaks the
original quadrupole into a quadrupole with coordinate $r$ replaced by $z$ and a dipole at $r,z$.
This is part of the "real corrections. All other terms have a similar interpretation.
To investigate the weak field limit of this evolution and to make our approximations more transparent,
it is more useful to work with the $T$ matrices, defined as $T_Q \equiv 1 - Q$ and $T \equiv 1 - S$.
It is easy to see that all kernels multiplying $1$ (when we switch from $Q,S$ to $T_Q,T$) add up to zero.
Therefore, eq. (\ref{eq:Q_evo}) is re-written as
\begin{eqnarray}
&& {d\over dy} \left< T_Q (r, \bar{r},\bar{s},s)\right> =
{N_c\, \alpha_s \over (2\pi)^2} \int d^2 z \Bigg\{ \Bigg< \nonumber \\
&& \left[ {(r - \bar{r})^2 \over (r - z)^2 (\bar{r} - z)^2} +
{(r - s)^2 \over (r - z)^2 (s - z)^2} -
{(\bar{r} - s)^2 \over (\bar{r} - z)^2 (s - z)^2} \right] \!\!
\bigg[T_Q (z, \bar{r},\bar{s},s) + T (r,z) - T_Q (z, \bar{r},\bar{s},s) T (r,z)\bigg]
\nonumber \\
&+&
\left[{(r - \bar{r})^2 \over (r - z)^2 (\bar{r} - z)^2} +
{(\bar{r} - \bar{s})^2 \over (\bar{r} - z)^2 (\bar{s} - z)^2} -
{(r - \bar{s})^2 \over (r - z)^2 (\bar{s} - z)^2} \right] \!\!
\bigg[T_Q (r, z,\bar{s},s) + T (z,\bar{r}) - T_Q (r, z,\bar{s},s)\, T (z,\bar{r})\bigg]
\nonumber \\
&+&
\left[ {(\bar{r} - \bar{s})^2 \over (\bar{r} - z)^2 (\bar{s} - z)^2} +
{(s - \bar{s})^2 \over (s - z)^2 (\bar{s} - z)^2} -
{(s - \bar{r})^2 \over (s - z)^2 (\bar{r} - z)^2} \right] \!\!
\bigg[T_Q (r, \bar{r},z,s) + T (\bar{s},z) - T_Q (r, \bar{r},z,s)\, T (\bar{s},z)\bigg]
\nonumber \\
&+&
\left[ {(r - s)^2 \over (r - z)^2 (s - z)^2} +
{(s - \bar{s})^2 \over (s - z)^2 (\bar{s} - z)^2} -
{(r - \bar{s})^2 \over (r - z)^2 (\bar{s} - z)^2} \right] \!\!
\bigg[T_Q (r, \bar{r},\bar{s},z) + T (z,s) - T_Q (r, \bar{r},\bar{s},z)\, T (z,s)\bigg]
\nonumber \\
&-&
\left[ {(r - \bar{r})^2 \over (r - z)^2 (\bar{r} - z)^2} +
{(s - \bar{s})^2 \over (s - z)^2 (\bar{s} - z)^2} +
{(r - s)^2 \over (r - z)^2 (s - z)^2} +
{(\bar{r} - \bar{s})^2 \over (\bar{r} - z)^2 (\bar{s} - z)^2} \right]
\, T_Q (r, \bar{r},\bar{s},s) \nonumber \\
&-&
\left[ {(r - s)^2 \over (r - z)^2 (s - z)^2} +
{(\bar{r} - \bar{s})^2 \over (\bar{r} - z)^2 (\bar{s} - z)^2} -
{(\bar{r} - s)^2 \over (\bar{r} - z)^2 (s - z)^2} -
{(r - \bar{s})^2 \over (r - z)^2 (\bar{s} - z)^2} \right] \!\!
\bigg[T (r,s) + T (\bar{r},\bar{s}) - T (r,s)\, T (\bar{r},\bar{s})\bigg]
\nonumber \\
&-&
\left[ {(r - \bar{r})^2 \over (r - z)^2 (\bar{r} - z)^2} +
{(s - \bar{s})^2 \over (s - z)^2 (\bar{s} - z)^2} -
{(r - \bar{s})^2 \over (r - z)^2 (\bar{s} - z)^2} -
{(\bar{r} - s)^2 \over (\bar{r} - z)^2 (s - z)^2} \right] \!\!
\bigg[T (r,\bar{r}) + T (\bar{s},s) - T (r,\bar{r})\, T (\bar{s},s)\bigg]
\Bigg> \Bigg\} \nonumber\\
\label{eq:T_Q_evo}
\end{eqnarray}
\subsection{The weak field limits}
It is useful to consider the above equation for $T_Q$ in the weak field (dilute)
limit where all sizes are much smaller than the inverse saturation scale, i.e.,
$|a - b| << {1\over Q_s}$ for any external coordinates $a,b$. In this limit the non-linear
terms ($T_Q \, T$ and $T\, T$) in eq. (\ref{eq:T_Q_evo}) may be dropped and we get
\begin{eqnarray}
{d\over dy} \left< T_Q (r, \bar{r},\bar{s},s)\right> \!\!&=&\!\!
{N_c\, \alpha_s \over (2\pi)^2} \!\!\int \!\! d^2 z \Bigg\{ \!\!\Bigg< \!\!
\left[ {(r - \bar{r})^2 \over (r - z)^2 (\bar{r} - z)^2} +
{(r - s)^2 \over (r - z)^2 (s - z)^2} -
{(\bar{r} - s)^2 \over (\bar{r} - z)^2 (s - z)^2} \right] \!\!
\bigg[T_Q (z, \bar{r},\bar{s},s) + T (r,z) \bigg] +
\nonumber \\
&&
\left[{(r - \bar{r})^2 \over (r - z)^2 (\bar{r} - z)^2} +
{(\bar{r} - \bar{s})^2 \over (\bar{r} - z)^2 (\bar{s} - z)^2} -
{(r - \bar{s})^2 \over (r - z)^2 (\bar{s} - z)^2} \right] \!\!
\bigg[T_Q (r, z,\bar{s},s) + T (z,\bar{r}) \bigg] +
\nonumber \\
&&
\left[ {(\bar{r} - \bar{s})^2 \over (\bar{r} - z)^2 (\bar{s} - z)^2} +
{(s - \bar{s})^2 \over (s - z)^2 (\bar{s} - z)^2} -
{(s - \bar{r})^2 \over (s - z)^2 (\bar{r} - z)^2} \right] \!\!
\bigg[T_Q (r, \bar{r},z,s) + T (\bar{s},z) \bigg] +
\nonumber \\
&&
\left[ {(r - s)^2 \over (r - z)^2 (s - z)^2} +
{(s - \bar{s})^2 \over (s - z)^2 (\bar{s} - z)^2} -
{(r - \bar{s})^2 \over (r - z)^2 (\bar{s} - z)^2} \right] \!\!
\bigg[T_Q (r, \bar{r},\bar{s},z) + T (z,s) \bigg] -
\nonumber \\
&&
\left[ {(r - \bar{r})^2 \over (r - z)^2 (\bar{r} - z)^2} +
{(s - \bar{s})^2 \over (s - z)^2 (\bar{s} - z)^2} +
{(r - s)^2 \over (r - z)^2 (s - z)^2} +
{(\bar{r} - \bar{s})^2 \over (\bar{r} - z)^2 (\bar{s} - z)^2} \right]
\, T_Q (r, \bar{r},\bar{s},s) -
\nonumber \\
&&
\left[ {(r - s)^2 \over (r - z)^2 (s - z)^2} +
{(\bar{r} - \bar{s})^2 \over (\bar{r} - z)^2 (\bar{s} - z)^2} -
{(\bar{r} - s)^2 \over (\bar{r} - z)^2 (s - z)^2} -
{(r - \bar{s})^2 \over (r - z)^2 (\bar{s} - z)^2} \right] \!\!
\bigg[T (r,s) + T (\bar{r},\bar{s}) \bigg] -
\nonumber \\
&&
\left[ {(r - \bar{r})^2 \over (r - z)^2 (\bar{r} - z)^2} +
{(s - \bar{s})^2 \over (s - z)^2 (\bar{s} - z)^2} -
{(r - \bar{s})^2 \over (r - z)^2 (\bar{s} - z)^2} -
{(\bar{r} - s)^2 \over (\bar{r} - z)^2 (s - z)^2} \right] \!\!
\bigg[T (r,\bar{r}) + T (\bar{s},s) \bigg]
\!\Bigg> \!\Bigg\}
\nonumber \\
\label{eq:T_Q_evo_lin}
\end{eqnarray}
To proceed further, we first consider the two-gluon exchange limit, i.e., the BFKL equation~\cite{bfkl}.
Since $T_Q$ and $T$ include multiple gluon exchanges, we need
to linearize them, i.e., take the single (reggeized) gluon exchange limit. This corresponds
to expanding each of the Wilson lines in the definition of $T_Q$ and $T$ to first
order in the gauge field $\alpha$ and then keeping terms of the order
$\alpha^2$. In this limit (note the relative sign which appears when taking
both $\alpha$'s from either $V$'s or $V^\dagger$'s rather than taking one $\alpha$ from a $V$
and another $\alpha$ from a $V^\dagger$)
\begin{equation}
T_Q (r,\bar{r},\bar{s},s) \rightarrow T (r,\bar{r}) + T (\bar{s},s) - T (r, \bar{s}) - T (\bar{r},s)
+ T (r,s) + T (\bar{r}, \bar{s})
\label{eq:T_Q_bfkl}
\end{equation}
Using eq. (\ref{eq:T_Q_bfkl}) in both sides of eq. (\ref{eq:T_Q_evo_lin})
we get the BFKL equation for each $T$ of a given argument. For example,
\begin{equation}
{d\over dy} \left< T (r,s)\right> = {N_c\, \alpha_s \over 2\pi^2} \;
\int d^2 z \,
{(r - s)^2 \over (r - z)^2 (s - z)^2}\,\bigg[
\left< T (r , z)\right> +
\left< T (z , s)\right> -
\left< T (r , s)\right>
\bigg]
\label{eq:T_evo}
\end{equation}
where $T$ in eq. (\ref{eq:T_evo}) and right hand side of (\ref{eq:T_Q_bfkl}) stands for
\begin{equation}
T (r, \bar{r}) \rightarrow \Gamma (r - \bar{r}) \sim
g^2\, \alpha^a (r) \alpha^a (\bar{r})
\label{eq:T_bfkl}
\end{equation}
This limit was already considered in~\cite{dmmx} and the correspondence with BFKL was shown.
We also note that this relation still holds when the evolution equation is written in
terms of the color charge density $\rho$ rather than the gauge field $\alpha$.
The next interesting case is to consider $O (\alpha^4)$ and see whether
our evolution equation reduces to the well-known BJKP equation governing the evolution of
four reggeized-gluon state in the dilute limit. To do this, again we first ignore the
non-linear terms in the evolution equation, then we expand the Wilson lines
and keep terms of the order $\alpha^4$ in eq. (\ref{eq:T_Q_evo_lin}).
Since the BJKP equation is written in momentum space, we will start by Fourier transforming
$T_Q$ (ignoring $T$ at the moment) to momentum space and disregard any contribution which leads to a vanishing external
momentum. We define~\footnote{We will use the notation $T_4$ here to denote the $ \sim O (\alpha^4)$
terms in the expansion of $T_Q$ so that $T_4 \equiv {1\over N_c}\,Tr\, [\alpha\,\alpha\,\alpha\,\alpha]$.}
\begin{equation}
T_4 (l_1,l_2,l_3,l_4) \equiv \int d^2 r\, d^2 \bar{r}\, d^2 \bar{s}\, d^2 s\,
e^{i (l_1 \cdot r \,+\, l_2 \cdot \bar{r} \,+\, l_3 \cdot \bar{s} \,+\, l_4 \cdot s)}\,
T_4 (r,\bar{r},\bar{s},s)
\end{equation}
where $l_1,l_2,l_3,l_4$ are two-dimensional external transverse momenta satisfying overall
transverse momentum conservation so that there are only three independent momenta. This
corresponds to having a choice in picking the origin of the coordinate space on the transverse
plane. One can then right away see that the last
term in (\ref{eq:kernel_1}) convoluted with $T_4 (z, \bar{r},\bar{s},s)$ will give a
$\delta^2 (l_1) $ since it does not depend on coordinate $r$. A similar argument shows
that the last term in each kernel in the first $4$ lines in eq. (\ref{eq:T_Q_evo_lin}) (the
"real" terms) will lead to a delta function which sets one of the external momenta to zero.
Since the external momenta of the reggeized-gluons are assumed to be finite (non-zero), all these terms
can be safely ignored. We now consider the contribution of the "virtual" terms, line $5$
in eq. (\ref{eq:T_Q_evo_lin}). Upon Fourier transforming, we get
\begin{equation}
- 8\, {N_c\, \alpha_s \over (2\pi)^2} \int {d^2 p_t \over p_t^2}\, T_4 (l_1,l_2,l_3,l_4)
+ 4\, {N_c\, \alpha_s \over (2\pi)^2} \int {d^2 p_t \over p_t^2}\, T_4 (p_t + l_1,l_2 - p_t,l_3,l_4) + \cdots
\label{eq:vir}
\end{equation}
with a cyclic permutation of the external momenta in the second term understood. The first term is part
of the virtual corrections while the second term is part of the real corrections in momentum space. Let
us consider now the contribution of "real" terms. Fourier transforming the non-zero terms in the first line
of eq. (\ref{eq:T_Q_evo_lin}) gives
\begin{equation}
2 {N_c\, \alpha_s \over (2\pi)^2} \int d^2 p_t \left[
{p_t \cdot (p_t - l_1) \over p_t^2 (p_t - l_1)^2} T_4 (l_1,l_2,l_3,l_4)
+ 2\, {p_t\cdot l_1 \over p_t^2 l_1^2} T_4 (p_t + l_1 , l_2 - p_t,l_3,l_4)
\right]
\label{eq:line_1}
\end{equation}
The first term in eq. (\ref{eq:line_1}) is part of the virtual corrections (in momentum space)
while the second term is part of the real corrections. With a slight rearrangement of the first term
one can rewrite the contribution of the first line in eq. (\ref{eq:T_Q_evo_lin}) as
\begin{equation}
2 {N_c\, \alpha_s \over (2\pi)^2} \int d^2 p_t \, \left\{
\left[{1 \over p_t^2} - {l_1^2 \over2\, p_t^2 (p_t - l_1)^2}\right]
\, T_4 (l_1,l_2,l_3,l_4)
+ 2\, {p_t\cdot l_1 \over p_t^2 l_1^2} T_4 (p_t + l_1 ,l_2 - p_t,l_3,l_4)\right\}
\label{eq:line_1_final}
\end{equation}
It is clear that the first term in the square bracket in eq. (\ref{eq:line_1_final}) partially cancels the first term
in eq. (\ref{eq:vir}). This cancellation becomes complete when we include the similar contributions
from the lines $2-4$ in eq. (\ref{eq:T_Q_evo_lin}) so that the only virtual correction left so far is
the second term in the square bracket in (\ref{eq:line_1_final}). Including the contribution of
the second line to the real part (only the terms which lead to $T_4$ with the same argument, at the moment)
gives
\begin{eqnarray}
{d\over d y} T_4 (l_1,l_2,l_3,l_4) &=& {N_c\, \alpha_s \over \pi^2} \int d^2 p_t
\left[{1\over p_t^2} + {p_t\cdot l_1 \over p_t^2 l_1^2} - {p_t\cdot l_2 \over p_t^2 l_2^2}
- {l_1\cdot l_2 \over l_1^2 l_2^2} \right]\, T_4 (p_t + l_1 ,l_2 - p_t,l_3,l_4) + \cdots \nonumber \\
&-&
{N_c\, \alpha_s \over (2\pi)^2} \int d^2 p_t\, \left[{l_1^2 \over p_t^2 (l_1 - p_t)^2} +
\{l_1 \rightarrow l_2, l_3, l_4\} \right] \, T_4 (l_1,l_2,l_3,l_4)
\label{eq:bjkp_alpha}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\cdots$ stands for real contributions obtained by appropriate permutation of the external momenta.
Finally we note that the term proportional to $l_1\cdot l_2$ comes from keeping $ O(\sim \alpha^2)$ in
the expansion of $V_z$ and setting one of the other $V$'s to unity, for example, taking $V_{\bar{r}} =1$
and $\alpha^2 (z)$ in the first line of eq. (\ref{eq:T_Q_evo_lin}). It is clear that the virtual terms
in eq. (\ref{eq:bjkp_alpha}) are already in exact agreement with one gets from BJKP
equation~\cite{multigluon,chen-al} but the real terms look different. To show agreement of the real terms
with the BJKP equation, we rewrite this equation for color charge density $\rho$ rather than
the gauge field $\alpha$ (this does not affect the virtual corrections). To this end, we note that the square
bracket in the real term in eq. (\ref{eq:bjkp_alpha}) can be rewritten as
\begin{equation}
\left[{1\over p_t^2} + {p_t\cdot l_1 \over p_t^2 l_1^2} - {p_t\cdot l_2 \over p_t^2 l_2^2}
- {l_1\cdot l_2 \over l_1^2 l_2^2} \right] = {1\over 2}
\left[ {(p_t + l_1)^2 \over p_t^2 l_1^2} + {(p_t - l_2)^2 \over p_t^2 l_2^2}
- {(l_1 + l_2)^2 \over l_1^2 l_2^2}\right]\nonumber
\end{equation}
Recalling the relation between gauge field $\alpha$ and color charge density $\rho$,
\begin{equation}
\alpha (p_t) \sim {\rho (p_t) \over p_t^2}
\label{eq:alpha_to_rho}
\end{equation}
and defining $\hat{T}_4 (l_1,l_2,l_3,l_4) = {1\over N_c}\, Tr\, \rho (l_1) \rho (l_2) \rho (l_3) \rho (l_4)$,
we multiply both sides of eq. (\ref{eq:bjkp_alpha}) with $l_1^2\, l_2^2\, l_3^2\, l_4^2$ which effectively
removes the external legs. Eq. (\ref{eq:bjkp_alpha}) can then be written as
\begin{eqnarray}
{d\over d y} \hat{T}_4 (l_1,l_2,l_3,l_4) &=& {N_c\, \alpha_s \over \pi^2} \int d^2 p_t
\left[{p^i\over p_t^2} - {(p^i - l_1^i) \over (p_t + l_1)^2}\right]\cdot
\left[{p^i\over p_t^2} - {(p^i - l_2^i) \over (p_t + l_2)^2}\right]\,
\hat{T}_4 (p_t + l_1 ,l_2 - p_t,l_3,l_4) + \cdots \nonumber \\
&-&
{N_c\, \alpha_s \over (2\pi)^2} \int d^2 p_t\, \left[{l_1^2 \over p_t^2 (l_1 - p_t)^2} +
\{l_1 \rightarrow l_2, l_3, l_4\} \right] \, \hat{T}_4 (l_1,l_2,l_3,l_4)
\label{eq:bjkp_rho}
\end{eqnarray}
This is our final result and corresponds to the evolution of $\hat{T}_4$ after one step in rapidity
$y$ as depicted (the real part) in Fig. (1). We have checked that it agrees with the expressions
given in~\cite{multigluon,chen-al}.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\includegraphics[width=12cm]{bjkp.eps}
\caption{Evolution of the four-point function $\hat{T}_4$ after one step in rapidity as given by eq. (\ref{eq:bjkp_rho}).
Shown is one of the real diagrams only and the dashed line represents a cut.}
\label{fig:bjkp}
\end{figure}
There are several points that need to be clarified; first, we have completely disregarded the dipole
terms ($\sim T$) here even though they also contain $O (\alpha^4)$ terms. Since $T (r,s)$ depends only on
two external transverse coordinates $r,s$, $O (\alpha^4)$ terms will necessarily involve two pairs of
gauge fields at the same point. Assuming rotational invariance on the transverse coordinate plane,
this leads to setting two of the external momenta equal to each other which takes one back to the BFKL ladders.
Therefore, these terms are not relevant for our purpose. A second point is the color averaging denoted by $<\cdots >$.
We have not made any assumptions about the color averaging~\cite{djp} and the evolution equation derived is independent of
how one performs this averaging. Furthermore, the overall color structure of the equation seems to be more
general than the BJKP equation since here one has a trace of four color matrices in the fundamental representation
on both sides of the equation. This trace could be written in terms of products of the group structure constants
$\delta^{ab}, f^{abc}, d^{abc}$ whereas the BJKP equation is for the exchange of four reggeized-gluon state in
a symmetric color singlet state. One expects that $\delta \, \delta$ terms would lead to a topology which
is equivalent to exchange of two independent BFKL pomerons which would then be disregarded. Therefore, one would only
consider the color symmetric structures involving $d$'s.
In summary, we have shown in this preliminary study that the JIMWLK evolution equation for the quadrupole operator can be
reduced to the BJKP equation for the real part of the four reggeized-gluon exchange amplitude. To do this, we first
ignore the non-linear (recombination) terms in quadrupole evolution equation, and then expand the Wilson lines in terms
of the gauge field (or equivalently, the color charge density). This approximation should be valid when the external momenta
are larger that the saturation scale, i.e., in the dilute region. The quadrupole evolution equation reduces to a sum of
independent BFKL equations in $O (\rho^2)$ and to the BJKP equation when one looks at the terms of order $\sim \rho^4$.
This suggests that the JIMWLK evolution equation for the $n$-pole operator
${1\over N_c} \, < Tr\, V (x_1)\, V^\dagger (x_2) \cdots V^\dagger (x_n) >$
in the linear limit (dilute region) may be equivalent to the BJKP heirarchy for the imaginary part of the $n$ reggeized-gluon exchange
amplitude. This would be very useful since there is much that is known about the BJKP equation and its properties but not
much is known about the properties of the JIMWLK equation in analytic form. Proving the equivalence between linearized
JIMWLK and BJKP equations may not be so difficult since the JIMWLK evolution equation for
${1\over N_c} \, < Tr\, V (x_1)\, V^\dagger (x_2) \cdots V^\dagger (x_n) >$ can almost be written down by inspection in
analogy with the pattern seen in eq. (\ref{eq:Q_evo}). The problem reduces to keeping track of which quark line radiates a
gluon and counting all the possibilities since all emission kernels are just the standard dipole kernel. It would also
be interesting to investigate the connection between the non-linear terms in the JIMWLK equation and multi-pomeron
vertices employed in reggeized-gluon approach to high energy scattering. These issues are beyond the scope of this
preliminary work and will be reported elsewhere.
\begin{acknowledgments}
We thank F. Dominguez, A. Dumitru, Y. Kovchegov, A. Mueller and B. Xiao for useful
discussions. This work is supported by the DOE Office of Nuclear Physics
through Grant No.\ DE-FG02-09ER41620 and by The City University of
New York through the PSC-CUNY Research Program, grant 62625-41. Figures are made
using JaxoDraw~\cite{jaxodraw}.
\end{acknowledgments}
|
\section{INTRODUCTION}\label{sec:intro}
An electron beam excites higher order modes (HOMs) when passing through an accelerating cavity. The transverse components are dominated by dipole modes \cite{rwake}. These can def\mbox{}lect the beam and therefore dilute the beam quality and can potentially lead to a beam instability. Since their strength depends linearly on the transverse beam of\mbox{}fset from the cavity axis, the adverse ef\mbox{}fect can be reduced by aligning the beam on the axis \cite{racc1-2}.
At FLASH \cite{rflash}, the electron beam is accelerated using TESLA cavities operating at 1.3~GHz. This induces a non-linear energy spread in the bunch compression process, which is corrected by using third harmonic cavities operating at 3.9~GHz \cite{racc39}. There are four 3.9~GHz cavities built in the cryo-module ACC39 (Fig.~\ref{cavity-cartoon}). By design, the 3.9~GHz cavities have two features. First, the size of the 3.9~GHz cavity is three times smaller than that of the 1.3~GHz cavity. This makes the HOMs stronger in the third harmonic cavity \cite{rwake}. Second, the beam pipes connecting the 3.9~GHz cavities are larger than one third of the TESLA cavities. Thus the frequency of most HOMs is above the cut-of{}f frequency of the beam pipes, and therefore are able to propagate through the entire module.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.47\textwidth]{fig1}
\caption{Schematic of the four cavities within ACC39. The power couplers (green) are placed downstream for C1 and C3, and upstream for C2 and C4. The HOM couplers (brown) located on the same side of the power couplers are named H1, while the other ones H2.}
\label{cavity-cartoon}
\end{figure}
\section{COUPLING MODES IN THE SECOND DIPOLE PASSBAND}\label{sec:simu-meas}
Due to their strong couplings to the beam, cavity modes in the f\mbox{}irst two dipole passbands are the natural choice to use for beam alignment. These modes couple to adjacent cavities through attached beam pipes. This is shown by both simulations and measurements.
Simulations are performed on a string of four ideal cavities without couplers using CST Microwave Studio \cite{rcst}, with a solver accuracy of 10$^{-6}$ in terms of the eigensystem's relative residual, 1.1~million mesh cells and electric boundary conditions. The resulting f{}ield distribution of the strongest coupling mode in the second dipole passband is shown in Fig.~\ref{simu-full}. The propagation of the electromagnetic energy across the entire cavity string can be clearly seen.
\begin{figure}[h]\center
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{fig2}
\caption{Electric f{}ield distribution of the strongest coupling mode in the second dipole passband. The frequency is 5.4192~GHz and the $R/Q$ is 50.92~$\Omega/$cm$^2$.}
\label{simu-full}
\end{figure}
Fig.~\ref{cmtb-fnal-D2-C1} shows the spectrum of C1 measured in isolated cavity case compared with that measured when cavities were assembled in the cryo-module. Because of the coupling ef\mbox{}fects, more modes are present. Fig.~\ref{cutoff-C1} shows the spectrum of C1 measured in the cryo-module together with that measured across the entire four-cavity string (from C1H2 to C4H2). Most modes in the second dipole passband propagate. The dipole character of this passband has been studied in \cite{rdipac}.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\subfigure[Transmission spectra of C1]{
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{fig3a}
\label{cmtb-fnal-D2-C1}
}
\subfigure[Transmission spectra from module-based measurement]{
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{fig3b}
\label{cutoff-C1}
}
\caption{The second dipole passband from the transmission measurements. The vertical lines in green are from simulations of an ideal cavity.}
\label{fnal-cmtb-cutoff-D2-C1}
\end{figure}
As modes close to 5.45~GHz have strong coupling to the beam, the spectrum from 5.42 to 5.45~GHz is used for the beam alignment study.
\section{Beam Alignment}\label{sec:beam-align}
\subsection{Measurement Scheme}\label{sec:meas-setup}
Aligning the beam corresponds to sending the beam on a trajectory which generates minimum HOM power in the cavities. To this end, we set up the measurement as shown in Fig.~\ref{hom-setup}. Two steering magnets were used to kick the beam horizontally and vertically. The bunch consisting of a charge of approximately 0.5~nC was subsequently accelerated by ACC1 which contains eight 1.3~GHz TESLA superconducting cavities, then went through ACC39 with various transverse of\mbox{}fsets. The position within each cavity is obtained by interpolating the readouts from two beam position monitors (BPM-A and BPM-B), which are situated on each side of ACC39. A straight-line trajectory of the beam was attained by switching of{}f the accelerating f{}ield in ACC39 and the quadrupole magnets nearby.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.46\textwidth]{fig4}
\caption{Schematic of measurement setup (not to scale).}
\label{hom-setup}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Minimization of HOMs}\label{sec:min-hom}
From previous measurements \cite{rdipac}, the integrated power of HOM spectrum from 5.42 to 5.45~GHz has a minimum during the grid-like beam movement. Fig.~\ref{scan-magnet-old} shows the integrated power for each beam position in terms of steering magnet current. Position interpolations from the two BPM readouts (BPM-A and BPM-B) are applied to get the transverse beam positions in C2, which is shown in Fig.~\ref{scan-xy-old}. The nonlinearity of the transverse positions during the scan is due to the coupling between $x$ and $y$ plane caused partially by the ACC1 module and partially by BPMs. The jitters of the BPM reading during the beam movement can also contribute.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\subfigure[Steering magnet]{
\includegraphics[width=0.226\textwidth]{fig5a}
\label{scan-magnet-old}
}
\subfigure[Interpolated position(C2H2)]{
\includegraphics[width=0.226\textwidth]{fig5b}
\label{scan-xy-old}
}
\caption{HOM power measured from C2H2 for each beam position. The position marked with red pentagram has the minimum power.}
\label{scan-min-old}
\end{figure}
Beam alignment was conducted by minimizing the HOM power measured from coupler C2H2, while monitoring the signals from other couplers as well. Initially, transverse of\mbox{}fsets read from BPM-A as large as 2.7~mm ($x$) and -4.3~mm ($y$) were used and they were subsequently reduced down to -200~$\mu$m ($x$) and -30~$\mu$m ($y$) according to HOM power. Fig.~\ref{2D-magnet} shows the current readings of the two steering magnets during the beam movement, and Fig.~\ref{2D-bpma} shows the corresponding BPM readouts. The nonlinearity presented is caused by the same reasons as described for Fig.~\ref{scan-xy-old}.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\subfigure[Steering magnet]{
\includegraphics[width=0.226\textwidth]{fig6a}
\label{2D-magnet}
}
\subfigure[BPM readout]{
\includegraphics[width=0.226\textwidth]{fig6b}
\label{2D-bpma}
}
\caption{Beam movement.}
\label{2D-magnet-bpm}
\end{figure}
The HOM signals excited by a single electron bunch for each beam position were measured by a Real-time Spectrum Analyzer (RSA) from all four downstream HOM couplers. The mode amplitude varies with transverse beam of{}fset in each cavity, which is shown in Fig.~\ref{rsa-overlap-4couplers}. Due to the coupling ef{}fects, the spectra are too complex to identify single modes, therefore, the integrated power within this 30~MHz range was used for beam alignment. Zooming into a smaller range of beam movement, the integrated power from C2H2 for each beam position is shown in terms of steering magnet current (Fig.~\ref{scan-magnet}) and interpolated beam position (Fig.~\ref{scan-xy}) respectively. The position which has minimum power from C2H2 is found and marked as red pentagram. The HOM power within a position range of 60~$\mu$m ($x$) and 200~$\mu$m ($y$) in C2 presents very small changes.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{fig7}
\caption{Spectra measured from all four downstream HOM couplers for each beam trajectory.}
\label{rsa-overlap-4couplers}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\subfigure[Steering magnet]{
\includegraphics[width=0.226\textwidth]{fig8a}
\label{scan-magnet}
}
\subfigure[Interpolated position(C2H2)]{
\includegraphics[width=0.226\textwidth]{fig8b}
\label{scan-xy}
}
\caption{HOM power for each beam position. The position marked with red pentagrams corresponds to the minimum HOM power.}
\label{scan-min}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Beam Trajectory of Minimum HOM Power}\label{sec:opt-traj}
All beam trajectories across the four-cavity module during the scan are shown in Fig.~\ref{all-track}. Limited by the beam movement, not all possible trajectories can be covered. According to the position with minimum HOM power, the optimal beam trajectory based on coupler C2H2 is plotted as the red line. The red pentagrams located on C2 correspond to the position marked in Fig.~\ref{scan-xy} by red pentagram.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\subfigure[x]{
\includegraphics[width=0.226\textwidth]{fig9a}
\label{all-track-x}
}
\subfigure[y]{
\includegraphics[width=0.226\textwidth]{fig9b}
\label{all-track-y}
}
\caption{Beam trajectories during movement. The red line marked with pentagram is the optimal trajectory based on coupler C2H2.}
\label{all-track}
\end{figure}
As the HOM signals were also measured from the other three couplers for each beam movement, one can also f{}ind the position which has minimum power at each of them. The optimal trajectory for each coupler is shown in Fig.~\ref{opt-track}. Another trajectory is also obtained by minimizing the total power of all four couplers, which is the black line in Fig.~\ref{opt-track}. The optimal trajectories dif{}fer, and might be attributed to several factors. F{}irst, we could not cover the entire 4D space during the scan, therefore, the real optimal trajectory might have not been found in this study. Second, the BPMs used for position interpolations have f\mbox{}inite resolutions. Third, the alignment was based on a combination of several modes, and they may behave dif{}ferently at each coupler. Fourth, the HOM energy picked up by each coupler varies according to the detailed features of the individual couplers. Besides that, in spite of the related modes are propagating, dif{}ferent local f{}ield distributions are expected at each coupler. Therefore the HOM power is related to the overall pattern of the trajectory rather than the individual of{}fset in each cavity.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\subfigure[Optimal trajectory(x)]{
\includegraphics[width=0.226\textwidth]{fig10a}
\label{opt-track-x}
}
\subfigure[Optimal trajectory(y)]{
\includegraphics[width=0.226\textwidth]{fig10b}
\label{opt-track-y}
}
\caption{Optimal trajectories.}
\label{opt-track}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\subfigure[norm(140 trajectories)]{
\includegraphics[width=0.226\textwidth]{fig11a}
\label{norm-all-track}
}
\subfigure[norm(optimal trajectories)]{
\includegraphics[width=0.226\textwidth]{fig11b}
\label{norm-opt-track}
}
\caption{Norm of all beam trajectories (a) and the optimal beam trajectories (b).}
\label{norm-track}
\end{figure}
In order to compare trajectories, a vector $\mathbf{A_i}$ is composed for each trajectory as
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{A_i} = (a^{(1)}_i, a^{(2)}_i, a^{(3)}_i, a^{(4)}_i)^T,
\label{eq:track-vector}
\end{equation}
where $a^{(1)}_i$, $a^{(2)}_i$, $a^{(3)}_i$ and $a^{(4)}_i$ denote the transverse beam position $x$ and $y$ of the $i^{th}$ trajectory in C1, C2, C3 and C4 respectively, $T$ denotes matrix transpose. Then the norm of each trajectory is calculated as
\begin{equation}
||\mathbf{A_i}|| = \sqrt{(a^{(1)}_i)^2+(a^{(2)}_i)^2+(a^{(3)}_i)^2+(a^{(4)}_i)^2}.
\label{eq:norm-vector}
\end{equation}
Since the modes excited by the beam at an angle are much weaker than those excited by the beam at an of{}fset \cite{racc1}, the angle of each trajectory is neglected in comparison. Fig.~\ref{norm-all-track} shows the norm of all trajectories and the f{}ive optimal trajectories. In terms of beam position $x$ and $y$, the norm of the f{}ive optimal trajectories are shown in Fig.~\ref{norm-opt-track}. The variations of optimal trajectories in both $x$ and $y$ directions are comparable to the RMS resolution of the two BPMs (30~$\mu$m).
\section{Conclusions}\label{sec:conclude}
Beam alignment has been performed by minimizing the integrated power of dipole modes over a 30~MHz frequency range in the second dipole passband. These modes have been shown in simulations and measurements to have strong coupling to the beam and propagate across the four-cavity module. The beam trajectory corresponding to the minimum HOM power has been found based on each of the four downstream HOM couplers. The dif{}ferences among their norms are comparable to the BPM resolution. The overall alignment achieved based on one HOM coupler is of the order of 200~$\mu$m in this study.
Dedicated electronics for HOM-based beam diagnostics are currently under design. Once the HOM signal been calibrated, the position information within each cavity can be obtained directly. Therefore the nonlinearity induced by jitters and couplings of the BPMs might be reduced and consequently improve the beam alignment. We also plan to continue this study with the dedicated electronics.
|
\section{Supplementary Material}
\end{widetext}
\section{Model}
\label{model}
We take a Hamiltonian with kinetic, interaction and tunnelling terms, in the
form $\hat{H}=\hat{H}_{\mathrm{kin}}+\hat{H}_{\mathrm{int}}+\hat{H}_{\mathrm{%
tun}}$. Using the labels $\eta =1,2$ to distinguish edges according to their
source, and $s=\uparrow ,\downarrow $ to differentiate between the two
channels on a given edge, the fermion creation operator at point $x$ for
channel $\eta ,s$ is $\hat{\psi}_{\eta s}^{\dagger }(x)$. The density operator is
$\hat{\rho}_{\eta s}(x)=\hat{\psi}_{\eta s}^{\dagger }(x)\hat{\psi}_{\eta
s}(x)$.
Taking all four channels $\eta ,s$ to have the same bare velocity $v$, and
assuming a contact interaction of strength $g$ between electrons in
different channels on the same edge, we have \cite{Wen_sup}
\begin{equation}
\hat{H}_{\mathrm{kin}}=-i\hbar v\sum_{\eta ,s}\int \hat{\psi}_{\eta
s}^{\dagger }(x)\partial _{x}\hat{\psi}_{\eta s}(x)\ \mathrm{d}x
\end{equation}%
and
\begin{equation}
\hat{H}_{\mathrm{int}}=2\pi \hbar g\sum_{\eta }\int \hat{\rho}_{\eta
\uparrow }(x)\hat{\rho}_{\eta \downarrow }(x)\ \mathrm{d}x\,.
\end{equation}%
Tunneling with amplitude $t_{\mathrm{QPC}}$ at the QPC between
channels $1{\downarrow }$ and $2{\downarrow }$ is described by
\begin{equation}
\hat{H}_{\mathrm{tun}}=t_{\mathrm{QPC}}\hat{\psi}_{1\downarrow }^{\dagger
}(0)\hat{\psi}_{2\downarrow }(0)+\mathrm{h.c.}\,.
\end{equation}%
A bias voltage $V$ generates a chemical potential difference $eV$ between
incident electrons on edge 1 and those on edge 2.
The observable of interest is the tunnelling conductance as a function of energy $E$ and
distance $d>0$ from the QPC, in channel $2,s$. This is the Fourier
transform of the correlator
\begin{equation}\label{defG_sup}
G_{s}(d,\tau )=\langle e^{i\hat{H}\tau/\hbar} \hat{\psi}_{2s}^{\dagger }(d)e^{-i\hat{H}\tau/\hbar}\hat{\psi}%
_{2s}(d)\rangle ,
\end{equation}%
where the average is taken in the non-equilibrium steady state. The tunnelling conductance is
determined by a measurement of the current $I_{\mathrm{QD}}(E)$ through a
quantum dot with a single level at energy $E$ weakly coupled to the channel.
With tunnelling amplitude $t_{\mathrm{D}}$ to the dot, this is \cite%
{quench2009_sup}
\begin{equation}
I_{QD}(E)=\frac{e|t_{\mathrm{D}}|^{2}}{\hbar ^{2}}\int G_{s }(d,\tau
)e^{-iE\tau /\hbar }\ d\tau . \label{IQD_sup}
\end{equation}%
\section{Refermionization}
\label{refermionization}
The steps required to derive Eqns.~(6) - (8) of the main text are as follows.
First we bosonize the Hamiltonian in the standard way \cite{vonDelft},
introducing bosonic fields $\hat{\phi}_{\eta s}(x)$ with commutation
relations
$
\lbrack \hat{\phi}_{\eta s}(x),\partial _{y}\hat{\phi}_{\eta s^{\prime
}}(x^{\prime })]=-2\pi i\delta _{\eta \eta ^{\prime }}\delta _{ss^{\prime
}}\delta (x-x^{\prime }),
$
and Klein factors $\hat{F}_{\eta s}$, and representing the fermion operators
via the relation
\begin{equation}\label{bosonize}
\hat{\psi}_{\eta s}(x)= (2\pi a)^{-1/2}\hat{F}_{\eta s}e^{i\frac{2\pi}{L}\hat{N}_{\eta s}}e^{-i\hat{\phi}_{\eta s}(x)},
\end{equation}
where, as usual, $a$ is a short-distance cut-off, $\hat{N}_{\eta s}$ is the fermion number operator, and $L$ is the length of the edge.
After bosonization, the combination $\hat{H}_{\mathrm{kin}}+\hat{H}_{\mathrm{%
int}}$ is diagonalized by a rotation to new bosonic fields $\hat{\chi}%
_{\alpha }$, where $(\hat{\chi}_{S_{+}}\ \hat{\chi}_{A_{-}}\ \hat{\chi}%
_{A_{+}}\ \hat{\chi}_{S_{-}})^{T}=U(\hat{\phi}_{1\uparrow }\ \hat{\phi}%
_{1\downarrow }\ \hat{\phi}_{2\downarrow }\ \hat{\phi}_{2\uparrow })^{T}$
and
\begin{equation}
U=\frac{1}{2}\left(
\begin{array}{rrrr}
1 & 1 & 1 & 1 \\
1 & -1 & 1 & -1 \\
1 & 1 & -1 & -1 \\
1 & -1 & -1 & 1%
\end{array}%
\right) \,. \label{U}
\end{equation}%
Next we use the fields $\hat{\chi}_{\alpha }$ to define new fermion
operators\cite{Fabrizio_sup,zarand_sup} $\hat{\Psi}_{\alpha }$. Crucially, besides
diagonalising $\hat{H}_{\mathrm{kin}}+\hat{H}_{\mathrm{int}}$, the
transformations ensure that $\hat{H}_{\mathrm{tun}}$ remains a
single-particle operator when expressed in terms of $\hat{\Psi}_{\alpha }$.
Specifically, after bosonization
\begin{equation}
\hat{H}_{\mathrm{tun}}=t_{\mathrm{QPC}}\hat{F}_{1\downarrow }^{\dagger }\hat{%
F}_{2\downarrow }e^{i[\hat{\phi}_{1\downarrow }(0)-\hat{\phi}_{2\downarrow
}(0)]}+\mathrm{h.c.},
\end{equation}%
while under rotation $\hat{\phi}_{1\downarrow }(0)-\hat{\phi}_{2\downarrow
}(0)=\hat{\chi}_{A_{+}}(0)-\hat{\chi}_{A_{-}}(0)$. Since $\hat{\chi}_{A\pm
}(0)$ appear in this expression with unit coefficients, we can introduce new
Klein factors $\hat{F}_{\alpha }$ and new fermion fields $\Psi _{\alpha
}\sim \hat{F}_{\alpha }e^{-i\hat{\chi}_{\alpha }}$ to obtain the expression
for $\hat{H}$ displayed in Eq.~(6) of the main text. The
required transformation of Klein factors has been given previously in the
context of a two-channel Kondo model:\cite{zarand_sup} since fermion number
operators should transform following Eq.~(\ref{U}), we require
\begin{eqnarray}\label{klein}
\hat{F}_{S_{-}}^{\dagger }\hat{F}_{A_{-}}^{\dagger } &{=}&\hat{F}_{1\uparrow
}^{\dagger }\hat{F}_{1\downarrow },\quad \hat{F}_{S_{-}}\hat{F}_{A_{-}}^{\dagger
}=\hat{F}_{2\downarrow }^{\dagger }\hat{F}_{2\uparrow }, \nonumber \\
\hat{F}_{S_{-}}^{\dagger }\hat{F}_{A_{+}}^{\dagger } &=&\hat{F}_{1\uparrow
}^{\dagger }\hat{F}_{2\downarrow },\quad \hat{F}_{S_{+}}^{\dagger }\hat{F}%
_{A_{-}}^{\dagger }=\hat{F}_{1\uparrow }^{\dagger }\hat{F}_{2\downarrow
}^{\dagger }.
\end{eqnarray}%
This implies that the combination appearing in $\hat{H}_{\mathrm{tun}}$
has the transformation $\hat{F}_{1\downarrow }^{\dagger }\hat{F}_{2\downarrow }=-\hat{F}%
_{A_{+}}^{\dagger }\hat{F}_{A_{-}}$. Note that a unit change
in the occupation number of one of the new fermions results in
changes of one half for the occupation numbers of the original fermions.
Physical states in the new basis must therefore satisfy certain selection rules, to ensure
that fermion occupation numbers in the original basis are integer.
These selection rules are set out in Ref.~\onlinecite{zarand_sup}.
For our purposes the key point is that $\hat{H}_{\mathrm{tun}}$ does not
connect the physical and unphysical sectors, because the new fermion operators appear in it in pairs.
We can also transform in this way the operators that are required to generate an
incident state with a density difference between channels. Since $\hat{F}%
_{1\uparrow }^{\dagger }\hat{F}_{1\downarrow }^{\dagger }=\hat{F}%
_{A_{+}}^{\dagger }\hat{F}_{S_{+}}^{\dagger }$ and $\hat{F}_{2\downarrow
}^{\dagger }\hat{F}_{2\uparrow }^{\dagger }=\hat{F}_{A_{+}}\hat{F}%
_{S_{+}}^{\dagger }$, a bias voltage $V$ between channels $1$ and $2$ is
represented by setting the chemical potential to be $eV$ in channel $A_{+}$
and zero in channels $A_{-}$ and $S_{\pm }$.
The task now is to evaluate the correlation function $G_s(d,t)$. For this it
is convenient to
work in the interaction representation, with $\hat{H}_{\rm tun}$ as the `interaction' and
$\hat{H}_0 \equiv \hat{H}_{\rm kin} + \hat{H}_{\rm int}$, using
a superscript $I$ to indicate operators in this representation:
$A^{I}(t)=e^{i\hat{H}_0t}A e^{-i\hat{H}_0t}$.
Time evolution of the new bosonic and fermionic fields fields is simple in this picture:
we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat{\chi}^{I}_{A\pm}(x,t) &=& \hat{\chi}_{A\pm}(x-v_\pm t)\,,\nonumber \\
\hat{\Psi}^{I}_{A\pm}(x,t) &=& \hat{\Psi}_{A\pm}(x-v_\pm t)\,, \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
and similarly for $\hat{\chi}^{I}_{S\pm}(x,t)$ and $\hat{\psi}^{I}_{S\pm}(x,t)$.
The time evolution operator in the interaction representation is
\begin{equation}
\hat{S}^{I}(t)=\mathrm{{exp}}\left[-\frac{i}{\hbar }\int_{-\infty }^{t}\hat{H}^{I}_{\rm tun}(\tau ){\rm d}\tau \right]\,,
\end{equation}
(the usual time-ordering is not required here because $[\hat{H}^{I}_{\rm tun}(t_1),\hat{H}^{I}_{\rm tun}(t_2) ]=0$ for all $t_1$ and $t_2$).
Scattering states are generated by the action of $\hat{S}^{I}(t)$: Eq.~(\ref{defG_sup}) takes the form
$G_s(d,\tau) = \langle Q
\rangle_0
$,
where
\begin{equation}
Q \equiv [\hat{S}^{I}(\tau)]^\dagger [\hat{\psi}^I_{2s}(d,\tau)]^\dagger \hat{S}^I(\tau) [\hat{S}^I(0)]^\dagger \hat{\psi}^I_{2s}(d,0)\hat{S}^{I}(0) \nonumber
\end{equation}
and $\langle \ldots \rangle_0$ denotes a conventional thermal average, with Hamiltonian $\hat{H}_0$ and chemical
potentials $\mu_1$ and $\mu_2$ on the two edges, defined by
\begin{equation}
\langle \dots \rangle_0 = Z^{-1} {\rm Tr} \left\{e^{-\beta(\hat{H}_0 - \mu_1\hat{N}_1-\mu_2 \hat{N}_2)} \dots \right\},
\end{equation}
where $Z= {\rm Tr} \{e^{-\beta(\hat{H}_0 - \mu_1\hat{N}_1-\mu_2 \hat{N}_2)} \}$ and $\hat{N}_{1}\equiv \hat{N}_{1\uparrow} + \hat{N}_{1\downarrow}$,
the number operator for edge 1 (and correspondingly for $\hat{N}_2$).
We now describe how the quantity $Q$ may be simplified. First, by a straightforward though lengthy calculation one can show that
\begin{equation}
[\hat{H}_{\rm tun}^I(t_1),\hat{\psi}^I_{2s}(d,t_2)] =0 \quad {\rm for} \quad t_1 \notin [t_2-d/v_+,t_2-d/v_-]\,.\nonumber
\end{equation}
Next, we insert $[\hat{S}^I(\infty)]^\dagger \hat{S}^I(\infty)$ between the factors of $\hat{S}^I(\tau)$ and $[\hat{S}^I(0)]^\dagger$
in our expression for $Q$.
We then commute $\hat{S}^I(\tau)[\hat{S}^I(\infty)]^\dagger $ to the left, and $\hat{S}^I(\infty) [\hat{S}^I(0)]^\dagger$ to the right, to obtain
\begin{equation}\label{Q}
Q = [\hat{S}^{I}(\infty)]^\dagger [\hat{\psi}^I_{2s}(d,\tau)]^\dagger \hat{\psi}^I_{2s}(d,0)\hat{S}^{I}(\infty)\,.
\end{equation}
Bosonizing using Eq.~(\ref{bosonize}) we have
\begin{multline*}
{[\hat{\psi}^I_{2s}(d,\tau)]^\dagger \hat{\psi}^I_{2s}(d,0)
= (2\pi a)^{-1} e^{i \hat{\phi}_{2s}^I(d,\tau)}e^{-i\frac{2\pi}{L}\hat{N}_{2s}^I(\tau)}} \\
\times[\hat{F}_{2s}^I(\tau)]^\dagger\hat{F}^I_{2s}(0) e^{i\frac{2\pi}{L}\hat{N}^I_{2s}(0)} e^{-i\phi^I_{2s}(d,0)}\,.
\end{multline*}
Rotating to the new fields and using
\begin{equation}
\hat{\chi}^I_\alpha(d,0) - \hat{\chi}^I_\alpha(d,\tau) + \frac{2\pi}{L}[\hat{N}^I_\alpha(\tau) - \hat{N}^I_\alpha(0)] = 2\pi \hat{\cal N}_\alpha(d,\tau) \nonumber
\end{equation}
with $\hat{\cal N}_\alpha(d,\tau)$ defined in Eq.~(8) of the main text, and setting $\mu_2=0$ so that $\hat{F}_{2s}^I(\tau) = \hat{F}_{2s}$, we find
\begin{multline*}
[\hat{\psi}^I_{2s}(d,\tau)]^\dagger \hat{\psi}^I_{2s}(d,0)=\\
(2\pi a)^{-1}
e^{-i\pi [({\cal N}_{A+}(d,\tau) \pm {\cal N}_{A-}(d,\tau)) - ( {\cal N}_{S+}(d,\tau)\pm {\cal N}_{S-}(d,\tau)]}
\end{multline*}
where the signs $\pm$ correspond to the choices $s=\uparrow,\downarrow$.
Since $\hat{S}^{I}(t)$ transforms only the channels $A\pm$ and not $S\pm$, we can extract a normalisation factor to arrive at
\begin{equation}\label{ratio}
G_s(d,\tau) = G_0(\tau) \frac{\langle e^{-i\pi [{\cal N}_{A+}(d,\tau) \pm {\cal N}_{A-}(d,\tau)]}\rangle}{\langle e^{-i\pi [{\cal N}_{A+}(d,\tau) \pm {\cal N}_{A-}(d,\tau)]}\rangle_0}
\end{equation}
where $\langle \ldots \rangle \equiv \langle [\hat{S}^{I}(\infty)]^\dagger \ldots \hat{S}^{I}(\infty) \rangle_0$ and
\begin{eqnarray}
G_0(\tau) &\equiv& \langle \hat{\psi}_{2s}^\dagger(d,\tau) \hat{\psi}_{2s}(d,0) \rangle_0 \nonumber\\
&=&\frac{i }{2\beta \hbar (v_{+}v_{-})^{\frac{1}{2}}}\times \frac{1}{\sinh
^{\frac{1}{2}}[\frac{\pi }{\beta \hbar v_{+}}(-v_{+}\tau +ia)]} \nonumber \\
&&\qquad\times \frac{1}{\sinh ^{\frac{1}{2}}[\frac{\pi }{\beta \hbar v_{-}}
(-v_{-}\tau +ia)]}\,.
\end{eqnarray}
A final step is to consider the effect of the evolution operators $[\hat{S}^{I}(\infty)]^\dagger$ and $\hat{S}^{I}(\infty)$
on the basis states in which the expectation value is calculated. As these states are generated by the action of the operators
$\hat{\Psi}_{A\pm}(x)$ on the vacuum, we must find how these operators transform. We do this
by solving the Schr\"odinger equation with the Hamiltonian of Eq.~(6) of the main text. The solution involves the scattering amplitudes at the QPC:
introducing $\theta =t_{\mathrm{QPC}}/\hbar \sqrt{v_{+}v_{-}}$, the tunnelling and reflection probabilities
are $\sin ^{2}\theta $ and $\cos^{2}\theta$, while
\begin{multline}\label{trans1}
[\hat{S}^{I}(\infty)]^\dagger \hat{\Psi}_{A+}(x)\hat{S}^{I}(\infty) =\\
\cos \theta \, \hat{\Psi}_{A+}(x) -i\sin \theta \, \left[v_{-}/v_{+}\right]^{{1}/{2}}
\hat{\Psi}_{A_{-}}^{\dagger } (v_{-}x/v_{+})
\end{multline}
and
\begin{multline}\label{trans2}
[\hat{S}^{I}(\infty)]^\dagger \hat{\Psi}_{A-}(x)\hat{S}^{I}(\infty) =\\
\cos \theta \, \hat{\Psi}_{A-}(x) -i\sin \theta \, \left[v_{+}/v_{-}\right]^{{1}/{2}}
\hat{\Psi}_{A_{+}}^{\dagger } (v_{+}x/v_{-})\,.
\end{multline}
Hence the average $\langle \dots \rangle$ in a scattering state is evaluated by combining
the rotation between channels defined in Eqns.~(\ref{trans1}) and (\ref{trans2})
with the thermal average $\langle \ldots \rangle_0$.
\section{Numerical evaluation of the tunnelling conductance}
\label{numerics}
In the following we outline the methods we use for numerical evaluation of the
correlation function defined in Eq.~(7) of the main text, and hence the differential tunnelling conductance
shown in Figs.~1 and 2 of the main text. The central problem is to evaluate the normalised
expectation value appearing on the right hand side of Eq.~(\ref{ratio}), which has the form
\begin{equation}
\langle X \rangle_{\rm norm} \equiv {\langle X \rangle}/{\langle X \rangle_0}
\end{equation}
with $X=e^{-i\pi [{\cal N}_{A+}(d,\tau) \pm {\cal N}_{A-}(d,\tau)]}$.
In the limit of large distance $d$ from the QPC,
contributions to the two time windows appearing in the exponent in $X$ are independent and
it is convenient to use the approach described in Ref.~\onlinecite{mirlin_sup}. At finite $d$
there is no such factorisation and we resort instead to a method
similar to one described in Ref.\onlinecite{quench2009_sup},
appropriately modified to take account of finite temperature.
(i) \textit{Long distance limit.} At large $d$ the expectation value
factorizes into a product of two functions, each of which count number of
particles in a fixed time window, so that
\begin{equation
\langle e^{-i\pi [{\cal N}_{A+}(d,\tau) \pm {\cal N}_{A-}(d,\tau)]} \rangle_{\rm norm} = \chi _{- }(\mp \pi ,\tau )\chi _{+}(-\pi ,\tau )\nonumber
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
\chi _{\pm }(\delta ,\tau )=\langle e^{i\delta \hat{\cal N}_{\pm }(d,\tau )}\rangle_{\rm norm}
. \label{FCS}
\end{equation}
The functions $\chi _{\pm }(\delta ,\tau )$ have a FCS form and can be written in terms of
determinants for non-interacting fermions. One has\cite{klich_sup}
\begin{equation}
\langle e^{i\delta \hat{\cal N}_{\pm }(d,\tau )}\rangle
=\det \{[1-\hat{P}(e^{-i\delta }-1)\hat{n}_{\pm
}(\varepsilon )\hat{P}]\}\,. \label{det2}
\end{equation}%
Here $n_{\pm }(\varepsilon )$ is the corresponding electron energy
distribution in a given channel at finite temperature and bias voltage after the action of $\hat{S}^I({\infty})$
(i.e. a double-step) while $\hat{P}$ is a projection operator that is diagonal in the time
domain, having the action on a time-dependent
function $y(t)$: $\hat{P}y(t)=y(t)$ if $t\in \lbrack 0,\tau ]$ and $\hat{P}%
y(t)=0$ otherwise. Using the regularization procedure proposed in Ref. \onlinecite
{mirlin_sup} we can write the determinant (\ref{det2}) in the form%
\begin{equation}
\langle e^{i\delta \hat{N}_{\pm }(\tau )}\rangle
=\det [f(t_{i}-t_{j})]\,, \label{chi}
\end{equation}%
where the function $f(t)$ is defined as a Fourier transform of
\begin{equation}
\tilde{f}(\varepsilon )=[1-n_\pm(\varepsilon )(e^{-i\delta }-1)]e^{-i\frac{\delta }{2}
\frac{\varepsilon }{\Lambda }},
\end{equation}
which is periodic in the domain $[-\Lambda ,\Lambda ]$, with $\Lambda $
a high energy cutoff on single-particle states and $t_{j}=j\pi /\Lambda .$
Note that the phase factor $e^{-i\frac{\delta }{2}\frac{\varepsilon }{\Lambda }}$ appearing here is crucial, since without it
one would wrongly obtain a result periodic in $\delta$.
The normalisation $\langle e^{i\delta \hat{\cal N}_{\pm }(d,\tau )}\rangle_0$ is obtained from similar
expressions in which the non-equilibrium distribution $n_\pm(\varepsilon)$ is replaced by a thermal one, and
in practice we evaluate directly the ratio $\chi _{\pm }(\delta ,\tau)$.
We check numerical convergence by changing the value of the cutoff $\Lambda .$ The size of the
matrices required grows linearly with $\tau$, the largest necessary being $%
2000\times 2000.$ Some results obtained using this approach are shown in Figs.~\ref{m3} and \ref{mirlin}.
The numerical calculations can be tested at large $\tau$ by comparison with the asymptotic analytic results derived in
Ref.~\onlinecite{mirlin_sup}: as shown in Fig.~\ref{m3} the agreement is excellent. An incidental by-product of our
calculations is the discovery of an interesting new feature of the asymptotic behaviour. According to Ref.~\onlinecite{mirlin_sup}
this is exponential in $\tau$, with a rate that diverges for $\delta=\pi$ and $p=1/2$. In fact we find numerically
that decay at these parameter values is not exponential but Gaussian in $\tau$. It would be interesting to search for an
analytical derivation of that form.
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\epsfig{file=figure_mirlin.eps,width=8cm}
\caption{The quantity $|\chi _{\pm }(\pi ,\tau )|^2$ [see Eq.~(\protect\ref{FCS})] as a
function of time $\tau$ for different values of parameter $\protect\beta eV$ at
tunneling probability $p=0.5$ Thick solid line: $\protect\beta eV=2$; dashed line: $\protect\beta eV=5$;
dot-dashed line: $\protect\beta eV=10$; circles: $\protect
\beta eV=100$. Thin solid line corresponds to asymptotic behaviour at large $
\protect\beta eV$, which is represented within numerical errors by the function $\exp [-\frac{1}{12}\protect\pi ^{2}\protect\tau
^{2}(k_{B}T_{\mathrm{ds}})^2/\hbar ^{2}].$}
\label{m3}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\epsfig{file=figure_asympt.eps,width=8cm}
\caption{(Color online). Comparison of the asymptotic behaviour of
$|\chi _{\pm}(\pi ,\tau )|^2$ [see Eq.~(\protect\ref{FCS})] from Ref.\protect\onlinecite{mirlin_sup},
(solid lines) with results obtained numerically using Eq.~(\protect\ref%
{chi}) (dashed lines), at tunneling probability $p=0.5$ for different values of $\delta$.
From top right to bottom left: red lines $%
\protect\delta =\protect\pi /2,$ green lines ($\protect\delta =3\protect\pi /4$),
blue lines ($\protect\delta =\protect\pi -0.1$) and violet lines ($\protect\delta =%
\protect\pi -0.01$).}
\label{mirlin}
\end{figure}
(ii) \textit{Finite distance. }At finite distance $d$ the correlation function
$G_s(d,\tau)$ is not simply a product of independent contributions from the two channels
$A\pm$, and so cannot be expressed in terms of quantities familiar from the theory of FCS.
We require instead a different numerical approach. Using Levitov's determinant formula \cite{klich_sup}, we have
\begin{multline}
\langle [\hat{S}^{I}(\infty)]^\dagger
e^{-i\pi [{\cal N}_{A+}(d,\tau) \pm {\cal N}_{A-}(d,\tau)]}
\hat{S}^{I}(\infty) \rangle_0 \nonumber\\
= \det [1-n(\varepsilon)[[\hat{S}(\infty)]^{\dagger }e^{-i\pi \lbrack \pm
\hat{\cal N}_{A-}(d,\tau )+\hat{\cal N}_{A+}(d,\tau )]}\hat{S}^I(\infty)-1]. \label{GF_k}
\end{multline}
Here the determinant is in the two-channel Fock space and $n(\varepsilon)$
is a Fermi-Dirac distribution in each channel, but with two distinct chemical potentials.
To evaluate this determinant we express $\hat{\cal N}_{A\pm}(d,\tau)$ as bilinears in the
fermion creation and annihilation operators $\hat{\Psi}^{\dagger}_{A\pm}(x)$ and $\hat{\Psi}_{A \pm}(x)$.
We evaluate this determinant in a basis of eigenstates of $\hat{H}_{\rm kin}$, considering
edges of finite length with periodic boundary conditions and imposing energy cut-offs to
obtain a matrix of finite size. For adequate convergence with increasing system size, we find that
it is necessary to scale the lengths $L_\pm$ of the two channels according to the velocity, setting
$v_+/L_+ = v_-/L_-$. With this choice, a basis of a few thousand states is sufficient to obtain the results
we present here.
We show representative results for the normalised correlator $\langle e^{-i\pi [{\cal N}_{A+}(d,\tau) \pm {\cal N}_{A-}(d,\tau)]} \rangle_{\rm norm}$
at finite $d$ in Figs.~\ref{same} and \ref{opposite}. The most distinctive feature is an oscillatory time dependence
of the correlator in the channel that is coupled by the QPC, which at $d=0$ and $T=0$ can be obtained exactly as
$\langle e^{-i\pi [{\cal N}_{A+}(0,\tau) \pm {\cal N}_{A-}(0,\tau)]} \rangle_{\rm norm}=\cos (\frac{1}{2}eV\tau/2\protect\pi \hbar )$.
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\epsfig{file=figure_out.eps,width=8cm}
\caption{Time dependence of the normalised correlator $\langle e^{-i\pi [{\cal N}_{A+}(d,\tau) - {\cal N}_{A-}(d,\tau)]} \rangle_{\rm norm}$
for the \textit{same} channel as that coupled by the QPC. Curves are for tunnelling probability $p=1/2$, $eV/k_{\rm B}T = 5$ and different
distances $d$ from the QPC: (thin solid line) $d/l_{v}=0$; (dashed line) $d/l_{v}=2.5$;
(dotted line) $d/l_{v}=5$; (dot-dashed line) $d/l_{v}=10$; and (thick solid line) $x/l_{v}=20$.\label{same}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[b]
\epsfig{file=figure_in.eps,width=8cm}
\caption{Time dependence of the normalised correlator $\langle e^{-i\pi [{\cal N}_{A+}(d,\tau) + {\cal N}_{A-}(d,\tau)]} \rangle_{\rm norm} $
for the channel \textit{not} coupled by the QPC. Other parameters as for Fig.~\ref{same}.\label{opposite}}
\end{figure}
|
\section{Introduction}
Consider the space of Hermitian $n\times n$ matrices with a
probability measure of the form
\begin{equation}\label{random matrix model}
\frac{1}{Z_{n}}e^{-n\,{\rm tr \,} V(M)}dM,
\end{equation}
where $dM$ is the Lebesgue measure defined by
\[dM=\prod_{j=1}^n M_{jj}\prod_{i<j}d{\rm Re \,} M_{ij} d{\rm Im \,} M_{ij},\]
and where the external field $V$ is a real analytic function with
sufficient growth at $\pm\infty$. The quadratic case
$V(M)=\frac{1}{2}M^2$ corresponds to the Gaussian Unitary Ensemble
(GUE) and consists of matrices with independent Gaussian entries.
The probability measure (\ref{random matrix model}) is invariant
under conjugation with a unitary matrix and induces a probability
measure on the matrix eigenvalues given by
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{\tilde
Z_n}\prod_{i<j}(\lambda_i-\lambda_j)^2\prod_{j=1}^n e^{-nV(\lambda_j)}d\lambda_j.
\end{equation}
The large $n$ limit of the average counting measure of the
eigenvalues of a random matrix (hereafter referred to as the limiting mean eigenvalue
distribution) exists and is characterized as the unique measure
$\mu_V$ which minimizes the logarithmic energy \cite{Deift}
\begin{equation}
I_V(\mu)=\iint \log\frac{1}{|x-y|}d\mu(x)d\mu(y)+\int V(x)d\mu(x),
\end{equation}
among all probability measures $\mu$ on $\mathbb R$. The equilibrium
measure $\mu_V$ depends on the external field $V$ and is supported on a
finite union of intervals $\cup_{j=1}^\ell[a_j,b_j]$, with $\ell, a_j, b_j$
depending on $V$. It is absolutely continuous with a density
$\psi_V$ of the form \cite{DKM}
\begin{equation}
\psi_V(x)=\prod_{j=1}^\ell \sqrt{(b_j-x)(x-a_j)}\ h(x),\qquad x\in
\cup_{j=1}^\ell[a_j,b_j],
\end{equation}
where $h(x)$ is a real analytic function on $\mathbb R$. Generically
\cite{KM}, $h$ has no zeros on the support and in particular at the
endpoints $a_j, b_j$, so that the equilibrium density has square
root vanishing at the endpoints. However, there exist singular
external fields $V$ which are such that $h(b_j)=0$ (or $h(a_j)=0$).
If $h(b_j)=0$, then necessarily an odd number of derivatives vanish:
we have \begin{equation}\label{hb} h'(b_j)=\cdots = h^{(2k-1)}(b_j)=0, \qquad
h^{(2k)}(b_j)\neq 0,\end{equation} for $k\in\mathbb N$. The value $k=0$
corresponds to the generic square-root behavior and $k=1$ to the
first type of critical behavior where $\psi_V(x)\sim c(b_j-x)^{5/2}$
as $x\nearrow b_j$.
\begin{example}
The simplest critical case $k=1$ occurs, e.g., for the critical quartic potential
\begin{equation}\label{V}
V(x)=\frac{1}{20}x^4-\frac{4}{15}x^3+\frac{1}{5}x^2+\frac{8}{5}x.
\end{equation}
The limiting mean eigenvalue density is then supported on $[-2,2]$ and given by \cite{CIK}
\begin{equation}
\psi_V(x) =
\frac{1}{10\pi}(x+2)^{1/2}(2-x)^{5/2},\qquad\mbox{$x\in [-2,2]$}.
\end{equation}
\end{example}
\begin{example}
The general situation $k\in\mathbb N$ can be realized for instance with
the following family of polynomials,
\begin{equation}
V_k(x)=2 \cdot \frac{(2k+2)!}{
\left(-\frac{1}{2}\right)_{2k+2}}
\sum_{\ell=0}^{2k+1}\frac{(-1)^\ell(\ell+\frac{1}{2})_{2k+1-\ell}}{(2k+1-\ell)! (\ell+1)}x^{\ell+1},
\end{equation}
where $(a)_m=a\cdot(a+1)\cdots (a+m-1)$ is the Pochhammer symbol.
The corresponding limiting mean eigenvalue densities are given by
\begin{equation}\label{psik}
\psi_k(x) =
-\frac{(2k+2)!}{\pi \left(-\frac{1}{2}\right)_{2k+2}}x^{1/2}(1-x)^{2k+1/2},\qquad\mbox{$x\in [0,1]$}.
\end{equation}
This can be verified by substituting (\ref{psik}) into the
variational conditions that characterize the equilibrium measures
in external field $V_k$. These conditions reduce to the
equation
\[2\PVint_0^1\frac{\psi_k(s)}{x-s}ds=V_k'(x),\qquad\mbox{ for $x\in (0,1)$},\]
which is readily verified.
\end{example}
The random matrix ensembles under consideration are known to have eigenvalues following a determinantal point process with a kernel of the form \cite{Deift}
\begin{equation} \label{kernel}
K_n(x,y)
=\frac{e^{-\frac{n}{2}V(x)}
e^{-\frac{n}{2}V(y)}}{x-y}\frac{\kappa_{n-1}}{\kappa_{n}}
(p_n(x)p_{n-1}(y)-p_n(y)p_{n-1}(x)),
\end{equation}
where $p_j$ is the degree $j$ orthonormal polynomial with
respect to the weight $e^{-nV(x)}$ on $\mathbb R$; $\kappa_j$ is its
leading coefficient. Near a right endpoint $b$ of the support for
which $k=0$, it was proved \cite{DKMVZ2, DG} that the large $n$ limit of the
re-scaled kernel is the Airy kernel:
\begin{equation}\label{Airykernel}
\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{1}{cn^{2/3}}K_n\left(b+\frac{u}{cn^{2/3}},
b+\frac{v}{cn^{2/3}}\right)=K^{(0)}(u,v),
\end{equation}
uniformly for $u,v\geq -L$, $L>0$, where $c=c_V$ and $K^{(0)}$ is
the Airy kernel
\begin{equation}\label{kernel1}
K^{(0)}(u,v)=\frac{{\rm Ai \,}(u){\rm Ai \,}'(v)-{\rm Ai \,}(v){\rm Ai \,}'(u)}{u-v}.
\end{equation}
The limit of the probability that the largest eigenvalue is smaller
than $b+\frac{s}{cn^{2/3}}$ is given by a Fredholm determinant:
\begin{equation}\label{TW0}
\lim_{n\to\infty}{\rm
Prob}\left(cn^{2/3}(\lambda_n-b)<s\right)=\det(I-K_s^{(0)}),
\end{equation}
where $K_s^{(0)}$ denotes the Airy-kernel trace-class operator
acting on $L^2(s,+\infty)$. The right hand side of the above
equation is the Tracy--Widom distribution \cite{TW}, which can be written in
the form
\begin{equation}\label{TW}
\det(I-K_s^{(0)})=\exp\left(-\int_s^{+\infty}(y-s)q_0^2(y)dy\right),
\end{equation}
where $q_0$ is the Hastings--McLeod solution $q_0$ of the Painlev\'e
II equation
\begin{equation}\label{PII0}
q_{xx}=xq+2q^3.
\end{equation}
This solution \cite{HM} is characterized by the asymptotic
conditions
\begin{align}&\label{HastingsMcLeod}
q_0(x)\sim {\rm Ai \,}(x), &\mbox{ as $x\to +\infty$,}\\
&\label{HastingsMcLeod2}q_0(x)= \sqrt\frac{-x}{2}\left(1 +
\frac{1}{8x^{3}} + {\cal O}\left(x^{-6}\right)\right), &\mbox{ as $x\to
-\infty$.}
\end{align}
If $b$ is a right endpoint of the support for which $k=1$, i.e.\ (\ref{hb}) holds with $k=1$ and $b_j=b$, the
kernel has a different limit. It was showed in
\cite{CV2}, see also \cite{BB, BMP}, that there exists a limiting kernel $K^{(1)}$ such that
\begin{equation}
\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{1}{cn^{2/7}}K_n\left(b+\frac{u}{cn^{2/7}},
b+\frac{v}{cn^{2/7}}\right)=K^{(1)}(u,v),
\end{equation}
uniformly for $u,v$ in compact subsets of the real line. Since both sides of this equation tend to $0$ rapidly as $u$ or $v$
tends to $+\infty$, this result can be extended to a uniform statement for
$u,v\geq -L$, $L>0$, which implies
\begin{equation}\label{TW1}
\lim_{n\to\infty}{\rm
Prob}\left(cn^{2/7}(\lambda_n-b)<s\right)=\det(I-K_s^{(1)}),
\end{equation}
where $K_s^{(1)}$ is the trace class operator with kernel $K^{(1)}$
on $(s,+\infty)$. In more complicated double scaling limits, where
$V$ is not fixed but depends on $n$ in a critical way, a limiting
kernel $K^{(1)}(u,v;t_0,t_1)$ depending on two parameters was
obtained. Those double scaling limits can describe phase transitions
where the number of intervals in the support of the limiting mean
eigenvalue distributions changes. If we consider an external field
$V=V_t$ depending on a parameter $t$, it can happen that the support
consists of two intervals for $t<1$, but of only one interval for
$t=1$. This happens for example when two intervals approach each
other and simultaneously one of the intervals shrinks in the limit
$t\searrow 1$. Such phase transitions are covered by the kernels
$K^{(1)}(u,v;t_0,t_1)$ with non-zero parameters $t_0, t_1$.
The kernels $K^{(1)}(u,v;t_0,t_1)$ are related to the
second member of the Painlev\'e I hierarchy, but are most easily
characterized in terms of a Riemann-Hilbert (RH) problem. We will
give more details about this in the next section.
Although no proofs have been given for $k>1$, when considering in
more detail the results and methods in \cite{CV2}, one expects a result of the
form
\begin{equation}
\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{1}{cn^{2/(4k+3)}}K_n\left(b+\frac{u}{cn^{2/(4k+3)}},
b+\frac{v}{cn^{2/(4k+3)}}\right)=K^{(k)}(u,v;t_0,\dots,t_{2k-1}),
\end{equation}
for general $k>1$, where the kernel now depends on $2k$ parameters,
and
\begin{equation}\label{TWk}
\lim_{n\to\infty}{\rm
Prob}\left(cn^{2/(4k+3)}(\lambda_n-b)<s\right)=\det(I-K_s^{(k)}(t_0,\dots,t_{2k-1})).
\end{equation}
The kernels $K^{(k)}$ are related to the Painlev\'e I hierarchy and
will be characterized in the next section in terms of a RH problem. It was proved in
\cite{CIK} that the Fredholm determinant
$\det(I-K_s^{(k)}(t_0,\dots,t_{2k-1}))$ can be expressed explicitly
in terms of a distinguished solution to the equation of order $4k+2$
in the second Painlev\'e hierarchy, and in addition asymptotics for $\det(I-K_s^{(k)}(t_0,\dots,t_{2k-1}))$ as $s\to \pm\infty$ were obtained.
The asymptotics at $+\infty$ can be derived relatively easy from asymptotic properties of the kernel $K^{(k)}$ and are given by
\begin{equation}\label{kernel +infty}
\log\det(I-K_s^{(k)}(t_0,\dots,t_{2k-1}))={\cal O}(e^{-cs^{\frac{4k+3}{2}}}),
\qquad \mbox{ as $s\to +\infty$}.
\end{equation}
The asymptotics as $x\to -\infty$ are more subtle and require a detailed analysis of the Fredholm determinants.
In the simplest case $t_0=\cdots=t_{2k-1}=0$, they are given by
\begin{multline}\label{large gap expansion}
\log \det(I-K_s^{(k)})=-\frac{1}{4(4k+3)}\frac{\Gamma(2k +\frac{3}{2})^2}{\Gamma(\frac{3}{2})^2\Gamma(2k+2)^2}|s|^{4k+3}\\
-\frac{2k+1}{8}\log |s|+\chi^{(k)}+{\cal O}(|s|^{-\frac{4k+3}{2}}),\qquad\mbox{ as $s\to -\infty$,}
\end{multline}
where $\Gamma(x)$ is Euler's $\Gamma$-function. The constant
$\chi^{(k)}$ has no explicit expression, except for $k=0$, where it
was proved in \cite{DIK, BBD} that $\chi^{(0)}=\frac{1}{24}\log
2+\zeta'(-1)$, and $\zeta(s)$ is the Riemann zeta function.
\medskip
The goal of this paper is to set up a numerical scheme for computing the Fredholm determinants
$\det(I-K_s^{(k)}(t_0,\dots,t_{2k-1}))$, which will allow us to draw plots of the
distributions and their densities, to
verify formulas (\ref{kernel +infty})
and (\ref{large gap expansion}) numerically, to compute numerical
values for the constants $\chi^{(k)}$, and to formulate a number of questions about the
analytic properties of the distributions (monotonicity, inflection points), based on a closer
inspection of the plots. In the next section, we define the kernels
in a precise way using a RH problem. This
RH characterization will also be used for the numerical analysis
which we explain in more detail in Section \ref{section numerics}.
In Section \ref{section plots} finally, we show plots of the
distributions $\det(I-K_s^{(k)})$ and their densities for several
values of $k$ and the parameters $t_0, \ldots, t_{2k-1}$, and we
will formulate a number of open problems.
\section{Riemann--Hilbert characterization of the kernels}
The kernels $K^{(k)}$ have the form
\begin{equation}\label{kernel2}
K^{(k)}(u,v;t_0, \ldots , t_{2k-1})=\frac{\Phi_1^{(2k)}(u)\Phi_2^{(2k)}(v)-\Phi_1^{(2k)}(v)\Phi_2^{(2k)}(u)}{-2\pi i(u-v)},
\end{equation}
where the functions
$\Phi_j^{(2k)}(w)=\Phi_j^{(2k)}(w;t_0,\ldots,t_{2k-1})$ can be characterized in terms of a RH problem.
\subsubsection*{RH problem for $\Phi$}
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\setlength{\unitlength}{1mm}
\begin{picture}(95,47)(0,2)
\put(30,38){\small $\Gamma_2$}
\put(18,27){\small $\Gamma_3$}
\put(30,11){\small $\Gamma_4$}
\put(75,27){\small $\Gamma_1$}
\put(3,42){\small $\begin{pmatrix}1&0\\1&1\end{pmatrix}$}
\put(-5,24){\small $\begin{pmatrix}0&1\\-1&0\end{pmatrix}$}
\put(3,7){\small $\begin{pmatrix}1&0\\1&1\end{pmatrix}$}
\put(85,24){\small $\begin{pmatrix}1&1\\0&1\end{pmatrix}$}
\put(50,25){\thicklines\circle*{.9}}
\put(51,21){\small 0}
\put(50,25){\line(-2,1){35}} \put(36,32){\thicklines\vector(2,-1){.0001}}
\put(50,25){\line(-2,-1){35}} \put(36,18){\thicklines\vector(2,1){.0001}}
\put(50,25){\line(-1,0){40}} \put(30,25){\thicklines\vector(1,0){.0001}}
\put(50,25){\line(1,0){35}} \put(70,25){\thicklines\vector(1,0){.0001}}
\end{picture}
\caption{The jump contour $\Gamma$ and the jump matrices for $\Phi$. }
\label{figure: gamma}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)] $\Phi=\Phi^{(2k)}:\mathbb C\setminus \Gamma\to \mathbb C^{2\times 2}$ is analytic, with \[\Gamma=\cup_{j=1}^4\Gamma_j\cup\{0\}, \qquad \Gamma_1=\mathbb R^+,\quad\Gamma_3=\mathbb R^-, \quad \Gamma_2=e^{\frac{-i\pi}{4k+3}}\mathbb R^-, \quad \Gamma_4=e^{\frac{i\pi}{4k+3}}\mathbb R^-,\] oriented as in Figure \ref{figure: gamma}.
\item[(b)] $\Phi$ has continuous boundary values $\Phi_+$ as $\zeta$ approaches
$\Gamma\setminus\{0\}$ from the left, and $\Phi_-$,
from the right. They are related by the jump conditions \begin{equation}\label{RHP Phi: b}\Phi_+(\zeta)=\Phi_-(\zeta)S_j,\qquad \mbox{ for $\zeta\in\Gamma_j$,}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{align}
\label{S1}
&S_1=\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 1 \\
0 & 1
\end{pmatrix},\\
\label{S24}
&S_2=S_4=\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 \\
1 & 1
\end{pmatrix},\\
\label{S3}
&S_3=
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & 1 \\
-1 & 0
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{align}
\item[(c)] $\Phi$ has the following behavior as $\zeta\to\infty$:
\begin{equation}\label{RHP Psik: c}
\Phi(\zeta)=\zeta^{-\frac{1}{4}\sigma_3}N\left(I+h\sigma_3\zeta^{-1/2}+
{\cal O}(\zeta^{-1})\right)
e^{-\theta(\zeta)\sigma_3},
\end{equation}
where $h=h(t_0, \ldots , t_{2k-1})$ is independent of $\zeta$, $\sigma_3$ is the Pauli matrix $\begin{pmatrix}1&0\\0&-1\end{pmatrix}$, $N$ is given by
\begin{equation}\label{def: N0}
N=\frac{1}{\sqrt 2}
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 1 \\
-1 & 1
\end{pmatrix}e^{-\frac{1}{4}\pi i\sigma_3},
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{def theta0}
\theta(\zeta;t_0,\ldots,t_{2k-1})=\frac{2}{4k+3}\zeta^{\frac{4k+3}{2}}-2\sum_{j=0}^{2k-1}\frac{
(-1)^{j}t_{j}}{2j+1}\zeta^{\frac{2j+1}{2}},
\end{equation}
where the fractional powers are the principal branches analytic for $\zeta\in \mathbb C\setminus (-\infty,0]$ and positive for $\zeta>0$.
\item[(d)] $\Phi$ is bounded near $0$.
\end{itemize}
It was proved in \cite{CIK} that this RH problem is uniquely
solvable for any real values of $t_0,\ldots,t_{2k-1}$. The functions
$\Phi_1=\Phi_1^{(2k)}$ and $\Phi_2=\Phi_2^{(2k)}$ appearing in
(\ref{kernel2}) are the analytic extensions of the functions
$\Phi_{11}$ and $\Phi_{21}$ from the sector in between $\Gamma_1$
and $\Gamma_2$ to the entire complex plane. Alternatively they can
be characterized as fundamental solutions to the Lax pair associated
to a special solution to the $2k$-th member of the Painlev\'e I
hierarchy. We will not give details concerning this alternative
description, since the RH characterization is more direct and more
convenient for our purposes.
\begin{remark}
The description in terms of differential
equations in the PI hierarchy presents the possibility of computing
these distributions using ODE solvers. However, similar to the Hastings--McLeod solution (see
\cite{PrahoferSpohnKPZ}), these solutions are inherently
unstable; hence, applying this approach in
practice would require the use of high precision arithmetic, which is too computationally expensive to be practical.
On the other hand, the representation in terms of a RH problem is
numerically stable, and therefore is reliable.
\end{remark}
\medskip
Not only the kernel $K^{(k)}$ can be described in terms of a RH problem, but also the logarithmic derivative of the Fredholm determinant can be expressed in terms of a RH problem, which shows similarities with the above one, but is nevertheless genuinely different. We have a formula of the form
\begin{equation}\label{identityFredholmX}
\frac{d}{ds}\log\det(I-K_s^{(k)}(t_0,\ldots,
t_{2k-1}))=\frac{1}{2\pi
i}\left.\left(X_s^{-1}(\zeta)X_s'(\zeta)\right)_{21}\right|_{\zeta\searrow
s},
\end{equation}
where $X_s$ is the unique solution to a RH problem, see \cite[Section 2]{CIK}.
This representation provides relative accuracy, whereas the representation as a Fredholm determinant only provides absolute accuracy \cite{BornemannFredholmDet}. However, it requires solving a RH problem for each point of evaluation $s$ and numerical indefinite integration to recover the distributions. Therefore, the expression in terms of a Fredholm determinant is more computationally efficient.
\section{Numerical study of the distributions}\label{section numerics}
We will compute the higher order Tracy--Widom distributions by calculating $\Phi$ numerically, using the methodology of \cite{SOPainleveII,SORHFramework}. Consider the following canonical form for a RH problem:
\subsubsection*{Canonical form for RH problem for $\Psi$}
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)] $\Psi: \mathbb C\setminus \overline\Gamma\to \mathbb C^{2\times 2}$ is analytic, where $\overline\Gamma$ is an oriented contour which is
the closure
of the set $\Gamma = \Gamma_1 \cup \cdots \cup \Gamma_\ell$ whose connected components can be M\"obius-transformed
to the unit interval $M_i : \Gamma_i \rightarrow (-1,1)$, with junction points $\Gamma^*=\overline\Gamma\setminus\Gamma$.
\item[(b)] $\Psi$ has continuous boundary values $\Psi_+$ as $\zeta$ approaches
$\Gamma$ from the left, and $\Psi_-$, from the
right. For a given function $G$, they
are related by the jump condition
\begin{equation}\label{canonical jump}
\Psi_+(\zeta)=\Psi_-(\zeta) G(\zeta).
\end{equation}
\item[(c)] As $\zeta\to\infty$, we have $\lim\Psi(\zeta)=I$.
\item[(d)] $\Psi$ is bounded near $\Gamma^*$.
\end{itemize}
Define the Cauchy transform
$${\cal C}_{\Gamma} f(\zeta) = {1 \over 2 \pi i} \int_\Gamma {f(t) \over t - \zeta} dt,$$
and denote the limit from the left (right) for $\zeta \in \Gamma$ by ${\cal C}_\Gamma^+$ (${\cal C}_\Gamma^-$). We represent $\Psi$ in terms of the Cauchy transform of an unknown function $U$ defined on $\Gamma$:
$$\Psi(\zeta) = I + {\cal C}_\Gamma U(\zeta).$$
Plugging this into \eqref{canonical jump} we have the linear equation
\begin{equation}\label{SIE}{\cal C}_\Gamma^+ U - {\cal C}_\Gamma^- U G = G - I.\end{equation}
We solve this equation using a collocation method.
We approximate $U$ by $U_{\bf n}$ for ${\bf n} = \{n^{\Gamma_1},\dots,n^{\Gamma_\ell}\}$, which is defined on each component $\Gamma_i$ of the contour in terms of a mapped Chebyshev series:
$$U_{\bf n}(x) = \sum_{j = 0}^{n^{\Gamma_i} - 1} U_j^{\Gamma_i} T_j(M_i(x)),\qquad \hbox{ for } x \in \Gamma_i \hbox{ and } i = 1,\ldots,\ell,$$
where $U_j^{\Gamma_i} \in {\Bbb C}^{2 \times 2}$, and $T_j$ is the $j$-th Chebyshev polynomial of the first kind. The convenience of this basis is that the Cauchy transforms ${\cal C}_{\Gamma_i}[T_j \circ M_i]$ are known in closed form, in terms of hypergeometric functions which can be readily computed numerically \cite{SOHilbertTransform}.
For each $\zeta \in \Gamma^*$, let $\Omega_1,\ldots,\Omega_L$ be the subset of components in
$\Gamma$ that have $\zeta$ as an endpoint. In other words,
$M_i(\zeta) = p_i$ where $p_i = \pm 1$ for $i=1,\ldots, L$.
We say that $U$ satisfies the {\it zero sum condition} if
%
$$\sum_{i=1}^L p_i U^{\Omega_i}(\zeta) = 0,$$
where $U^{\Omega_i}$ denotes $U$ restricted to $\Omega_i$.
The boundedness of $\Psi$ implies that $U$ must satisfy the zero sum condition.
Define the mapped Chebyshev points of the first kind:
$${\bf x}^{\Gamma_i} = M_i^{-1}\begin{pmatrix}-1\cr\cos{\pi\left(1 - {1 \over n^{\Gamma_i}-1}\right)}\cr\vdots\cr\cos{\pi \over n^{\Gamma_i}-1}\cr1\end{pmatrix}$$
and the vector of
unknown Chebyshev coefficients (in ${\Bbb C}^{2 \times 2}$)
$${\bf U} = \begin{pmatrix}U_0^{\Gamma_1} \cr \vdots \cr U_{n^{\Gamma_\ell}-1}^{\Gamma_\ell} \end{pmatrix}.$$
Then we can explicitly construct a matrix $C^-$ such that
$$C^-{\bf U} = \begin{pmatrix} {\cal C}_{\Gamma}^- U_{\bf n}({\bf x}^{\Gamma_1}) \cr \vdots \cr {\cal C}_{\Gamma}^- U_{\bf n}({\bf x}^{\Gamma_\ell})\end{pmatrix}$$
holds whenever $U_{\bf n}$ satisfies the zero sum condition \cite{SORHFramework}. To define ${\cal C}_{\Gamma}^- U_{\bf n}({\bf x}^{\Gamma_i})$ at the endpoints, we use
$${\cal C}_{\Gamma}^- U_{\bf n}(M_{i}^{-1}(\pm 1)) = \lim_{x \rightarrow \pm 1} {\cal C}_{\Gamma}^- U_{\bf n}(M_i^{-1}(x)),$$
which exists when $U_{\bf n}$ satisfies the zero sum condition.
Thus we discretize \eqref{SIE} by
$${ L}_{\bf n} {\bf U} = (I + C^-) {\bf U} - C^-{\bf U} G_{\bf n} = G_{\bf n} - I$$
where $G_{\bf n} = (G({\bf x}^{\Gamma_1}) , \ldots , G({\bf x}^{\Gamma_\ell}))^\top$ and the multiplication by $G_{\bf n}$ on the right is defined in the obvious way.
The remarkable fact is that solving this linear system will generically imply that $U_{\bf n}$ satisfies the zero sum condition if $L_{\bf n}$ is nonsingular; if it does not, $L_{\bf n}$ is necessarily not of full rank, and we can replace redundant rows with conditions imposing the zero sum condition \cite{SORHFramework}. Taking this possibly modified definition of $L_{\bf n}$, we have the following convergence result.
\def\nnnorm#1{ |\mskip-1.5mu\|\,{#1}\,\|\mskip-1.5mu|}
\begin{theorem}\cite{SORHFramework}
The $L_\infty$ error of the numerical method is bounded by
$$C_{\bf n} \|L_{\bf n}^{-1}\|_\infty \, \nnnorm{U - \bar U_{\bf n}},$$
where $C_{\bf n}$ grows logarithmically with $\max {\bf n}$, $\bar U_{\bf n}$ is the polynomial which interpolates $U$ at ${\bf x}^{\Gamma_1},\ldots,{\bf x}^{\Gamma_\ell}$ and
$$\nnnorm{f} = \| f\|_\infty + \max_{i} \| (M_i^{-1} )' f_i' \|_\infty.$$
\end{theorem}
In practice, $\|L_{\bf n}^{-1}\|$ appears to grow at most logarithmically with $\max {\bf n}$ whenever a solution to the RH problem exists. Therefore, if the solution $U$ is smooth, the numerical method will converge spectrally as $\min {\bf n} \rightarrow \infty$, with $\min {\bf n}$ proportional to $\max {\bf n}$.
To apply the numerical method to the RH problem $\Phi$, we need to reduce it to canonical form. Define $W(\zeta) = \zeta^{-\sigma_3/4} N e^{-\theta(\zeta)\sigma_3}$, and we use the notation $W_\pm$ to denote the analytic continuation of $W$ above/below its branch cut along $(-\infty,0)$. We make the following transformation:
\begin{equation}\label{PsiToPhi}
\Phi^{(2k)}(\zeta) = \Psi^{(2k)}(\zeta) \begin{cases}
W(\zeta) & |\zeta| > 1 \\
S_4^{-1} & |\zeta| < 1\hbox{ and $\zeta$ lies between $\Gamma_4$ and $\Gamma_1$} \\
S_4^{-1} S_1 & |\zeta| < 1\hbox{ and $\zeta$ lies between $\Gamma_1$ and $\Gamma_2$}\\
S_4^{-1} S_1 S_2^{-1} & |\zeta| < 1\hbox{ and $\zeta$ lies between $\Gamma_2$ and $\Gamma_3$}\\
I & |\zeta| < 1\hbox{ and $\zeta$ lies between $\Gamma_3$ and $\Gamma_4$}
\end{cases}.
\end{equation}
Then $\Psi^{(2k)}$ satisfies the RH problem:
\subsubsection*{RH problem for $\Psi^{(2k)}$}
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)] $\Psi = \Psi^{(2k)}: \mathbb C\setminus \tilde \Gamma\to \mathbb C^{2\times 2}$ is analytic, with
\begin{align*}
\tilde \Gamma &= \tilde\Gamma_1\cup\tilde\Gamma_2\cup \tilde\Gamma_4 \cup \tilde\Gamma_{21} \cup \tilde\Gamma_{42} \cup \tilde\Gamma_{14}\cup\{1,e^{\frac{-i\pi}{4k+3}},e^{\frac{i\pi}{4k+3}}\}, \\
\tilde \Gamma_1 & = (1,\infty), \quad \tilde \Gamma_2=-e^{\frac{-i\pi}{4k+3}} (\infty,1), \quad \tilde \Gamma_4=-e^{\frac{i\pi}{4k+3}}(\infty,1), \\
\tilde \Gamma_{21} & = e^{i \pi (1-{1 \over 4 k + 3},0)}, \tilde \Gamma_{42} = e^{i \pi (-1+{1 \over 4 k + 3},1-{1 \over 4 k + 3})} , \tilde \Gamma_{14} = e^{i \pi (0,-1+{1 \over 4 k + 3})}
\end{align*}
oriented as in Figure \ref{figure: CanonicalGamma}.
\item[(b)] The jump conditions for $\Psi$ are given by
\begin{align*}
\Psi_+(\zeta)&=\Psi_-(\zeta)
W(\zeta) S_j W^{-1}(\zeta),&& \mbox{for $\zeta\in\tilde \Gamma_j$, $j = 1, 2, 4$,}\\
\Psi_+(\zeta)&=\Psi_-(\zeta) S_4^{-1}W^{-1}(\zeta) ,&& \mbox{for $\zeta\in\tilde \Gamma_{14}$},\\
\Psi_+(\zeta)&=\Psi_-(\zeta) S_4^{-1} S_1 W^{-1}(\zeta) ,&& \mbox{for $\zeta\in\tilde \Gamma_{21}$},\\
\Psi_+(\zeta)&=\Psi_-(\zeta) W_-^{-1}(\zeta) ,&& \mbox{for $\zeta\in\tilde \Gamma_{42}$}.
\end{align*}
\item[(c)] As $\zeta\to\infty$, we have $\lim\Psi(\zeta)=I$.
\item[(d)] $\Psi$ is bounded near $\{1,e^{\frac{-i\pi}{4k+3}},e^{\frac{i\pi}{4k+3}}\}$.
\end{itemize}
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\setlength{\unitlength}{1.0truemm}
\begin{picture}(100,75)(0,25)
\put(50,50){\circle{30}}
\put(51,57){\thicklines\vector(1,0){.0001}}
\put(57,50){\line(1,0){40}}
\put(43.8,53.1){\line(-2,1){40}}
\put(43.8,46.9){\line(-2,-1){40}}
\put(75,50){\thicklines\vector(1,0){.0001}}
\put(28,61){\thicklines\vector(2,-1){.0001}}
\put(28,39){\thicklines\vector(2,1){.0001}}
\put(21,65){\small $\tilde\Gamma_2$}
\put(21,32){\small $\tilde\Gamma_4$}
\put(37,49){\small $\tilde\Gamma_{42}$}
\put(50,59){\small $\tilde\Gamma_{21}$}
\put(50,39){\small $\tilde\Gamma_{14}$}
\put(78,51){\small $\tilde\Gamma_1$}
\end{picture}
\caption{The jump contour $\tilde \Gamma$ and the jump matrices for
$\Psi$.}
\label{figure: CanonicalGamma}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
With $\Psi$ in this form, we can readily compute it numerically, recover $\Phi$ by \eqref{PsiToPhi}, and thence evaluate the kernel of $K_s^{(k)}$ numerically. This leaves one more task: computing the Fredholm determinant itself. We accomplish this using the framework of \cite{BornemannFredholmDet}, which also achieves spectral accuracy.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}\includegraphics[width=7cm]{plot4.pdf}\includegraphics[width=7cm]{plotkinfdistribution.pdf}
\caption{The distributions $F_k$ for $k=0,1,\ldots, 5$ with $t_j=0$.
The slope steepens near $-1$ when $k$ increases. On the right, we
also plot $F_\infty$ (thick curve), as constructed in Section \ref{Largek}.}
\label{figure: distr}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}\includegraphics[width=13cm]{plot5.pdf} \caption{The densities $F_k'(s)$ for
$k=0,1,\ldots, 5$ with $t_j=0$.}
\label{figure: dens}\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}\includegraphics[width=7cm]{plotinflection.pdf}\includegraphics[width=7cm]{plotinflectiond.pdf}
\caption{The distribution $F_1(s)$ (left) and density $F_1'(s)$ (right) for $t_0=0$ and $t_1=-1,\ldots,-4$. }
\label{figure: infl}\end{center}
\end{figure}
\section{Plots and open problems}
\label{section plots}
\subsection{Local maxima of the densities}
In Figure \ref{figure: distr}, we plot the numerically computed
distributions $F_k(s;0,\ldots, 0)$ for $k=0,\ldots, 5$, where we
write
\begin{equation}F_k(s;t_0,\ldots, t_{2k-1})=\det(I-K_s^{(k)}(t_0,\ldots, t_{2k-1})).\end{equation}
In Figure \ref{figure: dens} the corresponding densities are drawn.
One observes that each of the densities has only one local maximum
(i.e.\ the distributions have only one inflection point).
The figures suggest that for any $k\in\mathbb N$ and for $t_0=\ldots=t_{2k-1}
= 0$, the densities have only one local maximum.
For general values of the parameters $t_0,\ldots,t_{2k-1}\in\mathbb
R$, the situation is different. We see in Figure \ref{figure: infl},
for $k=1$, $t_0=0$ and varying negative $t_1$, that the densities
have two local maxima. From the random matrix point of view, this
can be explained heuristically by the fact that the kernels
$K^{(1)}(u,v;0,t_1)$ for $t_1<0$ correspond to a double scaling
limit which describes the transition from a random matrix model with a
two-cut support (for the limiting mean eigenvalue distribution) to a
one-cut support, where the parameter $t_1$ regulates the speed of
the transition. To be more precise, consider a random matrix
ensemble with probability measure (\ref{random matrix model}), where
$V=V_n$ depends on $n$. If the dependence of $V$ on $n$ is
fine-tuned in an appropriate way, it can happen that the equilibrium
measure $\mu_{V_n}$ consists of two intervals for finite $n$, but of
only one interval in the limit $n\to\infty$. In order to obtain
$K^{(1)}(u,v;0,t_1)$ as a scaling limit of the eigenvalue
correlation kernel, both intervals in the support of $\mu_{V_n}$
should approach each other and simultaneously one of the intervals
should shrink, as $n\to\infty$. If the $n$-dependence of $V$ is
chosen in an appropriate way, the limiting probability that a random
matrix has an eigenvalue located in the shrinking interval lies
strictly between $0$ and $1$ (it actually increases when $t_1$
decreases). We believe that one local maximum of the densities in
Figure \ref{figure: infl} (the one most to the left) corresponds to
the largest eigenvalue if no eigenvalues lie in the shrinking
interval, and the second local maximum corresponds to the largest
eigenvalue if this one lies in the shrinking interval. For
$k\in\mathbb N$, transitions can take place from at most $k+1$ cuts
to a one-cut regime, and for that reason we expect that for
$k\in\mathbb N$, the density function has at most $k+1$ local
maxima, although we have no analytical evidence for this.
\subsection{Asymptotics as $x\to +\infty$}
In Figure \ref{figure: positive} we show the rate of convergence to one as $s \rightarrow \infty$ of $F_k(s)$ for various values of $k$. For $s < 1$, we see that the distribution appears to approach a fixed distribution. For $s > 1$, the rate of convergence becomes increasingly rapid, matching the asymptotic formula \eqref{kernel +infty}.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}\includegraphics[width=13cm]{plotpositive.pdf}
\caption{$1-F_k(s)$ for $k = 1,\ldots,5$ with $t_j = 0$. }
\label{figure: positive}\end{center}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Asymptotics as $x\to -\infty$}
We note that the constants $\chi^{(k)}$ in (\ref{large gap expansion}) can be expressed as
\begin{align*}
\chi^{(k)} &= \lim_{s \rightarrow - \infty} \left(\log \det(I - K_s^{(k)}) - A_s^{(k)}\right) \\
& = \lim_{s \rightarrow - \infty} \left(\log \det(I - K_{M}^{(k)}) - \int_{s}^{M}\partial_s \log \det(I - K_{s}^{(k)}) ds -
A_s^{(k)}\right),
\end{align*}
with
\[A_s^{(k)}=-\frac{1}{4(4k+3)}\frac{\Gamma(2k +\frac{3}{2})^2}{\Gamma(\frac{3}{2})^2\Gamma(2k+2)^2}|s|^{4k+3}
-\frac{2k+1}{8}\log |s|.\]
For moderate $M$ (we use $M = -.5$), we can reliably calculate $\log
\det(I - K_{M}^{(k)})$ as before. For $s < M$, to reliably calculate
$\partial_s \log \det(I - K_{s}^{(k)})$, we use the RH problem for
$R$ used in \cite[Section 3.5]{CIK}. This RH problem is in canonical
form and $\partial_s \log \det(I - K_{s}^{(k)})$ can be expressed in
terms of its solution. We then expand $\partial_s \log \det(I -
K_{s}^{(k)})-
\partial_s A_s^{(k)}$ in piecewise Chebyshev polynomials, allowing
for the efficient calculation of its integral.
To verify the accuracy of the above approach, we need to estimate four errors, which we do
using the following heuristics. We estimate the error in calculating $\Psi^{(2k)}$ by ensuring that
the smallest computed Chebyshev coefficient is below a given tolerance ($10^{-12}$). The error in
$\log \det(I - K_{M}^{(k)})$ is estimated by examining the Cauchy error as the number of quadrature
points $m$ in the Fredholm determinant routine increases. The error in $\partial_s \log \det(I - K_{s}^{(k)})$
at each point of evaluation $s$ is determined by examining the smallest computed Chebyshev coefficient of the
numerical approximation to $R$. Finally, the accuracy of the piecewise Chebyshev approximation to
$\partial_s \log \det(I - K_{s}^{(k)})$ is estimated by examining each piece's smallest Chebyshev coefficient.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}\includegraphics[width=7cm]{chi0error.pdf}\includegraphics[width=7cm]{chi0errorscaled.pdf}
\caption{The absolute error in approximating $\chi_0$, $|\chi^{(0)}-\log \det(I - K_{s}^{(0)}) +
A_s^{(0)}|$ as a function of $s$ (left). The error multiplied by $|s|^3$ (right), showing faster convergence than predicted.}
\label{figure: chi0error}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Using this approach, we estimate the first three $\chi^{(k)}$:
\begin{align*}
\chi^{(0)} & \approx -0.1365400105,\qquad \hbox{(matches exact expression to 8 digits)}\\
\chi^{(1)} & \approx -0.09614954 \hbox{ and }\\
\chi^{(2)} & \approx -0.06145.
\end{align*}
Cancellation and other numerical issues cause the approach to be unreliable for larger $k$.
The convergence to $\chi^{(0)}$ is verified in Figure \ref{figure:
chi0error}. One interesting thing to note is that the rate of
convergence appears to be faster than predicted: numerical evidence
suggest convergence like ${\cal O}(|s|^{-3})$. A similar experiment for
$\chi^{(1)}$ suggests a convergence rate of ${\cal O}(|s|^{-7})$. (The
numerics for $\chi^{(2)}$ are insufficiently accurate to make a
prediction.) Therefore, we conjecture that the error term in
(\ref{large gap expansion}) is in fact ${\cal O}(|s|^{-(4k + 3)})$,
which is better than the theoretical error ${\cal O}(|s|^{-{4 k + 3
\over 2}})$.
\subsection{Large $k$ limit}\label{Largek}
For increasing $k$, one observes from Figure \ref{figure: distr} that the slope of the distributions near $-1$ gets steeper.
At first sight, one may expect from Figure \ref{figure: distr} that for large $k$, the distribution function tends to a step function, but a closer inspection reveals that this is not the case. Instead, we believe that there is a limit distribution supported on $[-1,1]$ which is possibly discontinuous at $-1$ but continuous at $1$.
We present an asymptotic--numerical argument that this is indeed true. Consider the RH problem for $\Psi^{(2k)}$.
Note that on $\tilde \Gamma_j$, the jumps $W S_j W^{-1} \rightarrow I$ as $k \rightarrow \infty$. Furthermore, inside the unit circle $W(\zeta) \rightarrow W^{(\infty)}(\zeta) = \zeta^{-\sigma_3/4} N$. Finally, $\tilde \Gamma_{42}$
disappears. Thus, in a formal sense, we have the following RH problem:
\subsubsection*{RH problem for $\Psi^{(\infty)}$}
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)] $\Psi = \Psi^{(\infty)}: \mathbb C\setminus \Gamma\to \mathbb C^{2\times 2}$ is analytic, with
\begin{align*}
\Gamma &= \tilde \Gamma_{21} \cup \tilde\Gamma_{14}\cup\{\pm 1\}, \quad \tilde \Gamma_{21} = e^{i \pi (1,0)}, \tilde \Gamma_{14} = e^{i \pi (0,-1)}.
\end{align*}
\item[(b)] The jump conditions for $\Psi$ are given by (for $W = W^{(\infty)}$)
\begin{align*}
\Psi_+(\zeta)&=\Psi_-(\zeta) S_4^{-1}W^{-1}(\zeta) ,&& \mbox{for $\zeta\in\tilde \Gamma_{14}$},\\
\Psi_+(\zeta)&=\Psi_-(\zeta) S_4^{-1} S_1 W^{-1}(\zeta) ,&& \mbox{for $\zeta\in\tilde \Gamma_{21}$}.
\end{align*}
\item[(c)] As $\zeta\to\infty$, we have $\lim\Psi(\zeta)= I$.
\end{itemize}
This is not in canonical form: the jump matrices are not continuous at $\pm 1$, implying that the solution $\Psi^{(\infty)}$ has singularities. We rectify this by using local parametrices to remove the jumps. Define
\begin{equation*}
P^{(1)}(\zeta) =\begin{cases}
\begin{pmatrix}
1 &0\\
-1 & 1
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & {1 \over 2 \pi i} \log\left(-i { z + i \over z - i} - 1\right) \\
0 & 1
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
1 &0 \\
1 & 1
\end{pmatrix},&\hspace{-1cm}\mbox{$|\zeta-1|<r$, $|z|<1$,}
\\
\begin{pmatrix}
1 &0\\
-1 & 1
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & {1 \over 2 \pi i} \log\left(-i { z + i \over z - i} - 1\right) \\
0 & 1
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
1 &0 \\
1 & 1
\end{pmatrix}S_3S_2W^{-1},\\&\hspace{-1cm}\mbox{$|\zeta-1|<r$, $|z|>1$,}
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
and
\begin{equation*}
P^{(-1)}(\zeta)=
\begin{cases}
\begin{pmatrix}
e^{-2 i \pi/3} & e^{2 i \pi/3} \\
1 & 1
\end{pmatrix} \left(-1 + i{z + i \over z - i}\right)^{\sigma_3/6}
\begin{pmatrix}
e^{-2 i \pi/3} & e^{2 i \pi/3} \\
1 & 1
\end{pmatrix}^{-1},\\
\hspace{8cm}\mbox{ for $|\zeta+1|<r$, $|z|<1$,}\\
\begin{pmatrix}
e^{-2 i \pi/3} & e^{2 i \pi/3} \\
1 & 1
\end{pmatrix} \left(-1 + i{z + i \over z - i}\right)^{\sigma_3/6}
\begin{pmatrix}
e^{-2 i \pi/3} & e^{2 i \pi/3} \\
1 & 1
\end{pmatrix}^{-1}S_3S_2W_+^{-1},\\ \hspace{8cm}\mbox{ for $|\zeta+1|<r$, $|z|>1$,}\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
with the standard branch cuts, so that they lie on the half circle
$e^{(0,-i \pi)}$.
It is straightforward to verify that $P^{(\pm 1)}$ have the same jumps as $\Psi^{(\infty)}$ inside the disks $|\zeta\mp 1|<r$.
We now define for $r$ sufficiently small,
$$Y(\zeta) = \begin{cases}\Psi^{(\infty)}(\zeta)P^{(1)}(\zeta)^{-1}, & |\zeta - 1| < r, \\
\Psi^{(\infty)}(\zeta)P^{(-1)}(\zeta)^{-1}, & |\zeta + 1| < r, \\
\Psi^{(\infty)}(\zeta), & \mbox{otherwise.}
\end{cases}$$
Then, $Y$ satisfies a RH problem in canonical form:
\subsubsection*{RH problem for $Y$}
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)] $Y : \mathbb C\setminus \overline\Delta\to \mathbb C^{2\times 2}$ is analytic, with
\begin{align*}
&\Delta = \Delta_{1} \cup \Delta_{2}\cup \Gamma_r(\pm 1)\cup\{\pm e^{\pm i \theta}\}, \\
&\Delta_{1} = e^{i \pi (1-\theta,\theta)},\quad \Delta_{2} = e^{i \pi (-\theta,\theta-1)},\quad
\Gamma_r(a)=\{\zeta: |\zeta-a|=r\},
\end{align*}
where $\theta$ is given by $r=|e^{i\theta }-1|$.
\item[(b)] The jump conditions for $Y$ are given by
\begin{align*}
Y_+(\zeta)&=Y_-(\zeta) S_4^{-1}S_1W^{-1}(\zeta) ,&& \mbox{for $\zeta\in \Delta_{1}$},\\
Y_+(\zeta)&=Y_-(\zeta) S_4^{-1} W^{-1}(\zeta) ,&& \mbox{for $\zeta\in \Delta_{2}$},\\
Y_+(\zeta)&=Y_-(\zeta) P^{(\pm 1)}(\zeta) ,&& \mbox{for $\zeta\in \Gamma_r(\pm 1)$}.
\end{align*}
\item[(c)] As $\zeta\to\infty$, we have $\lim Y(\zeta)= I$.
\item[(d)] $Y$ is bounded near $\{\pm e^{\pm i \theta}\}$.
\end{itemize}
We can compute $Y$, and hence $\Psi^{(\infty)}$ numerically. We therefore define
\begin{equation*}
\Phi^{(\infty)}(\zeta) = \Psi^{(\infty)}(\zeta) \begin{cases}
0 & |\zeta| > 1 \\
S_4^{-1} & |\zeta| < 1\hbox{ and ${\rm Im \,} \zeta< 0$ } \\
S_4^{-1} S_1 & |\zeta| < 1\hbox{ and ${\rm Im \,} \zeta > 0$ }
\end{cases}.
\end{equation*}
which we use to compute the kernel of $K_s^{(\infty)}$, which is a trace-class operator now acting on $L^2(s,1)$.
(Again, we do not have a rigorous reason why the limiting operator acts only on $L^2(s,1)$, not $L^2(s,\infty)$.
Instead, we justify this by the accuracy of the numerics.)
It should be noted that the local parametrices $P^{(\pm 1)}$ are not
close to the identity matrix on $|\zeta\mp 1|=r$, and therefore they
would not be suitable parametrices to be used for a rigorous
Deift/Zhou steepest descent analysis \cite{DZ} applied to the RH problem for
$\Psi$. However, this is not an issue here: numerically it is
sufficient that the local parametrices satisfy the required jump
conditions.
While this construction has not been mathematically justified, it is perfectly usable in a numerical way.
In fact, the resulting distribution matches the asymptotics for the finite $k$ distributions, cf. Figure
\ref{figure: distr}, providing strong evidence that, for $-1 < s < 1$,
$$\lim_{k \rightarrow \infty} \det(I - K_s^{(k)}) = \det(I - K_s^{(\infty)}).$$
We remark that the $\Phi^{(\infty)}$ appears to be smooth
near $+1$, hence Bornemann's numerical Fredholm determinant routine remains accurate for $s > -1$. However, the singularity in $\Phi^{(\infty)}$ at $-1$ causes the accuracy to break down as $s$ approaches $-1$. Therefore, we cannot infer whether the distribution approaches zero smoothly, or if there is a jump.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
TC acknowledges support by the Belgian Interuniversity
Attraction Pole P06/02 and by the ERC program FroM-PDE.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{intro} In the 2000--2006 data-taking period the KLOE
detector, operating at the DA$\Phi$NE accelerator in the
Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati, acquired a total integrated
luminosity of 2.5~fb$^{-1}$ at the $\phi$ mass peak
(corresponding to about $10^{10}$ $\phi$ decays) and
250~pb$^{-1}$ at $\sqrt{s}=1$~GeV (giving about 10$^8$ $\eta$
mesons). This allowed precise studies to be carried out on
charged and neutral kaon physics, low energy QCD, as well as
tests of CP and CPT conservation~\cite{kloe2008}. In 2008 the
Accelerator Division of the Frascati Laboratory tested a new
interaction scheme to allow the beam size to be reduced and the
luminosity increased. The test was successful and presently
DA$\Phi$NE can reach a peak luminosity of $5\times
10^{32}$~cm$^{-2}$s$^{-1}$, which is a factor of three better
than previously obtained~\cite{pantaleo}. Following these
achievements, the data-taking campaign using the upgraded KLOE
detector on the improved machine will start in Autumn 2011. The
goal is to collect an integrated luminosity of about
20~fb$^{-1}$ over 3-4 years of running.
\section{The KLOE experiment at DA$\Phi$NE}
\label{KLOE:DAFNE}
DA$\Phi$NE is a $e^+e^-$ collider operating near the $\phi$
meson mass peak, at a centre-of-mass energy $\sqrt{s} =
1019.45$~MeV~\cite{kloe2008}. The heart of DA$\Phi$NE consists
of two rings in which 120 bunches of electrons and positrons
are stored. Electrons are accelerated in the Linac, stored and
cooled in the accumulator, and then transferred as a single
bunch to the ring. Positrons are first created at an
intermediate station in the linac using 250~MeV electrons and
then follow the same procedure as for electrons.
Electrons and positrons collide with small transverse momenta
and produce $\phi$ mesons almost at rest ($\beta_{\phi} \approx
0.015$). The $\phi$ decay mainly into $K^+K^-$ (49\%), $K_SK_L$
(34\%), $\rho\pi$ (15\%) and $\eta\gamma$ (1.3\%). The decay
products are registered using the KLOE detection setup. This
consists of a $\approx 3.3$~m long cylindrical drift chamber,
with a diameter of $\approx 4$~m, which is surrounded by the
electromagnetic calorimeter. The detectors are placed in the
axial magnetic field of a superconducting solenoid of strength
$B=0.52$~T.
The KLOE drift chamber is constructed out of a carbon fibre
composite with low-Z and low density and uses a gas mixture of
helium~(90\%) and isobutane (10\%). It provides tracking in
three dimensions, with a resolution in the transverse plane of
about 200~$\mu$m, a resolution in the $z$-coordinate
measurement of about 2~mm and 1~mm in the decay vertex
position. The momentum of a particle is determined from the
curvature of its trajectory in the magnetic field with a
fractional accuracy $\sigma_p/p=0.4\%$ for polar angles greater
than $45^{\circ}$~\cite{kloe2008}.
The KLOE electromagnetic calorimeter consists of a barrel built
out of 24 trapezoidally shaped modules and side detectors (so
called endcaps) read out from both sides by a set of
photomultipliers~\cite{kloe2008}. Each of the modules is constructed
out of 1 mm scintillating fibres embedded in 0.5 mm lead foils
to speed up the showering processes. This detector allows
measurements of particle energies and flight times with
accuracies of $\sigma_E=5.7\%E/\sqrt{E[{\rm GeV}]}$ and
$\sigma(t)=57~\textrm{ps}/\sqrt{E[{\rm
GeV}]}~\oplus~140~\textrm{ps}$, respectively. Analysis of the
signal amplitude distributions allows one to determine the
place where the particle hit the calorimeter module with
accuracy of about 1~cm in the plane transverse to the fibre
direction. The longitudinal coordinate precision is energy
dependent: $\sigma_z=1.2~\textrm{cm}/\sqrt{E[{\rm GeV}]}$.
Since the $\phi$ mesons are produced almost at rest, kaons
arising from the decay move at low speed with their relative
angle being close to 180$^{\circ}$. As a consequence, the decay
products are registered in well separated areas of the
detector, which allows identification of $K_L$ mesons using
reconstructed decays of $K_S$ (so called $K_L$ tagging) and
vice versa. This is a special feature of the DA$\Phi$NE
accelerator which, together with the KLOE detector, is a unique
laboratory for kaon physics~\cite{epjC}.
\section{From KLOE to KLOE--2}
In recent years, a new scheme for the machine based, on
Crab-waist optics and a large Piwinsky angle~\cite{pantaleo},
has been proposed to increase the DA$\Phi$NE luminosity. This
has been tested successfully and it has motivated the start of
a new KLOE run with an improved detector setup, named
\mbox{KLOE-2}. This aims to complete the KLOE physics programme
and perform a new set of interesting measurements~\cite{epjC}.
For the forthcoming run we have improved the performance of
KLOE by adding new sub-detector systems: the tagger system for
$\gamma\gamma$ physics studies, the Inner Tracker based on the
Cylindrical GEM technology, a tile calorimeter surrounding the
inner quadrupoles (QCALT), and a calorimeter between the
interaction point (IP) and the first inner quadrupole (CCALT).
The tagging system is made up of two different detectors which
are already installed and ready for data taking. The Low Energy
Tagger (LET) is a small calorimeter placed inside KLOE near the
IP, consisting of LYSO crystals read out by silicon
photomultipliers. This sub-detector will serve to measure
electrons and positrons from $\gamma\gamma$ interactions within
a wide energy range centred around 200~MeV with an accuracy
$\sigma_E\sim10$\%. The second tagger, which is called the High
Energy Tagger (HET), provides a measurement of the displacement
of the scattered leptons with respect to the main orbit.
This position detector consists of 30 small BC418 scintillators
$3\times3\times5$~mm$^3$, which provide a spatial resolution of
2~mm (corresponding to a momentum resolution of $\sim 1$~MeV/$c$).
The output light is collected by light guides with SiPM
sensors.
The HET allows measurements of particle energies with
an accuracy of $\sigma_E \sim 2.5$~MeV and time with a
resolution of $\sigma_t\sim 200$~ps.
To improve the acceptance for low momentum tracks, and the
vertex reconstruction near the interaction point, we are
building the inner tracking chamber. This employs a novel
technology with cylindrical GEM (Gas Electron Multiplier)
detectors. It will be composed of four concentric layers that
will provide 2-D points on a cylinder of known radius. Each
layer is a triple-GEM chamber with cathode and anode made of
thin polyamide foils.
We will also install two additional calorimeters, named QCALT
and CCALT. QCALT will be a 1~m long dodecagonal structure
covering the region of the new quadrupoles. It is composed of a
sampling of five layers of 5~mm thick scintillator plates
alternated with 3.5~mm thick tungsten plates, for a total depth
of 4.75~cm.
The crystal calorimeter CCALT will cover the low polar angle
region to increase the acceptance for very forward photons down
to $8^{\circ}$. The basic layout consists of two small barrels
of LYSO crystals that are read out with APD photosensors. A
timing resolution between 300 and 500~ps is expected for 20~MeV
photons.
\section{Recent KLOE results and the ongoing analysis in kaon physics}
In addition to the preparation for the first KLOE-2 data-taking
period (so-called Step0) and the activities for the design and
construction of the new sub-detectors, there are still several
ongoing physics analyses of the KLOE data. In kaon physics,
apart from the recently published results of a precise $K_S$
lifetime measurement~\cite{ts}, there are several studies of
neutral kaon interferometry and rare kaon decays, for example
$K_{S}K_{L} \to \pi^+\pi^-\pi^+\pi^-$ interferometry or the
$K_S \to \pi^0\pi^0\pi^0$ branching ratio measurement. These
will be described briefly here.
The decay of $K_S$ meson into three pions has not yet been
observed, and the best limit on the branching ratio
$BR(K_{s}\rightarrow 3\pi^0) < 1.2\times10^{-7}$~\cite{Matteo}
is about two orders of magnitude larger than predictions based
on the Standard Model. Moreover, this process violates $CP$
symmetry and, assuming $CPT$ invariance, allows one to
investigate direct $CP$ violation. At KLOE this decay is
reconstructed by searching for events with a $K_L$ interaction
in the calorimeter (so called $K_L$--crash), six photon
clusters and no tracks from the interaction point. The
background originates mainly from $K_S \to 2\pi^0$ events with
two spurious clusters from splittings or accidental activity or
is due to false $K_L$--crash tags from $\phi \to K_{S}K_{L} \to
\pi^+\pi^-\pi^0\pi^0\pi^0$ events. In the latter case, charged pions
from $K_S$ decays interact in the low-beta insertion
quadrupoles, ultimately simulating the $K_L$--crash signal,
while $K_L$ decays close to the interaction point produce six
photons~\cite{Matteo}. To reduce the background, we first
perform a kinematic fit with 11 constraints: energy and
momentum conservation, the kaon mass and the velocities of the
six photons.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.4112\textwidth]{3.eps}
\includegraphics[width=0.4112\textwidth]{plot_zsl.eps}
\caption{ Left panel: The distribution of the minimal energy of the
cluster versus minimal distance ($R_{\rm min}$) between
clusters in the event for data (red) and MC (blue). The dashed
line corresponds to the $R_{\rm min}$ cut used. Right panel:
Number of events as a function of the difference in the decay
time of the two $\pi^+\pi^-$ vertices in $K_S$ lifetime units.
The measured $I(\pi^+\pi^-, \pi^+\pi^-,\Delta t)$ distribution
is fitted: black points are data and the fit result is shown by
the histogram.} \label{ks3pi0}
\end{figure*}
Cutting at a reasonable $\chi^2$ value reduces considerably the
background from false $K_L$--crash events with little signal
loss. In order to gain a good rejection of background from
events with split or accidental clusters, we look at the
correlation between the following two $\chi^2$--like
discriminating variables, $\chi^{2}_{3\pi}$ and
$\chi^{2}_{2\pi}$. $\chi^{2}_{3\pi}$ is the quadratic sum of
the residuals between the nominal $\pi^0$ mass and the
invariant masses of three photon pairs formed from the six
clusters present. $\chi^{2}_{2\pi}$ is based instead on energy
and momentum conservation in the $\phi \to K_SK_L, K_S \to
\pi^0\pi^0$ decay hypothesis, as well as on the invariant
masses of two photon pairs. Both variables are evaluated with
the most favorable cluster pairing in each case~\cite{Matteo}.
In addition, in order to improve the quality of the photon
selection using $\chi^{2}_{2\pi}$, we cut on the variable
$\Delta E=(m_{\Phi}c^2/2 - \sum E_{\gamma_{i}})/\sigma_{E}$, where
$\gamma_i$ is the i--$th$ photon from the four chosen in the
$\chi^{2}_{2\pi}$ estimator and $\sigma_E$ is the appropriate
resolution. For $K_S \to 2\pi^0$ decays plus two background
clusters, we expect $\Delta E\sim 0$ while, for $K_S \to
3\pi^0$, $\Delta E \sim m_{\pi^0}c^2/\sigma_E$. At the end of the
analysis we cut also on the minimal distance between the photon
clusters to refine the rejection of events with split clusters
(see left panel of Fig.~\ref{ks3pi0}).
Applying the preliminary selection cuts, we find zero candidates in
1.7~fb$^{-1}$ of real data with zero events expected from Monte
Carlo, corresponding to an effective statistics of two times
that of the data. This results in a new preliminary upper limit
on the branching ratio $BR(K_S \to 3\pi^0) < 2.9 \times 10^{-8}$,
which suggests that a first observation of the decay might be
feasible at KLOE-2.
A unique feature of the $\Phi$-factory is the production of
neutral kaon pairs in a pure quantum state so that we can study
quantum interference effects and tag pure monochromatic $K_S$
and $K_L$ beams. The decay rate of the system, for example, to
the $\pi^+\pi^-\pi^+\pi^-$ final state is proportional to:
\begin{eqnarray}
I(\pi^+\pi^-, \pi^+\pi^-,\Delta t)~\propto~e^{-\Gamma_L \Delta t}~+~e^{-\Gamma_S \Delta t}
-2e^{-\frac{\Gamma_L~+~\Gamma_S}{2}\Delta t}\cos(\Delta m \Delta t)~,
\label{inter}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\Delta t$ is the time difference between the decays of
the two kaons. If the neutral kaon system evolves in time as a
pure quantum state, kaons cannot decay at the same time due to the
destructive interference. But there are several potential
mechanisms leading to decoherence of the state which may result
from fundamental modifications of Quantum Mechanics or CPT
violation induced, e.g.,by quantum gravity~\cite{epjC}. Thus, by
measuring the $\Delta t$ distribution, we can test the foundations
of Quantum Mechanics as well as different phenomenological
models of Quantum Gravity.
At KLOE, the selection of a $\phi \to K_SK_L \to \pi^+\pi^-\pi^+\pi^-$ signal
requires two vertices, each with two opposite-curvature tracks inside the
drift chamber, with invariant mass and total momentum compatible with two
neutral kaon decays. The resolution in $\Delta t$, the absolute value of the
time difference of two $\pi^+\pi^-$ decays, benefits from the precise
momentum measurements and from the completeness of the kinematics of the
events~\cite{CPT2}. The experimental $\Delta t$ distribution is fitted with
Eq.~(\ref{inter}), modified by parameters expressing decoherence in the
different models described in~\cite{epjC}. The fit is performed taking into
account the resolution and detection efficiency, the background from coherent
and incoherent $K_S$ regeneration on the beam pipe wall, and the small
contamination from the non-resonant $e^+e^- \to \pi^+\pi^-\pi^+\pi^-$
channel.
The resulting distributions are shown together with the fit results in
Fig.~\ref{ks3pi0}. On the basis of the 1.7~fb$^{-1}$ of data, useful
estimates could be made of several decoherence and CPT violating parameters.
The details of the analysis and the results obtained can be found in
Ref.~\cite{CPT}. It is worth mentioning that we have almost finished a
refined analysis of the KLOE data with several improvements in the
methodology. Moreover, KLOE-2 with increased statistics ($\times 4$ in Step0)
and improved resolution in the vertex reconstruction ($\times 3$ with the
Inner Tracker) will be able to achieve the best experimental sensitivity in
some observables, hopefully reaching the level of the Planck
scale~\cite{epjC}.
\section{Summary}
KLOE is a high precision experiment which allows detailed studies of both
kaons and light scalar mesons, as well as tests of the conservation of CP,
CPT and low energy QCD. The success of the DA$\Phi$NE upgrade motivated a new
experiment, KLOE-2, which aims at completing and extending the KLOE physics
programme. We have started design and construction of new sub-detectors,
which will improve the detection performance. The tagging system for
$\gamma\gamma$ physics is installed and ready for the first phase of the
experiment in which we expect to accumulate about 5~fb$^{-1}$. The next
data-taking campaign during 2013-15 will be conducted with the Inner Tracker
and improved photon acceptance brought about by the calorimeters in the final
focusing region. The total integrated luminosity expected in this second
phase is about 20~fb$^{-1}$.
\begin{acknowledgements}
The author would like to express his gratitude to prof. Colin Wilkin for proof
reading of the article and many useful comments.\\
We acknowledge support by Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education through the Grant
No. 0469/B/H03/2009/37, and by the European Community-Research Infrastructure Integrating Activity
``Study of Strongly Interacting Matter`` (acronym HadronPhysics2, Grant Agreement n. 227431)
under the Seventh Framework Programme of EU.
\end{acknowledgements}
|
\section{Motivation}
Various models of QCD vacuum use semi-classical arguments to describe the
mechanism responsible for confinement or chiral-symmetry breaking. The
semi-classical arguments start by expanding QCD partition function around
extremal points of the action, i.e.,
\begin{equation}
\opbraket{\Omega}{e^{-H\tau}}{\Omega} \approx e^{-S_\text{cl}}\int{\cal D}x(\tau)\,
\exp \left( -\frac12\delta x\left.\frac{\delta^2S}{\delta x^2}\right|_{x_\text{cl}}
\delta x+\cdots \right) \,.
\end{equation}
The first task is then to find the extremal points of the action and then take
into account gaussian fluctuations around these extrema.
The action for pure-glue QCD can be expressed in terms of the self-dual and
anti-self-dual components of the field strength tensor
\begin{equation}
S = \frac1{4g^2}\int d^4x\, F_{\mu\nu}^a F_{\mu\nu}^a =
\frac1{4g^2} \int d^4x\, \left[\pm F_{\mu\nu}^a \tilde F_{\mu\nu}^a
+\frac12 \left(F_{\mu\nu}^a \mp \tilde F_{\mu\nu}^a \right)^2 \right] \,.
\end{equation}
The integral of the $F_{\mu\nu}^a \tilde F_{\mu\nu}^a$ term is a boundary term
that is related to the
topological charge of the configuration. If we keep the boundary values fixed,
the integral is minimized when the quantity in the parenthesis vanishes.
This happens when the field is self-dual, $F_{\mu\nu}^a = \tilde F_{\mu\nu}^a$, or
anti-self-dual $F_{\mu\nu}^a = -\tilde F_{\mu\nu}^a$.
A more sophisticated analysis leads to the conclusion that all the extremal points
of the classical action that are not saddle points satisfy
this condition~\cite{Schafer:1996wv}.
It is then natural to expect that if QCD vacuum is correctly described by a
semi-classical model, the field strength in a typical lattice QCD ensemble
will exhibit a high degree of {\em self-duality}.
To gauge this tendency we decompose the
field strength at every point on the lattice into its self-dual components
and analyze their polarization properties.
To do this, we use the method of absolute X-distribution designed to analyze
the {\em dynamical} aspects of polarization~\cite{Alexandru:2010sv}.
A more detailed account of this work is given in Ref.~\cite{Alexandru:2011yy}.
\section{Dynamical polarization}
We start by reviewing the method of absolute X-distribution. A first version
of this approach was introduced in a study of the local chirality of the low-lying
eigenmodes of the Dirac operator~\cite{Horvath:2001ir}. In general, for an arbitrary observable
that can be split in two components $Q=Q_1+Q_2$, we say that $Q$ is polarized when
it tends to be aligned with either one of the components. More precisely, if we
look at the magnitude of components, $q_i = \Vert Q_i\Vert$, we tend to think that the
observable $Q$
is polarized when the probability distribution ${\cal P}_b(q_1,q_2)$, with support in the
positive quadrant of the $q_1q_2$-plane, is peaked in the vicinity of the $q_{1,2}$ axes.
\begin{figure}[t]
\hbox to \hsize{
\includegraphics[width=2.5in]{Pb_E1_low2_1}
\hfill
\includegraphics[width=3in]{PR_example}
}
\caption{Sample pair distribution generated by chirality components of the lowest
eigenmodes of ensemble $E_1$ from~\cite{Alexandru:2010sv}. Right: the associated
X-distribution, i.e., the induced
distribution of the polarization angle.}
\label{fig:1}
\end{figure}
The raw distribution ${\cal P}_b(q_1,q_2)$ is difficult to characterize. A more direct measure
is offered by the induced distribution of the {\em polarization angle}. In
Fig.~\ref{fig:1} we plot the raw distribution of chirality components as determined in
a previous study~\cite{Alexandru:2010sv} and the corresponding polarization angle
distribution (the curve indicated by $\alpha=1$), which we call the {\em X-distribution}.
We see that the X-distribution
tends to be concentrated towards the middle
of the graph, suggesting an anti-polarization tendency.
A more careful analysis reveals that the conclusions based on this method can be
misleading. The X-distribution is determined by the choice of
parametrization for the angles measured in the $q_1q_2$-plane. The definition
we used to plot Fig.~\ref{fig:1} is
\begin{equation}
x = \frac4\pi \arctan \frac{\Vert Q_2 \Vert}{\Vert Q_1 \Vert} - 1 \,.
\end{equation}
We will refer to this choice as the {\em reference polarization}~\cite{Horvath:2001ir}.
However, this
choice is not unique. Alternative definitions were used in various studies.
Using $t\equiv {\Vert Q_2 \Vert}/{\Vert Q_1 \Vert}$, one class of valid
angle variables is given by a generalization of the above definition
\begin{equation}
\bar{x} = \frac4\pi \arctan (t^\alpha) -1 \,,
\label{eq:2.2}
\end{equation}
where $\alpha>0$ is an arbitrary parameter~\cite{Alexandru:2010sv}. For $\alpha=1$ the
angle parameter $\bar{x}$ is the reference polarization defined above, while the definition
based on $\bar{x}$ with $\alpha=2$ was used in a study of
self-duality in pure gauge QCD~\cite{Gattringer:2002gn}.
In the right panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:1} we compare the X-distribution for
the ensemble shown in the left panel, measured using the reference polarization
and the polarization defined by $\bar{x}$ with $\alpha=4$. The qualitative behavior
of the distribution changes dramatically, while the dynamics producing the original
distribution is unchanged. It is clear then that conclusions based on X-distributions
alone cannot be trusted.
To address this problem we define the {\em absolute X-distribution}, a measure of the
pair correlation induced by the underlying dynamics~\cite{Alexandru:2010sv,Draper:2004id}.
The basic idea is to compare the correlated distribution ${\cal P}_b(q_1,q_2)$ with
a similar distribution where the components are statistically independent, to isolate
the effect of the dynamics.
The uncorrelated distribution is constructed from the marginal distributions
\begin{equation}
P_1(q_1) = \int dq_2\, {\cal P}_b(q_1,q_2) \qquad\text{and}\qquad
P_2(q_2) = \int dq_1\, {\cal P}_b(q_1,q_2)\,.
\end{equation}
For our application, symmetry guarantees that $P_1=P_2$. The uncorrelated
distribution is ${\cal P}_u(q_1,q_2)\equiv P_1(q_1) P_2(q_2)$. We define an
angle variable that has constant angular density for the uncorrelated distribution.
This is the {\em absolute polarization}. The histogram of this angle variable for
the uncorrelated distribution is flat. In our figures this is indicated by
a horizontal dashed line. The X-distribution in terms of the absolute polarization
is the {\em absolute X-distribution}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\hbox to \hsize{
\includegraphics[width=3in]{PRU_E4_low2}
\hfill
\includegraphics[width=3in]{PA_E4_low2}
}
\caption{X-distribution using the {\em reference polarization} for the
correlated and uncorrelated distributions (left) and the {\em absolute X-distribution}
(right).}
\label{fig:2}
\end{figure}
In the left panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:2} we present the X-distribution for the
reference polarizations for both correlated distribution, ${\cal P}_b$,
and the uncorrelated one, ${\cal P}_u$, for the ensemble presented in Fig.~\ref{fig:1}.
Notice that these two distributions are almost identical indicating that
there is little dynamical correlation. In the right panel we plot the
absolute polarization histogram, which is almost flat. There is a small enhancement
towards the edges indicating that the dynamics induces a slight polarization.
This is consistent with the plots in the right panel, where
we see that the uncorrelated distribution is more prominent towards the
center of the histogram.
Based on the absolute polarization distribution, $P_A(x)$, we construct a more
compact measure of the polarization tendency, the {\em correlation coefficient}
\begin{equation}
C_A = 2\Gamma - 1 \qquad\text{where}\qquad \Gamma=\int\limits_{-1}^1 \!dx\,P_A(x) \left|x\right| \,.
\end{equation}
The coefficient $\Gamma$ measures the probability that a sample drawn from distribution
${\cal P}_b$ is more polarized than one drawn from ${\cal P}_u$. When we have
no dynamical correlation this probability is $0.5$;
the correlation coefficient is scaled such that $C_A=0$ in this case.
\section{Field strength definition}
\label{sec:field-strength}
In this study, we will use a definition of the field strength based on the overlap
operator. Compared to the ultra-local definitions, the overlap definition is less
susceptible to ultra-violet fluctuations, so no arbitrary link smearing or cooling is
needed. Moreover, this definition provides a natural expansion in terms of
eigenmodes of the Dirac operator which allows us to define a smoothed version
of field strength tensor controlled by the value of the eigenvalue cutoff.
If we denote with $S_F = \bar\psi D(x,y)\psi$ the fermionic contribution to the action
in the overlap formulation, it is easy to show that $\mathop{\hbox{tr}}\nolimits_s \sigma_{\mu\nu} D(x,x)$ has
the same quantum numbers as the field strength $F_{\mu\nu}$~\cite{Horvath:2006md}.
Here $\mathop{\hbox{tr}}\nolimits_s$ denotes the
trace over the spinor index. It was shown by explicit calculation that on smooth
fields in the limit $a\to0$ these definitions agree~\cite{Liu:2007hq,Alexandru:2008fu},
\begin{equation}
\mathop{\hbox{tr}}\nolimits\nolimits_s \sigma_{\mu\nu} D(x,x) = c^T F_{\mu\nu}(x)+{\cal O}(a^4) \,.
\end{equation}
Above, $c^T$ is a constant that depends on the kernel used to define the overlap operator.
The lattice version of the field strength operator used in this study is
\begin{equation}
F^\text{ov}_{\mu\nu}(x) \equiv \frac1 {c^T} \mathop{\hbox{tr}}\nolimits_s \sigma_{\mu\nu} D(x,x)
= -\frac1{c^T} \mathop{\hbox{tr}}\nolimits_s\sigma_{\mu\nu}[2\rho - D(x,x)]\,,
\end{equation}
where $2\rho$ is the largest eigenvalue of $D$, the eigenvalue associated with
the zero modes' partners. We used the fact that $\mathop{\hbox{tr}}\nolimits_s\sigma_{\mu\nu}=0$ to cast
the definition in a form useful for eigenmode expansion.
Using the expansion in terms of the eigenmodes of the Dirac operator, we define
the smoothed version of the field strength~\cite{Alexandru:2010sv}
\begin{equation}
F^\Lambda_{\mu\nu}(x) \equiv -\frac1{c^T} \sum_{\vert\lambda\vert<\Lambda a}\mathop{\hbox{tr}}\nolimits_s\sigma_{\mu\nu}
(2\rho-\lambda) \psi_\lambda(x) \psi_\lambda(x)^\dagger \,.
\end{equation}
This definition has the property that $\lim_{\Lambda\to\infty} F^\Lambda = F$ and that
the contribution of the largest eigenmodes is suppressed. The self-dual and anti-self-dual
parts of the field strength are defined using the dual of the field strength
$\tilde F_{\mu,\nu}=\frac12\epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}F_{\alpha\beta}$
\begin{equation}
F_S = \frac12 (F+\tilde F) \qquad F_A = \frac12 (F-\tilde F) \,.
\end{equation}
\section{Numerical results}
\label{sec:results}
For our study we used a set of pure-glue ensembles generated using Iwasaki
action~\cite{Okamoto:1999hi}. The parameters for these ensembles are presented
in Table~\ref{tab:1}. To study the continuum limit we have a set of 5 ensembles
with the same volume. To determine the finite volume effects we also generated
one ensemble with a larger volume.
\begin{table}[b]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c }
\hline\hline
Ensemble &Size& Lattice spacing & Volume & Configurations\\ \hline
$E_2$ & $12^4$ & $0.110\mathop{\hbox{fm}}$ & & 400 \\
$E_3$ & $16^4$ & $0.083\mathop{\hbox{fm}}$ & & 200 \\
$E_8$ & $20^4$ & $0.066\mathop{\hbox{fm}}$ & $(1.32\mathop{\hbox{fm}})^4$ & 80\\
$E_4$ & $24^4$ & $0.055\mathop{\hbox{fm}}$ & & 40\\
$E_7$ & $32^4$ & $0.041\mathop{\hbox{fm}}$ & & 20\\
\hline
$E_6$ & $32^4$ & $0.055\mathop{\hbox{fm}}$ & $(1.76\mathop{\hbox{fm}})^4$ & 20\\
\hline\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{The size and lattice spacing for the ensembles used in this study.}
\label{tab:1}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[t]
\hbox to \hsize{
\includegraphics[width=3in]{PA_Eall_duality_overlap}
\hfill
\includegraphics[width=3in]{CA_Eall_overlap_p}
}
\caption{Left: absolute X-distribution for self-duality components. Note that the
y-scale is magnified to better show the difference between different lattice spacings.
Right: the correlation coefficient as a function of the lattice spacing and its
continuum limit extrapolation. Error bars are present in these plots but they are smaller
than the symbol size.}
\label{fig:3}
\end{figure}
In Fig.~\ref{fig:3} we plot the histogram for the absolute polarization for all ensembles
with volume $(1.32\mathop{\hbox{fm}})^4$. We find a small tendency for polarization that decreases as
we make the lattice spacing smaller. To understand whether this tendency survives the
continuum limit, we compute the correlation coefficient and fit it with a quadratic
polynomial in $a$. As we can see from the right panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:3} the polynomial
fits the data well. The coefficient remains positive in the continuum limit, indicating
a very small tendency for polarization. The probability that the sample
drawn from the correlated distribution is more polarized than one drawn from the
uncorrelated distribution is 51\% compared to 50\% when the dynamics would produce
no correlation.
To gauge the size of the finite volume effects, we compute the absolute polarization
on two ensembles with the same lattice spacings but different volumes. Referring
to Table~\ref{tab:1}, these are ensembles $E_4$ and $E_6$. In the left panel of
Fig.~\ref{fig:4} we compare the absolute polarizations on these two ensembles. We find
no difference between the two histograms and we conclude that the finite volume
effects are negligible.
\begin{figure}[b]
\hbox to \hsize{
\includegraphics[width=3in]{PA_E4_E6_finitesize_overlap_self_duality_p}
\hfill
\includegraphics[width=3in]{CA_Eall_lamda1000}
}
\caption{Left: absolute X-distribution for ensemble $E_4$ (circles) and $E_6$ (crosses) which
have the same lattice spacing but different volume.
Right: correlation coefficient for the smoothed strength field (diamonds) compared to
the full version (circles). Error bars are included in both plots.}
\label{fig:4}
\end{figure}
We also computed a set of eigenmodes of the overlap Dirac operators on ensembles
$E_2$, $E_3$ and $E_4$ and used them to compute the smoothed field strength operator
$F^\Lambda$. To study the continuum limit, a consistent definition
of the smoothed operator sums over all modes smaller than a physical cutoff. We
set the cutoff $\Lambda = 1000\mathop{\hbox{MeV}}$ and found that the behavior of the absolute
X-distribution is similar to the full version of the operator. In the right
panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:4} we compare the correlation coefficient with the one
computed using the full operator. We find that while the values of the correlation
coefficient are slightly different, the qualitative behavior remains the same.
\begin{figure}[t]
\hbox to \hsize{
\includegraphics[width=2.23in]{histosum_6_16x16_b845}
\hfill
\includegraphics[width=3in]{PAR_E2_overlap_6modes}
}
\caption{Left: X-distribution for self-duality components of a smooth field strength
based on the low-lying modes of the chirally-improved Dirac operator~\cite{Gattringer:2002gn}.
The curved marked with 100\% is the relevant one for our comparison.
Right: absolute X-distribution $P_A$ and X-distribution $P_r$
based on two different polarization variables (see {Eq.~\protect\ref{eq:2.2}})
for ensemble $E_2$.}
\label{fig:5}
\end{figure}
We conclude our discussion with a comparison with a similar work by Gattringer~\cite{Gattringer:2002gn}
who studied the self-duality polarization using a smoothed field strength
operator.
This operator was constructed using an eigenmode expansion of the chirally-improved Dirac
operator. In Ref.~\cite{Gattringer:2002gn} it was found that the self-duality exhibits
a strong polarization (see left panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:5}) supporting a
model of vacuum dominated by topological ``lumps".
In contrast, we only find a mild dynamical tendency for polarization.
This is seen in the right panel
of Fig.~\ref{fig:5} where we plot the absolute X-distribution of ensemble $E_2$ which is
similar to the ensemble used in Ref.~\cite{Gattringer:2002gn}. The discrepancy is due
to the fact that Ref.~\cite{Gattringer:2002gn} uses a polarization measure dominated
by kinematical effects. To show this, in the right panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:5}
we also plot the X-distribution measured
using the reference polarization, $\alpha=1$, and the polarization angle
used in Ref.~\cite{Gattringer:2002gn}, $\alpha=2$. To better compare our results, for these
plots we used, as in the referenced study, a smoothed $F^\Lambda$ constructed using the same number of modes. We see then that when using the same angle
definition, our results are consistent with those of Ref.~\cite{Gattringer:2002gn}.
However, using another valid angle parametrization produces qualitatively different
results due to kinematical effects.
We conclude that the strong polarization observed in
Ref.~\cite{Gattringer:2002gn} is mainly due to the specific choice of angle
variable rather than the underlying
dynamics.
\section{Conclusions}
In this work we studied the dynamical polarization propertied of self-duality components
induced by pure-glue QCD dynamics. We found a very mild polarization tendency that
survives in the continuum limit. This results has negligible finite-volume corrections.
The self-duality tendency is very small making it unlikely that
the vacuum fluctuations are well-described by semi-classical models.
Our findings are at variance with the results of a previous study~\cite{Gattringer:2002gn}.
We conclude that the discrepancy is the result of kinematical effects.
\smallskip
\noindent{\bf Acknowledgments}: Andrei Alexandru is supported in part under DOE
grant DE-FG02-95ER-40907. The computational resources for this project were provided
in part by the George Washington University IMPACT initiative. Ivan Horv\'ath acknowledges
warm hospitality of the BNL Theory Group during which part of this work has been completed.
\bibliographystyle{JHEP}
|
\section{Introduction}
In 2005, the BES Collaboration observed a narrow peak in the
$\eta'\pi^+\pi^-$ invariant mass spectrum in the process
$J/\psi \rightarrow \eta'\pi^+\pi^-$ with a statistic significance of
7.7$\sigma$. Fitting with Breit-Wigner function yields mass and
width~\cite{BESII}
\begin{eqnarray*}
M & = & 1833.7 \pm 6.1(stat) \pm 2.7(syst) ~\mbox{MeV/c}^2 \\
\Gamma & = & 67.7 \pm 20.3(stat) \pm 7.7(syst) ~\mbox{MeV/c}^2,
\end{eqnarray*}
and the product branching fraction
\begin{eqnarray*}
& & B(J/\psi\rightarrow \gamma X(1835))
B(X(1835)\rightarrow \pi^+\pi^-\eta') \\
& & ~~~~~~~~~~= (2.2\pm 0.4(stat) \pm 0.4(syst)) \times 10^{-4}.
\end{eqnarray*}
BES-III confirmed it in the same process with statistical
significance larger than 20$\sigma$. The fitted mass and width are
$M=1836.5 \pm$3.0(stat)$^{+5.6}_{-2.1}$(syst) MeV/c$^2$,
$\Gamma$=190 $\pm$9(stat)$^{+38}_{-36}$(syst) MeV/c$^2$.
Meanwhile, another two new resonances, $X(2120)$ and $X(2370)$,
are also observed in the same process with the statistical significance
larger than 7.2$\sigma$ and 6.4$\sigma$, respectively. The fitted masses
and widths are~\cite{BESIII}
\begin{eqnarray*}
M & = & 2122.4\pm 6.7(stat)^{+4.7}_{-2.7}(syst) ~\mbox{MeV/c}^2, \\
M & = & 2376.3\pm 8.7(stat)^{+3.2}_{-4.3}(syst) ~\mbox{MeV/c}^2,
\end{eqnarray*}
and
\begin{eqnarray*}
\Gamma=83\pm 16(stat)^{+31}_{-17}(syst) ~\mbox{MeV/c}^2, \\
\Gamma=83\pm 17(stat)^{+44}_{-6}(syst) ~\mbox{MeV/c}^2,
\end{eqnarray*}
respectively. $\eta(1760)$, which its nature is in controversial,
was first reported by Mark III collaboration in the $J/\psi$
radiative decays to $\omega\omega$~\cite{MARKIII1} and
$\rho\rho$~\cite{MARKIII2}. And DM2 collaboration observed a large
bump peaked at 1.77 GeV/c$^2$ in $\omega\omega$ invariant mass
distribution in the process of
$J/\psi\rightarrow\gamma\omega\omega~(\omega\rightarrow\pi^+\pi^-\pi^0)$
\cite{DM21} and the study of the decays
$J/\psi\rightarrow\gamma\pi^+\pi^-\pi^+\pi^-$ and
$J/\psi\rightarrow\gamma\pi^+\pi^-\pi^0\pi^0$ showed that both decays
have a large $\rho\rho$ dynamics~\cite{DM22}. The fitted mass and width
are $M=1760\pm$11 MeV, $\Gamma=60\pm16$ MeV.
Recently BES collaboration reported its results on the decays
$J/\psi\rightarrow\gamma\omega\omega$,
$\omega\rightarrow\pi^+\pi^-\pi_0$~\cite{BESII2}. The mass and width
turn to be
$M=1744 \pm10$(stat)$\pm$15 MeV, $\Gamma$=$244^{+24}_{-21}\pm25$ Mev.
Many works have been devoted to the underlying structures of
$X(1835)$ and $\eta(1760)$~\cite{Klempt}. For $X(1835)$, Some interpret it as a
$p\bar{p}$ bound state~\cite{Ding,Dedonder,Wang,Liu}. By
calculating the mesonic decays of a baryonium resonance,
Ding {\em et al.} claimed that the $p\bar{p}$ bound state favors the
decay channel $X\rightarrow \eta4\pi$ over
$X\rightarrow \eta3\pi$~\cite{Ding}. In fact, it is just this work
that stimulates the observation of $J/\psi \rightarrow \eta'\pi^+\pi^-$
process in BES experiments. Using a semi-phenomenological potential model
that can describe all the $N\bar{N}$ scattering data, Dedonder {\em et al.}
found a broad spin-isospin singlets, $S$-wave quasi-bound state of
$N\bar{N}$, which can be used to explain the observed peak by
BES~\cite{Dedonder}. Z. G. Wang and S. L. Wang also calculated the mass
of $X(1835)$, which as a baryonium in the framework of QCD sum rule and
obtained a consistent result with experimental data. The large-$N_c$ QCD
is also applied to study the state $X(1835)$ as a baryonium~\cite{Liu}.
Interpretation of $X(1835)$ as a glueball or a glueball mixed with
pseudoscalar meson or baryonium is also proposed by using QCD sum
rule~\cite{Kochelev,He,Li,Hao}. Apart from these explanation for $X(1835)$
as an exotic state, the conventional $q\bar{q}$ picture of $X(1835)$ is
also proposed. Huang and Zhu studied the behavior of $X(1835)$ and thought
that it can be taken as the second radial excitation of $\eta^\prime(958)$,
in the effective Lagrangian approach~\cite{Huang}. The two-body decays of
$X(1835)$ as $3^1S_0$ are also calculated by quark-pair creation
(QPC, or $^3P_0$) model~\cite{PRD77}, the results show that the decay width
is sensitive to the mixing angle of two states $X_n=(u\bar{u}+d\bar{d})/\sqrt(2)$
and $X_s=s\bar{s}$. Recently J. S. Yu {\em et al.}
systematically studied the two-body strong decays and double pion decays of
$\eta$-family and assigned the $X(1835)$ to the second radial excitation of
$\eta^\prime(958)$, $X(2120$ and $X(2370)$ to the third and fourth radial
excitation of $\eta(548)/\eta^\prime(958)$, respectively~\cite{PRD83}.
For $\eta(1760)$, J. Vijande {\em et al.} assigned it to be $2^1S_0$
state of $s\bar{s}$ in the chiral quark model~\cite{JPG31}. The assignment
of $\eta(1760)$ to the second radial excitation of $\eta(548)$ is also
proposed by J. S. Yu {\em et al.}\cite{PRD83}. Li and Page
suggested it to be a gluonic meson~\cite{LiPage}. Glueball mixed with
$q\bar{q}$ picture of $\eta(1760)$ was also suggested by N. Wu {\em et al.}
\cite{Wu}. Stimulated by these experimental and theoretical work,
we shall study whether $\eta(1760)$, $X(1835)$, $X(2120)$ and $X(2370)$
can be described in the simplest system-$q\bar{q}$ system.
In this work, the pseudoscalar meson spectrum is determined by
the chiral quark model, the mixing angle between $X_n$ and $X_s$
is fixed through the system dynamics. Based on the mass spectrum,
the possible candidates of $X(1835)$, $X(2120)$, $X(2370)$ and
$\eta(1760)$ are assigned. Then the strong decay widths
of the states are calculated in the framework of $^3P_0$ model.
to see the assignment is reasonable or not.
The paper is organized as
follows: a brief review of $^3P_0$ model is given in
section 2. The chiral quark model is introduced and meson spectrum
and wave function scale parameter $\beta$ of the involved
mesons are obtained in section 3. The numerical result of the
strong decay are shown in section 4. The last section is a
summary.
\section{Review of $^3P_0$ model of meson decay }
The $^3P_0$ model also known as the Quark-Pair Creation (QPC) model,
applied to the decay of meson A to meson $B+C$ was first proposed by
Micu~\cite{Micu}, and then developed by Le Yaouanc, Ackleh, Roberts
{\rm et al}~\cite{Yaouanc1,Roberts,Ackleh}. The $^3P_0$ model assumes
that there is a pair of quark and antiquark created in
vacuum. The quantum number of the pair of quark and antiquark is
$J^{pc}=0^{++}$. Since vacuum is colorless and flavorless, so color
and flavor singlet should be satisfied. The created pair recombines
with the quark-antiquark pair in initial meson and form two mesons in
the final state in two possible ways, which is shown in Fig.1.
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=7cm]{3p0.eps}
\figcaption{\label{fig1} The two possible diagrams contributing to
$A\rightarrow B+C$ in the $^3P_0$ model.}
\end{center}
In the non-relativistic limit, the transition operator T takes form
as
\begin{eqnarray}
&&T=-3~\gamma\sum_m\langle 1m1-m|00\rangle\int
d\mathbf{p}_3d\mathbf{p}_4\delta^3(\mathbf{p}_3+\mathbf{p}_4)\nonumber\\
&&~~~~\times{\cal{Y}}^m_1(\frac{\mathbf{p}_3-\mathbf{p}_4}{2})
\chi^{34}_{1-m}\phi^{34}_0\omega^{34}_0b^\dagger_3(\mathbf{p}_3)
d^\dagger_4(\mathbf{p}_4),
\end{eqnarray}
where $\gamma$, which is a dimensionless parameter, represents the
strength of the quark-antiquark pair creation from the vacuum and can be
obtained by fitting the experimental data. $\mathbf{p_3}$ and
$\mathbf{p_4}$ denote the momenta of the created quark and antiquark
respectively. $
{\cal{Y}}^m_l(\mathbf{p})=|p|^lY^m_l(\theta_p,\phi_p)$ is the $l$-th
solid harmonic polynomial that gives the momentum-space distribution
of the created quark-antiquark pair. $\chi^{34}_{1-m}$ reflects
triplet state of spin.
$\phi_0^{34}=(u\bar{u}+d\bar{d}+s\bar{s})/\sqrt{3}$ and
$\omega_0^{34}=(r\bar{r}+g\bar{g}+b\bar{b})/\sqrt{3}$ correspond to
flavor and color singlets, respectively.
$b^\dagger_3(\mathbf{p}_3)d^\dagger_4(\mathbf{p}_4)$ are the
creation operators of the quark and antiquark, respectively.
To depict the meson state, we define
\begin{eqnarray}
&& |A(n_A{}^{2S_A+1}L_{A}\,\mbox{}_{J_A M_{J_A}})(\mathbf{P}_A)\rangle\equiv\nonumber \\
&&\sqrt{2E_A}\sum_{M_{L_A},M_{S_A}}\langle L_A M_{L_A} S_A
M_{S_A}|J_AM_{J_A}\rangle \nonumber \\
&&\int
d\mathbf{p}_A\chi^{12}_{S_AM_{S_A}}\phi^{12}_A\omega^{12}_A
\left| q_1\left( \frac{m1}{m1+m2}\mathbf{P}_A+p_A\right)\right. \nonumber\\
&& \left. \bar{q}_2\left(\frac{m2}{m1+m2}\mathbf{P}_A+p_A\right)
\right\rangle,
\end{eqnarray}
The wave function is normalized to
\begin{eqnarray}
& & \left\langle
A(n_A{}^{2S_A+1}L_{A}\,\mbox{}_{J_A M_{J_A}})(\mathbf{P}_A)
\right| \\
&& \!\! \left. A(n_A{}^{2S_A+1}L_{A}\,\mbox{}_{J_A
M_{J_A}})(\mathbf{P}^{\prime}_A) \right\rangle
=2E_A\delta^3(\mathbf{P}_A-\mathbf{P}^{\prime}_A). \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where $ \chi^{12}_{S_AM_{S_A}},\phi^{12}_A,\omega^{12}_A$ represent
the spin, flavor and color wave function respectively;
$\mathbf{P_A}$ is the CM momentum of meson A, and
$\mathbf{p_A}=(m_2\mathbf{p_1}-m_1\mathbf{p_2})/(m_1+m_2)$ is the
relative momentum of $q\bar{q}$ pair. $n_A$ is the radial quantum number;
$|L_A,M_{L_A}\rangle,|S_A,M_{S_A}\rangle,|J_A,M_{J_A}\rangle$ are
the quantum number of orbit angular momentum between $q\bar{q}$ pair
in meson A, the total spin of the pair and the total angular
momentum, respectively; $\langle L_A M_{L_A} S_A M_{S_A}|J_A
M_{J_A}\rangle$ denotes a Clebsch-Gordan coefficient, $E_A$ is the
total energy of the meson.
To describe a strong decay process of $A\rightarrow B+C$, the
S-matrix is written out as
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle BC|S|A\rangle=I-2\pi i\delta(E_A-E_B-E_C)\langle
BC|T|A\rangle,
\end{eqnarray}
and then
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle
BC|T|A\rangle=\delta^3(\mathbf{P}_A-\mathbf{P}_B-\mathbf{P}_C)
{\cal{M}}^{M_{J_A}M_{J_B}M_{J_C}},
\end{eqnarray}
where ${\cal{M}}^{M_{J_A}M_{J_B}M_{J_C}}$ is the helicity amplitude
of $A\rightarrow B+C$. Taking the center of the mass frame of the
meson A: $\mathbf{P_A}=0$. One can obtained
${\cal{M}}^{M_{J_A}M_{J_B}M_{J_C}}$ for decay process in terms of
overlap integrals,
\end{multicols}
\ruleup
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal{M}}^{M_{J_A}M_{J_B}M_{J_C}} & = & 3\gamma\sum_{\{M\}}
\langle L_AM_{L_A}S_AM_{S_A}|J_AM_{J_A}\rangle \langle
L_BM_{L_B}S_BM_{S_B}|J_BM_{J_B}\rangle \langle
L_CM_{L_C}S_CM_{S_C}|J_CM_{J_C}\rangle\nonumber\\
&\times&\langle1m1-m|00\rangle\langle\chi^{14}_{S_BM_{S_B}}\chi^{32}_{S_CM_{S_C}}
|\chi^{12}_{S_AM_{S_A}}\chi^{34}_{1-m}\rangle[\langle\omega^{14}_B
\omega^{32}_C|\omega^{12}_A\omega^{34}_0\rangle\langle
\phi^{14}_B\phi^{32}_C|\phi^{12}_A\phi^{34}_0\rangle\nonumber\\
&\times&\mathcal{I}^{M_{L_A},m}_{M_{L_B},M_{L_C}}(\mathbf{P},m_1,m_2,m_3)
+(-1)^{1+S_A+S_B+S_C}\langle\omega^{32}_B\omega^{14}_C|\omega^{12}_A\omega^{34}_0\rangle\langle
\phi^{32}_B\phi^{14}_C|\phi^{12}_A\phi^{34}_0\rangle\nonumber\\
&\times&\mathcal{I}^{M_{L_A},m}_{M_{L_B},M_{L_C}}(-\mathbf{P},m_2,m_1,m_3)]
\end{eqnarray}
where $\{M\}=M_{L_A},M_{S_A},M_{L_B},M_{S_B},M_{L_C},M_{S_C},m$, The momentum space integral
$\mathcal{I}^{M_{L_A},m}_{M_{L_B},M_{L_C}}(\mathbf{P},m_1,m_2,m_3)$
and
$\mathcal{I}^{M_{L_A},m}_{M_{L_B},M_{L_C}}(\mathbf{-P},m_2,m_1,m_3)$
are given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{I}^{M_{L_A},m}_{M_{L_B},M_{L_C}}(\mathbf{P},m_1,m_2,m_3)&=&\sqrt{8E_AE_BE_C}\int
d\mathbf{p}\,\mbox{}\psi^\ast_{n_BL_BM_{L_B}}
({\scriptstyle\frac{m_3}{m_1+m_3}}\mathbf{P}+\mathbf{p})
\psi^\ast_{n_CL_CM_{L_C}}
({\scriptstyle\frac{m_3}{m_2+m_3}}\mathbf{P}+\mathbf{p})\nonumber\\
&& \times \psi_{n_AL_AM_{L_A}}
(\mathbf{P}+\mathbf{p}){\cal{Y}}^m_1(\mathbf{p})
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{I}^{M_{L_A},m}_{M_{L_B},M_{L_C}}(\mathbf{-P},m_2,m_1,m_3)&=&\sqrt{8E_AE_BE_C}\int
d\mathbf{p}\,\mbox{}\psi^\ast_{n_BL_BM_{L_B}}
({\scriptstyle-\frac{m_3}{m_1+m_3}}\mathbf{P}+\mathbf{p})
\psi^\ast_{n_CL_CM_{L_C}}
({\scriptstyle-\frac{m_3}{m_2+m_3}}\mathbf{P}+\mathbf{p})\nonumber\\
&&\times\psi_{n_AL_AM_{L_A}}
(-\mathbf{P}+\mathbf{p}){\cal{Y}}^m_1(\mathbf{p})
\end{eqnarray}
\ruledown
\vspace{2.0mm}
\begin{multicols}{2}
\noindent where
$\mathbf{P_B}=-\mathbf{P_C}=\mathbf{P},\mathbf{p}=\mathbf{p_3}$, and
$m_3$ is the mass of the created quark. The spacial wavefunction one
take is the simple harmonic oscillator (SHO) wavefunction. In
momentum-space, the SHO wavefunction reads
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \hspace{-1.0cm} \Psi_{nLM_L}(\mathbf{p})=(-1)^n(-i)^LR^{L+\frac{3}{2}}
\sqrt{\frac{2n!}{\Gamma(n+L+\frac{3}{2})}}\nonumber\\
&&~~\times\exp\left(-\frac{R^2p^2}{2}\right)L^{L+\frac{1}{2}}_n
\left(R^2p^2\right)\mathcal{Y}_{LM_L}(\mathbf{p}),
\label{showave}
\end{eqnarray}
here $\mathcal{Y}_{LM_L}(\mathbf{p})$ is the solid harmonic
polynomial; $R$ is the parameter of SHO wavefunction; $\mathbf{p}$
is the relative momentum between $q\bar{q}$ pair within one meson;
$L^{L+\frac{1}{2}}_n\left(R^2p^2\right)$ is the Laguerre polynomial.
The decay width can be written as follows
\begin{eqnarray}
\Gamma = \pi^2
\frac{{|\textbf{P}|}}{M_A^2(1+\delta_{BC})}\sum_{JL}\Big
|\mathcal{M}^{J L}\Big|^2,\label{partialwidth}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\mathcal{M}^{J L}$ is the partial wave amplitude, which
is related to the helicity amplitude
${\cal M}^{M_{J_A}M_{J_B}M_{J_C}}$ via the Jacob-Wick
formula~\cite{Jacob}
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \hspace{-0.70cm} {\mathcal{M}}^{J L}(A\rightarrow BC)
= \frac{\sqrt{2 L+1}}{2 J_A+1}
\!\! \sum_{M_{J_B},M_{J_C}} \!\!\!\! \langle L 0 J M_{J_A}|J_A
M_{J_A}\rangle \nonumber \\
&& \!\! \times\langle J_B M_{J_B}
J_C M_{J_C} | J M_{J_A} \rangle \mathcal{M}^{M_{J_A} M_{J_B}
M_{J_C}}({\textbf{P}}),
\end{eqnarray}
where $\mathbf{J}=\mathbf{J}_B+\mathbf{J}_C$, $\mathbf{J}_{A}
=\mathbf{J}_{B}+\mathbf{J}_C+\mathbf{L}$.
Then the decay width in terms of the partial wave
amplitude is taken as,
where $|\textbf{P}|=|\textbf{P}_{B}|=|\textbf{P}_{C}|$. According to
the calculation of 2-body phase space, one can get
\[|\textbf{P}|=\frac{\sqrt{[M^2_A-(M_B+M_C)^2][M^2_A-(M_B-M_C)^2]}}{2M_A},\]
where $M_A$, $M_B$, and $M_C$ are the masses of the meson $A$, $B$,
and $C$, respectively.
\section{The masses of the mesons}
To calculate the meson spectrum, a QCD-inspired model, constituent
quark model, is used. The model incorporates the perturbative (one gluon
exchange) and nonperturbative (color confinement and spontaneous
breaking of chiral symmetry) properties of QCD. The constituent quark
mass originates from the spontaneous breaking of chiral symmetry and
consequently constituent quarks should interact through the exchange
of Goldstone bosons~\cite{manohar}, in addition to the one-gluon-exchange.
To describe the hadron-hadron interaction, the chiral partner of pion,
$\sigma$-meson, is also used. So the model Hamiltonian is
\begin{equation}
H = m_1+m_2+\frac{\mathbf{p}^2}{2\mu}+V^C+V^G+V^{\chi}+V^{\sigma},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation*}
V^C={\boldmath{\mbox{$\lambda$}}}^c_{1}\cdot {\boldmath{\mbox{$\lambda$}}}^c_{2}
\left[-a_{c} \left( 1- e^{-\mu_c\,r} \right)+ \Delta \right]+V^C_{SO}
\end{equation*}
\begin{eqnarray}
V_{SO}^{C} &=&-{\boldmath{\mbox{$\lambda$}}}^c_{1}\cdot
{\boldmath{\mbox{$\lambda$}}}^c_{2}
\frac{a_c \mu_c e^{-\mu_c r}}{4m_{1}^{2}m_{2}^{2}\,r}
\left[ \left( m_{1}^{2}+m_{2}^{2} \right)(1-2a_{s}) \right. \nonumber \\
& & \left. +4m_{i}m_{j}(1-a_{s}) \right] ~\mathbf{S} \cdot \mathbf{L}
\nonumber \\
V^{G} &= & V^{G}_C+V^{G}_{SO}+V^{G}_{T} \nonumber \\
V_C^G & =& \frac{\alpha_s}{4} {\boldmath{\mbox{$\lambda$}}}^c_{1}
\cdot {\boldmath{\mbox{$\lambda$}}}^c_{2}
\left\{ \frac{1}{r}-\frac{{\boldmath{\mbox{$\sigma$}}}_{1}
\cdot {\boldmath{\mbox{$\sigma$}}}_{2}}{6m_1 m_2}
\frac{e^{-r/r_{0}(\mu)}}{r\, r_0^2(\mu)} \right\} \nonumber \\
V_{OGE}^{SO} & =&
-{\frac{\alpha_s}{16}}{\frac{{\boldmath{\mbox{$\lambda$}}}^c_{1}
\cdot {\boldmath{\mbox{$\lambda$}}}^c_{2}}{{m_1^2 m_2^2}}}
\left[\frac{1}{r^3} -
\frac{e^{-r/r_g(\mu)}}{r^3}
\left( 1 + \frac{r}{r_g(\mu)} \right) \right] \nonumber \\
& &
\left[ \left( (m_1+m_2)^2+2m_1 m_2\right) \mathbf{S} \cdot \mathbf{L}
\right], \nonumber \\
V_{OGE}^{T} & =& -\frac{1}{16}\frac{\alpha_s}{m_1 m_2}
{\boldmath{\mbox{$\lambda$}}}^c_{1}
\cdot {\boldmath{\mbox{$\lambda$}}}^c_{2} \left[ \frac{1}{r^3}
- \frac{e^{-r/r_g(\mu)}}{r} \right. \nonumber \\
& & \left. \left( \frac{1}{r^2} +
\frac{1}{3 r_g^2(\mu)} + \frac{1}{r\,r_g(\mu)} \right)
\right] S_{12} , \nonumber \\
V_{\chi} & = & \left(v_{\pi}^{C}+v_{\pi}^{T}\right)
\sum_{a=1}^{3} \lambda_{1}^{a}~\lambda_{2}^{a}
+ \left(v_{K}^{C}+v_{K}^{T}\right)
\sum_{a=4}^{7} \lambda_{1}^{a}~\lambda_{2}^{a}
\nonumber \\
& & + \left(v_{\eta}^{C}+v_{\eta}^{T}\right)
\left( \lambda_{1}^{8}~\lambda_{2}^{8} \cos\theta_P
-\lambda_{1}^{0}~\lambda_{2}^{0}\sin\theta_P \right)
\nonumber \\
v_{\chi}^C & = & C_1 \left[ Y(m_{\chi}\,r)
-\frac{\Lambda_{\chi}^3}{m_{\chi}^3}
Y(\Lambda_{\chi}\,r)\right] {\boldmath{\mbox{$\sigma$}}}_{1}
\cdot {\boldmath{\mbox{$\sigma$}}}_{2}, \nonumber \\
v_{\chi}^T & = & C_1 \left[ H(m_{\chi}\,r)
-\frac{\Lambda_{\chi}^3}{m_{\chi}^3}
H(\Lambda_{\chi}\,r)\right] S_{12} \nonumber \\
C_1 &=& \frac{g_{ch}^2}{4\pi} \frac{m_{\chi}^2}{12m_1 m_2}
\frac{\Lambda_{\chi}^2}{\Lambda_{\chi}^2- m_{\chi}^2} m_{\chi},
\quad \chi=\pi,K,\eta, \nonumber \\
V_{\sigma} & = & -C_2 \left[ Y(m_{\sigma}r)
-\frac{\Lambda_{\sigma}}{m_{\sigma}}
Y(\Lambda_{\sigma}r) \right]+V_{\sigma}^{SO}, \nonumber \\
V_{\sigma}^{SO} & = & -C_2 \frac{m_{\sigma}^2}{2m_1 m_2}
\left[ G(m_{\sigma}r) -\frac{\Lambda_{\sigma}^3}{m_{\sigma}^3}
G(\Lambda_{\sigma}r) \right] \mathbf{S} \cdot \mathbf{L}
\nonumber \\
C_2 &=& \frac{g_{ch}^2}{4\pi}
\frac{\Lambda_{\sigma}^2}{\Lambda_{\sigma}^2-m_{\sigma}^2} m_{\sigma}
\nonumber \\
&& \hspace{-1.0cm} S_{12}=3({\boldmath{\mbox{$\sigma$}}}_{1} \cdot
\mathbf{r})({\boldmath{\mbox{$\sigma$}}}_{2}\cdot \mathbf{r})
-{\boldmath{\mbox{$\sigma$}}}_{1}
\cdot {\boldmath{\mbox{$\sigma$}}}_{2}, \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \hspace{-1.0cm} Y(x)=\frac{e^{-x}}{x},
\quad H(x)=\left(1+\frac{3}{x}+\frac{3}{x^2}\right)Y(x),
\nonumber \\
&& \hspace{-1.0cm} G(x)=\left(1+\frac{1}{x}\right)
\frac{Y(x)}{x}, \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where $r=|\mathbf{r}_1-\mathbf{r}_2|$ and
$\mathbf{p}=(\mathbf{p}_1-\mathbf{p}_2)/2$, $r_0(\mu)=\hat{r}_0/\mu$,
$r_g(\mu)=\hat{r}_g/\mu$. Other symbols have their
usual meanings. The effective running coupling constant
is given by
\begin{equation}
\alpha_s(\mu)=\frac{\alpha_0}{\ln\left({{\mu^2+\mu^2_0}
\over\Lambda_0^2}\right)}, \label{asf}
\end{equation}
where $\mu$ is the reduced mass of the $q\bar{q}$ system.
The chiral coupling constant $g_{ch}$
is determined from the $\pi NN$ coupling constant through
\begin{equation}
\frac{g_{ch}^2}{4\pi}=\left( \frac{3}{5}\right)^2
\frac{g_{\pi NN}^2}{4\pi}\frac{m_{u,d}^2}{m_{N}^2}.
\end{equation}
The meson spectrum is obtained by solving the
Schr\"{o}dinger equation,
\begin{eqnarray}
H\Psi & = & E\Psi, \\
\Psi &= & \left[ \psi_{nLM_L}\chi_{SM_S} \right]_{JM_J}\chi_c\chi_f,
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{center}
\tabcaption{Model parameters. The masses of mesons $\pi,K,\eta$ take the
experimental values.\label{tab2}}
\footnotesize
\begin{tabular*}{80mm}{c@{\extracolsep{\fill}}cccccc}
\toprule
$~~m_{u,d}~~$ & $~~m_s~~$ & $a_c$ & $\mu_c$ & $\Delta$ & $a_s$ \\
MeV & MeV & MeV & fm$^{-1}$ & MeV & - \\ \hline
313 & 555 & 430 & 0.7 & 181.10 & 0.777 \\ \hline
$\alpha_0$ & $\Lambda_0$ & $\mu_0$ & $\hat{r}_0$ & $\hat{r}_g$ & \\
- & fm$^{-1}$ & MeV & MeV fm & MeV fm & \\ \hline
2.118 & 0.113 & 36.976 & 28.170 & 34.500 & \\ \hline
$\Lambda_{\pi}$ & $\Lambda_{\sigma}$ & $\Lambda_{K}$ & $\Lambda_{\eta}$ &
$g_{ch}^2/4\pi$ & $\theta_P$ \\
fm$^{-1}$ & fm$^{-1}$ & fm$^{-1}$ & fm$^{-1}$ & - & $^o$ \\ \hline
4.20 & 4.20 & 5.20 & 5.20 & 0.54 & -15 \\ \bottomrule
\end{tabular*}
\end{center}
\noindent where $\chi_{SM_S},\chi_c,\chi_f$ are spin, color and flavor wavefunctions
of the meson, respectively and can be constructed through the symmetry.
The spatial wavefunction
$\psi_{nLM_{L}}=R_{nL}(r)Y_{LM_L}(\Omega)$ is obtained by solving
the second-order differential equation. The efficient numerical
method: Numerov method~\cite{Koonin} is used here.
The model parameters, which are listed in Table \ref{tab2}, are fixed by
fitting the experimental data of meson spectrum.
Parts of the obtained meson spectrum are shown in Tables \ref{tab3}
and \ref{tab4}.
The detailed results can be found in Ref.~\cite{JPG31}.
To calculate the strong decay of mesons analytically in $^3P_0$ model,
the obtained radial part of the spacial wavefunction $R_{nL}(r)$ is fitted
by the simple harmonic oscillator (SHO),
\begin{eqnarray}
R_{nL}(r) & =& \beta^{(L+\frac{3}{2})} \sqrt{\frac{2n!}
{\Gamma(n+L+\frac{3}{2})}} \exp\left(-\frac{\beta^{2}r^2}{2}\right)
\nonumber\\
&& r^L L^{L+\frac{1}{2}}_n\left(\beta^{2}r^2\right).
\label{Rnl}
\end{eqnarray}
The fitted values of parameter $\beta$ are also listed in Table 3.
\begin{center}
\tabcaption{The mass of $I=1,\frac{1}{2}$ mesons and the values of fitted
$\beta$.\label{tab3}}
\footnotesize
\begin{tabular*}{80mm}{c@{\extracolsep{\fill}}cccccc}
\toprule
$n^{2S+1}L_J$ & states & Isospin & Mass & $\beta$ & $R$ \\
& & & (MeV) & (fm$^{-1}$) & (GeV$^{-1}$) \\ \hline
$1^1S_0$ & $\pi$ & 1 & 139 & 2.308 & 2.196 \\
$2^1S_0$ & $\pi(1300)$ & 1 & 1288 & 1.434 & 3.534 \\
$1^3S_1$&$\rho$ & 1 & 772 & 1.438 & 3.522 \\
$2^3S_1$&$\rho$(1450)&1 &1478 &1.096 & 4.624 \\
$1^1P_1$&$b_1(1235)$ &1 &1234 &1.243 & 4.077 \\
$1^3P_0$&$a_0(980)$ &1 &984 &1.473 & 3.440 \\
$2^3P_0$&$a_0(1450)$ &1 &1587 &1.125 & 4.505 \\
$1^3P_1$&$a_1(1260)$ &1 &1205 &1.300 & 3.898 \\
$1^3P_2$&$a_2(1320)$ &1 &1327 &1.106 & 4.582 \\
$1^3P_2$&$a_2(1700)$ &1 &1732 &0.890 & 5.694 \\ \hline
$1^1S_0$& $K$ &1/2 &496 &2.313 & 2.191 \\
$2^1S_0$& $K(1460)$ &1/2 &1472 &1.545 & 3.280 \\
$1^3S_1$& $K^*(892)$ &1/2 &910 &1.629 & 3.111 \\
$2^3S_1$& $K(1630)$ &1/2 &1620 &1.262 & 4.016 \\
$1^1P_1$& $K_1(1400)$ &1/2 &1414 &1.371 & 3.696 \\
$1^3P_0$& $K_0^*(1430)$ &1/2 &1213 &1.572 & 3.224 \\
$2^3P_0$& $K_0^*(1950)$ &1/2 &1768 &1.243 & 4.077 \\
$1^3P_1$& $K_1(273)$ &1/2 &1352 &1.435 & 3.531 \\
$1^3P_2$& $K_2^*(1430)$ &1/2 &1450 &1.572 & 3.224 \\
$1^3D_1$& $K_1(1680)$ &1/2 &1698 &1.205 & 4.206 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular*}
\end{center}
For $I=0$ states, there are two types of them, one is composed of
$u,d$-quark and $\bar{u},\bar{d}$-antiquark, another is composed of
$s$-quark and $\bar{s}$-antiquark. They are mixed in the flavor SU(3)
symmetry to form flavor singlet and octet. However, flavor SU(3) is
broken. In experiments, we have $\eta$ and $\eta^{\prime}$ instead of
$\eta_1$ and $\eta_8$ for pseudoscalar. In the present calculation,
flavor SU(3) symmetry is not used, so we have flavor wavefunctions
$X_n$ and $X_s$. As a consequence of $K$-meson exchange, they are
mixed. To obtain the masses of $I=0$ states, the following procedure
is taken. First, solving the Schr\"{o}dinger equation for $X_n$
and $X_s$ separately ($K$-meson exchange is not employed). Secondly,
by using the wavefunctions $\Psi_n$ and $\Psi_s$ obtained in the
first step and taking into
account of $K$-meson exchange, the eigen-energies and eigen-states
can be obtained by diagonalizing the Hamiltonian matrix
\begin{eqnarray}
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
H_{nn}& H_{ns}\\
H_{sn}& H_{ss}\\
\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}
C_n\\
C_s\\
\end{array}\right)=E\left(\begin{array}{c}
C_n\\
C_s\\
\end{array}\right).
\end{eqnarray}
where $H_{nn}=\langle \Psi_n |H|\Psi_n\rangle$,
$H_{ns}=\langle \Psi_n |V_K|\Psi_s\rangle=H_{sn}$ and
$H_{ss}=\langle \Psi_s |H|\Psi_s\rangle$. The eigen-state is
$|\Psi\rangle=C_n| \Psi_n\rangle+C_s|\Psi_s\rangle$.
The obtained eigen-energies and eigen-states are shown in
Table \ref{tab4}. From Table \ref{tab4}, one finds that
$\eta(1760),X(1835),X(2120),X(2370)$ may be interpreted
as $\eta'(2^1S_0),\eta(4^1S_0),\eta'(3^1S_0)$ and $\eta'(4^1S_0)$
respectively by comparing the theoretical masses with the
experimental data. To check these assignments, the decay properties of
the states should be studied, which is discussed in the next section.
\end{multicols}
\begin{center}
\tabcaption{The masses of $I=0$ mesons and the value of fitted $\beta$
($\beta=C_n^2\beta_n+C_s^2\beta_s$).\label{tab4}}
\footnotesize
\begin{tabular*}{170mm}{c@{\extracolsep{\fill}}cccccc}
\toprule
$(nL)J^{PC}$ & states & Mass (MeV) & $C_n$ & $C_s$ & $\beta$(fm$^{-1}$)
& $R$(GeV$^{-1}$) \\ \hline
$1^1S_0$ & $\eta$ & 572 & $8.6564\times10^{-1}$ &
$-5.0066\times 10^{-1}$ & 1.732693 & 2.924 \\
$1^1S_0$&$\eta'(958)$ &956 &$5.0066\times10^{-1}$ &$8.6564\times10^{-1}$ & 2.064307 & 2.455 \\
$2^1S_0$&$\eta(1295)$ &1290&$9.6360\times10^{-1}$ &
$-2.67323\times10^{-1}$ & 1.183-1.666 & 3.041-4.284\\
$2^1S_0$&$\eta'(1760)$ &1795 &$2.6732\times10^{-1}$ &$9.6360\times10^{-1}$ & 1.183-1.666 & 3.041-4.284 \\
$3^1S_0$&$\eta(3S)$ &1563&$9.9350\times10^{-1}$&
$-1.1380\times10^{-1}$ & 0.929-1.360 & 3.726-5.455 \\
$3^1S_0$&$\eta'(3S)$ &2276&$1.1380\times10^{-1}$&
$9.9350\times10^{-1}$ & 0.929-1.360 & 3.726-5.455 \\
$4^1S_0$&$\eta(4S)$ &1807&$9.9935\times10^{-1}$&
$-3.5928\times10^{-2}$ & 0.6725-1.0995 & 4.607-7.530 \\
$4^1S_0$&$\eta'(4S)$ &2390&$3.5928\times10^{-2}$ &
$9.9935\times10^{-1}$ & 0.6725-1.0995 & 4.607-7.530 \\\hline
$1^3S_1$&$\omega(782)$ &691 &$9.9499\times10^{-1}$&
$9.9967\times10^{-2}$ & 1.547 & 3.276 \\
$1^3S_1$&$\phi(1020)$ &1020&$-9.9967\times10^{-2}$&
$9.9499\times10^{-1}$& 1.918 & 2.642 \\
$2^3S_1$&$\omega(1420)$ &1444&$9.9852\times10^{-1}$ &
$5.4331\times10^{-2}$ & 1.163 & 4.357 \\
$2^3S_1$&$\phi(1680)$ &1726&$-5.4331\times10^{-2}$&
$9.9852\times10^{-1}$ & 1.506 & 3.365 \\\hline
$1^1P_1$&$h_1(1170)$ &1257 &1.0&0& 1.202 & 4.216 \\
$1^1P_1$&$h_1'$ &1511 &0&1.0& 1.581 & 3.205 \\
$1^3P_2$&$f_2(1270)$ &1311&1.0&0 & 1.112 & 4.557 \\
$1^3P_2$ & $f_2'(1525)$ & 1556 & 0 & 1.0 & 1.496 & 3.387 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular*}
\end{center}
\begin{multicols}{2}
\section{The strong decay of the candidates for
$\eta(1760),X(1835),X(2120),X(2370)$}
$\eta$, $\eta^{\prime}$ and their radial excitations have the same
quantum numbers $IJ^{PC}=00^{-+}$. According to the $^3P_0$ model
discussed above, the isospins of mesons $B$ and $C$ can takes
the values $I=0,1/2$, or 1 with the condition
$\mathbf{I}_B+\mathbf{I}_C=\mathbf{I}_A$. If not forbidden
kinetically, the allowed decay modes of $\eta(\eta^{\prime})$
family are listed in Table \ref{tab1}.
\end{multicols}
\begin{center}
\tabcaption{Allowed decay modes and the amplitudes of the radial excited states
of $\eta$ and $\eta^{\prime}$.
For $X_n$ decay, $\phi_f= \sqrt{\frac{1}{2}},~\sqrt{\frac{1}{3}},~\sqrt{\frac{1}{6}},~0$ for
$I_B=I_C=1,~1/2,~0(X_n),~0(X_s)$ and for $X_s$ decay, $\phi_f=0,~\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}},~0,~
\sqrt{\frac{1}{3}}$ for $I_B=I_C=1,~1/2,~0(X_n),~0(X_s)$.\label{tab1}}
\footnotesize
\begin{tabular*}{170mm}{c@{\extracolsep{\fill}}ccc}
\toprule
$X \rightarrow ^1S_0+^3P_0$ & $\pi a_0(980), ~\pi a_0(1450), ~\pi(1300)a_0(980),$
& $ M^{JL}=M^{00}=M^{000}$ \\
& $KK^*_0(1430),~KK^*_0(1950)$ & $M^{000}=\sqrt{\frac{1}{36}}
(I^{-1,-1}_{0,0}+I^{0,0}_{0,0}+I^{1,1}_{0,0}) \phi_f$ \\ \hline
$X \rightarrow ^1S_0+ ^3P_2$ & $\pi a_2(1320),~\pi a_2(1700),~KK^*_2(1430),
~\eta f_2(1270),$ & $M^{JL}=M^{22}=M^{000}$ \\
& $\eta^{\prime} f_2(1270), ~\eta f^{\prime}_2(1525)$ &
$M^{000}=\sqrt{\frac{1}{72}}(I^{-1,-1}_{0,0}-2M^{0-11})\phi_f$ \\ \hline
$X \rightarrow ^1S_0+^3S_1$ & $K K^*,~KK^*(1410), ~K(1460)K^*$ & $M^{JL}=M^{11}=-M^{000}$ \\
& & $M^{000}=-\sqrt{\frac{1}{12}}I^{0,0}_{0,0}\phi_f$ \\ \hline
$X \rightarrow ^1S_0+^3D_1$ & $K K^*(1680)$ & $M^{JL}=M^{11}=-M^{000}$ \\
& & $M^{000}=(\sqrt{\frac{1}{40}}I^{-1,-1}_{0,0}+\sqrt{\frac{1}{30}}I^{0,0}_{0,0}
+\sqrt{\frac{1}{40}}I^{1,1}_{0,0})\phi_f$ \\ \hline
$X \rightarrow ^3S_1+^3P_1$ & $\rho a_1(1640), ~\rho a_1(1260), ~K^*K_1(1273),
~\omega f_1(1285)$ & $M^{JL}=M^{00}+M^{22}$ \\
& & $M^{00}=\sqrt{\frac{1}{3}}(M^{0-11}-M^{000}+M^{01-1})$ \\
& & $M^{22}=\sqrt{\frac{1}{6}}(M^{0-11}+2M^{000}+M^{01-1})$ \\
& & $M^{0-11}=-\sqrt{\frac{1}{24}}(I^{0,0}_{0,0}+I^{1,1}_{0,0})\phi_f$ \\
& & $M^{000}=\sqrt{\frac{1}{24}}(I^{-1,-1}_{0,0}+I^{1,1}_{0,0})\phi_f$ \\
& & $M^{01-1}=-\sqrt{\frac{1}{24}}(I^{0,0}_{0,0}+I^{1,1}_{0,0})\phi_f$ \\ \hline
$X \rightarrow^3S_1+^3S_1$ & $\rho\rho, ~\rho\rho(1450),~\omega\omega, ~\omega\omega(1420),$
& $M^{JL}=M^{11}=\sqrt{\frac{1}{2}}(M^{0-11}-M^{01-1})$ \\
& $~K^*K^*, ~K^*K^*(1410),~\phi\phi$ & $M^{0-11}=\sqrt{\frac{1}{12}}(I^{0,0}_{0,0})\phi_f,
~M^{0-11}=-\sqrt{\frac{1}{12}}(I^{0,0}_{0,0})\phi_f$ \\ \hline
$X \rightarrow^3S_1+^1P_1$ & $\rho b_1(1235), ~K^*K_1(1400), ~\omega h_1(1170)$
& $M^{JL}=M^{00}+M^{22}$ \\
& & $M^{00}=\sqrt{\frac{1}{3}}(M^{0-11}-M^{000}+M^{01-1})$ \\
& & $M^{22}=\sqrt{\frac{1}{6}}(M^{0-11}+2M^{000}+M^{01-1})$ \\
& & $M^{0-11}=\sqrt{\frac{1}{12}}I^{1,1}_{0,0}\phi_f$, ~
$M^{000}=-\sqrt{\frac{1}{12}}I^{1,1}_{0,0}\phi_f$ \\
& & $M^{01-1}=\sqrt{\frac{1}{12}}I^{-1,-1}_{0,0}\phi_f$ \\ \hline
$X \rightarrow^3S_1+^3P_2$ & $\rho a_2(1320), ~K^*K^*_2(1430)$
& $M^{JL}=M^{22}=-\sqrt{\frac{1}{2}}(M^{0-11}-M^{01-1})$ \\
& & $M^{0-11}=\sqrt{\frac{1}{24}}(I^{0,0}_{0,0}-I^{1,1}_{0,0})\phi_f$ \\
& & $M^{01-1}=\sqrt{\frac{1}{24}}(I^{-1,-1}_{0,0}-I^{1,1}_{0,0})\phi_f$ \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular*}
\end{center}
\begin{multicols}{2}
All the possible decay modes of $\eta(\eta^{\prime})$ family are shown
in Table \ref{tab1}. To calculate the strong decay widths of mesons,
the strength of the
quark pair creation from the vacuum, $\gamma$, has to be fixed. It is
obtained by fitting the experimental values of the strong decay widths
of light and charmed mesons, charmonium and baryons. In the
present work, $\gamma=6.95$, which is adopted by many
researches~\cite{zhushilin,Blundell,yang}, is taken for the non-strange
quark pair creation, and the strength of
$s\bar{s}$ creation satisfies $\gamma_s$=$\gamma$/3~\cite{Yaouanc}.
\subsection{$\eta'(2^1S_0)$}
The experimental evidence for $\eta(1760)$ is controversial.
There are large differences between the observations of
MARK III, DM2 and BES
collaborations\cite{BESII,MARKIII1,MARKIII2,DM21,DM22}. In our calculation,
the mass of $\eta'(2^1S_1)$ is 1795 MeV, which is close to the
experimental mass of $\eta(1760)$. So we take it as the candidate of
$\eta(1760)$. In Fig.\ref{fig2}, we show the dependence of the partial widths
of the strong decay of the $\eta'(2^1S_0)$ on the $R_A$. Taking
$R_A$ =3.0-4.3 GeV$^{-1}$ discussed above, the total width ranges
from 256 to 404 MeV, which is much larger than the results given by Mark III and DM2
collaboration, but falls in the range of the BES experimental data.
In this range, $\eta'(2^1S_0)$ have a sizable branching ration into
$\pi a_0(980)$, $\pi a_2(1320)$, $\rho\rho$, and $KK^*$. But the
partial width to $\omega\omega$ is rather small. If the BES results
are reliable, the assignment of $\eta(1760)$ to $\eta'(2^1S_0)$ is disfavored
in the present calculation. In Ref.~\cite{PRD83}, $\eta(1760)$ is taken as
$\eta(3S)$, the total decay width is between 60-100 MeV, which falls in
the range of DM2's results, but is far below BES's results.
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{2s10.eps}
\figcaption{The possible strong decay of the $\eta'(2^1S_0)$\label{fig2}}
\end{center}
\subsection{$\eta(4^1S_0)$}
$X(1835)$ was first observed by BESII in the $\pi^+\pi^-\eta'$
invariant-mass spectrum in the decay channel
$J/\psi\rightarrow\gamma\pi^+\pi^-\eta'$ with a statistical
significance of 7.7~$\sigma$\cite{BESII}. BESIII confirmed it in the
same process with statistical significance larger than
20$\sigma$~\cite{BESIII}. In the present calculation, the mass of
$\eta(4^1S_0)$=1807 MeV is close to the mass of $X(1835)$, so the
assignment of $X(1835)$ to $\eta(4^1S_0)$ is possible, which is different
from the assignment of Ref.~\cite{PRD83}, $\eta^{\prime}(3S)$.
In Fig.~\ref{fig2}, the dependence of the partial widths of the strong
decay of the $\eta(4^1S_0)$ on the $R_A$ is shown. From the mass
calculation, $R_A$ =4.6-7.5 GeV$^{-1}$ is obtained. In this range,
the total width ranges from 54 to 692 MeV, which
falls in the range of the BES experimental data, and the main decay
modes are $\pi a_0(980)$ and $\pi a_0(1450)$. We suggest experimental search for
$X(1835)$ in these modes to make sure whether it is $\eta(4^1S_0)$
assignment.
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{4seta.eps}
\figcaption{The possible strong decay of the $\eta(4^1S_0)$\label{fig3}}
\end{center}
\end{multicols}
\ruleup
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=16cm]{3setap.eps}
\figcaption{The possible strong decay of the $\eta'(3^1S_0)$\label{fig4}}
\end{center}
\ruledown
\begin{multicols}{2}
\subsection{$\eta'(3^1S_0)$ and $\eta'(4^1S_0)$}
Besides confirmed the existence of $X(1835)$ in the $\pi^+\pi^-\eta'$
invariant-mass spectrum in the process $J/\psi \rightarrow \eta'\pi^+\pi^-$,
other two states $X(2120)$ and $X(2370)$ are observed by BESIII with
statistical significance larger than 7.2$\sigma$ and 6.4 $\sigma$,
respectively. By comparing the masses of the $\eta(\eta^{\prime})$ family,
it is possible to take $\eta'(3^1S_0)$ and $\eta'(4^1S_0)$ as the candidates of
$X(2120)$ and $X(2370)$. Because of their large masses, many strong decays
modes are allowed. In Figs.~\ref{fig4} and \ref{fig5}, the partial widths of
their strong decays are shown. For $\eta'(3^1S_0)$ with
$R_A$ =3.7-5.6 GeV$^{-1}$ and for $\eta'(4^1S_0)$ with $R_A$ =4.6-7.5 GeV$^{-1}$,
the decay widths are much higher than the experimental data of BESIII.
Because both $X_n$ and $X_s$ have contributions to the state $n\bar{s}s\bar{n}$,
the partial width of the strong decay to two isospin I=$\frac{1}{2}$ mesons is
generally much larger that to two isospin 1 or 0 mesons.
$\eta'(3^1S_0)$ have large partial to $KK^*_0$ and $KK^*$.
And the main decay modes of $\eta'(4^1S_0)$ are $KK^*$, $KK_1(1352)$,
$KK^*_0(1430)$, $KK^*_0(1950)$.
If we describe $X(2120)$ and $X(2370)$ as $\eta'(3^1S_0)$ and
$\eta'(4^1S_0)$ respectively with parameters in this work , it is not appropriate
obviously.
\end{multicols}
\ruleup
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=16cm]{4setap.eps}
\figcaption{The possible strong decay of the $\eta'(4^1S_0)$\label{fig5}}
\end{center}
\ruledown
\begin{multicols}{2}
\section{summary and discussions}
By using chiral quark model, the mass spectrum of $\eta(\eta^{\prime})$ family
are calculated, where the mixing between $(u\bar{u}+d\bar{d})/\sqrt(2)$ and
$s\bar{s}$ is determined by system dynamics, $K$-meson exchange.
Based on the mass spectrum, the possible candidates of
four $J^{PC}I^G=0^{-+}0^+$ mesons, $\eta(1760)$, $X(1835)$, $X(2120)$ and
$X(2370)$ are assigned to $\eta'(2^1S_0)$, $\eta(4^1S_0)$, $\eta^{\prime}(3^1S_0)$,
$\eta^{\prime}(4^1S_0)$. Furthermore, all kinematically allowed two-body strong
decays of them can calculated in the framework of the $^3P_0$ model.
The wavefunctions needed in the calculation are obtained from the mass calculation.
To simplify the calculation, the SHO wavefunctions are used to mimic the real
wavefunctions.
The decay widths turn out to be strongly dependent on the SHO wave function scale
parameter $\beta$. For $\eta(1760)$, the width is larger than the result of
\cite{DM22} and is compatible with the results of BES observation~\cite{BESII}
in the $R_A$ range. However the partial width to $\omega\omega$ is too small,
which it is incompatible with experimental date~\cite{MARKIII1,DM22,BESII}.
So the assignment of $eta(1760)$ to $\eta(2S)$ is disfavored in the present
calculation. For the state $X(1835)$, the calculated decay width is consistent
with experiment data, and $\pi a_0(980)$ and $\pi a_0(1450)$ are the main
decay modes. To justify this assignment, the experimental investigation of
the $\pi a_0(980)$ and $\pi a_0(1450)$ decay modes of $X(1835)$ is needed.
Sine $X(1835)$ is around the threshold of $p\bar{p}$, it may be the the
mixture of $q\bar{q}$ and baryonium. Further study of the state $X(1835)$
by taking into account of the mixture is essential to understand the
nature of the state.
$X(2120)$ and $X(2370)$ are assigned to $\eta^{\prime}(3^1S_0)$ and
$\eta^{\prime}(4^1S_0)$ respectively. Since they have larger masses,
many strong decays modes are allowed and have a large phase space
to some modes. The total decay widths are much higher than the
experimental values. The large decay width may de due to the
overestimated value of $\gamma$. To exclude the impact of parameters,
the branching ratio is better to justify the assignment. More experimental
data are needed. Since the lattice QCD predicts the
$0^{-+}$ glueball is about 2.3$\sim$2.6 GeV, which is around the
masses of $X(2120)$ and $X(2370)$, the study with the mixture of
$q\bar{q}$, glueball and other configurations are necessary to
understand the nature of $X(2120)$ and $X(2370)$ states.
\vspace{2mm}
|
\section{Introdunction}
Mixtures of ultracold bosonic and fermionic atoms have attracted intensive
studies both experimentally and theoretically \cite{Hulet,BF_exp,Fukuhara}.
By loading cold atoms in one-dimensional (1D) waveguides and tuning the
effective interactions by Feshbach resonance, it is possible to simulate
striking quantum many-body phenomena in 1D strongly correlated systems in
the whole regime of interaction strength \cite{Olshanii,Gorlitz,Moritz}. The
exquisite tunability with ultracold atoms confined to low dimensions has
provided unprecedented opportunities for investigating and testing the
theory of exactly solvable many-body systems \cit
{Paredes,Kinoshita,Amerongen,Haller,Liao}. These include remarkable
experimental progresses in the realization of Tonks-Girardeau gas \cit
{Paredes,Kinoshita}, super-Tonks-Girardeau gas \cite{Haller}, Yang-Yang
thermodynamics for ultra-cold Bose gas of $^{87}$Rb \cite{Amerongen}, and
the exotic density profiles of the attractive Fermi gas in an harmonic trap
\cite{Liao}. The current experimental progresses are capable of simulating
1D Bose-Fermi mixtures.
Recently, various theoretical methods have been used to study quantum phases
and correlations of the 1D Bose-Fermi mixtures, such as the mean-field
approach \cite{Das} and Tomonaga-Luttinger liquid (TLL) theory \cit
{Cazalilla,Mathey}, etc. The 1D Bose-Fermi mixture with equal masses of
bosons and fermions and with the same strength of delta-function interaction
between boson-boson and boson-fermion is exactly solvable \cite{Lai}. This
model has been attracted a renewed interest \cit
{Imambekov,Batchelor,Frahm,Yin} due to the experimental progress with cold
atomic systems.
Particular theoretical interest has been paid to the ground-state properties
at zero temperature \cite{Imambekov,Batchelor,Frahm}. However, there are
very few studies on the thermodynamics and quantum critical phenomena of the
model. In review of the realistic cold atomic systems trapped in external
potentials at finite temperatures, it is significantly important to
understand how to unambiguously determine the zero temperature phase diagram
from the knowledge of finite temperature quantities of trapped gases. In the
1D mixture of quantum gases, true quantum phase transitions occur as the
driving parameters vary across the phase boundaries at zero temperature,
such as chemical potential, magnetic field and densities, etc. In
particular, 1D quantum critical phenomena associated with quantum phase
transitions at zero temperature give physical origin of quantum criticality
\cite{Fisher,Sachdev} and provide an insight into understanding of universal
scaling behaviour of thermodynamical properties in quantum critical regimes
\cite{Zhou,Cai,Guan,GuanJPA}. By using the universal scaling functions, it
has been demonstrated that the zero-temperature phase diagrams of various
systems can be mapped out from the finite-temperature density profiles \cit
{Zhou,Wang,Guan}. Most recently, the high-resolution imaging techniques have
allowed to measure the density profiles and density fluctuations of the
trapped atomic gases very precisely \cite{Ho,Chin,Greiner,Sherson,Huang} and
thus provide essential tools to study quantum phase transitions and quantum
criticality.
In general, quantum fluctuations are strongly coupled with thermal
fluctuations in the quantum critical regime. Therefore, quantum criticality
is among the most challenging problems in condensed matter physics. In order
to extract correct universal scaling functions which control proper thermal
and quantum fluctuations at quantum criticality, high precision of finite
temperature thermodynamics is desirable. Usually, accessing to the
thermodynamic properties of integrable models at finite temperatures is
notoriously difficult and presents a formidable challenge in theoretical and
mathematical physics. In the present paper, we analytically determine the
zero temperature phase diagram of the integrable Bose-Fermi mixture. We
further derive equation of state and explore universal scaling behaviour of
thermodynamical properties at quantum criticality using the thermodynamical
Bethe ansatz (TBA) equations. Using exact analytical result obtained, we
also demonstrate that the zero temperature phase diagram and quantum
criticality can be mapped out from finite temperature density profiles of
the trapped gas within the local density approximation.
The paper is organized as follows. In section \ref{Section2}, we present the
TBA equations for the model and analytically determine the phase diagram of
the Bose-Fermi mixture at zero temperature. In section \ref{Section3}, we
derive equation of state and explore the universal scaling behavior of the
density and compressibility near the critical points. In section \re
{Section4}, the quantum criticality of the gas in an harmonic trap is
studied within the local density approximation. A conclusion is presented in
the section \ref{Section5}.
\section{Model and phase diagram at zero temperature}
\label{Section2}
We consider a 1D interacting Bose-Fermi mixture described by the Hamiltonian
\begin{align}
\hat{H}& =\int_{0}^{L}dx\left( \frac{\hbar ^{2}}{2m_{b}}\partial _{x}\Psi
_{b}^{\dag }\partial _{x}\Psi _{b}+\frac{\hbar ^{2}}{2m_{f}}\partial
_{x}\Psi _{f}^{\dag }\partial _{x}\Psi _{f} + \right. \notag \\
& \left. \frac{g_{bb}}{2} \Psi _{b}^{\dag }\Psi _{b}^{\dag }\Psi _{b}\Psi
_{b}+g_{bf}\Psi _{b}^{\dag }\Psi _{f}^{\dag }\Psi _{f}\Psi _{b} - \mu_f \Psi
_{f}^{\dag }\Psi _{f} - \mu_b \Psi _{b}^{\dag }\Psi _{b}\right) ,
\label{H_second form}
\end{align
where $\Psi _{b}$, $\Psi _{f}$ are boson and fermion field operators, $m_{b}
, $m_{f}$ are the masses, $\mu_{b}$, $\mu_{f}$ are chemical potentials of
bosons and fermions, and $g_{bb}$, $g_{bf}$ are boson-boson and
boson-fermion interaction strengths, respectively. Here we consider the
fully-polarized fermions, therefore, the Pauli principle excludes their
s-wave interaction ($g_{ff}=0$). This model is exactly solvable \cit
{Lai,Imambekov} for equal masses and equal boson-boson and boson-fermion
interaction strengths, i.e., $m_{b}=m_{f}=m$ and $g_{bb}=g_{bf}=g$. For our
convenience, we assume $\hbar =2m=1$. The first quantization form of the
exactly solvable Hamiltonian (\ref{H_second form}) can be written as
\begin{equation}
\hat{H}=-\sum_{i=1}^{N}\frac{\partial ^{2}}{\partial x_{i}^{2}}+2c\sum_{i<j}
\delta \left( x_{i}-x_{j}\right) - \mu N - \frac{H}{2}\left(N_f -N_b \right)
\label{H_first quantization}
\end{equation
with $c=mg/\hbar ^{2}$. Here the particle number $N=N_{b}+N_{f}$ with $N_{b}$
bosons and $N_{f}$ fermions. The chemical potential $\mu $ and the effective
magnetic field $H$ are defined as $\mu = \left( \mu _{f}+\mu _{b}\right) /2$
and $H=$ $\mu _{f}-\mu _{b}$.
The many-body wave function is supposed to be symmetric with respect to
indices $i=\left\{ 1,2,...,N_{b}\right\} $ (bosons) and antisymmetric with
respect to $\left\{ N_{b}+1,N_{b}+2,...,N_{f}\right\} $ (fermions). Thus the
$N$-body wave function can be written as $N!\times N!$ superpositions of
individual plane waves associated with $N$ quasi-momenta $k_i$ with
i=1,\ldots, N$ by means of the Bethe ansatz \cite{Lai,Imambekov}.
The spectrum of the system is given by $E=\sum_{i=1}^{N}k_{i}^{2}$, where
the quasi-momenta $k_{i}$ is subject to the so-called Bethe ansatz equations
(BAEs) \cite{Lai,Imambekov}. In thermodynamic limits, i.e. $N\rightarrow
\infty ,L\rightarrow \infty $ and $N/L$ is finite, and at finite
temperatures, the equilibrium states become degenerate. Yang and Yang \cit
{Yang} showed that true physical states in integrable systems can be
determined from the minimization conditions of Gibbs free energy subject to
the Bethe ansatz equations. Accordingly, in the thermodynamics limit with
N_{b}/L$ and $N_{f}/L$ fixed, minimization of the Gibbs free energy gives
rise to the following nonlinear integral equations \cite{Yin}, i.e., the TBA
equations for the integrable Bose-Fermi mixture: ($k_{B}=1$)
\begin{align}
& \epsilon \left( k\right) =k^{2}-\mu _{f} \notag \\
& -T\int_{-\infty }^{\infty }a_{1}\left( \Lambda -k\right) \ln \left( 1+\exp
\left( -\varphi \left( \Lambda \right) /T\right) \right) d\Lambda , \notag
\\
& \varphi \left( \Lambda \right) =\mu _{f}-\mu _{b} \notag \\
& -T\int_{-\infty }^{\infty }a_{1}\left( k-\Lambda \right) \ln \left( 1+\exp
\left( -\epsilon \left( k\right) /T\right) \right) dk, \label{TBA_nonlinear}
\end{align
where $a_{\ell }\left( x\right) =\frac{1}{2\pi }\frac{\ell c}{(\ell
c)^{2}/4+x^{2}}$. For fixed temperature $T$ and chemical potential $\mu _{f}
, $\mu _{b}$, the pressure is given by
\begin{equation}
p=\frac{T}{2\pi }\int_{-\infty }^{\infty }\ln \left( 1+\exp \left( -\frac
\epsilon \left( k\right) }{T}\right) \right) dk. \label{energy}
\end{equation
The particle density and compressibility for fermions and bosons, and the
entropy per length can be obtained from
\begin{eqnarray}
n_{i} &\equiv &N_{i}/L=\partial p/\partial \mu _{i},\text{ \ }i=f,b
\label{particle_density} \\
\kappa _{i} &\equiv &\partial n_{i}/\partial \mu ,\text{ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
i=f,b \\
S/L &\equiv &\partial p/\partial T.\text{ \ \ }
\end{eqnarray
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{fig1.eps}
\caption{(Color online) Phase diagram in $\protect\mu -H$ plane. Three
distinguished phases are resulted from varying the chemical potential and
magnetic field, i.e. pure boson phase for $H<0$ and $\protect\mu >H/2$; pure
fermion phase below the phase boundary (\protect\ref{boundary}) in the
region $\protect\mu >-H/2$; and the mixture of bosons and fermions above the
phase boundary (\protect\ref{boundary}) in the region $H>0$. }
\label{f1}
\end{figure}
The phase diagram of the Bose-Fermi mixture can be analytically determined
from the TBA equations (\ref{TBA_nonlinear}) in the zero temperature limit.
As shown in Fig. \ref{f1}, the phase diagram consists of three quantum
phases: pure bosons, pure fermions and the mixture of bosons and fermions
except the vacuum, which are separated by four boundary lines with condition
$n_{f}=0$ or $n_{b}=0$. In order to obtain the full phase diagram of the
Bose-Fermi mixture, we introduce two sets of the TBA equations with
different reference states \cite{Li}. The TBA equations based on the
fermionic reference state determine the two boundary lines for $H>0$,
whereas the TBA equations based on the bosonic reference state determine the
two boundary lines for $H\le0$.
In the limit $T\rightarrow 0$, the TBA equations (\ref{TBA_nonlinear}) based
on the fermionic reference state reduce to
\begin{align}
& \epsilon \left( k\right) =k^{2}-\mu _{f}+\int_{-\Lambda _{F}}^{\Lambda
_{F}}a_{1}\left( \Lambda -k\right) \varphi ^{-}\left( \Lambda \right)
d\Lambda , \notag \\
& \varphi \left( \Lambda \right) =\mu _{f}-\mu
_{b}+\int_{-k_{F}}^{k_{F}}a_{1}\left( k-\Lambda \right) \epsilon ^{-}\left(
k\right) dk, \label{TBA_zero}
\end{align
where the dressed energies $\epsilon ^{-}(k)$ and $\varphi ^{-}(\Lambda )$
correspond to the occupied states for $k\in \lbrack -k_{F},k_{F}]$ and
\Lambda \in \lbrack -\Lambda _{F},\Lambda _{F}]$, respectively. The positive
parts of the dressed energies $\epsilon (k)$ and $\varphi (\Lambda )$
corresponds to the unoccupied states. The integration boundaries $k_{F}$ and
$\Lambda _{F}$ characterize the Fermi points with the conditions $\epsilon
^{-}\left( \pm k_{F}\right) =\varphi ^{-}\left( \pm \Lambda _{F}\right) =0$.
The pressure is given by
\begin{equation}
p=-\frac{1}{2\pi }\int_{-k_{F}}^{k_{F}}\epsilon ^{-}\left( k\right) dk
\end{equation
at zero temperature. We calculate the particle densities through the
relations (\ref{particle_density}). Nevertheless, the boundary lines, which
correspond to $n_{f}=0$ or $n_{b}=0$, can be determined by analyzing the
dressed energy at the point $k_{F}=0$ or $\Lambda _{F}=0$.
For a pure fermion state, $\varphi \left( \Lambda \right) $ is
gapfull, i.e.
$\varphi \left( \Lambda \right) >0 $. Thus the TBA equations (\ref{TBA_zero
) reduce to the free fermion potential $\epsilon \left( k\right) =k^{2}-\mu
_{f}$. The phase boundaries for the phase transitions from vacuum into the
pure fermion state and from pure fermion state into the mixture of bosons
and fermions are determined by
\begin{eqnarray}
\epsilon ^{-}\left( 0\right) &\leq &0, \label{fermion-1} \\
\varphi ^{-}\left( 0\right) &\leq &0 \label{boson-2}
\end{eqnarray
respectively. From the condition (\ref{fermion-1}), we obtain the phase
boundary for pure fermions $\mu _{f}\geq 0$, or equivalently $\mu \geq -H/2$.
From the conditions (\ref{boson-2}) and $\epsilon \left( k\right) =k^{2}-\mu
_{f}$, we obtain the phase boundary
\begin{equation}
\tilde{H}\leq \frac{1}{2\pi }\left[ \left( 4\tilde{\mu}_{f}\allowbreak
+1\right) \arctan \sqrt{4\tilde{\mu}_{f}}-\allowbreak \sqrt{4\tilde{\mu}_{f}
\right] \label{boundary}
\end{equation
for the coexistence of bosons and fermions. Here we used the dimensionless
units $\tilde{H}\equiv H/\varepsilon _{0}$ and $\tilde{\mu}_{f}\equiv \mu
_{f}/\varepsilon _{0}$ with $\varepsilon _{0}=c^{2}$. For strong coupling
regime, i.e. $\mu _{f}\ll \varepsilon _{0}$, or $H\ll \varepsilon _{0}$, we
find phase boundary condition (\ref{boundary}) reduces to
\begin{equation}
\tilde{\mu}\geq \frac{1}{4}\left( \left( 3\pi \tilde{H}\right) ^{2/3}\left(
1+\frac{2}{15}\left( 3\pi \tilde{H}\right) ^{2/3}\right) -2\tilde{H}\right)
\end{equation
with $\tilde{\mu}\equiv \mu /\varepsilon _{0}$. For weak coupling regime,
i.e. $\mu _{f}\ll \varepsilon _{0}$, or $H\gg \varepsilon _{0}$, the phase
boundary condition becomes
\begin{equation}
\tilde{\mu}\geq \frac{\tilde{H}}{2}+\frac{2}{\pi }\sqrt{\tilde{H}}-\frac{1}{
}\left( 1-\frac{8}{\pi ^{2}}\right) .
\end{equation}
On the other hand, at zero temperature, the TBA equations with the Bose
state as the reference state is given by \cite{Li}
\begin{eqnarray}
\epsilon \left( k\right) &=&k^{2}-\mu _{b}+\int_{-k_{F}}^{k_{F}}a_{2}\left(
k-k^{\prime }\right) \epsilon ^{-}\left( k^{\prime }\right) dk^{\prime }
\notag \\
&&+\left( \int_{-\infty }^{-\Lambda _{F}}+\int_{\Lambda _{F}}^{\infty
}\right) a_{1}\left( k-\Lambda \right) \varphi ^{-}\left( \Lambda \right)
d\Lambda \notag \\
\varphi \left( \Lambda \right) &=&\mu _{b}-\mu
_{f}-\int_{-k_{F}}^{k_{F}}a_{1}\left( k-\Lambda \right) \epsilon ^{-}\left(
k\right) dk \label{TBA_zero2}
\end{eqnarray
with the Fermi points $\epsilon ^{-}\left( \pm k_{F}\right) =\varphi
^{-}\left( \pm \Lambda _{F}\right) =0$. Similarly, the dressed energies
\epsilon^-(k)$ and $\varphi^-(\Lambda)$ correspond to the occupied states
for $k\in \lbrack -k_{F},k_{F}]$ and $\Lambda \in \lbrack -\Lambda
_{F},\Lambda _{F}]$, respectively. We see that for the Bose reference state
the fully-polarized fermions provide a ferromagnetic ordering at the ground
state. If $H<0$, i.e. $\mu_f< \mu_b$, the dressed energy $\varphi (\Lambda) $
is greater than zero. The dressed energy $\varphi$ is gapful. Thus the
ground state is a pure boson state. Therefore, for $H<0$, the TBA equations
\ref{TBA_zero2}) reduce to Yang-Yang thermodynamics equations for the
Lieb-Liniger Bose gas \cite{Yang}
\begin{equation*}
\epsilon \left( k\right) =k^{2}-\mu _{b}+\int_{-k_{F}}^{k_{F}}a_{2}\left(
k-k^{\prime }\right) \epsilon ^{-}\left( k^{\prime }\right) dk^{\prime }
\end{equation*
from which we easily determine the phase boundary for the phase transition
from vacuum into the pure boson state, i.e., $\mu \geq H/2$, see Figure \re
{f1}.
\section{Equation of state and universal scalings}
\label{Section3} \bigskip
Recent experiments on quantum criticality of ultracold atoms \cit
{Chin,Huang} and theoretical scheme of mapping out quantum
criticality of cold atoms \cite{Zhou,Cai,Guan,GuanJPA} open the
possibility to explore such universal behavior in low dimensional
multi-component interacting Fermi and Bose gases. As the
temperature is tuned over the crossover temperatures the scaling
functions of thermodynamical properties give rise to universal
behavior which entirely depends on the symmetry of excitation
spectrum and dimensionality of the system. This gives a promising
way to explore the hidden symmetry of these models, for example,
the quantum Ising model with transverse file displays emergent E8
symmetry \cite{Exp8}. In the critical regime, the thermodynamic
functions of the homogeneous gas can be cast into some universal
scaling forms \cite{Fisher,Sachdev}. For example, the density and
compressibility near the critical point $\mu =\mu _{c}$ can be
written as
\begin{equation}
n\left( T,\mu \right) =n_{0}+T^{\frac{d}{z}+1-\frac{1}{\nu z}}\mathcal{G
\left( \frac{\mu -\mu _{c}}{T^{\frac{1}{\nu z}}}\right) , \label{us1}
\end{equation
\begin{equation}
\kappa \left( T,\mu \right) =\kappa _{0}+T^{\frac{d}{z}+1-\frac{2}{\nu z}
\mathcal{F}\left( \frac{\mu -\mu _{c}}{T^{\frac{1}{\nu z}}}\right) .
\label{us2}
\end{equation
Here $n_{0}$ ($\kappa _{0}$ )is the regular part of the density
(compressibility) induced from the background, $\mathcal{G}$ ($\mathcal{F}$)
is a universal scaling function describing the singular part of the density
(compressibility) near the critical point $\mu _{c}$, $d$ is the
dimensionality of the system, $z$ is the dynamical critical exponent and
\nu $ is the correlation length exponent. From the above relation, the
dimensionless universal scaling functions $\mathcal{G}(\frac{\mu -\mu _{c}}
T^{\nu z}})$ and $\mathcal{F}(\frac{\mu -\mu _{c}}{T^{\nu z}})$ display
universal scaling behaviour near the critical point of $\mu =\mu _{c}$, i.e.
the density(compressibility) curves with a subtraction of the background
density (compressibility) intersect at the critical point for different
temperatures. This feature can be used to detect the phase boundaries at
zero temperature from finite temperature density profiles of the trapped gas.
Before discussing the universal scaling behavior of the Bose-Fermi mixture,
we will discuss quantum criticality of several simple examples. The simplest
example is the 1D ideal Fermi gas. The ideal Fermi gas obeys the Fermi-Dirac
distribution, it is easy to derive the density distribution for free
fermions $n_{f}(T,\mu )=-\sqrt{T}/\left( 2\sqrt{\pi }\right) Li_{1/2}\left(
-\exp \left( \frac{\mu _{f}}{T}\right) \right) $, where $Li_{n}\left(
x\right) =\sum_{l=1}^{\infty }x^{l}/l^{n}$ is the standard polylogarithm
function. In comparison with the universal scaling Eq.(\ref{us1}), the
critical exponent $z=2$ and the correlation length exponent $\nu =1/2$ with
the dimensionality $d=1$ can be read off the universal scaling form. Here
the scaling function is $\mathcal{G}\left( x\right) =-1/\left( 2\sqrt{\pi
\right) Li_{1/2}\left( -\exp \left( x\right) \right) $. There is no
background density for the vacuum-Fermi-gas transition, i.e. $n_{0}=0$,
where the critical point $\mu _{c}=0$. It was also shown that $d=1$, $z=2$
and $\nu =1/2$ for the vacuum into the TLL phase transition in the 1D
hard-core bosons \cite{Zhou}, the 1D attractive Fermi gas \cite{Guan} and
the 1D interacting Bose gas with strongly repulsive interactions \cit
{GuanJPA}.
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\includegraphics[width=1.10\linewidth]{fig2.eps}
\caption{(Color online) Contour plot of entropy $S$ vs chemical potential
from the TBA (\protect\ref{TBA_nonlinear}): quantum criticality driven by
chemical potential for $H=0.1\protect\varepsilon _{0}$. The crossover
temperatures (white squares and triangles) separating Vacuum, $TLL_{F}$ and
TLL_{M}$ from the quantum critical regimes are determined from the breakdown
of linear temperature-dependent entropy from (\protect\ref{LL}). Here the
TLL_{F}$ stands for the TLL of fermions where exponentially small number of
bosons are populated at finite temperatures. Whereas $TTL_{M}$ denotes the
TLL of the mixture. The vacuum evolves into a quasi-classical regime at
finite temperature. }
\label{fig:S}
\end{figure}
In order to investigate the quantum critical behavior in the vicinity of
phase boundary between the phase of a mixture of bosons and fermions and the
phase of the fully-polarized fermions, we will derive the equation of state
from the TBA equations (\ref{TBA_nonlinear}). For strong interacting regime,
i.e. $c\gg 1$, or $T/\varepsilon _{0}\gg 1$, we can rewrite the TBA
equations (\ref{TBA_nonlinear})
\begin{eqnarray}
\epsilon \left( k\right) &\approx &k^{2}/\beta -A \label{TBA_large} \\
\varphi \left( \Lambda \right) &=&\mu _{f}-\mu _{b}-\frac{4pc}
c^{2}+4\Lambda ^{2}}+\frac{4c\left( 4c^{2}-48\Lambda ^{2}\right) p_{2}}
\left( c^{2}+4\Lambda ^{2}\right) ^{3}}, \notag
\end{eqnarray
where
\begin{eqnarray}
A &\approx &\mu _{f}+T\int_{-\infty }^{\infty }a_{1}\left( \Lambda \right)
\ln \left( 1+\exp \left( -\frac{\varphi \left( \Lambda \right) }{T}\right)
\right) d\Lambda , \notag \\
\beta &=&1-\frac{2Tc}{\pi }\int_{-\infty }^{\infty }\frac{4c^{2}-48\Lambda
^{2}}{\left( c^{2}+4\Lambda ^{2}\right) ^{3}}\ln \left( 1+e^{-\frac{\varphi
(\Lambda )}{T}}\right) d\Lambda , \notag \\
p_{2} &=&-\frac{\beta T^{2}}{4\sqrt{\pi }}\mathrm{Li}_{\frac{5}{2}}\left(
-e^{\frac{A}{T}}\right) . \label{p2}
\end{eqnarray
With the help of these relations, the pressure (\ref{energy}) can be
calculated in a straightforward way
\begin{equation}
p=-\sqrt{\frac{\beta }{4\pi }}T^{\frac{3}{2}}\mathrm{Li}_{\frac{3}{2}}\left(
-e^{\frac{A}{T}}\right) \label{P}
\end{equation
that serves as the equation of state of the model with strong repulsion. The
thermodynamical properties can be obtained from the usual thermodynamical
relations. This analytical equation of state (\ref{P}) essentially cover the
universal TLL thermodynamics and encode the critical exponents in the
critical regimes.
At very low temperatures, i.e. $T\ll \varepsilon _{0}$, the thermodynamics
of the model is governed by the TLL physics associated with a linear
dispersion. In the mixed phase of bosons and fermions, the low energy
physics belongs to a universality class of a two-component TLL \cit
{Frahm,Batchelor}. In this low temperature limit, we further calculate the
pressure
\begin{equation*}
p\approx \frac{2A^{3/2}}{3\pi }\left( 1+\frac{\pi ^{2}}{8}\frac{T^{2}}{A^{2}
\right) ,
\end{equation*
where
\begin{eqnarray}
A &\approx &\mu +\frac{H}{2}-\frac{4}{\pi }\left( \frac{H}{2}-\frac{p}{c
\right) \tan ^{-1}\frac{2\Lambda _{0}}{c} \notag \\
&&+\frac{2H\Lambda _{0}}{\pi c}+\frac{c\pi T^{2}}{12H\Lambda _{0}}
\end{eqnarray
with $\Lambda _{0}=c\sqrt{\frac{p}{Hc}-\frac{1}{4}}$. After a lengthy
algebra, we find a universal leading order of temperature corrections to the
free energy
\begin{equation}
F=E_{0}-\frac{\pi CT^{2}}{6}\left( \frac{1}{v_{b}}+\frac{1}{v_{f}}\right) ,
\label{LL}
\end{equation
where the two velocities in strong repulsive regime are given by
\begin{eqnarray}
v_{s} &=&\frac{4\pi ^{2}n}{3\gamma }\sin (\pi \alpha ), \notag \\
v_{f} &=&2\pi n\left( 1-\frac{4}{\gamma }\left( \pi \alpha +\sin (\pi \alpha
)\right) \right) .
\end{eqnarray
The parameter $\alpha $ is determined by the relation $\alpha \approx
n_{b}/n $ for a small $H\ll 1$. The ground state energy is given by
\begin{equation}
E=\frac{1}{3}n^{3}\pi ^{2}\left( 1-\frac{4}{\gamma }\left( \frac{1}{2}+\frac
\sin (\pi \alpha )}{\pi }+(\frac{1}{2}-\alpha )\cos (\pi \alpha )\right)
\right) .
\end{equation}
The TLL is maintained under a crossover temperature at which the linear
temperature-dependent entropy breaks down, see Fig. \ref{fig:S}. The exact
analytic expression of thermodynamic functions (\ref{LL}) from the usual TLL
description is only accurate for a limited range of temperatures and
density. However, the TLL description is incapable of describing quantum
criticality for it does not contain the right fluctuations in the critical
regime. The equation of state (\ref{P}) contains proper universal scaling
functions which control full thermodynamical properties in the quantum
critical regimes. Near critical point, the thermal dynamical properties can
be cased into universal scaling forms, for example, (\ref{us1}) and (\re
{us2}). There exists no longer free fermions in the $TLL_{F}$ phase in Fig
\ref{fig:S} due to the presence of exponentially small number of bosons at
finite temperatures. They behave like a TTL for temperatures below the
crossover temperatures (white triangles and squares). The $TLL_{M}$ stands
for a two-component TLL of the mixture of bosons and fermions described by
\ref{LL}).
It is straightforward to work out the critical exponents for the
phase transition from vacuum into the the free fermions and into
the Bose gas phase i.e. $d=1$, $z=2$ and $\nu =1/2$, see
\cite{Zhou,Guan,GuanJPA}. Using the TBA equations
(\ref{TBA_nonlinear}), we verify the scaling behavior of the
mixture for the phase transitions from vacuum into the pure Bose
state
in figure \ref{f2} and from vacuum into the pure Fermi state in figure \re
{f3}. We see that both the density and compressibility at different
temperatures intersect at the critical point. For both cases, the
compressibility always evolves a round peak as temperature decreases. This
indicates the density of state changes when the phase transition occurs. As
the temperature approaches the limit $T\rightarrow 0$, the compressibility
tends to divergence.
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{fig3.eps}
\caption{(Color online) The density $n_{b}$ and compressibility $\protec
\kappa _{b}$ vs chemical potential $\protect\mu $ for $H/\protect\varepsilon
_{0}=-1$ at different temperatures. The curves intersect at the critical
point $\protect\mu =H/2$, i.e. the phase boundary between the pure boson
phase and the vacuum. Here $t=T/\protect\varepsilon _{0}$.}
\label{f2}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{fig4.eps}
\caption{(Color online) The density $n_{f}$ and compressibility $\protec
\kappa _{f}$ vs chemical potential $\protect\mu $ for $H/\protect\varepsilon
_{0}=1$ at different temperatures. The curves intersect at the critical
point $\protect\mu =-H/2$, i.e. the phase boundary between the pure fermion
phase and the vacuum. Here $t=T/\protect\varepsilon _{0}$.}
\label{f3}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{fig5.eps}
\caption{(Color online) The density $n_{b}$ and compressibility $\protec
\kappa_{b}$ vs chemical potential $\protect\mu $ for $H/\protect\varepsilon
_{0}=1$ at different temperatures. In this setting, the intersection nature
can map out the zero temperature phase boundary for the phase transition
from the free fermions into the mixture of bosons and fermions. Here $t=T
\protect\varepsilon _{0}$. }
\label{f4}
\end{figure}
Comparing the density, which is numerically obtained from the pressure (\re
{energy}), with the universal scaling form of Eq.(\ref{us1}), we can extract
the critical exponent $z=2$ and the correlation length exponent $\nu =1/2$
with the dimensionality $d=1$. Here we numerically demonstrate the universal
scaling behavior of the mixture of bosons and fermions in Figs \ref{f2},
\ref{f3} and \ref{f4}. For practical convenience, here we have chosen the
density of bosons $n_{b}$ to demonstrate the intersections for the phase
transitions from vacuum into the phase of pure bosons and from the phase of
fermions into the mixture, where $n_{b}$ does not have a background near the
transition points, see Figs. \ref{f2}, and \ref{f4}. For a fixed effective
magnetic field $H$, we see that by a proper temperature scaling the density
curves $n_{b}(T)/\sqrt{T}$ at different temperatures intersect at the points
$\mu _{c}$. In the Fig. \ref{f4}, we display the scaled density
distributions for different temperatures by numerically solving the TBA
equations (\ref{TBA_nonlinear})-(\ref{particle_density}). It is also seen
that the compressibility curves at different temperatures intersect at the
critical point $\mu _{c}$. The compressibility tends to divergent as the
temperature tends to zero. It evolves to a round peak at low temperature due
to the change of the density of states around the critical points. The
quantum criticality near the critical points associating the phase
transitions from vacuum into the phase of pure bosons and the phase of pure
fermions reveals a subtle difference in thermodynamical properties, see Figs
\ref{f2} and \ref{f4}.
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{fig6.eps}
\caption{(Color online) The density distribution at different temperatures
with $N^{t}a_{1D}^{2}/a^{2}=1$ and $\protect\alpha =0.5$ .}
\label{f5}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{fig7.eps}
\caption{(Color online) The densities $n_{b}$ and $n_{f}$\ vs normalized
position for $Na_{1D}^{2}/a^{2}=1$ and $\protect\alpha =0.5$ at different
temperatures. The density curves intersect at the critical point that maps
out the phase boundaries of the trapped gas. Here $t=T/\protect\varepsilon
_{0}$.}
\label{f6}
\end{figure}
\section{Quantum criticality in the harmonic trap}
\label{Section4} In experiment with cold atoms, the 1D quantum gas is
realized by tightly confining the atomic cloud in two (radial) dimensions
and weakly confining it along the axial direction in an external harmonic
trap. For the mixture of bosons and fermions in a harmonic trap, we can
calculate its density distribution profiles by evaluating the
thermodynamical dynamics within the local density approximation. According
to the local density approximation, the system reaches local equilibrium in
each small intervals around each point $x$ in the external trap. The density
distribution of the trapped gas is then obtained via the local equation of
state \cite{Imambekov,Dunjko}. Within the local density approximation, the
chemical potentials in the equation of state (\ref{energy}) as well as in
the TBA equations are replaced by the local chemical potentials given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\mu _{b}\left( x\right) &=&\mu _{b}\left( 0\right) -V_{b}\left( x\right) ,
\label{LDA1} \\
\mu _{f}\left( x\right) &=&\mu _{f}\left( 0\right) -V_{f}\left( x\right) .
\label{LDA2}
\end{eqnarray
Here the external potential is defined as $V_{b}\left( x\right) =V_{f}\left(
x\right) =m\omega ^{2}x^{2}/2$ with harmonic frequency $\omega $ and the
characteristic length for the harmonic trap is $a=\sqrt{\hbar /m\omega }$.
For this case, equations (\ref{LDA1}) and (\ref{LDA2}) can be alternatively
represented as
\begin{equation*}
\mu \left( y\right) /\varepsilon _{0}=\mu \left( 0\right) /\varepsilon
_{0}-y^{2}
\end{equation*
for a fixed $H$, where the dimensionless coordinate is given by
y=x/(a^{2}c) $. From the Bethe ansatz equations, the dimensionless density
n_{b}/c$ and $n_{f}/c$ can be obtain for fixed dimensionless chemical
potential $\mu _{b}/\varepsilon _{0}$ and $\mu _{f}/\varepsilon _{0}$.\ The
total particle number $N$ is obtained fro
\begin{equation*}
\frac{Na_{1D}^{2}}{a^{2}}=4\int_{-\infty }^{\infty }\frac{n_{b}\left(
y\right) +n_{f}\left( y\right) }{c}dy
\end{equation*
with the 1D scattering length $a_{1D}=-2/c$. We define a polarization rate
between the Bose particle number and the total particle number $\alpha
\equiv N_{b}/N$. For fixed $\mu \left( 0\right) /\varepsilon _{0}$ and
H/\varepsilon _{0}$, we can calculate $Na_{1D}^{2}/a^{2}$ and
$\alpha $. In the presence of the confined potential, the length
scale of the system at quantum criticality is still much smaller
than the trap size. Therefore, the critical behavior of the
homogeneous gas can be mapped out by the density profiles of gas
at finite temperatures \cite{Zhou}.
We fix $Na_{1D}^{2}/a^{2}$ and $\alpha $ in the trapped gas of the mixture,
the density profiles reveal a universal scaling behavior of the gas. Fig.
\ref{f5}} shows the density profiles of bosons and fermions in the
harmonic trap for $Na_{1D}^{2}/a^{2}=1$ and $\alpha =N_{b}/N=0.5$
at different temperatures. Here we find that bosons and fermions
coexist in the trap center companied by the phase of pure fermions
at the edges. We further demonstrate how to map out the
zero-temperature phase boundaries from the
density profiles of the trapped gas at finite temperatures. In Fig. {\ref{f6
}(a) and (b), we demonstrate the scaled density distributions of bosons and
fermions. It is clearly seen that the scaled density curves for different
temperatures intersect at the critical point of the trapped gas. Thus the
critical point, separating the mixture of bosons and fermions from the phase
of pure fermions, is mapped out. Similarly, the density curves of fermions
intersect at the critical point that maps out the phase boundary for the
phase transition from vacuum into the phase of free fermions.
\section{Conclusion}
\label{Section5} In summary, we have studied the phase diagram,
universal TLL and quantum criticality of the 1D Bose-Fermi mixture
by means of the TBA equations. We have derived the equation of
state and universal TLL thermodynamics of the model for strong
repulsion. We have proved that the low energy physics of the
Bose-Fermi mixture are described by a two-component TTL. Universal
scaling behavior of thermodynamical properties at quantum
criticality provides a physical origin of quantum critical
phenomena. Furthermore, the quantum criticality of the Bose-Fermi
mixture in an harmonic trap has been studied within the local
density approximation. It turns out that the phase diagram and
critical properties of the bulk system can be mapped out from the
density profiles of the trapped mixture gas at finite
temperatures. Our exact results can help with experimental study
of quantum critical phenomena in a 1D harmonic trap.
\textit{Acknowledgments.---} This work was supported by the
National Program for No. 2011CB921700 Basic Research of MOST, NSF
of China under Grants No. 10821403, No. 11174360 and No. 10974234,
and 973 grant. The work of X.-W.G has been partially supported by
the Australian Research Council. YZ is also supported by 973
Program under Grant No. 2011CB921601, and the Program for NCET.
\section{Introdunction}
Mixtures of ultracold bosonic and fermionic atoms have attracted intensive
studies both experimentally and theoretically \cite{Hulet,BF_exp,Fukuhara}.
By loading cold atoms in one-dimensional (1D) waveguides and tuning the
effective interactions by Feshbach resonance, it is possible to simulate
striking quantum many-body phenomena in 1D strongly correlated systems in
the whole regime of interaction strength \cite{Olshanii,Gorlitz,Moritz}. The
exquisite tunability with ultracold atoms confined to low dimensions has
provided unprecedented opportunities for investigating and testing the
theory of exactly solvable many-body systems \cit
{Paredes,Kinoshita,Amerongen,Haller,Liao}. These include remarkable
experimental progresses in the realization of Tonks-Girardeau gas \cit
{Paredes,Kinoshita}, super-Tonks-Girardeau gas \cite{Haller}, Yang-Yang
thermodynamics for ultra-cold Bose gas of $^{87}$Rb \cite{Amerongen}, and
the exotic density profiles of the attractive Fermi gas in an harmonic trap
\cite{Liao}. The current experimental progresses are capable of simulating
1D Bose-Fermi mixtures.
Recently, various theoretical methods have been used to study quantum phases
and correlations of the 1D Bose-Fermi mixtures, such as the mean-field
approach \cite{Das} and Tomonaga-Luttinger liquid (TLL) theory \cit
{Cazalilla,Mathey}, etc. The 1D Bose-Fermi mixture with equal masses of
bosons and fermions and with the same strength of delta-function interaction
between boson-boson and boson-fermion is exactly solvable \cite{Lai}. This
model has been attracted a renewed interest \cit
{Imambekov,Batchelor,Frahm,Yin} due to the experimental progress with cold
atomic systems.
Particular theoretical interest has been paid to the ground-state properties
at zero temperature \cite{Imambekov,Batchelor,Frahm}. However, there are
very few studies on the thermodynamics and quantum critical phenomena of the
model. In review of the realistic cold atomic systems trapped in external
potentials at finite temperatures, it is significantly important to
understand how to unambiguously determine the zero temperature phase diagram
from the knowledge of finite temperature quantities of trapped gases. In the
1D mixture of quantum gases, true quantum phase transitions occur as the
driving parameters vary across the phase boundaries at zero temperature,
such as chemical potential, magnetic field and densities, etc. In
particular, 1D quantum critical phenomena associated with quantum phase
transitions at zero temperature give physical origin of quantum criticality
\cite{Fisher,Sachdev} and provide an insight into understanding of universal
scaling behaviour of thermodynamical properties in quantum critical regimes
\cite{Zhou,Cai,Guan,GuanJPA}. By using the universal scaling functions, it
has been demonstrated that the zero-temperature phase diagrams of various
systems can be mapped out from the finite-temperature density profiles \cit
{Zhou,Wang,Guan}. Most recently, the high-resolution imaging techniques have
allowed to measure the density profiles and density fluctuations of the
trapped atomic gases very precisely \cite{Ho,Chin,Greiner,Sherson,Huang} and
thus provide essential tools to study quantum phase transitions and quantum
criticality.
In general, quantum fluctuations are strongly coupled with thermal
fluctuations in the quantum critical regime. Therefore, quantum criticality
is among the most challenging problems in condensed matter physics. In order
to extract correct universal scaling functions which control proper thermal
and quantum fluctuations at quantum criticality, high precision of finite
temperature thermodynamics is desirable. Usually, accessing to the
thermodynamic properties of integrable models at finite temperatures is
notoriously difficult and presents a formidable challenge in theoretical and
mathematical physics. In the present paper, we analytically determine the
zero temperature phase diagram of the integrable Bose-Fermi mixture. We
further derive equation of state and explore universal scaling behaviour of
thermodynamical properties at quantum criticality using the thermodynamical
Bethe ansatz (TBA) equations. Using exact analytical result obtained, we
also demonstrate that the zero temperature phase diagram and quantum
criticality can be mapped out from finite temperature density profiles of
the trapped gas within the local density approximation.
The paper is organized as follows. In section \ref{Section2}, we present the
TBA equations for the model and analytically determine the phase diagram of
the Bose-Fermi mixture at zero temperature. In section \ref{Section3}, we
derive equation of state and explore the universal scaling behavior of the
density and compressibility near the critical points. In section \re
{Section4}, the quantum criticality of the gas in an harmonic trap is
studied within the local density approximation. A conclusion is presented in
the section \ref{Section5}.
\section{Model and phase diagram at zero temperature}
\label{Section2}
We consider a 1D interacting Bose-Fermi mixture described by the Hamiltonian
\begin{align}
\hat{H}& =\int_{0}^{L}dx\left( \frac{\hbar ^{2}}{2m_{b}}\partial _{x}\Psi
_{b}^{\dag }\partial _{x}\Psi _{b}+\frac{\hbar ^{2}}{2m_{f}}\partial
_{x}\Psi _{f}^{\dag }\partial _{x}\Psi _{f} + \right. \notag \\
& \left. \frac{g_{bb}}{2} \Psi _{b}^{\dag }\Psi _{b}^{\dag }\Psi _{b}\Psi
_{b}+g_{bf}\Psi _{b}^{\dag }\Psi _{f}^{\dag }\Psi _{f}\Psi _{b} - \mu_f \Psi
_{f}^{\dag }\Psi _{f} - \mu_b \Psi _{b}^{\dag }\Psi _{b}\right) ,
\label{H_second form}
\end{align
where $\Psi _{b}$, $\Psi _{f}$ are boson and fermion field operators, $m_{b}
, $m_{f}$ are the masses, $\mu_{b}$, $\mu_{f}$ are chemical potentials of
bosons and fermions, and $g_{bb}$, $g_{bf}$ are boson-boson and
boson-fermion interaction strengths, respectively. Here we consider the
fully-polarized fermions, therefore, the Pauli principle excludes their
s-wave interaction ($g_{ff}=0$). This model is exactly solvable \cit
{Lai,Imambekov} for equal masses and equal boson-boson and boson-fermion
interaction strengths, i.e., $m_{b}=m_{f}=m$ and $g_{bb}=g_{bf}=g$. For our
convenience, we assume $\hbar =2m=1$. The first quantization form of the
exactly solvable Hamiltonian (\ref{H_second form}) can be written as
\begin{equation}
\hat{H}=-\sum_{i=1}^{N}\frac{\partial ^{2}}{\partial x_{i}^{2}}+2c\sum_{i<j}
\delta \left( x_{i}-x_{j}\right) - \mu N - \frac{H}{2}\left(N_f -N_b \right)
\label{H_first quantization}
\end{equation
with $c=mg/\hbar ^{2}$. Here the particle number $N=N_{b}+N_{f}$ with $N_{b}$
bosons and $N_{f}$ fermions. The chemical potential $\mu $ and the effective
magnetic field $H$ are defined as $\mu = \left( \mu _{f}+\mu _{b}\right) /2$
and $H=$ $\mu _{f}-\mu _{b}$.
The many-body wave function is supposed to be symmetric with
respect to indices $i=\left\{ 1,2,...,N_{b}\right\} $ (bosons) and
antisymmetric with respect to $\left\{
N_{b}+1,N_{b}+2,...,N_{f}\right\} $ (fermions). Thus the $N$-body
wave function can be written as $N!\times N!$ superpositions of
individual plane waves associated with $N$ quasi-momenta $k_i$ with
i=1,\ldots, N$ by means of the Bethe ansatz \cite{Lai,Imambekov}.
The spectrum of the system is given by $E=\sum_{i=1}^{N}k_{i}^{2}$, where
the quasi-momenta $k_{i}$ is subject to the so-called Bethe ansatz equations
(BAEs) \cite{Lai,Imambekov}. In thermodynamic limits, i.e. $N\rightarrow
\infty ,L\rightarrow \infty $ and $N/L$ is finite, and at finite
temperatures, the equilibrium states become degenerate. Yang and Yang \cit
{Yang} showed that true physical states in integrable systems can be
determined from the minimization conditions of Gibbs free energy subject to
the Bethe ansatz equations. Accordingly, in the thermodynamics limit with
N_{b}/L$ and $N_{f}/L$ fixed, minimization of the Gibbs free energy gives
rise to the following nonlinear integral equations \cite{Yin}, i.e., the TBA
equations for the integrable Bose-Fermi mixture: ($k_{B}=1$)
\begin{align}
& \epsilon \left( k\right) =k^{2}-\mu _{f} \notag \\
& -T\int_{-\infty }^{\infty }a_{1}\left( \Lambda -k\right) \ln \left( 1+\exp
\left( -\varphi \left( \Lambda \right) /T\right) \right) d\Lambda , \notag
\\
& \varphi \left( \Lambda \right) =\mu _{f}-\mu _{b} \notag \\
& -T\int_{-\infty }^{\infty }a_{1}\left( k-\Lambda \right) \ln \left( 1+\exp
\left( -\epsilon \left( k\right) /T\right) \right) dk, \label{TBA_nonlinear}
\end{align
where $a_{\ell }\left( x\right) =\frac{1}{2\pi }\frac{\ell c}{(\ell
c)^{2}/4+x^{2}}$. For fixed temperature $T$ and chemical potential $\mu _{f}
, $\mu _{b}$, the pressure is given by
\begin{equation}
p=\frac{T}{2\pi }\int_{-\infty }^{\infty }\ln \left( 1+\exp \left( -\frac
\epsilon \left( k\right) }{T}\right) \right) dk. \label{energy}
\end{equation
The particle density for fermions and bosons, the entropy per length, and
compressibility can be obtained from
\begin{eqnarray}
n_{f} &\equiv &N_{f}/L=\partial p/\partial \mu _{f},\text{ \ }n_{b}\equiv
N_{b}/L=\partial p/\partial \mu _{b}, \label{particle_density} \\
S/L &\equiv &\partial p/\partial T,\text{ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ }\kappa \equiv
\partial n/\partial \mu ,
\end{eqnarray
where $n=n_{b}+n_{f}$
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{fig1.eps}
\caption{(Color online) Phase diagram in $\protect\mu -H$ plane. Three
distinguished phases are resulted from varying the chemical potential and
magnetic field, i.e. pure boson phase for $H<0$ and $\protect\mu >H/2$; pure
fermion phase below the phase boundary (\protect\ref{boundary}) in the
region $\protect\mu >-H/2$; and the mixture of bosons and fermions above the
phase boundary (\protect\ref{boundary}) in the region $H>0$. }
\label{f1}
\end{figure}
The phase diagram of the Bose-Fermi mixture can be analytically
determined from the TBA equations (\ref{TBA_nonlinear}) in the
zero temperature limit. As shown in Fig. \ref{f1}, the phase
diagram consists of three quantum phases: pure bosons, pure
fermions and the mixture of bosons and fermions except the vacuum,
which are separated by four boundary lines with condition
$n_{f}=0$ or $n_{b}=0$. In order to obtain the full phase diagram
of the Bose-Fermi mixture, we introduce two sets of the TBA
equations with different reference states \cite{Li}. The TBA
equations based on the fermionic reference state determine the two
boundary lines for $H>0$, whereas the TBA equations based on the
bosonic reference state determine the two boundary lines for $H
\le 0$.
In the limit $T\rightarrow 0$, the TBA equations (\ref{TBA_nonlinear}) based
on the fermionic reference state reduce to
\begin{align}
& \epsilon \left( k\right) =k^{2}-\mu _{f}+\int_{-\Lambda _{F}}^{\Lambda
_{F}}a_{1}\left( \Lambda -k\right) \varphi ^{-}\left( \Lambda \right)
d\Lambda , \notag \\
& \varphi \left( \Lambda \right) =\mu _{f}-\mu
_{b}+\int_{-k_{F}}^{k_{F}}a_{1}\left( k-\Lambda \right) \epsilon ^{-}\left(
k\right) dk, \label{TBA_zero}
\end{align
where the dressed energies $\epsilon ^{-}(k)$ and $\varphi ^{-}(\Lambda )$
correspond to the occupied states for $k\in \lbrack -k_{F},k_{F}]$ and
\Lambda \in \lbrack -\Lambda _{F},\Lambda _{F}]$, respectively. The positive
parts of the dressed energies $\epsilon (k)$ and $\varphi (\Lambda )$
corresponds to the unoccupied states. The integration boundaries $k_{F}$ and
$\Lambda _{F}$ characterize the Fermi points with the conditions $\epsilon
^{-}\left( \pm k_{F}\right) =\varphi ^{-}\left( \pm \Lambda _{F}\right) =0$.
The pressure is given by
\begin{equation}
p=-\frac{1}{2\pi }\int_{-k_{F}}^{k_{F}}\epsilon ^{-}\left( k\right) dk
\end{equation
at zero temperature. We calculate the particle densities through the
relations (\ref{particle_density}). Nevertheless, the boundary lines, which
correspond to $n_{f}=0$ or $n_{b}=0$, can be determined by analyzing the
dressed energy at the point $k_{F}=0$ or $\Lambda _{F}=0$.
For a pure fermion state, $\varphi \left( \Lambda \right) $ is gapfull, i.e.
$\varphi \left( \Lambda \right) >0 $. Thus the TBA equations (\ref{TBA_zero
) reduce to the free fermion potential $\epsilon \left( k\right) =k^{2}-\mu
_{f}$. The phase boundaries for the phase transitions from vacuum into the
pure fermion state and from pure fermion state into the mixture of bosons
and fermions are determined by
\begin{eqnarray}
\epsilon ^{-}\left( 0\right) &\leq &0, \label{fermion-1} \\
\varphi ^{-}\left( 0\right) &\leq &0 \label{boson-2}
\end{eqnarray
respectively. From the condition (\ref{fermion-1}), we obtain the phase
boundary for pure fermions $\mu _{f}\geq 0$, or equivalently $\mu \geq -H/2$.
From the conditions (\ref{boson-2}) and $\epsilon \left( k\right) =k^{2}-\mu
_{f}$, we obtain the phase boundary
\begin{equation}
\tilde{H}\leq \frac{1}{2\pi }\left[ \left( 4\tilde{\mu}_{f}\allowbreak
+1\right) \arctan \sqrt{4\tilde{\mu}_{f}}-\allowbreak \sqrt{4\tilde{\mu}_{f}
\right] \label{boundary}
\end{equation
for the coexistence of bosons and fermions. Here we used the dimensionless
units $\tilde{H}\equiv H/\varepsilon _{0}$ and $\tilde{\mu}_{f}\equiv \mu
_{f}/\varepsilon _{0}$ with $\varepsilon _{0}=c^{2}$. For strong coupling
regime, i.e. $\mu _{f}\ll \varepsilon _{0}$, or $H\ll \varepsilon _{0}$, we
find phase boundary condition (\ref{boundary}) reduces to
\begin{equation}
\tilde{\mu}\geq \frac{1}{4}\left( \left( 3\pi \tilde{H}\right) ^{2/3}\left(
1+\frac{2}{15}\left( 3\pi \tilde{H}\right) ^{2/3}\right) -2\tilde{H}\right)
\end{equation
with $\tilde{\mu}\equiv \mu /\varepsilon _{0}$. For weak coupling regime,
i.e. $\mu _{f}\ll \varepsilon _{0}$, or $H\gg \varepsilon _{0}$, the phase
boundary condition becomes
\begin{equation}
\tilde{\mu}\geq \frac{\tilde{H}}{2}+\frac{2}{\pi }\sqrt{\tilde{H}}-\frac{1}{
}\left( 1-\frac{8}{\pi ^{2}}\right) .
\end{equation}
On the other hand, at zero temperature, the TBA equations with the Bose
state as the reference state is given by \cite{Li}
\begin{eqnarray}
\epsilon \left( k\right) &=&k^{2}-\mu _{b}+\int_{-k_{F}}^{k_{F}}a_{2}\left(
k-k^{\prime }\right) \epsilon ^{-}\left( k^{\prime }\right) dk^{\prime }
\notag \\
&&+\left( \int_{-\infty }^{-\Lambda _{F}}+\int_{\Lambda _{F}}^{\infty
}\right) a_{1}\left( k-\Lambda \right) \varphi ^{-}\left( \Lambda \right)
d\Lambda \notag \\
\varphi \left( \Lambda \right) &=&\mu _{b}-\mu
_{f}-\int_{-k_{F}}^{k_{F}}a_{1}\left( k-\Lambda \right) \epsilon ^{-}\left(
k\right) dk \label{TBA_zero2}
\end{eqnarray
with the Fermi points $\epsilon ^{-}\left( \pm k_{F}\right) =\varphi
^{-}\left( \pm \Lambda _{F}\right) =0$. Similarly, the dressed energies
\epsilon^-(k)$ and $\varphi^-(\Lambda)$ correspond to the occupied states
for $k\in \lbrack -k_{F},k_{F}]$ and $\Lambda \in \lbrack -\Lambda
_{F},\Lambda _{F}]$, respectively. We see that for the Bose reference state
the fully-polarized fermions provide a ferromagnetic ordering at the ground
state. If $H<0$, i.e. $\mu_f< \mu_b$, the dressed energy $\varphi (\Lambda) $
is greater than zero. The dressed energy $\varphi$ is gapful. Thus the
ground state is a pure boson state. Therefore, for $H<0$, the TBA equations
\ref{TBA_zero2}) reduce to Yang-Yang thermodynamics equations for the
Lieb-Liniger Bose gas \cite{Yang}
\begin{equation*}
\epsilon \left( k\right) =k^{2}-\mu _{b}+\int_{-k_{F}}^{k_{F}}a_{2}\left(
k-k^{\prime }\right) \epsilon ^{-}\left( k^{\prime }\right) dk^{\prime }
\end{equation*
from which we easily determine the phase boundary for the phase transition
from vacuum into the pure boson state, i.e., $\mu \geq H/2$, see Figure \re
{f1}.
\section{Equation of state and universal scalings}
\label{Section3} \bigskip
Recent experiments on quantum criticality of ultracold atoms \cit
{Chin,Huang} and theoretical scheme of mapping out quantum
criticality of cold atoms \cite{Zhou,Cai,Guan,GuanJPA} open the
possibility to explore such universal behavior in low dimensional
multi-component interacting Fermi and Bose gases. As the
temperature is tuned over the crossover temperatures the scaling
functions of thermodynamical properties give rise to universal
behavior which entirely depends on the symmetry of excitation
spectrum and dimensionality of the system. This gives a promising
way to explore the hidden symmetry of these models, for example,
the quantum Ising model with transverse file displays emergent E8
symmetry \cite{Exp8}. In the critical regime, the thermodynamic
functions of the homogeneous gas can be cast into some universal
scaling forms \cite{Fisher,Sachdev}. For example, the density and
compressibility near the critical point $\mu =\mu _{c}$ can be
written as
\begin{equation}
n\left( T,\mu \right) =n_{0}+T^{\frac{d}{z}+1-\frac{1}{\nu z}}\mathcal{G
\left( \frac{\mu -\mu _{c}}{T^{\frac{1}{\nu z}}}\right) , \label{us1}
\end{equation
\begin{equation}
\kappa \left( T,\mu \right) =\kappa _{0}+T^{\frac{d}{z}+1-\frac{2}{\nu z}
\mathcal{F}\left( \frac{\mu -\mu _{c}}{T^{\frac{1}{\nu z}}}\right) .
\label{us2}
\end{equation
Here $n_{0}$ ($\kappa _{0}$ )is the regular part of the density
(compressibility) induced from the background, $\mathcal{G}$ ($\mathcal{F}$)
is a universal scaling function describing the singular part of the density
(compressibility) near the critical point $\mu _{c}$, $d$ is the
dimensionality of the system, $z$ is the dynamical critical exponent and
\nu $ is the correlation length exponent. From the above relation, the
dimensionless universal scaling functions $\mathcal{G}(\frac{\mu -\mu _{c}}
T^{\nu z}})$ and $\mathcal{F}(\frac{\mu -\mu _{c}}{T^{\nu z}})$ display
universal scaling behaviour near the critical point of $\mu =\mu _{c}$, i.e.
the density(compressibility) curves with a subtraction of the background
density (compressibility) intersect at the critical point for different
temperatures. This feature can be used to detect the phase boundaries at
zero temperature from finite temperature density profiles of the trapped gas.
Before discussing the universal scaling behavior of the Bose-Fermi mixture,
we will discuss quantum criticality of several simple examples. The simplest
example is the 1D ideal Fermi gas. The ideal Fermi gas obeys the Fermi-Dirac
distribution, it is easy to derive the density distribution for free
fermions $n_{f}(T,\mu )=-\sqrt{T}/\left( 2\sqrt{\pi }\right) Li_{1/2}\left(
-\exp \left( \frac{\mu _{f}}{T}\right) \right) $, where $Li_{n}\left(
x\right) =\sum_{l=1}^{\infty }x^{l}/l^{n}$ is the standard polylogarithm
function. In comparison with the universal scaling Eq.(\ref{us1}), the
critical exponent $z=2$ and the correlation length exponent $\nu =1/2$ with
the dimensionality $d=1$ can be read off the universal scaling form. Here
the scaling function is $\mathcal{G}\left( x\right) =-1/\left( 2\sqrt{\pi
\right) Li_{1/2}\left( -\exp \left( x\right) \right) $. There is no
background density for the vacuum-Fermi-gas transition, i.e. $n_{0}=0$,
where the critical point $\mu _{c}=0$. It was also shown that $d=1$, $z=2$
and $\nu =1/2$ for the vacuum into the TLL phase transition in the 1D
hard-core bosons \cite{Zhou}, the 1D attractive Fermi gas \cite{Guan} and
the 1D interacting Bose gas with strongly repulsive interactions \cit
{GuanJPA}.
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\includegraphics[width=1.10\linewidth]{fig2.eps}
\caption{(Color online) Contour plot of entropy $S$ vs chemical potential
from the TBA (\protect\ref{TBA_nonlinear}): quantum criticality driven by
chemical potential for $H=0.1\protect\varepsilon _{0}$. The crossover
temperatures (white squares and triangles) separating Vacuum, $TLL_{F}$ and
TLL_{M}$ from the quantum critical regimes are determined from the breakdown
of linear temperature-dependent entropy from (\protect\ref{LL}). Here the
TLL_{F}$ stands for the TLL of fermions where exponentially small number of
bosons are populated at finite temperatures. Whereas $TTL_{M}$ denotes the
TLL of the mixture. The vacuum evolves into a quasi-classical regime at
finite temperature. }
\label{fig:S}
\end{figure}
In order to investigate the quantum critical behavior in the vicinity of
phase boundary between the phase of a mixture of bosons and fermions and the
phase of the fully-polarized fermions, we will derive the equation of state
from the TBA equations (\ref{TBA_nonlinear}). For strong interacting regime,
i.e. $c\gg 1$, or $T/\varepsilon _{0}\gg 1$, we can rewrite the TBA
equations (\ref{TBA_nonlinear})
\begin{eqnarray}
\epsilon \left( k\right) &\approx &k^{2}/\beta -A \label{TBA_large} \\
\varphi \left( \Lambda \right) &=&\mu _{f}-\mu _{b}-\frac{4pc}
c^{2}+4\Lambda ^{2}}+\frac{4c\left( 4c^{2}-48\Lambda ^{2}\right) p_{2}}
\left( c^{2}+4\Lambda ^{2}\right) ^{3}}, \notag
\end{eqnarray
where
\begin{eqnarray}
A &\approx &\mu _{f}+T\int_{-\infty }^{\infty }a_{1}\left( \Lambda \right)
\ln \left( 1+\exp \left( -\frac{\varphi \left( \Lambda \right) }{T}\right)
\right) d\Lambda , \notag \\
\beta &=&1-\frac{2Tc}{\pi }\int_{-\infty }^{\infty }\frac{4c^{2}-48\Lambda
^{2}}{\left( c^{2}+4\Lambda ^{2}\right) ^{3}}\ln \left( 1+e^{-\frac{\varphi
(\Lambda )}{T}}\right) d\Lambda , \notag \\
p_{2} &=&-\frac{\beta T^{2}}{4\sqrt{\pi }}\mathrm{Li}_{\frac{5}{2}}\left(
-e^{\frac{A}{T}}\right) . \label{p2}
\end{eqnarray
With the help of these relations, the pressure (\ref{energy}) can be
calculated in a straightforward way
\begin{equation}
p=-\sqrt{\frac{\beta }{4\pi }}T^{\frac{3}{2}}\mathrm{Li}_{\frac{3}{2}}\left(
-e^{\frac{A}{T}}\right) \label{P}
\end{equation
that serves as the equation of state of the model with strong repulsion. The
thermodynamical properties can be obtained from the usual thermodynamical
relations. This analytical equation of state (\ref{P}) essentially cover the
universal TLL thermodynamics and encode the critical exponents in the
critical regimes.
At very low temperatures, i.e. $T\ll \varepsilon _{0}$, the thermodynamics
of the model is governed by the TLL physics associated with a linear
dispersion. In the mixed phase of bosons and fermions, the low energy
physics belongs to a universality class of a two-component TLL \cit
{Frahm,Batchelor}. In this low temperature limit, we further calculate the
pressure
\begin{equation}
p\approx \frac{2A^{3/2}}{3\pi }\left( 1+\frac{\pi ^{2}}{8}\frac{T^{2}}{A^{2}
\right) ,
\end{equation
where
\begin{eqnarray}
A &\approx &\mu +\frac{H}{2}-\frac{4}{\pi }\left( \frac{H}{2}-\frac{p}{c
\right) \tan ^{-1}\frac{2\Lambda _{0}}{c} \notag \\
&&+\frac{2H\Lambda _{0}}{\pi c}+\frac{c\pi T^{2}}{12H\Lambda _{0}}
\end{eqnarray
with $\Lambda _{0}=c\sqrt{\frac{p}{Hc}-\frac{1}{4}}$. After a lengthy
algebra, we find a universal leading order of temperature corrections to the
free energy
\begin{equation}
F=E_{0}-\frac{\pi CT^{2}}{6}\left( \frac{1}{v_{b}}+\frac{1}{v_{f}}\right) ,
\label{LL}
\end{equation
where the two velocities in strong repulsive regime are given by
\begin{eqnarray}
v_{s} &=&\frac{4\pi ^{2}n}{3\gamma }\sin (\pi \alpha ), \notag \\
v_{f} &=&2\pi n\left( 1-\frac{4}{\gamma }\left( \pi \alpha +\sin (\pi \alpha
)\right) \right) .
\end{eqnarray
The parameter $\alpha $ is determined by the relation $\alpha \approx n_{b}/n
$ for a small $H\ll 1$. The ground state energy is given by
\begin{equation}
E=\frac{1}{3}n^{3}\pi ^{2}\left( 1-\frac{4}{\gamma }\left( \frac{1}{2}+\frac
\sin (\pi \alpha )}{\pi }+(\frac{1}{2}-\alpha )\cos (\pi \alpha )\right)
\right) .
\end{equation}
The TLL is maintained under a crossover temperature at which the linear
temperature-dependent entropy breaks down, see Fig. \ref{fig:S}. The exact
analytic expression of thermodynamic functions (\ref{LL}) from the usual TLL
description is only accurate for a limited range of temperatures and
density. However, the TLL description is incapable of describing quantum
criticality for it does not contain the right fluctuations in the critical
regime. The equation of state (\ref{P}) contains proper universal scaling
functions which control full thermodynamical properties in the quantum
critical regimes. Near critical point, the thermal dynamical properties can
be cased into universal scaling forms, for example, (\ref{us1}) and (\re
{us2}). There exists no longer free fermions in the $TLL_{F}$ phase in Fig
\ref{fig:S} due to the presence of exponentially small number of bosons at
finite temperatures. They behave like a TTL for temperatures below the
crossover temperatures (white triangles and squares). The $TLL_{M}$ stands
for a two-component TLL of the mixture of bosons and fermions described by
\ref{LL}).
It is straightforward to work out the critical exponents for the phase
transition from vacuum into the the free fermions and into the Bose gas
phase i.e. $d=1$, $z=2$ and $\nu =1/2$, see \cite{Zhou,Guan,GuanJPA}. Using
the TBA equations (\ref{TBA_nonlinear}), we verify the scaling behaviour of
the mixture for the phase transitions from vacuum into the pure Bose state
in figure \ref{f2} and from vacuum into the pure Fermi state in figure \re
{f3}. We see that both the density and compressibility at different
temperatures intersect at the critical point. For both cases, the
compressibility always evolves a round peak as temperature decreases. This
indicates the density of state changes when the phase transition occurs. As
the temperature approaches the limit $T\rightarrow 0$, the compressibility
tends to divergence.
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{fig3.eps}
\caption{(Color online) The density $n_{b}$ and compressibility $\protec
\kappa _{b}$ vs chemical potential $\protect\mu $ for $H/\protect\varepsilon
_{0}=-1$ at different temperatures. The curves intersect at the critical
point $\protect\mu =H/2$, i.e. the phase boundary between the pure boson
phase and the vacuum. Here $t=T/\protect\varepsilon _{0}$.}
\label{f2}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{fig4.eps}
\caption{(Color online) The density $n_{f}$ and compressibility $\protec
\kappa _{f}$ vs chemical potential $\protect\mu $ for $H/\protect\varepsilon
_{0}=1$ at different temperatures. The curves intersect at the critical
point $\protect\mu =-H/2$, i.e. the phase boundary between the pure fermion
phase and the vacuum. Here $t=T/\protect\varepsilon _{0}$.}
\label{f3}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{fig5.eps}
\caption{(Color online) The density $n_{b}$ and compressibility $\protec
\kappa_{b}$ vs chemical potential $\protect\mu $ for $H/\protect\varepsilon
_{0}=1$ at different temperatures. In this setting, the intersection nature
can map out the zero temperature phase boundary for the phase transition
from the free fermions into the mixture of bosons and fermions. Here $t=T
\protect\varepsilon _{0}$. }
\label{f4}
\end{figure}
Comparing the density, which is numerically obtained from the pressure (\re
{energy}), with the universal scaling form of Eq.(\ref{us1}), we can extract
the critical exponent $z=2$ and the correlation length exponent $\nu =1/2$
with the dimensionality $d=1$. Here we numerically demonstrate the universal
scaling behaviour of the mixture of bosons and fermions in Figs \ref{f2},
\ref{f3} and \ref{f4}. For practical convenience, here we have chosen the
density of bosons $n_{b}$ to demonstrate the intersections for the phase
transitions from vacuum into the phase of pure bosons and from the phase of
fermions into the mixture, where $n_{b}$ does not have a background near the
transition points, see Figs. \ref{f2}, and \ref{f4}. For a fixed effective
magnetic field $H$, we see that by a proper temperature scaling the density
curves $n_{b}(T)/\sqrt{T}$ at different temperatures intersect at the points
$\mu _{c}$. In the Fig. \ref{f4}, we display the scaled density
distributions for different temperatures by numerically solving the TBA
equations (\ref{TBA_nonlinear})-(\ref{particle_density}). It is also seen
that the compressibility curves at different temperatures intersect at the
critical point $\mu _{c}$. The compressibility tends to divergent as the
temperature tends to zero. It evolves to a round peak at low temperature due
to the change of the density of states around the critical points. The
quantum criticality near the critical points associating the phase
transitions from vacuum into the phase of pure bosons and the phase of pure
fermions reveals a subtle difference in thermodynamical properties, see Figs
\ref{f2} and \ref{f4}.
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{fig6.eps}
\caption{(Color online) The density distribution at different temperatures
with $N^{t}a_{1D}^{2}/a^{2}=1$ and $\protect\alpha =0.5$ .}
\label{f5}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{fig7.eps}
\caption{(Color online) The densities $n_{b}$ and $n_{f}$\ vs normalized
position for $Na_{1D}^{2}/a^{2}=1$ and $\protect\alpha =0.5$ at different
temperatures. The density curves intersect at the critical point that maps
out the phase boundaries of the trapped gas. Here $t=T/\protect\varepsilon
_{0}$.}
\label{f6}
\end{figure}
\section{Quantum criticality in the harmonic trap}
\label{Section4} In experiment with cold atoms, the 1D quantum gas is
realized by tightly confining the atomic cloud in two (radial) dimensions
and weakly confining it along the axial direction in an external harmonic
trap. For the mixture of bosons and fermions in a harmonic trap, we can
calculate its density distribution profiles by evaluating the
thermodynamical dynamics within the local density approximation. According
to the local density approximation, the system reaches local equilibrium in
each small intervals around each point $x$ in the external trap. The density
distribution of the trapped gas is then obtained via the local equation of
state \cite{Imambekov,Dunjko}. Within the local density approximation, the
chemical potentials in the equation of state (\ref{energy}) as well as in
the TBA equations are replaced by the local chemical potentials given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\mu _{b}\left( x\right) &=&\mu _{b}\left( 0\right) -V_{b}\left( x\right) ,
\label{LDA1} \\
\mu _{f}\left( x\right) &=&\mu _{f}\left( 0\right) -V_{f}\left( x\right) .
\label{LDA2}
\end{eqnarray
Here the external potential is defined as $V_{b}\left( x\right) =V_{f}\left(
x\right) =m\omega ^{2}x^{2}/2$ with harmonic frequency $\omega $ and the
characteristic length for the harmonic trap is $a=\sqrt{\hbar /m\omega }$.
For this case, equations (\ref{LDA1}) and (\ref{LDA2}) can be alternatively
represented as
\begin{equation*}
\mu \left( y\right) /\varepsilon _{0}=\mu \left( 0\right) /\varepsilon
_{0}-y^{2}
\end{equation*
for a fixed $H$, where the dimensionless coordinate is given by
y=x/(a^{2}c) $. From the Bethe ansatz equations, the dimensionless density
n_{b}/c$ and $n_{f}/c$ can be obtain for fixed dimensionless chemical
potential $\mu _{b}/\varepsilon _{0}$ and $\mu _{f}/\varepsilon _{0}$.\ The
total particle number $N$ is obtained fro
\begin{equation*}
\frac{Na_{1D}^{2}}{a^{2}}=4\int_{-\infty }^{\infty }\frac{n_{b}\left(
y\right) +n_{f}\left( y\right) }{c}dy
\end{equation*
with the 1D scattering length $a_{1D}=-2/c$. We define a polarization rate
between the Bose particle number and the total particle number $\alpha
\equiv N_{b}/N$. For fixed $\mu \left( 0\right) /\varepsilon _{0}$ and
H/\varepsilon _{0}$, we can calculate $Na_{1D}^{2}/a^{2}$ and $\alpha $. In
the presence of the confined potential, the length scale of the system at
quantum criticality is still much smaller than the trap size. Therefore, the
critical behaviour of the homogeneous gas can be mapped out by the density
profiles of gas at finite temperatures \cite{Zhou}.
We fix $Na_{1D}^{2}/a^{2}$ and $\alpha $ in the trapped gas of the mixture,
the density profiles reveal a universal scaling behavior of the gas. Fig.
\ref{f5}} shows the density profiles of bosons and fermions in the
harmonic trap for $Na_{1D}^{2}/a^{2}=1$ and $\alpha =N_{b}/N=0.5$
at different temperatures. Here we find that bosons and fermions
coexist in the trap center companied by the phase of pure fermions
at the edges. We further demonstrate how to map out the
zero-temperature phase boundaries from the
density profiles of the trapped gas at finite temperatures. In Fig. {\ref{f6
}(a) and (b), we demonstrate the scaled density distributions of bosons and
fermions. It is clearly seen that the scaled density curves for different
temperatures intersect at the critical point of the trapped gas. Thus the
critical point, separating the mixture of bosons and fermions from the phase
of pure fermions, is mapped out. Similarly, the density curves of fermions
intersect at the critical point that maps out the phase boundary for the
phase transition from vacuum into the phase of free fermions.
\section{Conclusion}
\label{Section5} In summary, we have studied the phase diagram,
universal TLL and quantum criticality of the 1D Bose-Fermi mixture
by means of the TBA equations. We have derived the equation of
state and universal TLL thermodynamics of the model for strong
repulsion. We have proved that the low energy physics of the
Bose-Fermi mixture are described by a two-component TTL. Universal
scaling behavior of thermodynamical properties at quantum
criticality provides a physical origin of quantum critical
phenomena. Furthermore, the quantum criticality of the Bose-Fermi
mixture in an harmonic trap has been studied within the local
density approximation. It turns out that the phase diagram and
critical properties of the bulk system can be mapped out from the
density profiles of the trapped mixture gas at finite
temperatures. Our exact results can help with experimental study
of quantum critical phenomena in a 1D harmonic trap.
\textit{Acknowledgments.---} This work was supported by the
National Program for No. 2011CB921700 Basic Research of MOST, NSF
of China under Grants No. 10821403, No. 11174360 and No. 10974234,
and 973 grant. The work of X.-W.G has been partially supported by
the Australian Research Council. YZ is also supported by 973
Program under Grant No. 2011CB921601, and the Program for NCET.
|
\section{Introduction}
In this paper we compare predictions for moderate $p_T<20$ GeV/{\it c}
observables in $p+{\rm Pb}$ reactions at 4.4$A$ TeV
at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), that will help to
discriminate between models of initial conditions
assumed in Pb+Pb collisions at 2.76$A$ TeV. The possibility that
the first data on $p+{\rm Pb}$
may be taken soon, with a potential high physics payoff
motivates this paper. All models details are extensively discussed
in the literature
and we focus only on the updated nuclear modification factor,
$R_{p{\rm Pb}}(\eta,p_T,b)= dn_{p{\rm Pb}}/
(N_{\rm coll}(b) dn_{pp})$,
predictions testable with a short 4.4$A$ TeV run.
In minimum bias (MB) and central ($0-20\%$) $p+{\rm Pb}$ collisions
the average number of binary
nucleon-nucleon ($NN$) interactions (with an inelastic cross section
$\sigma_{NN}^{\rm in} \approx 65$ mb) is $N_{\rm coll}^{\rm MB} \approx 7$
and $N_{\rm coll}^{\rm Cen} \approx 12$ respectively.
This control experiment has long been anticipated to play
a decisive role in helping to deconvolute initial and final state
interaction effects in Pb+Pb reactions at the LHC.
The $d+{\rm Au}$ control experiment at 0.2$A$ TeV played a similar critical
role for Au+Au at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider
(RHIC) in 2004 \cite{RHIC,Gyulassy:2004zy}. The importance of $p+{\rm Pb}$ was
also emphasized in the 2007
Last Call for LHC compilation of predictions~\cite{armesto2_08} and many
other works ~\cite{Eskola:1998df,EPS08,EPS09,Accardi:2004gp,Eskola:2010jh,pALHC11,Wiedemann10}.
The open problem after the first very successful
LHC heavy ion run in 2010 \cite{QM11} remains
how to deconvolute nuclear modification effects due to initial state
and final state effects. Without a clear calibration of
the magnitude of initial state suppression of the incident
nuclear partonic flux it is not possible
to draw firm conclusions
about the properties of the quark gluon plasma (QGP) phase of
matter produced at the LHC.
At RHIC the same problem was resolved at mid-rapidity by the observation
of no appreciable nuclear modification
in $d+{\rm Au}$ control experiments in 2003~\cite{RHIC,Gyulassy:2004zy} (see
also Figure~\ref{fig:fig3} below).
An approximately factor of four
suppression of moderate $p_T$ mid-rapidity pions observed in Au+Au at RHIC
could then be interpreted as due to final state jet energy loss
in a high opacity QGP produced in central Au+Au collisions at RHIC.
At the LHC the initial flux is much more uncertain than at RHIC
because of the higher density of partons at an order of magnitude
smaller fractional momenta $x=2p_T/ \sqrt{s}< 10^{-3}$.
At high initial densities all models predict a breakdown
of additivity of the nuclear parton distribution
functions (nPDF). The magnitude of the breakdown however
varies greatly in the literature
in both collinear factorized approaches and $k_T$ factorized
parton saturation model approaches
~\cite{armesto2_08,Eskola:1998df,EPS08,Accardi:2004gp,Eskola:2010jh,pALHC11,Wiedemann10}.
Therefore, even a rough first experimental constraint
from $p+Pb$ interactions would have high impact on the development
of nuclear collision modeling.
\section{Nuclear shadowing and jet quenching at LHC energies}
Nuclear shadowing of quark and gluon nPDFs
at large $x > 0.01 $ and moderate $Q^2$
is well constrained from $e+A$ and lower energy $p+A$ data.
Global fit parametrizations of the nuclear parton distribution
functions (nPDF) are available~\cite{EPS08,Eskola:2010jh,pALHC11}.
DGLAP evolution \cite{parisi_77} to higher $Q^2$ predicts a rapid
reduction of shadowing
effects and therefore only modest modifications of
$R_{p{\rm Pb}} (p_T) = 1\pm 0.1$ for $p_T>5$ GeV/c have been
predicted~\cite{pALHC11,Wiedemann10,Levai11}.
As emphasized in~\cite{Wiedemann10}, any observed significant
modification from unity would be inconsistent with most current nPDFs
and therefore pose a severe challenge to conventional collinear factorized
QCD approximation to high-$p_T$ processes not only in $p+{\rm Pb}$
but even more so
in Pb+Pb collisions. We continue here to investigate this central thesis.
At RHIC there is clear
evidence at high rapidities, where small fractional parton momenta
$x\sim 10^{-3}$ similar to central $p+{\rm Pb}$ are probed, that
binary collision scaling of
collinear factorization breaks down. Color Glass Condensate (CGC)
$k_T$ factorization models have been developed to explain these
deviations~\cite{Kharzeev:2003wz, Kharzeev:2004if} and nearly identical
$R_{pA}\approx 0.7 \pm 0.1$ nuclear modifications factors were predicted
in Ref.~\cite{Kharzeev:2003wz} (KKT04) for
forward rapidities at RHIC and mid-rapidity at the LHC.
However, collinear factorized approaches with DGLAP evolved nPDF
appear to provide an alternate explanation of forward
single inclusive yields at RHIC ~\cite{EPS08,Eskola:2010jh}.
At LHC energies we can differentiate between these
explanations because
the collinear factorized approach predicts only small
nuclear modification for mid-rapidity pions (see Fig.~\ref{fig:fig3} below),
while at RHIC energies it predicts large modifications, as CGC does,
for forward produced pions.
The much higher
energy range at the LHC also opens the kinematic window
on small $x$ physics that can be explored in $p+A$
collisions at mid-rapidity.
Some CGC models~\cite{Albacete:2010bs,JalilianMarian:2011dt} predict a
suppression with
$R_{p{\rm Pb}}(\eta=0,p_T \approx 10 {\rm GeV}/{\it c}) \approx 0.5$
with strong dependence on the initial evolution conditions.
Such small values of $R_{p{\rm Pb}}$ would
imply that nearly all nuclear suppression observed in NMF
$R_{\rm PbPb}$ in Pb+Pb collisions,
previously attributed to jet quenching in the final state,
could instead be due to
nonlinear initial state parton flux suppression.
Due to a factor of two increase in the
final parton densities at the LHC, jet quenching is expected to produce higher
suppression than at RHIC energies.
Actually, the observed Pb+Pb suppression of pions
at the LHC energy was surprisingly weaker than expected from RHIC constrained
analysis extrapolated to the LHC~\cite{Horowitz:2011gd}.
Thus, from the perturbative final state interaction point of view
there appears to be no room for initial state suppression.
Therefore, a measurement of $R_{p{\rm Pb}}$ at mid-rapidity
significantly less than unity would contradict not only perturbative
QCD (pQCD) models of the
initial state nPDF evolution but also theory of the final state
perturbative opacity series of jet energy loss.
Since strong coupling AdS/CFT holography
\cite{Horowitz:2008ig} predicts even stronger final state suppression
effects, an observation in $p+{\rm Pb}$ of significant deviations from unity
would then call into question the validity of holographic interpretations
of RHIC and LHC $A+A$ results, including the applicability of minimal
viscous hydrodynamics to apparent perfect fluidity.
At sufficiently high energies and virtualities, QCD factorization theorems
guarantee that jet observables can be calculated in perturbation theory.
The open question is at what scale does
factorization break down for nuclear processes.
CGC theory
\cite{Kharzeev:2003wz,Kharzeev:2004if,JalilianMarian:2011dt,Albacete:2010bs,McLerran:2010ub,Gelis:2010nm,Armesto:2004ud,MC-KLN,Kormilitzin:2010kr,ALbacete:2010ad,Levin:2010zy,Tribedy:2011aa,Dumitru:2011ax}
has a saturation natural scale $Q_s(x,A)$
that in principle provides the answer when $Q_s >> \Lambda_{QCD}$.
However, nuclear jet observables up to LHC energies are sensitive
to details of large $x>0.01$ as well as small $A=1$ ``corona''
nucleon distributions for which $Q_s \stackrel{<}{\sim} 1 $ GeV.
Monte Carlo models as
{\small HIJING1.0}~\cite{Wang:1991hta},
{\small HIJING2.0}~\cite{Deng:2010mv} and
{\small HIJING/B\=B2.0}~\cite{ToporPbPb11} have been developed to study
hadron productions in $p+p$, $p+A$ and $A+A$ collisions.
They are essentially two-component models, which describe
the production of hard parton jets and the soft interaction between
nucleon remnants.
The hard jets production is calculated
employing collinear factorized multiple minijet within pQCD.
A cut-off scale $p_0$ in the transverse momentum
of the final jet production has to be introduced below which
($p_T < p_0$) the
interaction is considered nonperturbative and is characterized by
a finite soft parton cross section $\sigma_{\rm soft}$.
Jet cross section, depend on the
parton distribution functions (PDFs) that are parametrized from a
global fit to data ~\cite{Deng:2010mv}.
Nucleons remnants interact via soft gluon exchanges described by the
string models \cite{Andersson:1986gw,Bengtsson:1987kr} and
constrained from lower energy $e+e, e+p, p+p$ data.
The produced hard jet pairs and the two excited remnants
are treated as independent strings, which fragments to resonances that
decay to final hadrons.
Longitudinal beam jet string fragmentations strongly depend on the
values used for string tensions that control
quark-anti-quark ($q\bar{q}$) and
diquark-anti-diquark (${\rm qq}\overline{\rm qq}$) pair creation rates
and strangeness suppression factors ($\gamma_s$).
In the {\small HIJING1.0}
and {\small HIJING2.0} models a constant (vacuum value) for the effective
value of string tension is used, $\kappa_0 = 1.0$ GeV/fm.
At high initial energy density the novel nuclear physics is due to
the possibility of multiple longitudinal flux tube overlapping
leading to strong longitudinal color field (SCF) effects.
Strong Color Field (SCF) effects are modeled in {\small HIJING/B\=B2.0}
by varying the effective string tensions value.
SCF also modify the fragmentation processes
resulting in an increase of (strange)baryons which play an important
role in the description of the baryon/meson anomaly.
In order to describe $p+p$ and central Pb + Pb collisions data at
the LHC we have shown that an energy
and mass dependence of the mean value of the string tension
should be taken into account \cite{ToporPbPb11}.
Moreover, to better describe the baryon/meson anomaly seen in data
a specific implementation of J\=J loops, has to be
introduced. For a detailed discussion see Ref.~\cite{ToporPbPb11}.
Similar result can be obtained by including extra diquark-antidiquark
pair production channels from strong coherent fields formed in heavy
ion collisions \cite{peter_2_11}.
All {\small HIJING} type models implement nuclear effects such as nuclear
modification of the partons distribution functions, i.e., {\em shadowing}
and {\em jet quenching } via
a medium induced parton splitting process (collisional energy
loss is neglected)~\cite{Wang:1991hta}.
In the {\small HIJING1.0} and {\small HIJING/B\=B2.0} models
Duke-Owen (DO) parametrization of PDFs \cite{DO84} is used to calculate the jet
production cross section with $p_T > p_0$.
In both models using a constant cut-off
$p_0 = 2$ GeV/{\it c} and a soft parton cross section
$\sigma_{soft} = 54$ mb fit the experimental $p+p$ data.
However, for $A+A$ collisions in {\small HIJING/B\=B2.0} model
we introduced
an energy and mass dependence of the cut-off parameter,
$p_0(s,A)$~\cite{ToporPbPb11} at RHIC and at the LHC energies,
in order not to violate the geometrical
limit for the total number of minijets per unit transverse area.
In {\small HIJING2.0}~\cite{Deng:2010mv} model
that is also a modified version of {\small HIJING1.0}~\cite{Wang:1991hta}
the Gluck-Reya-Vogt (GRV)
parametrization of PDFs \cite{Gluck:1994uf} is implemented.
The gluon distributions in this different
parametrization are much higher
than the DO parametrization at small $x$.
In addition, an energy-dependent cut-off $p_0(s)$ and $\sigma_{soft}(s)$
are also assumed in order to better describe the Pb + Pb collisions data at the
LHC.
One of the main uncertainty in calculating
charged particle multiplicity density
in Pb + Pb collisions is the nuclear modification of parton
distribution functions, especially gluon distributions at small $x$.
In {\small HIJING} type models one assume that
the parton distributions per nucleon in a nucleus (with atomic number A and
charge number Z), $f_{a/A}(x,Q^2)$, are
factorizable into parton distributions in a nucleon ( $f_{a/N}$)
and the parton(a) shadowing factor ($S_{a/A}$),
\begin{equation}
f_{a/A}(x,Q^2) = S_{a/A}(x,Q^2)f_{a/N}(x,Q^2)
\end{equation}
The impact parameter dependence is implemented through
the parameter $s_a$,
\begin{equation}
s_a(b)=s_a \frac{5}{3} \left(1-\frac{b^2}{R_A^2}\right)
\end{equation}
where $R_A = 1.12 A^{1/3}$ is the nuclear radius.
In {\small HIJING/B\=B2.0} the shadowing factor for gluon and quark
are assumed to be equal ($S_{g/A} (x,Q^2) = S_{q/A} (x,Q^2)$)
and are similar with those used in {\small HIJING1.0}~\cite{Wang:1991hta}.
They were selected
in order to fit the centrality dependence of the central
charged particle multiplicity density at the LHC.
In contrast, in {\small HIJING2.0} a much stronger impact
parameter dependence of the gluon ($s_g=0.22-0.23$)
and quark ($s_q=0.1$) shadowing factor is used in order
to fit the LHC data.
Due to this stronger gluon shadowing the jet quenching effect has to be
neglected~\cite{Deng:2010mv}.
Note, all {\small HIJING} type models assume a scale-independent form
of shadowing parametrization (fixed $Q^2$). This approximation could
breakdown at very large scale due to dominance of gluon emission
dictated by the DGLAP \cite{parisi_77} evolution equation.
At Q = 2.0 and 4.3 GeV/{\it c}, which are typical scales for mini-jet
production at RHIC and LHC respectively, it was shown that the gluon
shadowing varies approximately by $13\%$ in EPS09 parametrizations
\cite{EPS09}.
\section{Comparative study of model predictions}
Figure \ref{fig:fig1} shows {\small HIJING/B\=B2.0}
predictions of the global observables $dN_{\rm ch}/d\eta$
and $R_{p{\rm Pb}}(\eta)$ = $(dN_{p{\rm Pb}}^{\rm ch})/d\eta)/
(N_{\rm coll} dN_{pp}^{\rm ch}/d\eta)$
characteristics of minimum bias
$p+{\rm Pb}$ collisions at
4.4$A$ TeV. The predictions for $p+p$ are also shown.
Minijet cutoff and string tension parameters $p_0=3.1$ GeV/{\it c}
and $\kappa=2.9$ GeV/fm for $p+{\rm Pb}$ are determined from
fits to $p+p$ and $A+A$ systematics from RHIC to the LHC
(see Ref.~{\protect\cite{ToporPbPb11}} for details).
Note, these calculations assume no {\em jet quenching}.
\begin{figure} [h!]
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{fig1.epsi}
\vskip 0.5cm
\caption[$p+p$ and $p+Pb$ minimum bias at 4.4 $A$TeV]
{\small (Color online)
(a) {\small HIJING/B\=B2.0}
predictions of charged particles pseudorapidity distribution
$(dN_{\rm ch}/d\eta)$
for minimum bias (MB) $p$+Pb collisions at 4.4$A$ TeV.
Solid YS curve includes fixed $Q^2$ shadowing functions
from {\small HIJING1.0}~{\protect\cite{Wang:1991hta}},
while the dashed NS curve has no shadowing.
(b) Ratio $R_{pPb}(\eta)$ calculated assuming
$N_{\rm coll}({\rm MB})=6.4$}
\label{fig:fig1}
\end{figure}
The absolute normalization of $dN_{\rm ch}/d\eta$ is however sensitive
to the low $p_T < 2$ GeV/{\it c} nonperturbative hadronization
dynamics that is performed via LUND \cite{Andersson:1986gw}
string JETSET \cite{Bengtsson:1987kr} fragmentation as
constrained from lower energy $e+e, e+p, p+p$ data. The default
{\small HIJING1.0} parametrization of the fixed $Q_0^2=2$ GeV$^2$ shadow
function leads to substantial reduction (solid histograms) of the
global multiplicity at the LHC. It is important to emphasize that the
no shadowing results (dashed curves) are substantially reduced in
{\small HIJING/B\=B}2.0 relative to no shadowing prediction with default
{\small HIJING/1.0} from Ref.~{\protect\cite{Wang:1991hta}},
because both the default minijet cut-off $p_0=2 $ GeV/{\it c}
and the default vacuum string tension $\kappa_0=1 $ GeV/fm
(used in {\small HIJING1.0}) are generalized
to vary monotonically with centre of mass (cm) energy per nucleon $\sqrt{s}$
and atomic number, $A$.
As discussed in \cite{ToporPbPb11}, systematics of $p+p$
and Pb+Pb multiparticle production from RHIC to the LHC
are used to fix the energy ($\sqrt{s}$) and the $A$ dependence.
Thus the cut-off parameter $p_0(s,A) = 0.416 \; \sqrt{s}^{0.191}
\; A^{0.128}$ GeV/{\it c} and the
mean value of the string tension
$\kappa(s,A) = \kappa_0 \; (s/s0)^{0.06}\;A^{0.167}$ GeV/fm.
The above formulae lead to $p_0 = 3.1$ GeV/{\it c} and
$\kappa = 2.9$ GeV/fm at 4.4$A$ TeV for $p+{\rm Pb}$ collisions.
For $p+p$ collisions at 4.4 TeV we use a constant cut-off parameter
$p_{0pp} = 2 $ GeV/{\it c} and a string tension value
of $\kappa_{pp} = 2.7$ GeV/fm.
Note, even in the case of no
shadowing shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:fig1}, the increase to $p_0=3.1$
GeV/{\it c} from $p_0 = 2 $ GeV/{\it c} (value used in
$p+p$ at $4.4$ TeV) causes a significant reduction by a factor of
roughly two of the
minijet cross section and hence final pion multiplicity. This
reduction of minijet production also is required to fit the low
charged particle multiplicity growth in $A+A$ collisions
from RHIC to LHC (a factor of 2.2)~\cite{jharris11}.
\begin{figure} [h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{fig2.epsi}
\vskip 0.5cm\caption[Charge hadron nuclear modification
factor $p+Pb$ minimum bias at 4.4 $A$TeV]
{\small (Color online) (a) Minimum bias transverse momentum
distributions at mid-pseudorapidity $|\eta|<0.8$
predicted by {\small HIJING/B\=B2.0} with (solid histogram)
and without (dashed histogram) {\small HIJING1.0} shadowing
functions {\protect\cite{Wang:1991hta}}. The results
for $p+p$ collisions at 4.4 TeV (dotted histogram) are also included.
(b) The mid-pseudorapidity nuclear modification factor of charged hadrons
$R_{p{\rm Pb}} $ from {\small HIJING/B\=B2.0} model.
The solid and thin dashed histograms have the same meaning as in
part (a). They are compared to pQCD leading order (LO) predictions
(dash dotted) {\protect\cite{Levai11}}
using {\small HIJING2.0} shadowing functions~{\protect\cite{Deng:2010mv}},
and to DGLAP $Q^2$ evolved nPDF,
EKS99 (dotted)~{\protect\cite{Eskola:1998df}}.
Predictions of CGC model (thick dashed)~{\protect\cite{Kharzeev:2003wz}}
(KKT04) and CGC - rcBK model
(thick solid) from Ref.~\cite{Tribedy:2011aa} are also included.
}
\label{fig:fig2}
\end{figure}
We interpret this as
additional phenomenological evidence for gluon saturation physics not
encoded in leading twist shadow functions. The $p_T>5 $ GeV/{\it c}
minijets tails
are unaffected but the bulk low $p_T<5$ GeV/{\it c} multiplicity distribution
is sensitive to this extra energy $(\sqrt{s})$ and $A$ dependence of
the minijet shower suppression effect.
It is difficult to relate $p_0$ to saturation scale $Q_{sat}$ directly, because
in {\small HIJING} hadronization proceeds through longitudinal field
string fragmentation. The energy $(\sqrt{s})$ and $A$ dependence
of the string tension value
arises from strong color field (color rope) effects not considered
in CGC phenomenology that assumes $k_T$ factorized gluon fusion
hadronization.
{\small HIJING} hadronization of minijets is not via independent
fragmentation functions
as in PYTHIA \cite{Bengtsson:1987kr}, but via string fragmentation
with gluon minijets represented as kinks in the strings. The interplay
between longitudinal string fragmentation dynamics and minijets
is a nonperturbative feature of {\small HIJING} type models. The
approximate triangular (or trapezoidal) rapidity asymmetry
seen in the ratio $R_{p{\rm Pb}}(\eta)$ sloping downwards from the
nuclear beam fragmentation region at negative
pseudorapidity $\eta < -5$ toward $1/N_{\rm coll}$ in the proton
fragmentation region ($\eta > 5$) is a basic Glauber geometric
effect first explained in Refs.~\cite{Brodsky:1977de,Adil:2005qn}
and realized via string fragmentation in {\small HIJING}.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:fig2} are displayed the predicted transverse spectra and
nuclear modification factor for charged hadrons
at mid-pseudorapidity, $|\eta|< 0.8$.
Including shadowing reduces $R_{p{\rm Pb}}$ from unity
to about 0.7 in the interesting 5 to 10 GeV/{\it c} region close to the
prediction of Color Glass Condensate
model~\cite{Kharzeev:2003wz} (KKT04). A similar nuclear modification factor
is found {\protect\cite{Levai11}} using leading order (LO) pQCD
collinear factorization with
{\small HIJING2.0} parameterization of shadowing functions
{\protect\cite{Li:2001xa}},
GRV parton distribution functions (nPDF) from
Ref.~{\protect\cite{Gluck:1994uf}},
and hadron fragmentation functions from Ref.~{\protect\cite{Kniehl:2000fe}}.
In stark contrast to the three curves near 0.7$\pm 0.1$ from
completely different dynamical modeling the standard DGLAP evolved
global e+A fit
nPDF (dotted curve labelled EKS99 {\protect\cite{Eskola:1998df}})
predicts near unity for transverse momenta
above 5 GeV/{\it c}.
The no shadowing {\small HIJING/B\=B2.0} values
(NS, thin dashed histogram) goes to unity above 5 GeV/{\it c}, but the
nonperturbative string hadronization
pulls the intercept at $p_T=0$ near to $1/2$ as constrained by the
global triangular enhanced form of $dN_{p{\rm Pb}}/d\eta$ relative
to $dN_{pp}/d\eta$ shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:fig1}b.
Note, that the model BGK77 from
Refs.~\cite{Brodsky:1977de,Adil:2005qn}
also predicts $R_{pA}(y,p_T =0) = 1$ at the
nuclear target rapidity
and $1/N_{\rm coll}(b)$ at the proton projectile rapidity.
However, a recent new version of the CGC-rcBK model~\cite{Tribedy:2011aa}
predicts essentially no shadowing/saturation effects at $\eta=0$ in contrast to
both CGC-KKT04 ~\cite{Kharzeev:2003wz} and CGC-rcBK model from
Ref.~\cite{JalilianMarian:2011dt}.
The absence of shadowing at midrapidity in the
CGC-rcBK~\cite{Tribedy:2011aa} model
is due to a phenomenological extra anomalous dimension $\gamma$,
introduced to modify color dipole cross section
$\sigma_{dipole}(r) \propto (r^2)^\gamma$.
This significantly steepens the $pp$ transverse momentum
distribution relative to the quadratic form $\sigma_{dipole}(r) \propto r^2$
used in CGC model (MV) \cite{McLerran:1993ni}
as required to reproduce LHC $pp$ data.
Recently, posible extra $A$ dependence of this extra anomalous
dimension has been proposed~\cite{Dumitru:2011ax}.
It would be very surprising indeed if future $p+Pb$ data would show no
evidence
of shadowing with a $R_{pPb}\approx 1.0$ at $\eta=0$
mid-pseudorapidity
which could then be ascribed either to
(i) rapid DGLAP $Q^2$ evolution of shadowing in EKS09 \cite{EPS09}
parametrization or to
(ii) accidental cancellation of deep saturation effects due to an anomalous
short distance behavior of the dipole cross section in CGC modeling.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{fig3.epsi}
\vskip 0.5cm
\caption[Gergely]
{\small (Color online) Predictions updated
at 4.4$A$ TeV of Refs.~\cite{Levai11} results for central $0-20\%$
($b<3.5$ fm) $p+Pb$ at mid-rapidity.
The original predictions at 0.2$A$ TeV for $d+{\rm Au}$ are also included.
Compared are the results obtained with fixed $Q^2$ shadowing
functions {\small HIJING2.0}~{\protect\cite{Deng:2010mv}}
with (b-dep) and without (b-indep) impact parameter dependence.
Predictions with DGLAP $Q^2$ evolved shadowing functions
from Ref.~{\protect\cite{Eskola:1998df}} (EKS99) and
Ref.~{\protect \cite{EPS08}} (EPS08) are also shown.
The data are from PHENIX Collaboration~\cite{Adler:2006wg}.}
\label{fig:fig3}
\end{figure}
What is significant about higher $p_T$ deviations from unity
is that the nuclear modification factor in central $A+A$ collisions
is related to the minimum bias $p+A$ by simple Glauber geometric
considerations, that can be expressed as
\begin{equation}
R_{AA}(y=0,p_T, b=0) \approx \langle (R_{pA}(y=0,p_T,
{\rm min.bias})) \rangle^2
\end{equation}
where the average is calculated over all impact parameters.
Thus, $R_{p{\rm Pb}} \approx 0.7$ for minimum bias collisions
implies a NMF $R_{\rm PbPb} \approx 0.5$ in central
Pb+Pb collisions before any final state interactions take place.
The result for $R_{p{\rm Pb}}(p_T) \approx 0.7$ is similar with those
reported recently with CGC type models
~\cite{Albacete:2010bs,JalilianMarian:2011dt} (rcBK),
albeit with huge error bars at mid-rapidity because of poorly
known initial saturation conditions
for $p+p$ and near the surface of heavy nuclei.
However, if the prediction of
$R_{p{\rm Pb}}\approx 0.5$~\cite{Albacete:2010bs}
turned out to be confirmed by the upcoming $p+Pb$ measurements
then, in central Pb+Pb collisions we expect
a factor of roughly four suppression ($\approx \,0.25$)
in pions at transverse momenta of roughly 10 GeV/{\it c}.
This fact would leave no room for final state interactions in matter
100 times denser than ground state nuclei.
Needless to say this point alone underlines more the importance of
measuring the $p_T$ dependence of NMF ($R_{p{\rm Pb}} (p_T)$) at the LHC.
In Figure~\ref{fig:fig3} the updated predictions
at 4.4$A$ TeV~\cite{Levai11} of $R_{p{\rm Pb}}(p_T)$
in central($0-20\%$;$b<3.3$ fm) $p+{\rm Pb}$ collisions at
mid-rapidity are shown.
The message is similar to that obtained from Fig.~\ref{fig:fig2}.
The standard collinear $Q^2$ evolved nPDF models
from Ref.~\cite{Eskola:1998df} (EKS99)
and from Ref.~\cite{EPS08} (EPS08)
predict only a slight deviation ($\approx \,10\%$) from unity,
as discussed in detail in Refs.~\cite{pALHC11,Wiedemann10}.
Fixed $Q^2$ shadowing functions used in {\small HIJING1.0}
or {\small HIJING2.0} models
predict $R_{p{\rm Pb}}(p_T) = 0.6 \pm 0.1$ in the $p_T$ range
5 to 15 GeV/{\it c}, well below unity.
Previous results at the RHIC energy ~\cite{Levai11} for
central ($0-20\%$) $d+{\rm Au}$ collisions at 0.2$A$ TeV
are also presented in comparison with PHENIX data \cite{Adler:2006wg}.
At RHIC energy (0.2$A$ TeV) all models predict approximately
$R_{d{\rm Pb}}(p_T) = 1 \pm 0.1$.
At this energy {\small HIJING2.0} the
shadowing is much weaker for $p_T>5$ GeV/{\it c} domain
because this correspond to $x > 0.05$, which is over an order of magnitude
larger than at the LHC energy.
Taking an impact parameter dependence of shadowing
function in {\small HIJING2.0}~\cite{Deng:2010mv}
for central $p+{\rm Pb}$ collisions
results in a further decrease of the NMF $R_{p{\rm Pb}}(p_T)$ by $15-20\%$.
\begin{figure} [h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{fig4.epsi}
\vskip 0.5cm\caption[Charge hadron nuclear modification
factor $p+Pb$ minimum bias at 4.4 $A$TeV]
{\small (Color online)
(a) The minimum bias (MB) NMF
of charged particles at forward pseudorapidity
$\eta = 6$, from {\small HIJING/B\=B2.0} model (dashed histogram).
The results are obtained with shadowing functions from the
{\small HIJING1.0} model~{\protect\cite{Wang:1991hta}}.
They are compared to pQCD leading order (LO) results at $\eta = 6$
(dash dotted)~{\protect\cite{Levai11}}
using impact parameter dependent (b-dep)
{\small HIJING2.0} shadowing functions~{\protect\cite{Deng:2010mv}} and to
predictions obtained with DGLAP $Q^2$ evolved shadowing functions
(dotted) with no impact parameter dependence (b-indep)
from Ref.~\cite{EPS08}.
For reference the results at mid-pseudorapidity, $|\eta|<0.8$
(solid histogram) are also included.
(b) The results obtained for NMF
of charged particles in central ($N_{\rm coll} = 12 $)
$p$+Pb collisions at 4.4$A$ TeV.
The histograms and the lines have the same meaning as in part (a).}
\label{fig:fig4}
\end{figure}
Finally, in Fig.~\ref{fig:fig4} we
show the nuclear modification factor $R_{pPb}$ for inclusive charged
hadrons ($h^+ + h^-$) at $\sqrt{s} = 4.4$ TeV obtained from
different models for minimum bias (MB) ($N_{\rm coll}$ = 6.4)
in Fig.~\ref{fig:fig4}a and central ($N_{\rm coll}$ = 12)
$p$ + Pb collisions in Fig.~\ref{fig:fig4}b at forward pseudorapidity
($\eta = 6 $).
For reference we include the NMF at mid-pseudorapidity
$|\eta|<0.8$ (solid histograms) predicted with
{\small HIJING/B\=Bv2.0}.
Smaller suppression in the region of interest ($5 < p_T < 10$ GeV/c)
than obtained within {\small HIJING/B\=B v2.0}
model is predicted using EPS08 parametrization \cite{EPS08} with
no impact parameter dependence (b-indep) of shadowing functions (dotted)
and with pQCD calculation
using an impact parameter dependence (b-dep) from {\small HIJING2.0} model.
In this range of transverse momenta,
the {\small HIJING/B\=B v2.0} model predict slightly higher values
than predicted (0.35 -0.40) by
CGC model (rcBK)~\cite{JalilianMarian:2011dt}.
It is obvious that at forward pseudorapidity the suppression
is higher for central than in minimum bias (MB) $p$ + Pb collisions.
Moreover, for central $p$ + Pb collisions the sensitivity to
parametrization of shadowing functions is amplified.
The different shape predicted by {\small HIJING/B\=B v2.0}
at forward pseudorapidity in both minimum bias (MB) and central collisions
could be explained as a specific interplay between J\=J loops and
SCF effects embedded in the model, which induce a baryon/meson
anomaly.
Note, the same effect has been predicted in $p+p$ and Pb+Pb collisions
at LHC energies~\cite{ToporPbPb11}.
To draw a definite conclusion, measurements of identified
particle NMF, $R_{p{\rm Pb}}^{\rm ID}(p_T)$ are needed.
Such measurements will provide a vital
information on cold nuclear matter effects and will
constrain the main parameters of shadowing functions
used within different models.
\section{Conclusion}
In conclusion, even with a small sample of $10^6$ events
the study of $R_{p{\rm Pb}}(p_T)$ or central relative to peripheral NMF
($R_{\rm CP}(p_T)$) could provide a definitive constraint on nuclear
shadowing implemented within different pQCD inspired models and CGC saturation
models, with high impact on the interpretation or reinterpretation of the
bulk and hard probes for nucleus-nucleus (Pb+Pb)
collisions at LHC energies.
{\small HIJING} type models predict
for central ($N_{\rm coll} = 12$) $p+{\rm Pb}$ collisions
smaller values of nuclear modification factors ($R_{p{\rm Pb}}(p_T)$)
than in minimum bias events.
The possibility to trigger on
the highest multiplicity tails of
transverse momentum spectra in $p+{\rm Pb}$ collisions,
will open the way to study collective phenomena
in proton nucleus interactions with superdense nuclear cores, where
average number of binary collisions could increase to
$N_{\rm coll} > 12$. These measurements will provide an
stringent test of the phenomenological models discussed in this paper.
\section{Acknowledgments}
\vskip 0.2cm
{\bf Acknowledgments:} Discussion with
B.~Cole, J.~Harris, G.~Roland, J.~Schukraft, and W.~Zajc
as well as B.~Mueller, A.~Dumitru,
Jamal Jalilian-Marian, D.~Kharzeev, L.~McLerran, and Xin-Nian Wang are
gratefully acknowledged.
VT and JB are supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering
Research Council of Canada.
MG is supported by the Division of Nuclear Science,
U.S. Department of Energy, under Contract No. DE-AC03-76SF00098 and
DE-FG02-93ER-40764 (associated
with the JET Topical Collaboration Project).
GGB, MG, and PL also thanks for the Hungarian grants OTKA PD73596, NK778816,
NIH TET\_10-1\_2011-0061 and ZA-15/2009.
GGB was partially supported by the J\'anos Bolyai Research Scholarship
of the HAS.
|
\section{Introduction}
This paper deals with two questions concerning the arithmetic and the geometry
of $K3$ surfaces. Let $X$ be a polarized $K3$ surface over a number field $k$, and let
$\mathfrak p$ be a finite place of $k$ where $X$ has good reduction. Denote by $X_{\mathfrak
p}$ the special fiber of a smooth model of $X$ over the ring of integers of $k_{\mathfrak p}$.
Denote by $\overline{X}$ (resp. $\overline{X_{\mathfrak p}}$) the base change of $X$ (resp.
$X_{\mathfrak p}$) to an algebraic closure of $k$ (resp. the residue field of $\mathfrak p$).
Specialization of divisors induces a specialization map between the N\'eron-Severi groups of
$\overline{X}$ and $\overline{X_{\mathfrak p}}$.
\begin{question}\label{sp}
What can be said about the specialization map
\begin{equation}\label{speq}
sp : NS(\overline{X})\rightarrow NS(\overline{X_{\mathfrak p}})\,?
\end{equation}
\end{question}
A standard argument using the cycle class map and the smooth base change theorem shows that
this specialization map is always injective. We are here interested in the defect of
surjectivity.
The second question is the following. Recall that the Picard number of a variety is by
definition the rank of its N\'eron-Severi group.
\begin{question}\label{rho}
Given a projective embedding of $X$, is it possible to compute the Picard number of $X$~?
\end{question}
This question is raised by Shioda in \cite{Sh81}.
Using the Weil conjectures \cite{De74}, it is possible to compute the Picard numbers
of smooth projective varieties over finite fields. Indeed, counting points in sufficiently many
extensions of the base field, one can compute the characteristic polynomial of the Frobenius
acting on the second \'etale cohomology group, and determine the multiplicity of $1$ as an
eigenvalue. If the Tate conjecture holds, this multiplicity is equal to the
Picard number.
\bigskip
In characteristic zero, Question \ref{rho} is more difficult. In particular, the first explicit
example of a K3 surface over a number field with Picard rank $1$ has been recently given by van
Luijk in \cite{vL07}. Van Luijk's method provides a link between both questions. Indeed, it
proceeds by computing Picard numbers at sufficiently many finite places in order to get
information over the field of definition. In the past few years, the problem of computing Picard numbers of $K3$ surfaces has been featured for instance in the work of Elsenhans-Jahnel \cite{EJ08}, \cite{EJ082}, with recent geometric applications in the work of Hassett, V{\'a}rilly-Alvarado and V\'arilly, \cite{HVAV11} and \cite{HVA11}.
With this approach, one of the main problems is finding finite places $\mathfrak p$ such that
the specialization map (\ref{speq}) is as close to being surjective as possible, i.e., such
that $\rho(\overline{X_{\mathfrak p}})$ is as small as possible.
\bigskip
Note that the situation in this mixed characteristic setting is in stark contrast with the
case of equal characteristic zero. Indeed, for $K3$ surfaces defined over function fields over
$\mathbb{C}$
or $\overline\mathbb{Q}$, most specializations induce isomorphisms at the level of the N\'eron-Severi
group. This is a consequence of Baire's theorem over $\mathbb{C}$, see for instance \cite{Vo02},
Chapter 13, and of the Hilbert irreducibility theorem over $\overline \mathbb{Q}$, see \cite{Te85} and
\cite{El02}. A different approach to this problem can be found in \cite{MP09}.
On the other hand, over finite fields, there are obstructions for the map (\ref{speq}) to be
surjective, as was first noticed by Shioda in \cite{Sh81} and \cite{Sh83}. Indeed, it is a
consequence of the Tate conjecture that the geometric Picard number of a $K3$ surface over a
number field is always even, see for instance \cite{dJK00}. This striking fact has been
recently used in a surprising way by Bogomolov-Hassett-Tschinkel in \cite{BHT11} and Li-Liedtke
in \cite{LL10} to prove that any complex $K3$ surface with odd Picard rank contains infinitely
many rational curves.
In this paper, we describe the Shioda-type obstructions that can prevent the map (\ref{speq})
from being surjective, and we give optimal lower bounds for the Picard number of the
specialization. One of our results is that Hodge theory can force the existence of such obstructions even when the Picard number is even, see part (2) of Theorem \ref{jump} below.
\bigskip
Let $X$ be a $K3$ surface over a number field $k$, and choose a complex embedding of $k$. Let
$\rho$ be the geometric Picard number of $X$ and, for any finite place $\mathfrak p$ of $k$
where $X$ has good reduction, let $\rho_{\mathfrak p}$ be the geometric Picard number of
$X_{\mathfrak p}$. Note that we always have $$\rho_{\mathfrak p}\geq \rho.$$
We need to control the Hodge theory of $X_{\mathbb{C}}$. Let $T$ be the orthogonal of $NS(X_{\mathbb{C}})$ in
the singular cohomology group $H^2(X_{\mathbb{C}}, \mathbb{Q})$ with respect to cup-product. The space $T$ is a
sub-Hodge structure of $H^2(X_{\mathbb{C}}, \mathbb{Q})$. Let $E$ be the algebra of endomorphisms of $T$ that
respect the Hodge structure. In \cite{Za83}, Zarhin shows that $E$ is either a
totally real field or a CM field.
The following result can be considered as a number field
analog of the specialization results over function fields mentioned above.
\begin{thm}\label{jump}
Let $X$, $T$ and $E$ be as above.
\begin{enumerate}
\item If $E$ is a CM field or the dimension of $T$ as an $E$-vector space is even, then there
exist infinitely many places $\mathfrak p$ of good
reduction such that $\rho_{p}=\rho$. Furthermore, after replacing $k$ by a finite
extension, this equality holds for a set of places of density $1$.
\newpage
\item Assume $E$ is a totally
real field and the dimension of $T$ as an $E$-vector space is odd.
Let $\mathfrak p$ be a finite place of $k$ where $X$ has good reduction. If $X_{\mathfrak p}$
satisfies the Tate conjecture, then
$$\rho_{\mathfrak p}\geq \rho+[E:\mathbb{Q}].$$
There exist infinitely many places
$\mathfrak p$ of good reduction such that $\rho_{\mathfrak p}=\rho+[E:\mathbb{Q}]$. Furthermore, after
replacing $k$ by a finite extension, this equality holds for a set of places of density
$1$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm}
\begin{rk}
Note that if $\rho$ is odd, $X$ satisfies the assumptions of the second part of the
theorem.
\end{rk}
\begin{rk}
By work of Nygaard and Nygaard-Ogus in \cite{Ny83}, \cite{NO85}, the Tate conjecture holds for
ordinary $K3$ surfaces
over finite fields and non-supersingular $K3$ surfaces over fields of characteristic at least
$5$.
\end{rk}
\begin{rk}\label{cex}
In \cite{EJ11}, Elsenhans and Jahnel ask whether, with notations as in the theorem, there
exists $\mathfrak p$ such that $\rho_{\mathfrak p}-\rho\leq 1$. The result above shows that it
is not the case if $E$ is a totally real field of degree at least $2$ over $\mathbb{Q}$, such that the
dimension of $T$ over $E$ is odd. This is however true in all other cases.
\end{rk}
This result shows that the Picard number can be forced to jump in specializations even when
the Picard number of $X$ is even. Using the method of Li and Liedtke in \cite{LL10}, we get the following corollary.
\begin{cor}
Let $X$ be either a $K3$ surface of Picard rank $2$ with $E$ a totally real field of degree $4$ or a $K3$ surface of Picard
rank $4$ with $E$ a totally real field of even degree. Then $X$ contains infinitely many rational curves.
\end{cor}
There exist such $K3$ surfaces by \cite{vG08}, section 3, and they give new examples of $K3$ surfaces with infinitely many rational curves. Note that complex $K3$ surfaces of Picard rank different from $2$ and $4$ are known to contain infinitely many rational curves by \cite{LL10}.
\bigskip
The second main result of this paper is a solution to Question \ref{rho}. Recall that van
Luijk's method in \cite{vL07} to prove that a $K3$ surface $X$ over $\mathbb{Q}$ has Picard number $1$
was to first find two primes $p$ and $q$ of good reduction such that $X$ specializes to a $K3$
surface
of Picard number $2$ modulo $p$ and $q$. If the discriminant of the N\'eron-Severi lattices
modulo $p$ and $q$ differ by a non-square factor, van Luijk shows that this implies that $X$
has Picard number $1$.
By Remark \ref{cex}, there are cases where we cannot expect van Luijk's method to work directly
for all $K3$ surfaces of rank $1$. However, the second part of Theorem \ref{jump} can be used
to show that reduction at finite places does indeed give enough information to compute Picard
numbers over number fields.
This gives a theoretical explanation to the computations in \cite{vL07}, \cite{EJ08}, \cite{EJ082}, \cite{HVAV11}, \cite{HVA11}.
\begin{thm}\label{compute}
There exists an algorithm which, given a projective $K3$ surface $X$ over a number field,
either returns its geometric Picard number or does not terminate.
If $X\times X$ satisfies the Hodge conjecture for codimension $2$ cycles, then the algorithm applied to $X$ terminates.
\end{thm}
\begin{rk}
Let $X$ be a $K3$ surface over $\mathbb{C}$. With the notations of Theorem \ref{jump}, $X\times X$
satisfies the Hodge conjecture if and only if the field $E$ acts by algebraic correspondences.
By \cite{A96}, this would be a consequence of the standard conjectures. In \cite{Mu02}, Mukai
has announced a proof in the case $E$ is a CM field.
\end{rk}
\begin{rk}
The proof of the theorem actually shows that the only case where the algorithm would not
terminate is, with the notations of Theorem \ref{jump}, if $E$ is a totally real field that
does not act on $H^2(X, \mathbb{Q})$ by algebraic correspondences and $T$ is of odd dimension as a
vector space over $E$.
In particular, the algorithm always terminates for surfaces with $E=\mathbb{Q}$.
\end{rk}
\bigskip
While we only consider $K3$ surfaces in this paper, some of the methods we consider have a
wider range of applications. Assuming general conjectures on algebraic cycles, it is a general
fact that the Mumford-Tate group associated to the second cohomology group of a variety
controls specialization of N\'eron-Severi groups, in a fashion that is similar to the way the
monodromy representation appears in \cite{El02} or \cite{MP09}. The multiplicity of the weight zero in the corresponding representation is what forces the Picard number to jump after specialization. This is related to algorithmic computations of N\'eron-Severi groups as in our paper.
For $K3$ surfaces, the work of Zarhin and Tankeev in \cite{Za83} and \cite{Ta90}, \cite{Ta95}
allows us to give precise and unconditional results. The results of our paper conjecturally
hold for varieties with $h^{2, 0}=1$. It seems likely that one can prove them unconditionally
for holomorphic symplectic varieties by extending the work of Tankeev cited above.
\bigskip
In section 2, we recall results of Zarhin and Tankeev on the second cohomology group of a $K3$
surface. This allows us to prove Theorem \ref{jump} in section 3. Section 4 is devoted to
discriminant computations which will allow us to prove Theorem \ref{compute} in the last
section.
\section{Algebraic monodromy groups of $K3$ surfaces over number fields}
The results of this section are mostly contained in the work of Zarhin and Tankeev. After
recalling some
preliminary material, we describe the algebraic monodromy group of a $K3$ surface defined over
a number field.
\subsection{Mumford-Tate groups and the Mumford-Tate conjecture}
Let $\mathbb S$ be the Deligne torus, that is, the algebraic group over $\mathbb{R}$ defined as
$$\mathbb S=\mathrm{Res}_{\mathbb{C}/\mathbb{R}} \mathbb G_m.$$
Let $H$ be a finite-dimensional vector space over $\mathbb{Q}$. Giving a Hodge structure on $H$ is
equivalent to giving an action of $\mathbb S$ on $H_{\mathbb{R}}=H\otimes\mathbb{R}$.
\begin{df}
Let $H$ be a rational Hodge structure. The Mumford-Tate group of $H$ is the smallest
algebraic subgroup $MT(H)$ of $GL(H)$ such that $MT(H)_{\mathbb{R}}$ contains the image of
$\mathbb S$ in $GL(H_{\mathbb{R}})$.
\end{df}
We refer to \cite{DMOS82}, Chapter I, for general properties of Mumford-Tate groups. Since
$\mathbb S$ is connected, this definition implies that Mumford-Tate groups are connected.
Note that the Mumford-Tate group of a polarized Hodge structure is reductive.
Let $i,j$ be nonnegative integers, and consider the Hodge structure
$$V=H^{\otimes i}\otimes (H^*)^{\otimes j}.$$
The Mumford-Tate group $MT(H)$ acts on $V$. If $v$ is a Hodge class in $V$, then the line $\mathbb{Q}
v$ is globally invariant under the action of $MT(H)$. Conversely, it follows from Chevalley's
theorem on affine groups that $MT(H)$ is the largest algebraic subgroup of
$GL(H_{\mathbb{C}})$ that
leaves all such lines globally invariant, see \cite{DMOS82}.
\bigskip
We now turn to the $\ell$-adic theory. General results can be found in \cite{Se81}. Let $k$ be a
number field and fix an algebraic closure $\overline k$. Let $X$ be a smooth projective variety
over $k$, and denote by $\overline{X}$ the variety $X\times_{\mathrm{Spec} k}
\mathrm{Spec}\,\overline k$. Fixing a prime number $\ell$, we can consider the \'etale
cohomology
group $H^i(\overline X, \mathbb{Q}_{\ell})$ for some integer $i$.
Let $\rho_{\ell}$ denote the continuous representation
$$\rho_{\ell} : G_k\rightarrow GL(H^i(\overline X, \mathbb{Q}_{\ell}))$$
of the absolute Galois group $G_k$ of $k$. The image of $\rho_{\ell}$ is an $\ell$-adic Lie
group.
\begin{df}
With notations as above, let $G_{\ell}$ be the Zariski closure of the image of
$\rho_{\ell}$ in the algebraic group $GL(H^i(\overline X, \mathbb{Q}_{\ell}))$. The algebraic group
$G_{\ell}$ is
called the
algebraic monodromy group associated to the Galois representation $\rho_{\ell}$.
\end{df}
Note that replacing $k$ by a finite extension replaces $G_{\ell}$ by an open subgroup of finite
index. In particular, the neutral component of the algebraic monodromy group does not depend on
the choice of a field of definition for $X$.
\bigskip
General conjectures on algebraic cycles give important information on Mumford-Tate and
algebraic monodromy groups. In particular, the latter are expected to be reductive. The
expected relationship between those two groups is described by the Mumford-Tate conjecture as
follows, see \cite{Se81}.
\begin{conj}
Let $k$ be a number field and fix a complex embedding of $k$. Let $X$ be a smooth projective
variety over $k$.
Let $G_{\ell}$ be the algebraic monodromy group associated to the \'etale cohomology group
$H^i(X_{\mathbb{C}}, \mathbb{Q}_{\ell})$ for some prime number $\ell$, and let $G_{\ell}^{\circ}$ be
its neutral component. Then there is a canonical isomorphism
$$G_{\ell}^{\circ}\simeq MT(H^i(X_{\mathbb{C}}, \mathbb{Q}))_{\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}}.$$
\end{conj}
The Mumford-Tate conjecture is implied by the conjunction of the Tate and Hodge conjectures. A
lot of work has been done in its direction in the case of abelian varieties, see for instance
\cite{Se68}, \cite{Pi98}, \cite{Va08}.
In this paper, we
will focus on the case of K3 surfaces, where the Mumford-Tate conjecture holds. However, an
important part of our method concerning specialization of N\'eron-Severi groups holds in a
general setting if one assumes the Mumford-Tate conjecture.
\subsection{Mumford-Tate groups and algebraic monodromy groups of K3 surfaces}
The following result is due to Tankeev and is crucial to this
paper.
\begin{thm}[Tankeev, \cite{Ta90}, \cite{Ta95}]\label{MT}
The Mumford-Tate conjecture holds for the second cohomology group of $K3$ surfaces over number
fields.
\end{thm}
This result allows for a Hodge-theoretic description of the Galois action on the second
cohomology group of a $K3$ surface.
\bigskip
Let us now recall the description due to Zarhin in \cite{Za83} of the Mumford-Tate group of a
$K3$ surface.
Let $X$ be a $K3$ surface over $\mathbb{C}$, and consider the singular cohomology $H=H^2(X, \mathbb{Q})$
endowed with its weight $2$ Hodge structure. The Hodge structure $H$ splits as a direct sum
$$H=NS(X)\oplus T,$$
where $NS(X)$ is the N\'eron-Severi group of $X$ with rational coefficients, and $T$ is the
orthogonal of $NS(X)$ in $H$ with respect to the cup-product. The Hodge structure $T$ is
called the transcendental part of $H^2(X, \mathbb{Q})$.
The Hodge structure $T$ is
simple. By Lefschetz's theorem on $(1,1)$ classes, $T$ is the smallest sub-Hodge structure of
$H$ such that $T\otimes\mathbb{C}$ contains $H^2(X, \mathcal O_X)$. By the Hodge index theorem,
cup-product on $H^2(X, \mathbb{Q})$ restricts to a polarization $\psi: T\otimes T\rightarrow \mathbb{Q}$ on $T$.
Since $NS(X)$ is spanned by Hodge classes, the Mumford-Tate group of $H$ acts by a character on
$NS(X)$ and identifies with the Mumford-Tate group of $T$. Since $T$ is polarized by $\psi$,
$MT(T)$ is contained in the group of orthogonal similitudes $GO(T, \psi)$.
\bigskip
Let $E$ be the algebra of endomorphisms of the Hodge structure $T$. In \cite{Za83}, Zarhin
proves
that $E$ is either a totally real field or a CM field. The field $E$ is equipped with an
involution induced by the polarization on $T$, which is either the identity if $E$ is totally
real or complex conjugation in case $E$ is CM.
Since $E$ consists of endomorphisms of Hodge structures, the Mumford-Tate group of $T$
commutes with $E$. By the discussion above, the Mumford-Tate group of $T$ is a subgroup of the
centralizer of $E$ in the group $GO(T, \psi)$.
\begin{thm}[Zarhin, \cite{Za83}]\label{MTK3}
The Mumford-Tate group of $T$ is the centralizer of $E$ in the group of orthogonal similitudes
$GO(T, \psi)$.
\end{thm}
\bigskip
Now keep the same notation, and assume $X$ can be defined over a number field $k$. Fix a prime
number $\ell$. The action of the absolute Galois group $G_k$ on $H^2(X, \mathbb{Q}_{\ell})$ leaves the
$\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}$-span of the N\'eron-Severi group of $X$ globally invariant, as well as its
orthogonal
$T_{\ell}=T\otimes \mathbb{Q}_{\ell}$. As above, the neutral component of the algebraic monodromy group
$G_{\ell}$
of $H^2(X, \mathbb{Q}_{\ell})$ identifies with the algebraic monodromy group of $T_{\ell}$.
The polarization $\psi$ on $T$ extends to a symmetric bilinear form $\psi_{\ell}$. The
representation of $G_k$ in the automorphism group of $T_{\ell}$ factors through the
group $GO(T_{\ell}, \psi_{\ell})$.
Since Hodge cycles on products of $K3$ surfaces are absolute Hodge, see \cite{DMOS82}, the
field $E$
corresponding to endomorphisms of the Hodge structure $T$ acts on $T_{\ell}$ and commutes with
a finite-index subgroup of $G_k$. As a consequence, the neutral component of $G_{\ell}$
commutes with the action of $E\otimes\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}$.
By Theorem \ref{MT}, the Mumford-Tate conjecture holds for $X$. As an immediate corollary of
Theorem \ref{MTK3}, we get the following description of the neutral component of the algebraic
monodromy group of $X$.
\begin{cor}\label{algK3}
With notations as above, the neutral component of the algebraic monodromy group associated to
$T_{\ell}$ is the centralizer of $E\otimes \mathbb{Q}_{\ell}$ in the group of orthogonal similitudes
$GO(T_{\ell},
\psi_{\ell})$.
\end{cor}
\section{Picard numbers of specializations}
This section is devoted to the proof of Theorem \ref{jump}. We start by the following result
which encompasses the elementary linear algebra needed in Theorem \ref{jump}.
Let $T$ be a finite dimensional vector space endowed with a symmetric bilinear form $\psi$. If
$f$ is any linear endomorphism of $T$, let $f'$ be the adjoint of $f$ with respect to
$\psi$.
Let $E$ be a number field acting on $T$. Assume that $E$ is stable under $e\mapsto e'$, and
that $E$ is either a totally real field with $e=e'$ for all $e\in E$, or a CM field such that
$e\mapsto e'$ acts as complex conjugation on $E$.
Let $H$ be the centralizer of $E$ in the special orthogonal group $SO(T, \psi)$. Let
$\ell$ be a prime number, and let $H_{\ell}=H\otimes\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}$.
\begin{prop}\label{eigenvalues}
The following holds.
\begin{enumerate}
\item If $E$ is a CM field or the dimension of $T$ as an $E$-vector space is even, then there
exists $h\in H_{\ell}$ such that $h$ does not have any root of unity as an
eigenvalue.
\item If $E$ is a totally real field and the dimension of $T$ as an $E$-vector space is
odd, then the eigenspace of any $h\in H_{\ell}$ associated to the eigenvalue $1$ is
of dimension at least $[E:\mathbb{Q}]$. Furthermore, there exists $h\in H_{\ell}$ for which
this dimension is exactly $[E:\mathbb{Q}]$ and such that no root of unity different from $1$ appears as
an eigenvalue of $h$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Let us first assume that $E$ is a totally real field. By \cite{Za83}, 2.1, there
exists a unique $E$-bilinear form $\phi : T\times T\rightarrow E$ such that $\psi=Tr_{E/\mathbb{Q}}(\phi)$.
With this notation,the centralizer of $E$ in $SO(T, \psi)$ is equal, as a subgroup of $GL(T)$,
to the Weil restriction $Res_{E/\mathbb{Q}}(SO_E(T, \phi))$, where $SO_E(T, \phi)$ denotes the group of
orthogonal similitudes of the $E$-vector space $T$ with respect to $\phi$.
\bigskip
Assume furthermore that the dimension of $T$ as a vector space over $E$ is even, and let us
show that there is an element $h\in H_{\ell}$ such that $g$ does not have any root
of unity as an eigenvalue.
Considering an orthogonal decomposition of $T$ as an $E$-vector
space endowed with the bilinear form $\phi$, we can assume $T$ is of dimension $2$ over $E$.
Let $h$ be an orthogonal automorphism of the $E$-vector space $T$ of determinant $1$ that is
not of finite order. Then $h$ corresponds to an element of $H_{\ell}$ with the
desired property.
\bigskip
Now if the dimension of $T$ as a vector space over $E$ is odd, recall that any
element of $SO_E(T, \psi)$ admits $1$ as an eigenvalue. It follows from the description
of $H_{\ell}$ as a Weil restriction that any $h\in H_{\ell}$ has $1$ as an eigenvalue,
and that the corresponding eigenspace is invariant under the action of $E$. As a consequence,
its dimension is at least $[E:\mathbb{Q}]$. One can then argue as in the previous paragraph to
conclude the proof of the theorem in this case.
\bigskip
Let us now assume that $E$ is a CM field. Let $e$ be an element of $E$ such that $ee'=1$ and
$e$ is not a root of unity. Then multiplication by $e$ on $T$ corresponds to an element of
$H_{\ell}$ as in the theorem.
\end{proof}
We now turn to the proof of Theorem \ref{jump}. From now on, we use the notations there. Let
us start with a straightforward lemma.
\begin{lem}\label{SO}
The neutral component of the algebraic monodromy group associated to
$T_{\ell}(1)$ is the centralizer of $E\otimes \mathbb{Q}_{\ell}$ in the special orthogonal group
$SO(T_{\ell},
\psi_{\ell})$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
The representation of $G_k$ on $T_{\ell}(1)$ is equal to the representation of $G_k$ on
$T_{\ell}$
twisted by the cyclotomic character. On the other hands, general properties of \'etale
cohomology show that $G_k$ acts on $T_{\ell}(1)$ through the orthogonal group $O(T_{\ell},
\psi_{\ell})$.
The lemma then follows from Corollary \ref{algK3} and the fact that the special
orthogonal group is the neutral component of the orthogonal group.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{jump}]
We use the notations of the theorem. First note that since specialization of N\'eron-S\'everi
groups is injective, the inequality $\rho_{\mathfrak p}\geq \rho$ always holds.
Let $F_{\mathfrak p}$ be the geometric Frobenius at $\mathfrak p$ acting on the \'etale
cohomology group $H^2(\overline{X_{\mathfrak p}}, \mathbb{Q}_{\ell}(1))$, where $\ell$ is a prime
number prime
to $\mathfrak p$. By the smooth base change theorem, the group $H^2(\overline{X_{\mathfrak p}},
\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}(1))$ identifies with $H^2(\overline{X}, \mathbb{Q}_{\ell}(1))$, and $F_{\mathfrak p}$ leaves
both the N\'eron-Severi group and $T_{\ell}(1)$ globally invariant.
Let $H$ be the centralizer of $E\otimes \mathbb{Q}_{\ell}$ in the special
orthogonal group $SO(T_{\ell}, \psi_{\ell})$. Let $n$ be the dimension of $T$ as a vector space
over $\mathbb{Q}$, and let $S$ be the finite set of complex roots of unity of degree at most $n$ over
$\mathbb{Q}$.
\bigskip
Assume first that $E$ is a CM field or $E$ is a totally real field and the dimension of $T$ as
a vector space over $E$ is even. By Proposition \ref{eigenvalues}, the set of $h\in H_{\ell}$
such that $h$ does not have any eigenvalue in $S$ is a dense, Zariski-open subset of
$H_{\ell}$.
By Lemma \ref{SO} and Chebotarev's density theorem, we can find a finite extension $k'$ of
$k$ and a set $U$ of finite places $\mathfrak p$ of $k'$ that has density $1$ such
that for any $\mathfrak p\in U$, $X$ has good reduction at $\mathfrak p$ and the geometric
Frobenius $F_{\mathfrak p}$ acting on $T_{\ell}(1)$ does not have any eigenvalue in $S$.
\medskip
Choose $U$ as above, and let $\mathfrak p$ be in $U$. By the Weil conjectures, the
characteristic polynomial of the geometric Frobenius $F_{\mathfrak p}$ has rational
coefficients. By definition of $S$, this implies that it does not have any eigenvalue that is a
root of unity.
As a consequence, $F_{\mathfrak p}$ acting on the whole cohomology group $H^2(\overline{X},
\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}(1))$ admits $1$ as an eigenvalue of multiplicity $\rho$ and does not have any other
eigenvalue that is a root of unity. It follows that $\rho_{\mathfrak p}\leq \rho$, and finally
that $\rho_{\mathfrak p}= \rho$. This proves the first part of Theorem \ref{jump}.
\bigskip
Now assume that $E$ is a totally real field and that the dimension of $T$ as
a vector space over $E$ is odd. By Proposition \ref{eigenvalues}, every element of $H_{\ell}$
has $1$ as an eigenvalue with multiplicity at least $[E:\mathbb{Q}]$. By definition of the algebraic
monodromy group, if $\mathfrak p$ is a finite place of $k$, then some power of the geometric
Frobenius belongs to $H_{\ell}$. If $X_{\mathfrak p}$ satisfies the Tate conjecture, it follows
that $\rho_{\mathfrak p}\geq \rho + [E:\mathbb{Q}]$.
By Proposition \ref{eigenvalues} again, the set of $h\in H_{\ell}$ such that $h$ admits $1$ as
an eigenvalue of multiplicity $[E:\mathbb{Q}]$ and does not have any other eigenvalue in $S$ is a
dense, Zariski-open subset of $H_{\ell}$.
By Lemma \ref{SO} and Chebotarev's density theorem, we can find a finite extension $k'$ of
$k$ and a set $U$ of finite places $\mathfrak p$ of $k'$ that has density $1$ such
that for any $\mathfrak p\in U$, $X$ has good reduction at $\mathfrak p$ and the geometric
Frobenius $F_{\mathfrak p}$ acting on $T_{\ell}(1)$ admits $1$ as an eigenvalue of multiplicity
$[E:\mathbb{Q}]$ and does not have any other eigenvalue in $S$.
By work of Bogomolov and Zarhin in \cite{BZ09}, the set of finite places where $X$ has good,
ordinary reduction has density $1$ after some finite extension of $k$. As a consequence, we can
assume that $X$ has good, ordinary reduction at every place in $U$.
Choose $U$ as above, and let $\mathfrak p$ be in $U$. By \cite{Ny83}, $X_{\mathfrak p}$
satisfies the Tate conjecture. We can then argue as above to finish the proof of Theorem
\ref{jump}.
\end{proof}
\begin{rk}
Using Frobenius tori as in \cite{Se81} and the fact that Frobenius tori are maximal tori of
the Mumford-Tate groups for infinitely many primes, one can work directly in the group
of orthogonal similitudes instead of reducing to the special orthogonal group as in Lemma
\ref{SO}.
\end{rk}
\section{Discriminants of N\'eron-Severi groups}
In this section, we discuss properties of the N\'eron-Severi lattices of
specializations of $K3$ surfaces. Once again, we use the notations of Theorem \ref{jump}.
\begin{prop}\label{disc}
Assume that $E$ is a totally real field and that the dimension of $T$ over $E$ is odd. If
$\mathfrak p$ is a finite place of $k$ such that $X$ has good reduction at $\mathfrak p$,
denote by $\delta(\mathfrak p)\in \mathbb{Q}^*/(\mathbb{Q}^*)^2$ the discriminant of the lattice
$NS(\overline{X_{\mathfrak p}})$ with respect to the intersection product.
There exist infinitely many pairs $(\mathfrak p,\mathfrak q)$ of finite places of
$k$ such that
\begin{enumerate}
\item $X$ has good, ordinary reduction at both $\mathfrak p$ and $\mathfrak q$.
\item $\rho_{\mathfrak p}=\rho_{\mathfrak q}=\rho+[E:\mathbb{Q}].$
\item $\delta(\mathfrak p)\neq \delta(\mathfrak q).$
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}
\begin{rk}
A specific case of this result is that the method developed in \cite{vL07} to prove that a
given $K3$ surface over a number field has Picard number $1$ always works in the case $E=\mathbb{Q}$.
We noted in Remark \ref{cex} that it cannot work directly otherwise.
In the next section, we will adapt the method so as to make it work in every case.
\end{rk}
We start with some easy linear algebra.
\begin{lem}\label{approx}
Let $\ell$ be a prime number, and let $V$ be a free module of finite rank over $\mathbb{Z}_{\ell}$. Let
$g$ be an endomorphism of $V$ such that $g\otimes\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}$ is a semisimple automorphism of
$V\otimes\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}$, and denote by $r$ the multiplicity of $1$ as an eigenvalue of $g$. Let $W$
be the eigenspace associated to the eigenvalue $1$ of $g$. Let $d$ be a positive integer.
Then there exists an integer $N$ with the following property. Let $h$ be an endomorphism of $V$
such that $h\otimes\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}$ is a semisimple automorphism of $V\otimes\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}$. Assume that
$r$ is the multiplicity of $1$ as an eigenvalue of $h$, and let $W'$ be the eigenspace
associated to the eigenvalue $1$ of $h$. If $h$ is congruent to $g$ modulo $\ell^N$, then
$W\otimes\mathbb{Z}/\ell^d\mathbb{Z} =W'\otimes\mathbb{Z}/\ell^d\mathbb{Z}$.
\end{lem}
\begin{rk}
In particular, if $V$ is endowed with a symmetric bilinear form, the restriction of which to
$W$ is not degenerate, and $N$ is sufficiently large, then the discriminants of $W$ and $W'$
are equal in $\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}^*/(\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}^*)^2$.
\end{rk}
\begin{proof}
Write $V=W\oplus\widetilde W$, where $\widetilde W$ is a $g$-invariant submodule of $V$. Since
$g\otimes\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}$ does not fix any nonzero element of $\widetilde W\otimes\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}$, there
exists an integer $N$ such that if $g(v)-v\in l^N V$ for some $v\in \widetilde W$, then $v\in
\ell^k\widetilde W$.
Let $h$ be as in the statement of the lemma. By definition of $N$, if $v\in V$ is fixed by $h$,
then $v\otimes \mathbb{Z}/\ell^k\mathbb{Z}\in W\otimes\mathbb{Z}/\ell^k\mathbb{Z}$. With the notation of the lemma, it follows
that $W'\otimes\mathbb{Z}/\ell^k\mathbb{Z} \subset W\otimes\mathbb{Z}/\ell^k\mathbb{Z}$. Since both $W$ and $W'$ are saturated
submodules of $V$ of the same rank $r$, equality follows.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition \ref{disc}]
First note that the dimension of $T$ as a vector space over $E$ is at least $3$. Indeed, let
$\omega$ be a generator of $T^{2,0}\subset T\otimes\mathbb{C}$, and let $\sigma : E\rightarrow\mathbb{C}$ be the
complex embedding of $E$ satisfying
$$\forall e\in E, e.\omega=\sigma(e)\omega.$$
The complex lines $\mathbb{C}\omega$ and $\mathbb{C}\overline\omega$ are two distinct one-dimensional subspaces
of $T_E\otimes_{\sigma}\mathbb{C}$, where $T_E$ denotes $T$ endowed with the structure of a vector
space over $E$. As a consequence, the dimension of $T$ as a vector space over $E$ is at least
$2$, and at least $3$ since we assumed it to be odd.
\bigskip
Recall that $\psi$ is the bilinear form on $T$ induced by cup-product. As in Proposition
\ref{eigenvalues}, there exists a unique $E$-bilinear form $\phi : T\times T\rightarrow E$ such that
$\psi=Tr_{E/\mathbb{Q}}(\phi)$. Any orthogonal basis of $T_E$ with respect to $\phi$ induces an
orthogonal decomposition of $T$ with respect to $\psi$.
$$T=T_1\oplus \ldots \oplus T_r$$
where the $T_i$ are stable under the action of $E$ and of dimension $1$ as $E$-vector spaces.
By the same reasoning as above, since the $T_i$ are one-dimensional over $E$, there is no
integer $i$ such that $T_i\otimes\mathbb{C}$ contains the two-dimensional space $T^{2,0}\oplus
T^{0,2}$.
The signature of $\psi$ on $T$ is $(2, dim(T)-2)$. By the Hodge index theorem and the remark above, the signature of the restriction of $\psi$ to $T_i$ is either $(0, [E:\mathbb{Q}])$ or $(1, [E:\mathbb{Q}]-1)$. Since the dimension of $T$ over $E$ is at least $3$, both these signatures appear, and this implies that there exist integers $i$ and
$j$ such that the discriminant of $T_i$ is negative and the discriminant of $T_j$ is positive. Let $\delta_i$ and $\delta_j$ be these two discriminants in $\mathbb{Q}^*/(\mathbb{Q}^*)^2$.
\bigskip
Since $\delta_i\neq \delta_j$ in $\mathbb{Q}^*/(\mathbb{Q}^*)^2$, there exists a prime number such that the
images of $\delta_i$ and $\delta_j$ in $\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}^*/(\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}^*)^2$ are different. If $W$ is
any subspace of $T_{\ell}$ such that the restriction of $\psi_{\ell}$ to $W$ is non-degenerate,
let $\delta(W)$ denote the discriminant of $W$ in $\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}^*/(\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}^*)^2$
By Lemma \ref{approx}, Proposition \ref{eigenvalues} and Chebotarev's density theorem, we can
find, for any positive integer $d$, infinitely many pairs $(\mathfrak p,\mathfrak q)$ of finite
places of $k$ such that
\begin{enumerate}
\item $X$ has good, ordinary reduction at both $\mathfrak p$ and $\mathfrak q$.
\item $\rho_{\mathfrak p}=\rho_{\mathfrak q}=\rho+[E:\mathbb{Q}].$
\item If $F_{\mathfrak p}$ (resp. $F_{\mathfrak q}$) denotes the geometric Frobenius at
$\mathfrak p$ (resp. $\mathfrak q$) acting on $T_{\ell}(1)$, and $W_{\mathfrak p}$ (resp.
$W_{\mathfrak q}$) denotes the eigenspace associated to the eigenvalue $1$ of $F_{\mathfrak p}$
(resp. $F_{\mathfrak q}$), then $\delta(W_{\mathfrak p})=\delta_i$ in
$\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}^*/(\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}^*)^2$ (resp. $\delta(W_{\mathfrak q})=\delta_j$ in
$\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}^*/(\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}^*)^2$).
\item The geometric Frobenius $F_{\mathfrak p}$ (resp. $F_{\mathfrak q}$) denotes the
geometric Frobenius at $\mathfrak p$ (resp. $\mathfrak q$) acting on $T_{\ell}(1)$ does not
have any eigenvalue different from $1$ that is a root of unity.
\end{enumerate}
Proposition \ref{disc} immediately follows by the Tate conjecture for ordinary $K3$ surfaces.
\end{proof}
\begin{rk}
The proof above shows that the density of pairs $(\mathfrak p, \mathfrak q)$ as in the
proposition is positive.
\end{rk}
\section{Computing the Picard number over number fields}
This section is devoted to a proof of Theorem \ref{compute}. Given a projective $K3$ surface
over a number field $k$, we want to compute the Picard number of $X$ using the equations of
$X$ in a projective embedding.
There are two steps in our approach. The first one is finding sufficiently many divisors on
$X$, and the second is proving that these divisors generate the N\'eron-Severi group of $X$ --
at least rationally.
In case we want to prove that the $K3$ surface has Picard number $1$, the first step is
vacuous, as we already have a divisor given by a hyperplane section. In general, the first
step is done by going through the Hilbert schemes of curves in the projective space we are
working in and doing elimination theory to find curves on $X$. After a finite number of
computations, this will allow us to find divisors on $X$ that span the N\'eron-Severi group.
The second step will be done by reducing to finite characteristic and using our results above.
\bigskip
However, this is not sufficient. Indeed, the field $E$ of endomorphisms of the transcendental
part of the Hodge structure of $X$ plays a role in the behavior of the Picard number after
specialization, and in case $E$ is a totally real field strictly containing $\mathbb{Q}$ such that $T$
is of odd dimension over $E$, this leads to some loss of accuracy in the estimates reduction
at finite places can provide.
This problem will be solved by studying codimension $2$ varieties in $X\times X$. Assuming the
Hodge conjecture for $X\times X$, these determine the field $E$, which will allow us to
conclude.
We start by the following result.
\begin{prop}\label{check}
Let $X$ be a $K3$ surface over a number field $k$. Assume we are given the equations of $X$
in some projective embedding.
Let $T$ be the transcendental part of $H^2(X, \mathbb{Q})$, and let $E$ be the field of endomorphisms
of the Hodge structure $T$.
Assume that we know that the Picard number of $X$ is greater or equal to some integer $\rho$,
and that the degree of $E$ over $\mathbb{Q}$ is greater or equal to some integer $d$.
Then there exists an algorithm with the following properties:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Suppose that the Picard number of $X$ is actually $\rho$. Then the algorithm terminates
unless $E$ is totally real, the dimension of $T$ as a vector space over $E$ is odd and
$d<[E:\mathbb{Q}]$.
\item If the algorithm terminates, it proves that Picard number of $X$ is $\rho$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Let $\rho'$ be the actual Picard number of $X$. We know that $\rho'\geq\rho$. Using the Weil
conjectures \cite{De74}, we can compute the characteristic polynomial of Frobenius at any finite place of
$k$, see \cite{vL07}, \cite{EJ11}. This allows in particular to check whether $X$ has good,
ordinary reduction at a given place $\mathfrak p$, and to compute the numbers $\rho_{\mathfrak
p}$ for such places. Using the Artin-Tate formula, one can also compute the discriminants
$\delta(\mathfrak p)$ as in Proposition \ref{disc}.
We start computing $\rho_{\mathfrak p}$ and $\delta(\mathfrak p)$ for all ordinary places
$\mathfrak p$.
Let us distinguish three cases. First assume that $E$ is a CM field. By Theorem \ref{jump}, we
can find $\mathfrak p$ with $\rho_{\mathfrak p}=\rho'$. If it happens that $\rho$, the lower
bound for the Picard number of $X$ that we were given, is equal to the actual Picard number
$\rho'$ (that we do not know yet), the computation at $\mathfrak p$ together with this lower
bound proves that $X$ has Picard number $\rho=\rho'$.
\bigskip
Now assume that $E$ is totally real and the dimension of $T$ as a vector
space over $E$ is even. In that case, Theorem \ref{jump} allows us to make the
same conclusion.
\bigskip
The last case happens when $E$ is totally real and the dimension of $T$ as a vector
space over $E$ is odd. By Proposition \ref{disc}, the finite field computations give us two
finite places $\mathfrak p$ and $\mathfrak q$ of $k$ where $X$ has good, ordinary reduction,
with $\rho_{\mathfrak{p}}=\rho_{\mathfrak q}=\rho'+[E:\mathbb{Q}]$, and $\delta(\mathfrak p)\neq
\delta(\mathfrak q)$.
Since $\delta(\mathfrak p)\neq \delta(\mathfrak q)$, we know that the specialization maps
$NS(\overline X)\rightarrow NS(\overline X_{\mathfrak p})$ and $NS(\overline X)\rightarrow NS(\overline
X_{\mathfrak p})$ are not surjective. This means that $NS(X_{\mathfrak p})\cap T_l(1)$ is
nonzero in $H^2(\overline X_{\mathfrak p}, \mathbb{Q}_l(1))$.
Now we know by the analysis in the proof of Theorem \ref{jump} that this intersection is
stable under the action of $E$. As a consequence, its dimension is at least $[E:\mathbb{Q}]\geq d$.
This gives us the estimation
$$\rho'\leq \rho_{\mathfrak p}-d.$$
In case $d$ happens to be equal to the actual degree $[E:\mathbb{Q}]$ and $\rho=\rho'$, these
estimates allow is to prove that $X$ has Picard number $\rho=\rho'$.
\end{proof}
\begin{rk}
In case $\rho=\rho'=1$ and $E=\mathbb{Q}$, this proves the method of \cite{vL07} always works.
\end{rk}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{compute}]
Let $X$, $E$ and $T$ be as above. Let $\rho'$ be the Picard number of $X$ and $d'$ be the
degree of $E$ over $\mathbb{Q}$. By Proposition \ref{check}, we only need to be able to prove that the
Picard number of $X$ is at least $\rho'$ and the degree of $E$ over $\mathbb{Q}$ is at least $d'$.
The assertion on the Picard number is theoretically -- although not computationally -- easy.
One
can go through Hilbert schemes of curves in the projective space where $X$ is given
and check, using elimination theory, for curves that happen to lie on $X$. Computing
intersection matrices with this divisors on $X$, one can find divisors that span a
$\rho'$-dimensional subset of the N\'eron-Severi group of $X$.
Running these Hilbert schemes computations alongside the computations of Proposition
\ref{check} allows for a computation of the Picard number of $X$ unless $E$ is a totally real
field strictly containing $\mathbb{Q}$ such that $T$ is of odd dimension over $E$.
\bigskip
To deal with the latter case, one has to work on $X\times X$. If one assumes the Hodge
conjecture for $X\times X$, then elements of $E$ are induced by codimension $2$ cycles in
$X\times X$. As above, one can use Hilbert schemes to find codimension $2$ subschemes in
$X\times X$.
Given such a subscheme $Z$, the action of $Z$ on $T$ can be determined by first
computing the characteristic polynomial of the correspondence $H^2(X, \mathbb{Q})\rightarrow H^2(X, \mathbb{Q})$ by
computing intersection numbers between $T$ and the various subschemes obtained by composing
the correspondence induced by $Z$ with itself.
Factoring the characteristic polynomial, this gives candidates for the algebraic number
$\lambda$ such that $[Z]_*\eta=\lambda\eta$, where $\eta$ is a nonzero algebraic $2$-form on
$X$. An approximate computation can then determine $\lambda$. The degree of $\lambda$ over
$\mathbb{Q}$ is a lower bound for $[E:\mathbb{Q}]$.
By the primitive element theorem, it is easy to see that one can find $Z$ such that this
computation gives an optimal estimate for the degree of $E$. Using Proposition \ref{check},
this concludes the proof.
\bigskip
In conclusion, an algorithm to compute Picard number of $K3$ surfaces works as follows. Let $X$
be a $K3$ surface. Run the three following algorithms alongside each other.
\begin{enumerate}
\item Going through Hilbert schemes of a suitable projective space, find divisors on $X$ and
compute the dimension of their span in the N\'eron-Severi group via intersection theory. This
gives a lower bound for the Picard number.
\item Going through Hilbert schemes of a suitable projective space, find codimension $2$
cycles in $X\times X$. Using intersection theory again, use these to get a lower bound on the
field $E$ of endomorphisms of the transcendental part of $H^2(X, \mathbb{Q})$.
\item Going through finite places $\mathfrak p$ of $k$, compute the Picard number and the
discriminant of the N\'eron-Severi group of $\overline X_{\mathfrak p}$ by counting points over
finite fields. Using the preceding step, get an upper bound on the Picard number of $X$.
\end{enumerate}
We showed that the estimates provided by the method solve the problem unconditionally unless
$E$ is a totally real field strictly containing $\mathbb{Q}$ and the transcendental part of $H^2(X,
\mathbb{Q})$ is of odd dimension over $E$. In the latter case, the estimates above are sufficiently
precise to compute the Picard number if we assume the Hodge conjecture for $X\times X$.
\end{proof}
\begin{rk}
It seems that the computations of the second step above would be very
lengthy to do in practice. We however wanted to point out that they could be done
theoretically.
Note that the computations terminate much faster in most cases, since $E=\mathbb{Q}$ for the majority of $K3$
complex surfaces, in the sense of Baire category.
\end{rk}
|
\section{Introduction \label{intro}}
\hspace*{-\parindent}\textbf{I.~Introduction}.\hspace*{\parindent}Hadrons in-medium are the focus of intense theoretical and experimental activity. The chief motivation in heavy-ion collisions is a better understanding of QCD's deconfined phase, {\em viz.\/} the putative quark-gluon plasma, its chiral restoration phase transition and associated order parameters. Whilst an enhancement of charm and strangeness in the quark-gluon phase is predicted to lead to the copious production of $D_{(s)}$ mesons \cite{Cacciari:2005rkKuznetsova:2006bh} at the large hadron collider, $J/\psi$ suppression has long been suggested as an unambiguous signature for quark-gluon plasma formation \cite{Matsui:1986dk}. Notwithstanding ongoing debates about charmonia production mechanisms and a wide range of suppression effects, much effort is sensibly dedicated to understanding the complicated final-state interactions which occur after hadronization of the plasma; see, e.g., Ref.\,\cite{Bracco:2011pg}.
Charmed-meson interactions with nuclear matter will also be studied at the future Facility for Antiproton and Ion Research (FAIR) and possibly at Jefferson Laboratory (JLab). Low-momentum charmonia, such as $J/\psi$ and $\psi$, and $D^{(*)}$ mesons can be produced by annihilation of antiprotons on nuclei (FAIR) or by scattering electrons from nuclei (JLab). Since charmonia do not share valence quarks in common with the surrounding nuclear medium, proposed interaction mechanisms include: QCD van der Waals forces, arising from the exchange of two or more gluons between color-singlet states \cite{Peskin:1979vaBrodsky:1989jd}; and intermediate charmed hadron states \cite{Brodsky:1997ghKo:2000jx}, such that $\bar D^{(\ast)} D^{(\ast)}$ hadronic vacuum polarization components of the $J/\psi$ interact with the medium via meson exchanges \cite{Krein:2010vp}.
A kindred approach is applied to low-energy interactions of open-charm mesons with nuclei, which may create a path to the production of charmed nuclear bound states ($D$-mesic nuclei) \cite{Tsushima:1998ru,Haidenbauer:2007jq,Haidenbauer:2010ch,Yamaguchi:2011xb}. These studies rely on model Lagrangians, within which effective interactions are expressed through couplings between $D^{(\ast)}$- and light-pseudoscalar- and vector-mesons. The models are typically an $SU(4)$ extension of light-flavor chirally-symmetric Lagrangians. Most recently, exotic states formed by heavy mesons and a nucleon were investigated, based upon heavy-meson chiral perturbation theory \cite{Yamaguchi:2011xb}. In that study a universal coupling, $g_\pi$, between a heavy quark and a light pseudoscalar or vector meson was inferred from the strong decay $D^*\to D\pi$, {\em cf.\/} Ref.\,\cite{ElBennich:2010ha}.
In the context of chiral Lagrangians, it is natural to question the reliability of couplings based on $SU(4)$ symmetry. Flavor breaking effects are already known to occur in the strange sector and should only be expected to increase when including charm quarks. The order of magnitude of this larger symmetry breaking is signalled by the compilation of charmed couplings in Ref.\,\cite{Bracco:2011pg}, where $SU(4)$ relations are shown to be violated at various degrees (ranging from 7\% to 70\%) in couplings between two heavy mesons and one light meson. No states containing a $s$-quark were considered.
Herein, we study a different quantitative measure, based upon ratios between the $D\rho D$, $K\rho K$ and $\pi \rho \pi$ couplings; namely, a difference between the same coupling involving either a $c$-, $s$- or light-quark. We are motivated by the notion that the $K\rho K$ and $D\rho D$ systems are dynamically equivalent in the sense that the heavier quark acts as a spectator and contributes predominantly to the static properties of the mesons, whereas the exchange dynamics is mediated by the light quarks. In practice, the symmetry idea is expressed by implementing $g_{D\rho D} \simeq g_{K\rho K}$ in the meson-exchange models \cite{Haidenbauer:2007jq,Haidenbauer:2010ch}. The $\pi \rho \pi$ coupling provides a well-constrained benchmark.
\hspace*{-\parindent}\textbf{II.~DSE Framework}.\hspace*{\parindent}Our primary object of interest is a phenomenological coupling that relates the transition amplitude of an initial pseudoscalar $H=Qf$-meson, $Q=c,s$ and $f=u,d$, to an identical meson via emission of an off-shell $\rho$. The matrix element for this transition is
\begin{equation}
\langle H(p_2) | \, \rho (P,\lambda)\, | H (p_1 ) \rangle = g_{H \rho H} \ \bm{\epsilon}_\lambda\!\cdot P \, ,
\label{eq1}
\end{equation}
an expression which defines the dimensionless coupling of the two pseudoscalar mesons to a vector meson with momentum $P=p_2-p_1$ and polarization state $\lambda$. The decay $\rho\to \pi\pi$ is also described by such a matrix element. However, there is no associated physical process when $m_\rho^2<4 m_H^2$ and $p_1^2 = p_2^2=-m_H^2$. (N.B.\ A Euclidean metric is used: $\{\gamma_\mu, \gamma_\nu \} =2\,\delta_{\gamma\nu};\, \gamma_\mu^\dagger = \gamma_\mu; \; a\!\cdot\! b = \sum^4_{i=1} a_i b_i$; and $\mathrm{tr} [\gamma_5\gamma_\mu\gamma_\nu\gamma_\rho \gamma\sigma ] = -4 \epsilon_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}, \, \epsilon_{1234} = 1$. For a space-like vector $P_\mu, P^2 > 0$.)
Nevertheless, a coupling of this sort is employed in defining $\rho$-meson-mediated exchange-interactions between a nucleon and pseudoscalar strange- or charm-mesons. In such applications: the off-shell $\rho$-meson's momentum is necessarily spacelike; and a coupling and form factor may be defined once one settles on a definition of the off-shell $\rho$-meson.
Symmetry-preserving models built upon predictions of QCD's Dyson-Schwinger equations (DSEs) provide a sound framework within which to examine heavy-meson observables \cite{ElBennich:2010ha,Ivanov:1997yg,Ivanov:1998ms,Ivanov:2007cw,ElBennich:2009vx}. Such studies describe quark propagation via fully dressed Schwinger functions, which has a material impact on light-quark characteristics \cite{Chang:2011vu}.
At leading-order in a systematic, symmetry-preserving truncation scheme \cite{Bender:1996bb}, one may express Eq.\,(\ref{eq1}) as
\begin{eqnarray}
g_{H\!\rho H} \ \bm{\epsilon}^\lambda\!\cdot P & = & \mathrm{tr}_\mathrm{CD}\!\ \! \int\! \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi)^4} \, \Gamma_H (k;k_1) S_Q(k_Q) \nonumber \\
& &\hspace*{-1.5cm} \times \ \bar \Gamma_H(k;-k_2) S_f(k_f')\, \bm{\epsilon}^{\lambda*}\!\cdot \bar \Gamma_\rho(k;-P) S_f(k_f) \; ,
\label{eq2}
\end{eqnarray}
where $S$ represent dressed-quark propagators for the indicated flavor and $\Gamma_H$ are meson Bethe-Salpeter amplitudes (BSAs), with $H=\pi, K, D$. In Eq.\,(\ref{eq2}): the trace is over color and spinor indices; $k_Q = k+w_1 p_1, k_f' =k+w_1 p_1 - p_2$, $k_f =k-w_2p_1$, where the relative- momentum partitioning parameters satisfy $w_1 + w_2 = 1$; and $\bm{\epsilon}^\lambda_\mu$ is the vector-meson polarization four-vector. This approximation has been employed successfully; see, for instance, applications in Refs.\,\cite{Ivanov:2007cw,Chang:2011vu,Roberts:1994hh,Tandy:1997qf,Jarecke:2002xd,%
Maris:2003vk,Roberts:2007jh}.
We simultaneously calculate the $D$-, $K$- and $\rho$-meson leptonic decay constants via \cite{Ivanov:1998ms}:
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{psdecay}
P_\mu f_{H} &=& \mathrm{tr}_\mathrm{CD}\!\ \int\! \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi)^4} \, \gamma_5 \gamma_\mu\, \chi_{H}(k;P)\,, \\
\label{vecdecay}
M_\rho f_\rho & = & \frac{1}{3}\mathrm{tr}_\mathrm{CD}\!\ \int\! \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi)^4} \, \gamma_\mu\, \chi_\mu^\rho (k;P) \, ,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\chi(k;P) = S_{f_1}(k+w_1P) \Gamma(k;P) S_{f_2}(k-w_2P)$. The BSAs are canonically normalized; {\em viz\/}., for pseudoscalars
\begin{eqnarray}
2\, P_\mu & = & \left [ \frac{\partial}{\partial K_\mu} \Pi(P,K) \right ]_{K=P}^{P^2=-m^2_{0^-}} \ ,
\label{norm1} \\
\Pi(P,K) & = & \mathrm{tr}_\mathrm{CD}\!\ \int\! \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi)^4} \, \bar \Gamma_{0^-}(k;-P) S_{f_1}(k+w_1K) \nonumber \\
& & \times \ \Gamma_{0^-}(k;P) S_{f_2}(k-w_2K) \,,
\label{norm2}
\end{eqnarray}
with an analogous expression for the $\rho$ \cite{Ivanov:1998ms}.
The solution of QCD's gap equation is the dressed-quark propagator, which has the general form
\begin{equation}
\label{SpAB}
S(p) = -i \gamma\cdot p\, \sigma_V(p^2) + \sigma_S(p^2)= 1/[i\gamma\cdot p\, A(p^2) + B(p^2)] \, .
\end{equation}
For light-quarks, it is a longstanding DSE prediction that both the wave-function renormalization, $Z(p^2)=1/A(p^2)$, and dressed-quark mass-function, $M(p^2)=B(p^2)/A(p^2)=\sigma_S(p^2)/\sigma_V(p^2)$, receive strong momentum-dependent modifications at infrared momenta: $Z(p^2)$ is suppressed and $M(p^2)$ enhanced. These features are characteristic of dynamical chiral symmetry breaking (DCSB) and, plausibly, of confinement. (N.B.\ Eqs.\,(\protect\ref{ssm}), (\protect\ref{svm}) represent the quark propagator $S(p)$ as an entire function, which entails the absence of a Lehmann representation and is a sufficient condition for confinement \protect\cite{Krein:1990sf,Roberts:2007ji}.) The significance of this infrared dressing has long been emphasized \cite{Roberts:1994hh}; e.g., it is intimately connected with the appearance of Goldstone modes \cite{Chang:2011vu}. The predicted behavior of $Z(p^2)$, $M(p^2)$ has been confirmed in numerical simulations of lattice-regularized QCD \cite{Roberts:2007ji,Bowman:2005vxBhagwat:2006tu}.
Whilst numerical solutions of the quark DSE are readily obtained, the utility of an algebraic form for $S(p)$, when calculations require the evaluation of numerous integrals, is self-evident. An efficacious parametrization, exhibiting the aforementioned features and used extensively \cite{Ivanov:1998ms,Ivanov:2007cw,Roberts:1994hh,Cloet:2008re}, is expressed via
\begin{eqnarray}
\nonumber \bar\sigma_S(x) & =& 2\,\bar m \,{\cal F}(2 (x+\bar m^2))\\
&& + {\cal
F}(b_1 x) \,{\cal F}(b_3 x) \,
\left[b_0 + b_2 {\cal F}(\epsilon x)\right]\,,\label{ssm} \\
\label{svm} \bar\sigma_V(x) & = & \frac{1}{x+\bar m^2}\, \left[ 1 - {\cal F}(2 (x+\bar m^2))\right]\,,
\end{eqnarray}
with $x=p^2/\lambda^2$, $\bar m$ = $m/\lambda$, ${\cal F}(x)= [1-\exp(-x)]/x$,
$\bar\sigma_S(x) = \lambda\,\sigma_S(p^2)$ and $\bar\sigma_V(x) =
\lambda^2\,\sigma_V(p^2)$. The parameter values were fixed \cite{Ivanov:1998ms} by requiring a least-squares fit to a wide range of light- and heavy-meson observables, and take the values:
\begin{equation}
\label{tableA}
\begin{array}{llcccc}
f & \bar m_f& b_0^f & b_1^f & b_2^f & b_3^f \\\hline
u=d & 0.00948 & 0.131 & 2.94 & 0.733 & 0.185 \\
s & 0.210 & 0.105 & 3.18 & 0.858 & 0.185
\end{array} \, .
\end{equation}
At a scale $\lambda=0.566\,$GeV, the current-quark masses take the values $m_u=5.4\,$MeV and $m_s=119\,$MeV, and one obtains the following Euclidean constituent-quark masses \cite{Maris:1997tm}:
$\hat M_u^E = 0.36\,$GeV and $\hat M_s^E = 0.49\,$GeV. (N.B.\ $\epsilon=10^{-4}$ in Eq.\,(\protect\ref{ssm}) acts only to decouple the large- and intermediate-$p^2$ domains \protect\cite{Roberts:1994hh}.)
We note that studies which do not or cannot implement light-quark dressing in this QCD-consistent manner invariably encounter problems arising from the need to employ large constituent-quark masses and the associated poles in the light-quark propagators \cite{ElBennich:2008xyElBennich:2008qa}. This typically translates into considerable model sensitivity for computed observables \cite{ElBennich:2009vx}.
Whereas the impact of DCSB on light-quark propagators is significant, the effect diminishes with increasing current-quark mass (see, e.g., Fig.~1 in Ref.\,\cite{Ivanov:1998ms}). This can be explicated by considering the dimensionless and renormalization-group-invariant ratio $\varsigma_f:=\sigma_f/M^E_f$, where $\sigma_f$ is a constituent-quark $\sigma$-term: $\varsigma_f$ measures the effect of explicit chiral symmetry breaking on the dressed-quark mass-function compared with the sum of the effects of explicit and dynamical chiral symmetry breaking. Calculation reveals \cite{Roberts:2007jh}: $\varsigma_u = 0.02$, $\varsigma_s = 0.23$, $\varsigma_c = 0.65$, $\varsigma_b = 0.8$. Plainly, $\varsigma_f$ vanishes in the chiral limit and remains small for light quarks, since the magnitude of their constituent mass owes primarily to DCSB. On the other hand, for heavy quarks, $\varsigma_f\to 1$ because explicit chiral symmetry breaking is the dominant source of their mass. Notwithstanding this, confinement remains important for the heavy-quarks. These considerations are balanced in the following simple form for the $c$-quark propagator:
\begin{equation}
\label{SQ}
S_c (k) = \frac{-i \gamma\cdot k + \hat M_c}{\hat M_c^2} {\cal F}(k^2/\hat M_c^2)\,,
\end{equation}
which implements confinement but produces a momentum-independent c-quark mass-function; namely, $\sigma_V^c(k^2)/\sigma_S^c(k^2)=\hat M_c$. We use $\hat M_c = 1.32\,{\rm GeV}$ \cite{Ivanov:1998ms}.
A meson is described by the amplitude obtained from a homogeneous Bethe-Salpeter equation. In solving that equation the simultaneous solution of the gap equation is required. Since we have already chosen to simplify the calculations by parametrizing $S(p)$, we follow Refs.\,\cite{ElBennich:2010ha,Ivanov:1998ms,Ivanov:2007cw,ElBennich:2009vx} and also employ that expedient with $\Gamma_{H(\rho)}$.
In this connection, the quark-level Goldberger-Treiman relations derived in Ref.\,\cite{Maris:1997hd} motivate and support the following parametrization of the $\pi$ and $K$ BSAs:
\begin{equation}
\label{piKamp}
\Gamma_{\pi,K}(k;P) = i\gamma_5\,\frac{\surd 2}{f_{\pi,K}}\,B_{\pi,K} (k^2)\,,\\
\end{equation}
where
$B_{\pi,K}:=\left. B_u\right|_{m_u\to 0}^{b_0^u\to b_0^{\pi,K}}$ and
are obtained from Eqs.\,(\ref{SpAB}) -- (\ref{svm}) through the replacements
$b_0^u \rightarrow b_0^\pi = 0.204$, $b_0^u \rightarrow b_0^K = 0.319$, which yield computed values $f_\pi = 146\,$MeV, $f_K = 178\,$MeV \cite{Ivanov:1998ms}. Equation~(\ref{piKamp}) expresses the fact that the dominant invariant function in a pseudoscalar meson's BSA is closely related to the scalar piece of the dressed-quark self energy owing to the axial-vector Ward-Takahashi identity and DCSB.
Regarding the $\rho$ meson, DSE studies
\cite{Jarecke:2002xd,Pichowsky:1999mu} indicate that, in applications such as ours, one may effectively use
\begin{equation}
\label{GV}
\Gamma^\mu_\rho (k;P) = \left ( \gamma^\mu -P^\mu\, \frac{\gamma\cdot P}{P^2} \right ) \frac{\exp (-k^2/ \omega_\rho^2) }{\mathcal{N}_\rho} \, ,
\end{equation}
namely, a function whose support is greatest in the infrared. Similarly, for the $D$ meson we choose:
\begin{equation}
\label{GH}
\Gamma_D (k;P) = i \gamma_5 \, \frac{\exp (-k^2/\omega_D^2) }{\mathcal{N}_D} \; .
\end{equation}
The normalizations, $\mathcal{N}_\rho$, $\mathcal{N}_D$, are obtained from Eqs.\,\eqref{norm1}, \eqref{norm2} and simultaneous calculation
of the weak decay constant in Eqs.\,\eqref{psdecay}, \eqref{vecdecay}. In the expression for the coupling, Eq.\,\eqref{eq1}, as well as in Eqs.~\eqref{psdecay}--\eqref{norm1}, we follow the momentum-partitioning prescription of Ref.\,\cite{ElBennich:2010ha}, which leads to $w_1^c = 0.79$;
{\em viz\/}., most but not all the heavy-light-meson's momentum is carried by the $c$-quark.
We note that Poincar\'e covariance is a hallmark of the direct application of DSEs to the calculation of hadron properties. In such an approach, no physical observable can depend on the choice of momentum partitioning. However, that feature is compromised if, as herein, one does not retain the complete structure of hadron bound-state amplitudes \cite{Maris:1997tm}. Any sensitivity to the partitioning is an artifact arising from our simplifications \cite{Ivanov:2007cw,ElBennich:2010ha}.
\hspace*{-\parindent}\textbf{III.~Results}.\hspace*{\parindent}%
The $D$-meson's width parameter is determined via analysis of relevant leptonic and strong decays: $\omega_D = 1.63\pm 0.10\,$GeV for $m_D=1.865\,$GeV yields $f_D=206\pm 9\,$MeV \cite{Eisenstein:2008sq} and $g_{D^\ast D \pi}=18.7^{+2.5}_{-1.4}$ \emph{cf}. $17.9\pm1.9$ \cite{Anastassov:2001cw}.
For the $\rho$, we use $\omega_\rho = 0.56 \pm 0.01\,$GeV and $w_2^\rho = 0.38$, both determined \cite{Ivanov:2007cw} via a least-squares fit to an array of light-light- and heavy-light-meson observables with $m_\rho=0.77\,$GeV. Using Eqs.\,\eqref{psdecay}, \eqref{norm1} and \eqref{norm2}, one therewith obtains $f_\rho =209\,$MeV, \emph{cf}.\ experiment $216\,$MeV, which follows from the $e^+ e^-$ decay width \cite{Nakamura:2010zzi}.
With the width parameters fixed, we computed the $D\rho D$, $K\rho K$ and $\pi \rho \pi$ couplings in impulse approximation, following Eq.\,\eqref{eq2}. Our results are depicted in Fig.\,\ref{figcoupling}. Notably, we compute the amplitude directly: at all values of $P^2$ and current-quark mass. We do not need to resort to extrapolations, neither from spacelike$\,\to\,$timelike momenta nor in current-quark mass, expedients which are necessary in some other approaches \cite{Bracco:2011pg,Becirevic:2009xp}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centerline{\includegraphics[clip,width=0.4\textwidth]{Fig1.eps}}
\vspace*{-4.4ex}
\centerline{\includegraphics[clip,width=0.403\textwidth]{Fig2.eps}\hspace*{0.15em}}
\caption{
\emph{Upper panel} -- Dimensionless couplings: $g_{D\rho D}$ (solid curve); $g_{K\rho K}$ (dashed curve); and $g_{\pi\rho\pi}$ (dotted curve) -- all computed as a function of the $\rho$-meson's off-shell four-momentum-squared, with the pseudoscalar mesons on-shell. Recall that with our Euclidean metric, $P^2>0$ is spacelike.
\emph{Lower panel} -- Ratios of couplings: $g_{K\rho K}/g_{D\rho D}$ (solid curve); and $g_{K\rho K}/g_{\pi\rho \pi}$ (dashed curve). In the case of exact $SU(4)$ symmetry, these ratios take the values, respectively, $1$ (dot-dashed line) and $(1/2)$ (dotted line).
The vertical dotted line marks the $\rho$-meson's on-shell point in both panels.
(N.B.\ In GeV: $m_D =1.865$, $m_\rho=0.77$, $m_K=0.494$, $m_\pi = 0.138$.)
\label{figcoupling}}
\end{figure}
The behavior of $g_{\pi\rho\pi}(P^2)$ provides a context for our results. Experimentally \cite{Nakamura:2010zzi}, $g_{\pi\rho\pi}(-m_\rho^2)=6.0$; and the best numerically-intensive DSE computation available produces \cite{Jarecke:2002xd} $g_{\pi\rho\pi}(-m_\rho^2)=5.2$. Our algebraically-simplified framework produces $g_{\pi\rho\pi}(-m_\rho^2)=4.8$, just 8\% smaller than the latter, and a $P^2$-dependence for the coupling which closely resembles that in Ref.\,\cite{Mitchell:1996dn}; e.g., both are smooth, monotonically decreasing functions and our value of $g_{\pi\rho\pi}(-m_\rho^2)/g_{\pi\rho\pi}(m_\rho^2)=0.14$ is just 10\% smaller. On the domain $P^2\in [-m_\rho^2,m_\rho^2]$
\begin{equation}
g_{\pi\rho\pi}(s=P^2) = \frac{1.84 -1.45 s}{1+ 0.75 s + 0.085 s^2}
\end{equation}
provides an accurate interpolation of our result. If one insists on a monopole parametrization at spacelike-$P^2$, then a monopole mass of $\Lambda_{\pi\rho\pi}=0.61\,$GeV provides a fit with relative-error-standard-deviation$\,=5$\%.
In the case of exact $SU(3)$ symmetry, one would have $g_{K \rho K} = g_{\pi\rho \pi}/2$. It is clear from the figure that the assumption provides a fair approximation to our result on a domain which one can reasonably consider as relevant to meson-exchange model phenomenology; viz., on $P^2\in [-m_\rho^2,m_\rho^2]$ the error ranges from $(-10)\,$--$40\,$\%. On this domain an accurate interpolation is provided by
\begin{equation}
\label{IgrKK}
g_{K\rho K}(s) = \frac{0.94 -0.62 s}{1 + 0.55 s - 0.16 s^2}.
\end{equation}
If one insists on a monopole parametrization at spacelike-$P^2$, then a monopole mass of $\Lambda_{K\rho K}=0.77\,$GeV provides a fit with relative-error-standard-deviation$\,=4$\%.
With $SU(4)$ symmetry, the picture is different. We have a numerical result that is reliably interpolated via
\begin{equation}
g_{D\rho D}(s)=\frac{5.05 -4.26 s}{1+0.36 s- 0.060 s^2}.
\end{equation}
A monopole parametrization at spacelike-$P^2$, with mass-scale $\Lambda_{D\rho D}=0.69\,$GeV, provides a fit with relative-error-standard-deviation$\,=5$\%.
Our computed value $g_{D\rho D}(0)=5.05$ is 75\% larger than an estimate obtained using QCD sum rules ($3.0\pm 0.02$ \cite{Bracco:2011pg}) and 100\% larger than a vector-meson-dominance estimate ($2.52$ \cite{Lin:1999ad}).
Moreover, if $SU(4)$ symmetry were exact, then $g_{D\rho D} = g_{K \rho K} = g_{\pi\rho \pi}/2$, but it is plain from Eq.\,(\ref{IgrKK}) that $g_{K\rho K}(0)=0.92$, a result which exposes a symmetry violation of $440$\% at $P^2=0$. Furthermore, on the entire domain $P^2\in [-m_\rho^2,m_\rho^2]$, the symmetry-based expectation $g_{D\rho D} = g_{K \rho K}$ is always violated, at a level of between $360\,$--$\,440$\%. The second identity, $g_{D\rho D}=g_{\pi\rho \pi}/2$, is violated at the level of $320\,$--$\,540$\%. (N.B.\ In connection with heavy-quark symmetry, corrections of this order have also been encountered $c\to d$ transitions \cite{Ivanov:1998ms}.)
These conclusions are dramatic, so it is important to explain why we judge them to be robust.
The computations of $g_{\pi\rho\pi}$ and $g_{K\rho K}$ are considered reliable because we can smoothly take the limit $s$-quark$\,\to\,u$-quark and thereby recover a unique function that agrees with earlier computations by other groups.
This leaves the possibility of uncertainties connected with $S_c(k)$, Eq.\,(\ref{SQ}); $\Gamma_D(k;P)$, Eq.\,(\ref{GH}); and the momentum partitioning parameter, $w_1^c$.
To explore sensitivity to the $c$-quark propagator we used an even simpler, non-confining constituent-like form; viz., $S_C(k)=1/(i\gamma\cdot k + \hat M_c)$. The effect at spacelike-$P^2$ is modest. However, the impact is large at timelike-$P^2$ because thereupon the $\rho$-meson momentum-squared begins to explore a neighborhood of the spurious pole in $S_C(k)$. Thus, the simpler propagator serves to \emph{increase} the violation of $SU(4)$ symmetry.
Regarding $\Gamma_D(k;P)$, uncertainty is implicit in the value of $\omega_D = 1.63\pm 0.10\,$GeV, constrained by the weak decay constant $f_{D^+} =206\pm 9\,$MeV \cite{Eisenstein:2008sq}. However, variations of even 20\% in $\omega_D$ have no material impact on our results.
Connected with that, a 20\% change in $w_1^c$ produces only a 4\% variation in $\omega_D$ via the fit to $f_{D^+}$, hence any possibility of an effect from $w_1^c$ can be discounted owing to the previous consideration.
\hspace*{-\parindent}\textbf{IV.~Discussion}.\hspace*{\parindent}Predictions for bound-states and resonances derived from meson-exchange models are sensitive to the values of couplings in their Lagrangians. In these non-relativistic models the couplings are commonly fixed to reproduce some known experimental data, e.g.\ the scattering length of a physical system. The most prominent such coupling, namely $g_{\pi\!N}$, has long been used in nucleon-nucleon potentials and serves to define the strength of the pion's coupling to a nucleon. It also determines the scale of the long-range force in the nucleon-nucleon interaction and associated scattering cross sections. Analogously, the strength of the couplings $D^{(\ast)}\!D\pi$, $D^{(\ast)}D^{(\ast)}\rho$ between $D$ mesons and a light pion or $\rho$-meson plays a crucial role in the formation of charmed-nuclei. However, whereas $g_{\pi\!N}$ can be extracted from $\pi N$-scattering data \cite{Ericson:2000md}, no such information is available for charmed-meson interactions with nucleons.
In our approach, which is based on an internally consistent use of impulse approximation and unifies the description of light- and heavy-mesons, we compute these couplings
from the transition amplitude between two $D$ mesons and an off-shell light meson. We find that $SU(4)$ symmetry is a very poor guide to the couplings. On the other hand, in relation to such models it provides a constructive suggestion that one might reasonably employ
\begin{equation}
\label{FFME}
F^{\rm ME}_{D \rho D}(|\vec{q}|^2) =
g^{\rm ME}_{D \rho D}
\frac{\Lambda_{D \rho D}^{{\rm ME}\,2}}{\Lambda_{D \rho D}^{{\rm ME}\,2}+|\vec{q}|^2},
\end{equation}
with $g^{\rm ME}_{D \rho D} \approx 5$, $\Lambda^{\rm ME}_{D \rho D} \approx 0.7\,$GeV, to describe $D\,D$ scattering via $\rho(\vec{q})$-meson exchange.
This might be compared with the parametrization \cite{Haidenbauer:2007jq}:
\begin{equation}
\label{FFH}
F^H_{D \rho D}(|\vec{q}|^2) = g^H_{D \rho D}\frac{\Lambda^{H\,2}_{D \rho D}}{\Lambda_{D \rho D}^{H\,2}+|\vec{q}|^2},
\end{equation}
$\Lambda^H_{D \rho D}=1.4\,$GeV, $g^H_{D \rho D} \approx 2$, based on the notion of $SU(4)$ symmetry, which our analysis has discredited.
The coupling in Eq.\,(\ref{FFH}) is smaller than that in Eq.\,(\ref{FFME}) but the evolution is harder. These effects cancel to some degree, but here the magnitudes are such that our result, Eq.\,(\ref{FFME}), provides an integrated interaction
\begin{equation}
V_0 = \int d^3 \vec{q} \; F^H_{D \rho D}(|\vec{q}|^2)^2 \frac{1}{|\vec{q}|^2+m_\rho^2}
\end{equation}
that is roughly 40\% greater. (N.B.\ If $g^H_{D \rho D} \to 2.6 \approx (1/2)g^{\rm ME}_{D\rho D}$, then $V_0^H \approx V_0^{ME}$.)
By the same measure, our $D\rho D$ interaction is 20\% stronger than that in Ref.\,\cite{Yamaguchi:2011xb}, which uses $\Lambda^Y_{D\rho D}=1.14\,$GeV, $g_V=5.8$ and hence
\begin{equation}
g_{D\rho D}^Y= 0.9 g_V [1-m_\rho^2/\Lambda^{Y\,2}_{D\rho D}] = 2.85\,.
\end{equation}%
Whilst our results argue against hard form factors, the interaction enhancement they produce is abundantly clear. Notably, a large value for the interaction strength entails an inflated cross-section in $D N$ scattering. In particular, in the meson-exchange model of Ref.\,\cite{Haidenbauer:2007jq} (single-meson exchange version), the $I=1$ $\bar D N$ cross-section is inflated by a factor of $\sim 5$, when using the our result, Eq.\,\eqref{FFME}, for $\omega$ and $\rho$, instead of Eq.\,\eqref{FFH}. Hence, implementation of our results could have material consequences on, e.g., the possibility for formation of charmed-resonances or -bound-states in nuclei.
\begin{acknowledgments}
We acknowledge useful input from A.~Hosaka and S.\,M.~Schmidt. This work was supported by:
Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cient\'{\i}fico e Tecnol\'ogico, grant no.\ 305894/2009-9, Funda\c{c}\~ao de Amparo \`a Pesquisa do Estado de S\~ao Paulo, grant nos.\ 2009/50180-0, 2009/51296-1 and 2010/05772-3; United States Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Physics, contract no.~DE-AC02-06CH11357; and Forschungszentrum J\"ulich GmbH.
\end{acknowledgments}
|
\section{Introduction}
The topological properties have been investigated extensively in
condensed matter systems such as topological
insulators(TIs)\cite{X.l.Qi, C. L. Kane}, topological
superconductors(TSCs)\cite{N. Read, Zhong Wang, schnyder, Tewari},
etc, which are described by topological order \cite{X. G. Wen}
instead of the traditional Landau symmetry breaking theory. In
ultracold atomic system, the effective spin-orbit coupling(SOC)
has been realized recently by utilizing the spatial varying laser
fields\cite{Y. J. Lin1, Y. J. Lin2}. With the technique of
Feshbach resonance\cite{Zwierlein, Schunck}, the spin-orbit
coupled ultracold atomic systems provide a clean platform to
investigate the topological properties of the condensed matter
system.
The SOC significantly changes the Fermi surface and largely
enhances the low energy density of state\cite{Vyasanakere,
Salasnich}. Therefor, many interesting phases and intriguing
phenomena become possible. The triplet pairing and the transition
temperature are largely enhanced\cite{Z. Q. Yu} while the pair
coherence lengths are suppressed by the SOC\cite{B B Huang}. In
three dimensions, the ground state of the Fermi system is enriched
by the SOC\cite{Wei yi, Ming gong, Iskin, H. Hu, L. Han, G. Chen,
L. Jiang, Jia Liu}. In two dimensions, the superfluid phase of the
spin-orbit coupled Fermi gas can be topologically
nontrivial\cite{S. L. Zhu, M. Sato, M. sato1, A. Kubasiak}.
Furthermore, there is topologically nontrivial phase
separation(TPS) which is the coexistence of superfluid phases with
different topological order in the trapped SOC Fermi systems with
population imbalance\cite{X yang, J zhou}.
In this paper, we investigate the uniform polarized
two-dimensional(2D) Fermi gas with SOC near a wide Feshbach
resonance at zero temperature. The phase separation is possible
for a polarized Fermi gas without the SOC due to the competition
between the polarization and the pairing interaction. To map out a
exact phase diagram, we determined the ground state by minimizing
the thermodynamic potential of the phase separation\cite{Sheehy}.
In the presence of SOC, the Fermi surface is topologically
changed. The topological phase transition(TPT) takes place when
the excitation gap is closing. Therefor, the topologically
nontrivial superfluid phase(TSF) shows up in the phase diagram
against the topologically trivial superfluid phase(NSF). For the
phase separation phase, the topological phase transition much more
tend to take place in the smaller pairing gap component state,
thus the phase separation becomes topologically nontrivial.
This paper is organized as follows. In Sec.\ref{sec2}, introducing
the Hamiltonian of 2D uniform polarized Fermi gas, we obtain the
zero temperature thermodynamic potential by mean field theory, and
then give the gap equation and the number equations for superfluid
phase. In Sec.\ref{sec3}, we investigate the ground state by
minimizing the thermodynamic potential of the phase separation
phase and map out the phase diagram in detail. A brief conclusion
is given in Sec.\ref{sec4}.
\section{Formalism of the System}
\label{sec2}
We consider the uniform 2D polarized Fermi gas with SOC, which is
described by the Hamiltonian:
\begin{eqnarray}
H=H_{0}+H_{SO}+H_{int}, \label{1}
\end{eqnarray}
where $H_{0}$ is the kinetic term, $H_{SO}$ is the spin-orbit
interaction, and $H_{int}$ is the s-wave interaction between the
two fermionic species. They take
\begin{eqnarray}
&H_{0}&=\sum_{\textbf{k},\sigma} \xi_{\textbf{k},\sigma} c_{\textbf{k},\sigma}^{\dag} c_{\textbf{k},\sigma}, \nonumber\\
&H_{SO}&=\sum_{\textbf{k}} \lambda k \left(e^{-i \varphi_{\textbf{k}}} c_{\textbf{k},\uparrow}^{\dag} c_{\textbf{k},\downarrow} + h.c. \right), \nonumber\\
&H_{int}&= -g
\sum_{\textbf{k},\textbf{k}'}c_{\textbf{k},\uparrow}^{\dag}
c_{-\textbf{k},\downarrow}^{\dag} c_{-\textbf{k}',\downarrow}
c_{\textbf{k}',\uparrow}, \label{2}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\xi_{\textbf{k},\sigma} =\hbar k^{2}/(2m)-\mu_{\sigma}$,
$c_{\textbf{k},\sigma}^{\dag}(c_{\textbf{k},\sigma})$ denotes the
creation(annihilation) operators for a fermion with momentum
$\textbf{k}$ and spin $\sigma=\{ \uparrow, \downarrow \}$,
$\lambda$ is the strength of Rashba spin-orbit coupling,
$\varphi_{\textbf{k}} = \arg(k_{x}+ i k_{y})$, $g$ is the bare
s-wave interaction strength which can be renormalized by
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{1}{g}=-\sum_{\textbf{k}}\frac{1}{2 \epsilon_{\textbf{k}} +
E_{b}}. \label{3}
\end{eqnarray}
By the transformation,
\begin{eqnarray}
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
c_{\textbf{k},\uparrow}\\
c_{\textbf{k},\downarrow}\\
\end{array}
\right)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & e^{i \varphi_{\textbf{k}}}\\
e^{-i \varphi_{\textbf{k}}} & -1\\
\end{array}
\right) \left(
\begin{array}{c}
a_{\textbf{k},+}\\
a_{\textbf{k},-}\\
\end{array}
\right), \label{4}
\end{eqnarray}
the Eq.\ref{2} becomes
\begin{eqnarray}
&&H_{0}+H_{SO} = \sum_{\textbf{k}, s=\pm} \left(\xi_{\textbf{k},s}
a_{\textbf{k},s}^{\dag} a_{\textbf{k},s}
- h e^{i s \varphi_{\textbf{k}}} a_{\textbf{k},s}^{\dag} a_{\textbf{k},-s}\right), \nonumber\\
&&H_{int} = \sum_{\textbf{k},s=\pm}\left(\frac{\Delta}{2}e^{i s
\varphi_{\textbf{k}}} a_{\textbf{k},s}^{\dag}
a_{-\textbf{k},s}^{\dag} + h.c.\right) + \frac{\mid \Delta
\mid^{2}}{g}, \label{5}
\end{eqnarray}
where $a^{\dag}_{\textbf{k},\pm}(a_{\textbf{k},\pm})$ is the
creation(annihilation) operator for the state with helicity
$(\pm)$, $\xi_{\textbf{k},\pm}=\xi_{\textbf{k}} \pm \lambda k$
with $\xi_{\textbf{k}}=\epsilon_{\textbf{k}}-\mu$ and the chemical
potentials $\mu=(\mu_{\uparrow}+\mu_{\downarrow})/2$,
$h=(\mu_{\uparrow}-\mu_{\downarrow})/2$, $\Delta$ is the pairing
potential which takes $\Delta= g \sum_{\textbf{k}}
<c_{-\textbf{k},\downarrow} c_{\textbf{k},\uparrow}>$.
The Hamiltonian\ref{1} can be rewritten in the helicity basis
$\Psi_{{\bf k}} = (a_{\textbf{k},+}, a_{\textbf{k},-},
a_{-\textbf{k},+}^{\dag}, a_{-\textbf{k},-}^{\dag})^{T}$ as:
\begin{eqnarray}
H=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{{\bf k}}\Psi_{{\bf k}}^{\dag}\mathcal{H}({\bf k})\Psi_{{\bf k}}
+ \sum_{\textbf{k}}\xi_{\textbf{k}} + \frac{\mid \Delta \mid^{2}}{g}, \label{6}
\end{eqnarray}
with
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{H}({\bf k})=\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
\xi_{\textbf{k},+} & e^{i \varphi_{\textbf{k}}} h & \Delta e^{i \varphi_{\textbf{k}}} & 0 \\
e^{-i \varphi_{\textbf{k}}} h & \xi_{\textbf{k},-} & 0 & \Delta e^{-i \varphi_{\textbf{k}}} \\
\Delta e^{-i \varphi_{\textbf{k}}} & 0 & -\xi_{\textbf{k},+} & e^{-i \varphi_{\textbf{k}}} h \\
0 & \Delta e^{i \varphi_{\textbf{k}}} & e^{i \varphi_{\textbf{k}}} h & -\xi_{\textbf{k},-} \\
\end{array}
\right). \label{7}
\end{eqnarray}
We know that the classification of above 2D BdG Hamiltonian, which
breaks the time-reversal symmetry but preserves the particle-hole
symmetry, is $Z$ class \cite{schnyder}. The topological numbers
which characterize the topological properties of the superfluid
phases are integer. There is topological phase transition at the
gap closing point $h= \sqrt{\mu^{2} + \Delta^{2}}$. The
topologically nontrivial superfluid phase show up when $h>
\sqrt{\mu^{2} + \Delta^{2}}$.
The Hamiltonian can be diagonalized as
\begin{eqnarray}
H=\sum_{\textbf{k},s=\pm}
E_{\textbf{k},s}\alpha_{\textbf{k},s}^{\dag}\alpha_{\textbf{k},s}
+ \frac{1}{2} \sum_{\textbf{k},s=\pm}
(\xi_{\textbf{k}}-E_{\textbf{k},s}) + \frac{\mid \Delta
\mid^{2}}{g}, \label{8}
\end{eqnarray}
where, $\alpha_{\textbf{k},\pm}^{\dag}(\alpha_{\textbf{k},\pm})$
is the creation(annihilation) operator for the quasiparticles with
the excitation spectra $E_{\textbf{k},\pm}=
\sqrt{\xi_{\textbf{k}}^{2} + h^{2} + \mid \Delta \mid^{2} +
\lambda^{2} k^{2} \pm 2 E_{0}}$, here $E_{0}= \sqrt{h^{2}
(\xi_{\textbf{k}}^{2}+\mid \Delta \mid^{2}) + \lambda^{2} k^{2}}$.
The thermodynamical potential is $\Omega = - \text{Tr}
\ln[e^{-\beta H}]$ with $\beta=1/(k_{B} T)$. At $T=0$, the
thermodynamical potential is
\begin{eqnarray}
\Omega =
\frac{1}{2}\sum_{\textbf{k},s=\pm}(\xi_{\textbf{k}}-E_{\textbf{k},s})
+ \frac{\mid \Delta \mid^{2}}{g}. \label{9}
\end{eqnarray}
The pairing gap should be self-consistently determined with
chemical potential by minimizing the thermodynamic potential
$\partial \Omega / \partial \Delta=0$ and the particle number
equations $n_{\sigma}=-\partial \Omega / \partial \mu_{\sigma}$.
They are given as
\begin{eqnarray}
\sum_{\textbf{k}} \frac{1}{2 \epsilon _{\textbf{k}} + E_{b}} =
\frac{1}{4} \sum_{\textbf{k},s=\pm} \frac{1}{E_{\textbf{k},s}}
\left(1+ s \frac{ h^{2}}{E_{0}}\right), \label{10}
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
n &=& \frac{1}{2}\sum_{\textbf{k},s=\pm} \left[1-\left(1 + s
\frac{h^{2} + \lambda ^{2} k ^{2}}{E_{0}}\right)
\frac{\xi_{\textbf{k},s}}{E_{\textbf{k},s}} \right], \nonumber\\
p n &=& -\frac{1}{2}\sum_{\textbf{k},s=\pm}
\frac{h}{E_{\textbf{k},s}} \left(1 + s \frac{
\xi_{\textbf{k},s}^{2} +\Delta ^{2} }{E_{0}} \right) , \label{11}
\end{eqnarray}
where, $n=n_{\uparrow}+n_{\downarrow}$ is the total particle
number and $p=(n_{\uparrow}-n_{\downarrow})/n$ is the
polarization. In the presence of SOC, the Fermi surface is
topologically changed and the triplet pairing is possible. The
condensate fraction should include singlet and triplet
contributions $n_c = n_{0}+n_{1}$ which are given as
\begin{eqnarray}
n_{0} &=& 2 \sum_{\textbf{k}} \mid < c_{\textbf{k},\uparrow} c_{-\textbf{k},\downarrow} > \mid ^{2} \nonumber\\
&=&\frac{\Delta ^{2}}{8}\sum_{\textbf{k}} \left[ \sum_{s=\pm}
\left(1 + s \frac{h^{2}}{E_{0}} \right)
\frac{1}{E_{\textbf{k},s}}\right]^{2}, \label{12}
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
n_{1} &=& \sum_{\textbf{k}} (\mid <c_{\textbf{k},\uparrow} c_{-\textbf{k},\uparrow} > \mid ^{2}
+ \mid <c_{\textbf{k},\downarrow} c_{-\textbf{k},\downarrow} > \mid ^{2}) \nonumber\\
&=&\frac{\Delta ^{2}}{16} \sum_{\textbf{k}}\left[
\left(\sum_{s=\pm} \frac{s 1}{E_{\textbf{k},s}} \right)^{2}
\sum_{s=\pm} \frac{\lambda^{2} k^{2}(\xi_{\textbf{k}}+s
h)^{2}}{E_{0}^{2}} \right]. \label{13}
\end{eqnarray}
\section{The Phase Diagram in $p-\lambda k_F /E_F$ Plane}
\label{sec3}
There is no guarantee that the ground state of the polarized Fermi
gas corresponds to one of the spatially homogeneous states. As the
competition between the population imbalance and the pairing interaction,
the phase separation becomes possible. For the polarized Fermi gas, the stability of the phase separation
against the superfluid should be considered like the case without
SOC. By introducing the mixing coefficient $x (0\leq x \leq1)$ and
ignoring the interfaces energy between the two coexisting phase,
the thermodynamic potential of the phase separation can be written
as
\begin{eqnarray}
\Omega = x \Omega(\Delta_{1}) + (1-x) \Omega(\Delta_{2}),
\label{14}
\end{eqnarray}
where, $\Delta_{i} (i=1,2)$ is the pairing gap of the $i$
component separated state. The thermodynamic potential should be
minimized with $\Delta_{i}$ and the mixing coefficient $x$. The
number equations become $n_{\sigma} = x n_{\sigma} (\Delta_{1}) +
(1-x) n_{\sigma} (\Delta_{2})$. By solving the gap equations and
the number equations selfconsistently, we construct the phase
diagram in $p-\lambda k_{F}/E_{F}$ plane for different binding
energy.
\begin{figure}
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=4.0cm, height=3.5cm]{EB0.1.eps}}
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=4.0cm, height=3.5cm]{EB0.5.eps}}
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=4.0cm, height=3.5cm]{EB0.6.eps}}
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=4.0cm, height=3.5cm]{EB1.eps}}
\caption{The phase diagrams in $p-\lambda k_F /E_F$ plane with
binding energy (a) $E_b=0.1 E_F$; (b) $E_b=0.5 E_F$; (c) $E_b= 0.6
E_F$; (d) $E_b=1.0 E_F$. Here, $E_{F}= k_{F}^{2}/2m = n \pi /m $.
The red solid lines separate the TSFs from NSFs phases. The blue
dash lines separate the phase separation from superfluid phase.
The blue dash-dot-dot lines are the boundaries between
topologically trivial and nontrivial phase separation. The dot
lines denote the $\Delta / E_F = 10^{-3}$, above which the pairing
gap is lower than $10^{-3}$. } \label{fig.1}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=8.0cm, height=6.5cm]{omega.eps}
\caption{The thermodynamic potential $\Omega$ as a function of the
pairing gap $\Delta$ with the binding energy $E_b / E_F = 0.6$ for
(a) $\lambda k_F /E_F = 0.4$, $p=0.8$; (b) $\lambda k_F /E_F =
0.7$, $p=0.8$; (c) $\lambda k_F /E_F = 0.4$, $p=0.3$; (d) $\lambda
k_F /E_F = 0.7$, $p=0.3$.} \label{fig.2}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=8.5cm, height=5.0cm]{Gap.eps}}
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=8.0cm, height=5.0cm]{Cond.eps}}
\caption{The pairing gap and the chemical potential as functions
of the SOC strength $\lambda k_F /E_F$ with $p=0.01$ for (a)
$E_b=0.5 E_F$ and (b) $E_b=1.0 E_F$. (c) The condensate fractions
of singlet and triplet contribution as functions of the SOC for
$E_B / E_F = 0.5, 1$ with $p=0.01$. The above two lines are
singlet contributions while the others are triplet contribution.
The triplet contributions are enhanced by the SOC.} \label{fig.3}
\end{figure}
First, we give the phase diagrams in $p-\lambda k_F /E_F$ plane
with different binding energy in Fig.\ref{fig.1}((a) $E_b=0.1
E_F$; (b) $E_b=0.5 E_F$; (c) $E_b= 0.6 E_F$; (d) $E_b=1.0 E_F$).
The phase separation, which is coexistence of distinct
topologically trivial superfluid phases, show up in the absence of
SOC. When the polarization is larger than $0.32$, the phase
separation can not sustain against topologically trivial
superfluid (NSF) in the phase diagram without SOC for $E_b=0.1
E_F$ case. The critical polarization increase with the binding
energy as shown in Fig.\ref{fig.1}. This consist with the recent
result without the SOC \cite{caldas}.
In the presence of SOC, the Fermi surface is topologically changed
and other interesting topologically nontrivial phases are
possible. There is topological phase transition when the
excitation gap closing at the critical point $h= \sqrt{\mu^{2} +
\Delta^{2}}$. The topological phase transition tend to take place
in the high polarization area in which the pairing gap is low and
the imbalance of the chemical potential is large. Therefor, the
phases are TSF in the phase diagrams with high polarization as
shown in Fig.\ref{fig.1}.
For the phase separation phase, the topological phase transition
much more tend to take place in the low pairing gap component
state. The phase separation become topologically nontrivial when
the low pairing gap component state become topologically
nontrivial as shown in Fig.\ref{fig.1}(b),(c),(d). As the binding
energy increasing, the topological phase separation is more
possible. The entire phase separation is topologically trivial
with $E_b=0.1 E_F$(shown in Fig.\ref{fig.1}(a)) and nontrivial
with $E_b=1.0 E_F$(shown in Fig.\ref{fig.1}(d)). The boundary (the
red sold line) between the TSF and NSF merge with the phase
separation boundary (the blue dash line) as the binding energy
increasing. Fig.\ref{fig.1} also show that the SOC destabilize the
phase separation against superfluid phase. When the SOC strength
increase to a critical value, the phase separation disappear.
Second, we show the behavior of thermodynamic potential toward the
pairing gap in different phase regions of the phase diagram for
$E_b / E_F =0.6$ in Fig.\ref{fig.2}. The thermodynamic potential
has two degenerate minimums in the phase separation regions as
shown in Fig.\ref{fig.2}(a)(c). The two distinct superfluid phases
can show up and coexist in the phase diagram. The two coexistent
states are all topologically trivial in Fig.\ref{fig.2}(a). But,
the the smaller component state is topologically nontrivial while
the other is topologically trivial in Fig.\ref{fig.2}(c). The
thermodynamic potential in the superfluid region only has one
minimum as shown in Fig.\ref{fig.2}(b)(d).
Finally, we show the variation of $\Delta$, $\mu$, $h$ and the
condensate fractions for very low polarization ($p=0.01$) with
$E_b=0.5 E_F$ and $E_b=1 E_F$ in Fig.\ref{fig.3}. The triplet
condensate fractions are enhanced by the SOC. The SOC enhance the
triplet pairing in virtue of the topologically change the Fermi
surface. Therefor, the system can not sustain the phase separation
against the superfluid phase as the triplet pairing increasing as
well as the SOC strength.
It should be point out that the gap equation divergent as the
pairing gap $\Delta$ reduce to zero when $\mu < -(\lambda^{4} + 4
h^{2})/(4 \lambda^{2}) $ or $\mu < \text{min}(-\mid h \mid/2 ,
-\lambda^{2}/2 )$, hence there is no boundary between the normal
phase and the superfluid phase. We map out the boundaries (dot
lines) for $\Delta = 0.001 E_F$ as shown in Fig.\ref{fig.1}. Above
the curve, the pairing gap is $\Delta < 0.001 E_F$ and
exponentially decreases as the SOC reduce to zero\cite{J zhou}.
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec4}
We construct the phase diagram for the two-dimensional Fermi gas
with spin-orbit coupling and population imbalance near a wide
Feshbach resonance. We map out the stability regions of the
topologically trivial and nontrivial superfluid phase, and phase
separation in detail. As the spin-orbit coupling increasing, there
is topological phase transition. Therefor, the topologically
nontrivial phase separation is possible. The spin-orbit coupling
enhance the triplet pairing and suppress the phase separation. The
phase separation can not sustain against superfluid phase when the
spin-orbit coupling is large.
\begin{acknowledgments}
We are very grateful to Wei Yi and Zhong Wang for helpful
discussions. This work is supported by NSFC Grant No.10675108.
\end{acknowledgments}
|
\section{Introduction}
The search for alternative axiomatizations of quantum theory (QT) is an old topic that goes back to Birkhoff and von Neumann~\cite{BvN, Mackey, AlfsenShultz}. More recently, initiated by Hardy's work~\cite{5RA}, there has been a wave of contributions taking a more operational and less mathematical approach~\cite{Daki, MM, l1, CDP}. Each axiomatization emphasizes different definitorial aspects of QT, providing a new perspective from which to look at the physical content of the theory, and potentially improving our understanding of it and its relations to other theories.
\medskip
Modifications and generalizations of QT are of interest in themselves, and could be essential in order to construct a theory of quantum gravity. Some well-known modifications of QT which are based on straightforward alterations of its mathematical formalism~\cite{Gleason, Weinberg} lead to inconsistencies~\cite{Gisin}. But here we use a different method to obtain modifications and generalizations of QT which always provides consistent theories: we choose some desirable physical features of QT and classify all theories which satisfy them. This is a double-win project: if only QT satisfies the requirements then we obtain a new axiomatization for it; on the contrary, if other theories also satisfy the requirements, then we obtain consistent alternative theories which still keep the physical features that we have chosen. This classificational approach has also been used in~\cite{purification, Barnum, Wilce}.
\medskip
In our journey beyond QT we do not want to go excessively far in theory space, so we keep within the framework of generalized probability theory~\cite{5RA, MM, l1, CDP, purification, Barnum, Wilce, Barrett}, which is based on operational notions. For instance, the state of a system can be represented by the probabilities of some pre-established measurement outcomes, which suffices to predict the probabilities for all measurements performable to that system. On top of this foundation, the quantum features that we want to preserve are: {\em Continuous Reversibility} (for every pair of pure states there is a continuous reversible transformation which maps one state onto the other) and {\em Tomographic Locality} (the state of a composite system is characterized by the statistics of measurements on the individual components). These two axioms were introduced in~\cite{5RA} and also considered in~\cite{Daki,MM}. One of the motivations to assume the reversibility and continuity of time-dynamics is that the most fundamental theories that we know---classical or quantum---enjoy it. The axiom of Tomographic Locality has a well-defined operational meaning, but additionally, it is mathematically very natural, since it endows state-spaces of multipartite systems with the familiar tensor-product structure.
\medskip
In this work we classify all continuously-reversible and locally-tomographic theories for bipartite systems where each subsystem has a state space with the geometry of the Euclidean ball (like the Bloch ball of a quantum binary system but with its dimension not being necessarily equal to three). It turns out that in all such theories, with the exception of QT, binary systems do not interact, hence, they cannot be entangled nor violate any Bell inequality. These findings push forward the results obtained in~\cite{boxworld}: the toy theory called \lq\lq{}box world\rq\rq{}, which violates all Bell inequalities maximally, does not admit any entangling reversible dynamics.
\medskip
The requirement that a state space has the geometry of the Euclidean ball does not look, at first sight, physically motivated. However, some axiomatizations of QT derive this fact from physical principles as an initial step~\cite{5RA, Daki, MM, l1}, before obtaining the full structure of QT. Also, this fact is a consequence of each of the following proposed principles individually: Information Causality~\cite{IC} (see~\cite{DQT}), Branch Locality~\cite{BLP}, and ``no information gain implies no disturbance"~\cite{Pfister}. Therefore, we see the results in this paper as a kind of module which can be used in many derivations of quantum theory: as soon as a physical principle implies that the state space of a system is a Euclidean ball, one can supplement this with Tomographic Locality and Continuous Reversibility, and use our results to get most of the structure of QT.
\medskip
In mathematical language, the Reversibility Axiom is equivalent to the transitivity of the group of reversible dynamics when acting on the set of pure states. In other words, the set of pure states is a compact homogenous space~\cite{matrix_groups}, and the state space itself is an orbitope~\cite{orbitope}. The formulation of our problem provides new ways to look at these mathematical objects, and opens new questions within the theories of homogenous spaces and orbitopes that are very relevant for the foundations of QT.
\section{Results: no interaction beyond QT}\label{noint}
In this section we explain the results without introducing the framework of generalized probability theory, which is left for Section~\ref{axiomatization}. In this work we only consider bipartite systems where each constituent is a binary system. A binary system contains two perfectly distinguishable states and no more, hence, it is the generalization of a quantum two-level system or qubit.
\subsection{Two binary systems in QT}
States of two-qubit systems are represented by $4\times 4$ Hermitian matrices $\rho$ that are positive, $\rho\geq 0$, and have unit trace ${\rm tr} \rho =1$. These can be written in the following basis
\[
\sigma_1 = \left[ \begin{array}{cc}
0 & 1 \\
1 & 0
\end{array}\right], \quad
\sigma_2 = \left[ \begin{array}{cc}
0 & -{\rm i} \\
{\rm i} & 0
\end{array}\right], \quad
\sigma_3 = \left[ \begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
0 & -1
\end{array}\right], \quad
{\bf 1} = \left[ \begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
0 & 1
\end{array}\right],
\]
that is
\begin{equation}\label{rho}
\rho = \frac{1}{4} \left( {\bf 1}\otimes {\bf 1} + \sum_i b_i\, {\bf 1} \otimes \sigma_i + \sum_i a_i\, \sigma_i \otimes {\bf 1} + \sum_{i,j} c_{ij}\, \sigma_i \otimes \sigma_j \right).
\end{equation}
Hence, a two-qubit state $\rho$ is specified by the three vectors ${\bf a}= (a_1, a_2, a_3) \in \mathbb{R}^3$, ${\bf b}\in \mathbb{R}^3$ and ${\bf c} \in \mathbb{R}^3 \otimes \mathbb{R}^3$. The condition $\rho\geq 0$ translates to some algebraic constraints for ${\bf b}, {\bf a}, {\bf c}$. The reduced states for each of the qubits represented by \eq{rho} are given by the partial traces
\[
{\rm tr}_2 \rho = \frac{1}{2} \left( {\bf 1} + \sum_i a_i\, \sigma_i \right), \quad
{\rm tr}_1 \rho = \frac{1}{2} \left( {\bf 1} + \sum_i b_i\, \sigma_i \right).
\]
The reduced states are characterized by the Bloch vectors ${\bf a}, {\bf b}$, which satisfy $|{\bf a}|, |{\bf b}| \leq 1$, where $|{\bf a}| = \sqrt{{\bf a} \cdot {\bf a}} = \sqrt{\sum_i a_i^2}$ is the Euclidean norm. Local reversible transformations act on the state as
\begin{equation}\label{rev loc trans}
\left[ \begin{array}{c}
{\bf b} \\ {\bf a} \\ {\bf c}
\end{array}\right] \rightarrow
\left[ \begin{array}{ccc}
B & {\bf 0} & {\bf 0} \\
{\bf 0} & A & {\bf 0} \\
{\bf 0} & {\bf 0} & A \otimes B
\end{array} \right]
\left[ \begin{array}{c}
{\bf b} \\ {\bf a} \\ {\bf c}
\end{array}\right] ,
\end{equation}
where $A,B \in \mbox{SO}(3)$, since $\mbox{SO}(3)$ is the adjoint action of $\mbox{SU}(2)$. The matrix group corresponding to all reversible transformations of two qubits (local and non-local) is the adjoint action of $\mbox{SU}(4)$, denoted by ${\cal G}$. (See \cite{GdlT} for a characterization.)
\medskip
Product states are the ones such that ${\bf c} = {\bf a} \otimes {\bf b}$, and as it is shown below, have no correlations. It is convenient to write product states and local transformations \eq{rev loc trans} in tensor-product form; this can be done by adopting the hat notation:
\begin{equation}\label{hat rep}
\hat {\bf a} = \left[ \begin{array}{c}
1 \\ {\bf a}
\end{array} \right], \quad
\hat A= \left[ \begin{array}{cc}
1 & {\bf 0} \\
{\bf 0} & A
\end{array}\right],
\end{equation}
where ${\bf 0}$ denotes the zero matrix (or vector) with dimensions specified by the context. In accordance with the claimed form of product states and local transformations, we get
\begin{equation}\label{hat rep 2}
\hat {\bf a} \otimes \hat {\bf b} =
\left[ \begin{array}{c}
1 \\ {\bf b} \\ {\bf a} \\ {\bf a} \otimes {\bf b}
\end{array} \right],
\quad
\hat A \otimes \hat B =
\left[ \begin{array}{cccc}
1 & {\bf 0} & {\bf 0} & {\bf 0}\\
{\bf 0} & B & {\bf 0} & {\bf 0}\\
{\bf 0} & {\bf 0} & A & {\bf 0}\\
{\bf 0} & {\bf 0} & {\bf 0} & A \otimes B\\
\end{array}\right].
\end{equation}
Note that here, the ordering of the components under the $\otimes$-action is not the standard one. The redundant ``1" in \eq{hat rep} and \eq{hat rep 2} is equivalent to the redundant information that $\rho$ contains, since it obeys ${\rm tr} \rho =1$. A single-qubit projective measurement is characterized by a unit-length Bloch vector ${\bf x}$; the probabilities for the two corresponding outcomes ``$+$'' and ``$-$'' when the state is ${\bf a}$ are
\[
p(+) = \frac{1+{\bf x} \cdot {\bf a}} 2 = \frac {\hat{\bf x}} 2 \cdot \hat{\bf a}\ , \qquad
p(-) = \frac{1-{\bf x} \cdot {\bf a}} 2 = \frac {{(-{\bf x})}^\wedge} 2 \cdot \hat{\bf a} \ .
\]
For two-qubit systems, the joint probability of the local measurement outcomes ${\bf x}, {\bf y}$ is
\begin{equation}\label{joint prob}
p({\bf x}, {\bf y}) = \frac{\hat{\bf x}}{2} \otimes \frac{\hat{\bf y}}{2} \cdot
\left[ \begin{array}{c} 1 \\ {\bf b} \\ {\bf a} \\ {\bf c} \end{array} \right].
\end{equation}
As mentioned above, product states give product distributions, and hence no correlations.
\subsection{Two binary systems beyond QT}\label{bQT}
The above representation of two-qubit systems generalizes to a very natural family of theories for bipartite systems. These theories have arbitrary Bloch dimension $d= 2, 3, 4, \ldots$ but still satisfy equations (\ref{rev loc trans})-(\ref{joint prob}) with ${\bf a}, {\bf b}, {\bf x}, {\bf y} \in \mathbb{R}^d$, $|{\bf a}|, |{\bf b}| \leq 1$, $|{\bf x}|, |{\bf y}| = 1$, ${\bf c} \in \mathbb{R}^d \otimes \mathbb{R}^d$ and $A,B \in \mbox{SO}(d)$ (below we also consider groups of reversible transformations which are proper subgroups of $\mbox{SO}(d)$). However, what is not immediately clear, is how the set of non-product states and the set of non-local reversible transformations generalize. We address these two issues in the following paragraphs.
\medskip
One of the definitorial properties of these theories is that the state space of a subsystem has the geometry of a Euclidean ball, that is, states can be represented by Bloch vectors of arbitrary dimension (${\bf a} \in \mathbb{R}^d$ with $|{\bf a}| \leq 1$). One can see that these state spaces have two perfectly-distinguishable states and no more (as with qubits)---so we refer to them as binary systems. Joint states for two binary systems are represented by vectors
\begin{equation}\label{generic state}
\left[ \begin{array}{c} 1 \\ {\bf b} \\ {\bf a} \\ {\bf c} \end{array} \right] \in
\mathbb{R}^{1+d}\otimes\mathbb{R}^{1+d},
\end{equation}
which, according to equation~(\ref{joint prob}), must satisfy
\begin{equation}\label{c1}
\frac{\hat{\bf x}}{2} \otimes \frac{\hat{\bf y}}{2} \cdot
\left[ \begin{array}{c} 1 \\ {\bf b} \\ {\bf a} \\ {\bf c} \end{array} \right]
\in [0,1]\ ,
\end{equation}
for any Bloch vectors ${\bf x}, {\bf y}$.
\medskip
Joint reversible transformations for two binary system are $(d+1)^2 \times (d+1)^2$ real invertible matrices, which map a state~(\ref{generic state}) onto another state~(\ref{generic state}). Since physical transformations can be composed, they form a group, denoted by ${\cal G}$. We consider theories where the sets of states and reversible transformations have related geometries, since we impose the following axiom.
\begin{itemize}
\item[] {\bf Continuous reversibility:} in each type of system, for every pair of pure states there is a continuous reversible transformation mapping one state onto the other.
\end{itemize}
This was introduced in the axiomatization for QT given in~\cite{5RA}, under the name \lq\lq{}continuity axiom\rq\rq{}. The continuity of reversible transformations is suggested by the apparent continuity of time-evolution in the physical world.
It means that every reversible transformation is part of a continuous one-parameter subgroup $\{G(t)\}_{t\in\mathbb{R}}$, where $t\in\mathbb{R}$ can be interpreted as time.
This is equivalent to saying that the group of reversible transformations is connected. As pointed out in~\cite{5RA}, classical probability theory violates this axiom, since the set of reversible transformations is the group of permutations which is not connected~\footnote{This may seem contradictory with the continuity of time-evolution in classical mechanics, but these are two different notions of continuity. In classical mechanics, the evolution of a state for an arbitrarily small time produces a new state which is perfectly distinguishable from the previous one. Hence, this dynamics is not continuous in the sense of our axiom.}.
\medskip
Continuous reversibility implies that once the group of reversible transformations ${\cal G}$ is given, the set of states~(\ref{generic state}) is fixed, since the set of pure states is $\{G (\hat{\bf a} \otimes \hat{\bf a}) : G\in {\cal G}\}$ for any fixed ${\bf a} \in \mathbb{R}^d$ with $|{\bf a}| =1$; and the set of all states (pure and mixed) is the corresponding convex hull~\cite{convex_book}. All states generated in this fashion must give consistent probabilities, as required in~\eq{c1}, hence
\begin{equation}\label{C1}
\mbox{$\frac{1}{4} $}
(\hat{\bf a} \otimes \hat{\bf a}) \cdot G (\hat{\bf a} \otimes \hat{\bf a})
\in [0,1]\ \mbox{ for all }\ G\in {\cal G}\ .
\end{equation}
Since all pure product states can be reversibly mapped to all other pure product states, this constraint is equivalent to
\begin{equation}\label{const_1.2}
\mbox{$\frac{1}{4} $}
(\hat{\bf x} \otimes \hat{\bf y}) \cdot G (\hat{\bf a} \otimes \hat{\bf b})
\in [0,1]\ \mbox{ for all }\ G\in {\cal G} \mbox{ and } |{\bf a}|=|{\bf b}|=|{\bf x}|=|{\bf y}|= 1.
\end{equation}
Continuous Reversibility applies to all types of systems, and in particular to a single binary system. The group of reversible transformations for a binary system, denoted by ${\cal H}$, comprises
$d\times d$ real matrices $H\in {\cal H}$ which map states to states ($|{\bf a}|\leq 1 \Rightarrow | H{\bf a} | \leq 1$), and map any point in the unit sphere to any other. Table~\ref{groups trans} in Section~\ref{trans groups} contains the list of all such groups, which consists of ${\rm SO}(d)$ and some of its subgroups. Following the hat notation~\eq{hat rep}, we denote by $\hat{\cal H}$ the representation of ${\cal H}$ which acts on the $(d+1)$-dimensional vector $\hat{\bf a}$. The group of local transformations for two binary systems is
$\hat{\cal H} \times \hat{\cal H} = \{\hat A \otimes \hat B : A,B\in {\cal H}\} \leq {\cal G}$, where the hat notation works as in~\eq{hat rep 2}. Clearly, local transformations constitute a subgroup of general reversible transformations $\hat{\cal H} \times \hat{\cal H} \leq {\cal G}$. Except for this and~\eq{C1} the group ${\cal G}$ is totally unconstrained.
\medskip
In summary, each theory from this family is characterized by:
\begin{enumerate}
\item the dimension of a binary system $d=2,3\ldots$,
\item a group of reversible transformations for a binary system ${\cal H}$ (from Table~\ref{groups trans} with the right $d$),
\item a compact connected group of $(d+1)^2 \times (d+1)^2$ real matrices ${\cal G}$ satisfying~\eq{C1} and $\hat{\cal H} \times \hat{\cal H} \leq {\cal G}$.
\end{enumerate}
For every $d$ and ${\cal H}$ there is at least one such theory: the one where only local transformations are allowed ${\cal G} = \hat{\cal H} \times \hat{\cal H}$. This type of theory has no interacting dynamics, in the sense that each subsystem evolves independently of the other. In other words, the corresponding Hamiltonians (Lie algebra elements) are of the form $H_{12} = H_1 \otimes {\bf 1}_2 + {\bf 1}_1 \otimes H_2$. In such theories, there are no entangled states, and Bell inequalities are not violated. However, there could be other theories within our family which violate Bell inequalities, even more than QT.
The main contribution of this work establishes that this is not the case.
\begin{itemize}
\item[] {\bf Result 1:} Let ${\cal H}$ be a group from Table~\ref{trans groups} different from ${\rm SO}(3)$, let $d$ be its associated dimension, and let ${\bf a} \in \mathbb{R}^d$ be a unit vector. All connected groups ${\cal G}$ satisfying $\hat{\cal H} \times \hat{\cal H} \leq {\cal G}$ and $\frac{1}{4} (\hat{\bf a} \otimes \hat{\bf a}) \cdot {\cal G} (\hat{\bf a} \otimes \hat{\bf a}) \subseteq [0,1]$ are subgroups of ${\rm SO}(d)^\wedge \times {\rm SO}(d)^\wedge$.
\end{itemize}
All such groups ${\cal G}$ correspond to dynamics with no interaction, hence, the associated theories have no entanglement. In \cite{GdlT} the following is shown.
\begin{itemize}
\item[] {\bf Result 2:} Let $d=3$ and let ${\bf a} \in \mathbb{R}^3$ be a unit vector. All connected groups ${\cal G}$ satisfying ${\rm SO}(3)^\wedge \times {\rm SO}(3)^\wedge \leq {\cal G}$ and $\frac{1}{4} (\hat{\bf a} \otimes \hat{\bf a}) \cdot {\cal G} (\hat{\bf a} \otimes \hat{\bf a}) \subseteq [0,1]$ are:
\begin{enumerate}
\item ${\rm SO}(3)^\wedge \times {\rm SO}(3)^\wedge$,
\item the adjoint action of ${\rm SU}(4)$,
\item the partially-transposed adjoint action of ${\rm SU}(4)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{itemize}
As mentioned above, the adjoint action of ${\rm SU}(4)$ corresponds to QT for a 4-level system. Partially-transposed quantum theory and (standard) quantum theory are two representations of the same theory; since there is a reversible linear map for states, transformations and effects mapping one theory onto the other. Actually, in~\cite{GdlT}, they show a generalization of Result 2 for an arbitrary number of binary systems. Results 1 and 2 imply that
\begin{center}{\em
The only theory from the family under consideration\\ which has interacting dynamics is QT.
}\end{center}
\section{Axiomatization of the family of theories}
\label{axiomatization}
In this section we axiomatize the family of theories under consideration. But before, we introduce a framework which allows to represent states, measurements and transformations independently of the theory that we are considering.
\subsection{Generalized probability theory}\label{gpt}
In classical probability theory there can always be a joint probability distribution for all random variables under consideration. In the framework of generalized probability theory~\cite{5RA, MM, l1, CDP, purification, Barnum, Wilce, Barrett} this is relaxed, by allowing the possibility of random variables that cannot have a joint probability distribution, or cannot be simultaneously measured (like non-commuting observables in QT).
\medskip
In this framework, a state can be represented by the probabilities of some pre-established measurement outcomes $x_1, \ldots, x_K$ which are called {\em fiducial}:
\[
\omega= \left[ \begin{array}{c}
p(x_1) \\ \vdots \\ p(x_K)
\end{array} \right]
\in\ {\cal S}\ \subset\ \mathbb{R}^{K}.
\]
This list of probabilities has to be minimal and contain sufficient information to predict the probability distribution of all measurements that can be performed on the system under consideration. We include the possibility that the system is absent, indicated by the fact that a measurement gives no outcome, hence the state space contains the null vector ${\bf 0} \in{\cal S}$. One example is the set of probability distribution normalized to any value within $[0,1]$. Another example is a spin-$\frac 1 2$ particle in QT, where the fiducial probabilities can be $[p(\sigma_1 = 1), p(\sigma_2 = 1), p(\sigma_3 = 1), p(\sigma_3 = -1)]$, and the probability that the system is present is $p(\sigma_3 = 1) + p(\sigma_3 = -1)$. Note that in classical probability theory, all fiducial outcomes are simultaneously measurable, while in QT this is not the case. Also, note that the set of fiducial outcomes need not be unique, since any three linearly independent spin directions characterize the state of the spin-$\frac 1 2$ particle. The set of all allowed states ${\cal S}$ is convex \cite{convex_book}, because if $\omega_1, \omega_2 \in{\cal S}$ then one can prepare $\omega_1$ with probability $q$ and $\omega_2$ otherwise, effectively preparing the state $q\omega_1 + (1-q)\omega_2$. The number of fiducial outcomes $K$ is equal to the dimension of ${\cal S}$, otherwise one fiducial probability would be linearly related to the others, and the list not minimal. In this work we only consider finite-dimensional state spaces.
\medskip
The probability of a measurement outcome $x$ when the system is in state $\omega$ is given by a function $E_x (\omega)$. Suppose the system is prepared in the mixture \mbox{$q\omega_1 +(1-q) \omega_2$}, then the relative frequency of outcome $x$ should not depend on whether the label of the actual preparation $\omega_k$ is ignored before or after the measurement, hence
\[
E_x \big( q\omega_1 +(1-q) \omega_2 \big) =
q E_x (\omega_1) +(1-q) E_x (\omega_2)\ .
\]
This and the fact that when there is no state there is no outcome, $E_x ({\bf 0})=0$, imply that $E_x$ is linear. Linear functions mapping $E:{\cal S} \to [0,1]$ are called {\em effects} and can be written as a scalar product $E(\omega)= E \cdot\omega= \sum_{i=1}^K E^i p(x_i)$. One can always measure whether there is a system or not, by checking that a measurement gives one outcome. The associated effect is denoted by $U$, and the subset of normalized states ${\cal S}^1:= \{\omega \in{\cal S} : U\cdot \omega =1\}$ must satisfy the consistency contraint ${\cal S}=\{p \omega: \omega \in {\cal S}^1 \mbox{ and } p \in [0,1] \}$. The {\em pure states} are the extreme points of ${\cal S}^1$~\cite{convex_book}.
\medskip
Each type of system has associated to it: a state space ${\cal S}$, a set of measurements, and a set of transformations. A transformation is a map $T: {\cal S} \to{\cal S}$ which, for the same reason as outcome probabilities, has to be linear. A transformation $T$ is reversible if its inverse $T^{-1}$ exists and belongs to the set of transformations allowed by the theory. The set of reversible transformations of a particular state space ${\cal S}$ forms a group ${\cal H}$. Motivated by the physical interpretation,
we assume that ${\cal S}$ and ${\cal H}$ are both topologically closed.
\medskip
Note that the geometry of the state space depends
on the choice of fiducial outcomes. For example, the state space of a spin-$\frac 1 2$ particle in QT is a Euclidean ball when the fiducial outcomes correspond to three orthogonal spin directions; otherwise
the state space becomes an ellipsoid. However, both geometries are related by a linear transformation.
\subsection{Composite systems}
\begin{figure
\centering
\includegraphics[height=3cm]{axioms-fig1.pdf}
\caption{{\bf General experimental setup.} From left to right there are the preparation, transformation and measurement devices. As soon as the release button is pressed, the preparation device outputs a physical system in the state specified by its knobs. The next device performs the transformation specified by its knobs (which in particular can be ``do nothing"). The device on the right performs the measurement specified by its knobs, and the outcome \mbox{($x$ or $\bar{x}$)} is indicated by the corresponding light.}
\end{figure}
To a setup like Figure 1 we associate a system if, for each configuration of the preparation, transformation and measurement devices, the relative frequencies of the outcomes tend to a unique probability distribution. Two systems $A,B$ constitute a composite system $AB$ if a measurement for $A$ together with a measurement for $B$ uniquely specifies a measurement for $AB$, independently of the temporal ordering. The fact that subsystems are themselves systems implies that each has a well-defined reduced state $\omega_{A}, \omega_B$ which does not depend on which transformations and measurements are performed on the other subsystem; this is often referred to as no-signaling. Some bipartite correlations satisfying the no-signaling constraint violate Bell inequalities more than QT does~\cite{PR}; however, as we will show, these are incompatible with the axioms stated below. Naturally, system $A$ can be considered on its own or as part of a composite system $AB$, hence, for any state $\omega_A$ there is a state $\omega_{AB}$ which has $\omega_A$ as its reduced state.
\medskip
A bipartite system is a system, so its states can be represented by the probabilities of some fiducial outcomes. What is the relationship between these and the fiducial outcomes of the subsystems, $x_1, \ldots, x_{K_A}$ and $y_1, \ldots, y_{K_B}$? The fact that $p(x,y)$ does not depend on the ordering of the measurements giving outcomes $x,y$ implies the following
\bigskip\noindent {\bf Theorem.} The joint probability of any pair of subsystem outcomes $p(x,y)$ is given by
\begin{equation}\label{prob rule}
p(x,y)= (E_x \otimes E_y) \cdot\omega_{AB}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}\label{psiAB}
\omega_{AB} = \left[ \begin{array}{c}
p(x_1, y_1)\\ p(x_1, y_2)\\ \vdots\\ p(x_{K_A}, y_{K_B})
\end{array} \right]\ \in\ {\cal S}_{AB}
\subset \mathbb{R}^{K_A} \otimes \mathbb{R}^{K_B},
\end{equation}
and the set of all these vectors $\omega_{AB}$ spans the space $\mathbb{R}^{K_A} \otimes \mathbb{R}^{K_B}$.
\bigskip\noindent {\em Proof.} If system $B$ is measured first giving outcome $y_j$, then system $A$ is in the state determined by the fiducial probabilities $p(x_i|y_j)= p(x_i, y_j)/p(y_j)$, and the single-system probability rule can be applied $p(x|y_j)= \sum_i E^i_x\, p(x_i|y_j)$. Multiplying by $p(y_j)/ p(x)$ and using the Bayes rule gives $p(y_j |x)= \sum_i E^i_x\, p(x_i,y_j) /p(x)$. By using the freedom in the ordering of measurements, we can interpret $p(y_j |x)$ as the state of system $B$ once system $A$ has been measured giving outcome $x$, and the single-system probability rule can be applied again $p(y|x)= \sum_j E^j_y\, p(y_j |x)= \sum_{i,j} E^i_x\, E^j_y\, p(x_i,y_j) /p(x)$. Multiplying both sides of this equality by $p(x)$ gives (\ref{prob rule}). Clearly, the marginal states are given by $\omega_A = ({\bf 1} \otimes U) (\omega_{AB})$ and $\omega_B = (U \otimes {\bf 1}) (\omega_{AB})$.
\medskip
Let us see that the $\omega_{AB}$ span the full tensor product space.
In QT, the only states $\omega_{AB} \in{\cal S}_{AB}$ which have pure states as marginals $\omega_A\in {\cal S}_A , \omega_B \in {\cal S}_B$, are product ones $\omega_{AB}= \omega_A \otimes \omega_B$. The same proof technique applies to generalized probability theory. This implies that ${\cal S}_{AB}$ contains all product states, otherwise there would be a state in ${\cal S}_A$ or ${\cal S}_B$ which is not the marginal of any state in ${\cal S}_{AB}$.
Next, note that by minimality, ${\cal S}_A$ contains $K_A$ linearly independent vectors, and analogously for ${\cal S}_B$. The tensor products of these vectors are a set of $K_{AB}= K_A K_B$ linearly independent vectors in ${\cal S}_{AB}$, so the set ${\cal S}_{AB}$ has full dimension.
\hfill $\square$
\medskip
What about global measurements? The axiom of Tomographic Locality states that the probability for the outcome of any measurement, local or global, is determined by the joint probability $p(x,y)$ of all local measurements. This implies that~(\ref{psiAB}) is a representation of a bipartite state, since all outcome probabilities can be calculated from it.
\subsection{Axioms}
The following axioms single out the family of theories defined at the beginning of Section~\ref{bQT}.
\begin{description}
\item[Tomographic Locality:] the state of a composite system is characterized by the statistics of measurements on the individual components.
\item[Roundness:] the set of normalized states of a binary system is strictly convex.
\item[Continuous Reversibility:] in each type of system, for every pair of pure states there is a continuous reversible transformation that maps one state to the other.
\end{description}
As in Section~\ref{noint}, consider a bipartite system where each subsystem is binary. Let ${\cal S}$ be the state space of a binary system, and ${\cal S}^1= \{\omega \in{\cal S} : U\!\cdot \omega =1 \}$ the subset of normalized states. The Roundness Axiom implies that the convex set ${\cal S}^1$ is \emph{strictly} convex, that is, its boundary does not contain any lines, as depicted in Fig.~\ref{FigRoundness}.
Thus, all points in the boundary represent pure states which, by the Continuous Reversibility Axiom, are reversibly connected. This enforces some additional symmetry in the state: it has to be an ellipsoid. This can be seen as follows.
\begin{figure
\centering
\includegraphics[height=2.5cm]{roundness.pdf}
\caption{{\bf From Roundness to the Bloch ball.} The Roundness Axiom states that the set of normalized states of a binary system does not contain any lines in its boundary. This is true for many convex sets, like the one depicted on the left. Additionally imposing the Continuous Reversibility Axiom forces this set to be an ellipsoid. Reparametrizing the ellipsoid we end up with the Bloch ball.}
\label{FigRoundness}
\end{figure}
\medskip
Using the Haar measure on the compact group ${\cal H}$, we can define a positive matrix $W^2:=\int_{{\cal H}} H^{\mbox{\tiny T}} H\, dH$, and $W$ as its unique positive square root. For any pair of pure states $\omega, \varphi$ we have $\varphi=H\omega$ for some $H\in{\cal H}$, hence $|W\varphi|= \sqrt{\varphi\cdot W^2 \varphi}= \sqrt{\omega\cdot H^{\mbox{\tiny T}} W^2 H \omega}= \sqrt{\omega\cdot W^2 \omega}= |W\omega|$. (Note that $W^{\mbox{\tiny T}} =W$ and $W^2 H= HW^2$.) This allows to define the constant $c:=|W\omega|$ for any pure state $\omega$. The set of normalized states ${\cal S}^1$ is the intersection of the ellipsoid $\{x\in\mathbb{R}^K: |Wx|^2\leq c^2\}$ with the normalization hyperplane $\{x\in\mathbb{R}^K : U\!\cdot x=1\}$, which is itself an ellipsoid of dimension $d=K-1$.
\medskip
In what follows we reparametrize the state space to obtain the Bloch ball. Let $M:\mathbb{R}^K \to \mathbb{R}^K$ be the linear map which takes the ellipsoid ${\cal S}^1$ to the unit ball $\{\hat {\bf a} : |{\bf a}|\leq 1\}$, where
we use the hat notation~(\ref{hat rep}). This defines
a new representation for the states, measurements and transformations of a binary system as
\[
\omega \mapsto M \omega ,\quad
E \mapsto E M^{-1} ,\quad
T \mapsto M T M^{-1},\quad
U\mapsto (1,0,\ldots,0)^{\mbox{\tiny T}},
\]
which is the Bloch vector representation described in Section~\ref{noint}. Note that in this representation, states are no longer lists of probabilities, and all reversible transformations become orthogonal matrices which preserve the normalization. This change of representation can be applied to the state space of the bipartite system as $\omega_{AB} \to (M \otimes M) \omega_{AB}$. This gives the Bloch vector representation used in Section~\ref{noint}. Hence, the above axioms single out the family of theories defined in Section~\ref{bQT}.
\section{Argumentation}\label{proofs}
This section contains the proof of Result 1.
\subsection{Groups that are transitive on the sphere}\label{trans groups}
Due to our axiom of Continuous Reversibility, the group ${\cal H}$ acting on a single binary system (a $d$-dimensional Bloch ball)
must have the following properties:
\begin{enumerate}
\item States are mapped to states: for any $H \in {\cal H}$ and any ${\bf a} \in \mathbb{R}^d$ such that $|{\bf a}|\leq 1$ we have $| H{\bf a} | \leq 1$.
\item Continuity: ${\cal H}$ is connected.
\item Reversibility: for any ${\bf a}, {\bf b} \in \mathbb{R}^d$ such that $|{\bf a}| = |{\bf b}| = 1$ there is $H\in {\cal H}$ satisfying ${\bf a} = H{\bf b}$.
\end{enumerate}
Since the first property must hold for $H$ and its inverse $H^{-1}$, it implies that $H$ is an orthogonal matrix: ${\cal H} \leq {\rm O}(d)$. This together with connectedness implies ${\cal H} \leq {\rm SO}(d)$. The third property is called transitivity on the sphere.
Since all compact matrix groups are Lie groups~\cite{matrix_groups} we can invoke the classification in~\cite{Montgomery, Borel}: all connected compact Lie groups that act continuously, transitively and almost effectively on the sphere are the ones listed in the first column of Table~\ref{groups trans}, up to topological equivalence. However, we are interested in something more particular than continuous action: linear action.
In the appendix we describe one particular representation for each of these groups, show its transitivity on the sphere, and prove its uniqueness up to linear equivalence.
We say that two matrix groups ${\cal H}, {\cal H}'$ are linearly equivalent if ${\cal H}' = \{M G M^{-1} |\, G\in{\cal H}\}$, for some invertible matrix $M$. Write $M$ in (real) polar form $M = OP$ \cite{HJ}, where $O$ is orthogonal and $P$ positive. Since ${\cal H}, {\cal H}' \leq {\rm SO}(d)$ we have $(MGM^{-1})^{\mbox{\tiny T}} (MGM^{-1}) = {\bf 1}$, which implies $G P^2 = P^2 G$; and since $P$ is positive $G P = P G$, which implies $MGM^{-1} = OGO^{\mbox{\tiny T}}$. In summary: up to a change in the orthonormal coordinates of the sphere, all groups of reversible transformations for a binary system ${\cal H}$ are the ones listed in Table~\ref{groups trans} and described in the Appendix.
\begin{table}[h]\label{groups trans}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
\hline
abstract groups & $d$ & ${\cal H}$ \\
\hline\hline
${\rm SO}(d)$ & $3,4,5\ldots$ & ${\cal V}$ \\
\hline
${\rm SU}(d/2)$ & $4,6,8\ldots$ & ${\cal V} \oplus {\cal V}^*$ \\
\hline
${\rm U}(d/2)$ & $2,4,6,8\ldots$ & ${\cal V} \oplus {\cal V}^*$ \\
\hline
${\rm Sp}(d/4)$ & $8,12,16\ldots$ & ${\cal V} \oplus {\cal V}^*$ \\
\hline
${\rm Sp}(d/4) \times {\rm U}(1)$ & $8,12,16 \ldots$ & ${\cal V} \oplus {\cal V}^*$ \\
\hline
${\rm Sp}(d/4) \times {\rm SU}(2)$ & $4,8,12\ldots$ & irreducible \\
\hline
${\rm G}_2$ & $7$ & ${\cal V}$ \\
\hline
${\rm Spin}(7)$ & $8$ & ${\cal V}$ \\
\hline
${\rm Spin}(9)$ & $16$ & ${\cal V}$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{The first column is the list of abstract groups (or families of groups parametrized by $d$) that are transitive on the unit sphere within $\mathbb{R}^d$. The second column contains the values of $d$ for which this holds. The third column schematically specifies which representation of each abstract group corresponds to the matrix group ${\cal H}$, where ${\cal V}$ is the fundamental representation and ${\cal V}^*$ its dual (both irreducible). In cases where describing the representation is complicated we just mention whether it is irreducible.}
\end{table}
\medskip
Let us recapitulate the definition of some abstract groups:
\begin{eqnarray}
{\rm SO}(n) &=& \{ Q \in \mathbb{R}^{n\times n} |\, Q^{\mbox{\tiny T}} Q ={\bf 1}_n \mbox{ and } \det Q =1\}, \label{SO}\\
{\rm SU}(n) &=& \{ Q \in \mathbb{C}^{n\times n} |\, Q^\dagger Q ={\bf 1}_n \mbox{ and } \det Q =1 \}, \label{SU}\\
{\rm U}(n) &=& \{ Q \in \mathbb{C}^{n\times n} |\, Q^\dagger Q ={\bf 1}_n \}, \label{U}\\
{\rm Sp}(n) &=& \{ Q \in \mathbb{C}^{2n\times 2n} |\, Q^\dagger Q ={\bf 1}_{2n} \mbox{ and } Q^{\mbox{\tiny T}} JQ = J\}, \label{Sp}
\end{eqnarray}
where $J= ({\rm i}\sigma_2) \otimes {\bf 1}_n$ and ${\bf 1}_n$ is the $n\times n$ identity matrix. For the definition of ${\rm G}_2$ see~\cite{Arenas}, for the definition of Spin($n$) see \cite{Haar-book}. The fundamental representation ${\cal V}$ is the defining one (\ref{SO}-\ref{Sp}). According to Table \ref{groups trans}, the representation ${\cal H}$ for ${\rm SO}(d)$, denoted ${\cal H}_{{\rm SO}(d)}$, is the fundamental ${\cal V}$, hence ${\cal H}_{{\rm SO}(d)} = {\rm SO}(d)$. The representation ${\cal V} \oplus {\cal V}^*$ makes use of a standard trick to generate a real representation for a group of complex matrices. The particular map is:
\begin{eqnarray}\nonumber
\mathbb{C}^{n\times n} &\longrightarrow& \mathbb{R}^{2n\times 2n}
\\ \label{map}
Q &\longmapsto& {\bf 1}_2 \otimes {\rm re} Q +({\rm i} \sigma_2) \otimes {\rm im} Q\ .
\end{eqnarray}
To see that this is a homomorphism, note that the real matrix $({\rm i}\sigma_2)$ behaves as the imaginary unity $({\rm i}\sigma_2)^2 =-{\bf 1}_2$. This specifies the representation ${\cal H}$ for the abstract groups ${\rm SU}(d/2), {\rm U}(d/2), {\rm Sp}(d/4)$, denoted ${\cal H}_{{\rm SU}(d/2)}, {\cal H}_{{\rm U}(d/2)}, {\cal H}_{{\rm Sp}(d/4)}$. The group ${\rm SO}(d)$ with $d=2$ is not in Table \ref{groups trans} because ${\rm SO}(2) = {\cal H}_{{\rm U}(1)}$, and we choose to include it in the ${\rm U}(d/2)$ family because ${\rm SO}(2)$ is reducible, while ${\rm SO}(d)$ for $d\geq 3$ not. Another coincidence is ${\rm SU}(2) = {\rm Sp}(1)$.
\medskip
The matrix group ${\cal F}_{{\rm SU}(2)}$ is the representation of ${\rm SU}(2)$ obtained through the following Lie algebra homomorphism:
\begin{eqnarray}
{\rm i}\sigma_1 &\longmapsto& \sigma_1 \otimes ({\rm i}\sigma_2) \otimes {\bf 1}_{d/4}\ , \label{s1} \\
{\rm i}\sigma_2 &\longmapsto& ({\rm i}\sigma_2) \otimes {\bf 1}_2 \otimes {\bf 1}_{d/4}\ , \label{s2} \\
{\rm i}\sigma_3 &\longmapsto& \sigma_3 \otimes ({\rm i}\sigma_2) \otimes {\bf 1}_{d/4}\ . \label{s3}
\end{eqnarray}
Note that ${\cal F}_{{\rm SU}(2)}$ and ${\cal H}_{{\rm SU}(2)}$ are different representations, ${\cal H}_{{\rm SU}(2)}$ has dimension 4 and ${\cal F}_{{\rm SU}(2)}$ has dimension $d$. As shown in the Appendix, each element of ${\cal F}_{{\rm SU}(2)}$ commutes with all elements of ${\cal H}_{{\rm Sp}(d/4)}$. The ${\cal H}$-representation of ${\rm Sp}(d/4) \times {\rm SU}(2)$, denoted ${\cal H}_{{\rm Sp}(d/4) \times {\rm SU}(2)}$, is the product of all matrices from ${\cal H}_{{\rm Sp}(d/4)}$ times all matrices from ${\cal F}_{{\rm SU}(2)}$; we write this as ${\cal H}_{{\rm Sp}(d/4) \times {\rm SU}(2)} = {\cal H}_{{\rm Sp}(d/4)} {\cal F}_{{\rm SU}(2)}$. The ${\cal H}$-representation of ${\rm Sp}(d/4) \times {\rm U}(1)$ is obtained in the same way, but instead of ${\cal F}_{{\rm SU}(2)}$ we use its subgroup ${\cal F}_{{\rm U}(1)}$, with Lie algebra generated by the single element (\ref{s2}). Also note that ${\cal H}_{{\rm U}(d/2)} = {\cal H}_{{\rm SU}(d/2)} {\cal F}_{{\rm U}(1)}$.
\subsection{Lie algebras}
Compact matrix groups are Lie groups \cite{matrix_groups}. Hence, associated to each group ${\cal G}$ there is a Lie algebra $\mathfrak{g}$. If additionally, ${\cal G}$ is connected, then for each $G\in {\cal G}$ there is $X\in \mathfrak{g}$ such that $G= {\rm e}^X$. All the Lie algebras that appear in this work are real vector spaces, so for any $x,y\in\mathbb{R}$ and any $X,Y\in \mathfrak{g}$ we have $xX+yY\in\mathfrak{g}$. Another property that we use is that $GXG^{-1} \in\mathfrak{g}$ for any $G\in {\cal G}$.
\medskip
We denote by $\mathfrak{h}, \mathfrak{g}$ the Lie algebras of ${\cal H}, {\cal G}$, respectively. Since ${\cal H} \leq$SO($d$), we have $\mathfrak{h} \leq \mathfrak{so}(d)$. Recall that $\mathfrak{so}(d)$ is the antisymmetric subspace of $\mathbb{R}^{d\times d}$. The group of local transformations
\begin{equation}\label{gr-loc}
{\cal L} = \Big\{
\left[\begin{array}{cccc}
1 & {\bf 0} & {\bf 0} & {\bf 0} \\
{\bf 0} & B & {\bf 0} & {\bf 0} \\
{\bf 0} & {\bf 0} & A & {\bf 0} \\
{\bf 0} & {\bf 0} & {\bf 0} & A\otimes B
\end{array}\right] \, |\, A,B\in{\cal H} \Big\}
\end{equation}
has Lie algebra
\[
\mathfrak{l} = \Big\{
\left[\begin{array}{cccc}
0 & {\bf 0} & {\bf 0} & {\bf 0} \\
{\bf 0} & Y & {\bf 0} & {\bf 0} \\
{\bf 0} & {\bf 0} & X & {\bf 0} \\
{\bf 0} & {\bf 0} & {\bf 0} & X\otimes{\bf 1} +{\bf 1}\otimes Y
\end{array}\right]\, |\, X,Y \in \mathfrak{h} \Big\}
\]
where, from now on, ${\bf 1}$ denotes the identity matrix of dimension specified by the context. The condition $\hat {\cal H} \times \hat {\cal H} \leq {\cal G}$ can be written as ${\cal L}\leq {\cal G}$, or equivalently $\mathfrak{l} \leq \mathfrak{g}$.
\medskip
According to Lemma 1 from \cite{MM}, the compactness of ${\cal G}$ implies that there is $M \in \mathbb{R}^{(d+1)^2 \times (d+1)^2}$ symmetric $M^{\mbox{\tiny T}}=M$ and strictly positive $M>{\bf 0}$, such that for any $G\in{\cal G}$, the matrix $M^{-1} G M$ is orthogonal. Equivalently, for any $X\in\mathfrak{g}$ the matrix $M^{-1} XM$ is antisymmetric. The Lie algebra $\tilde\mathfrak{g} =\{M^{-1} XM\,\,|\,\, X\in\mathfrak{g} \}$
is an equivalent representation of $\mathfrak{g}$ where all elements are antisymmetric. Since ${\cal H} \leq {\rm SO}(d)$, definition (\ref{gr-loc}) implies that any $G\in {\cal L}$ is orthogonal; hence $(M^{-1} GM)^{\mbox{\tiny T}} (M^{-1} GM) = {\bf 1}$, which implies $M^{-2} G= G M^{-2}$, and since $M>{\bf 0}$,
\[
GM=MG, \mbox{ for all } G \in\l\ .
\]
In cases where ${\cal H}$ is irreducible (see Table \ref{groups trans}), ${\cal L}$ is the direct sum of four irreducible representations of ${\cal H}\times{\cal H}$, as in (\ref{gr-loc}). Invoking Schur's Lemma \cite{group_book} and the positivity of $M$ we conclude that
\begin{equation}\label{M2}
M= \left[\begin{array}{cccc}
1 & {\bf 0} & {\bf 0} & {\bf 0} \\
{\bf 0} & \beta {\bf 1} & {\bf 0} & {\bf 0} \\
{\bf 0} & {\bf 0} & \alpha {\bf 1} & {\bf 0} \\
{\bf 0} & {\bf 0} & {\bf 0} & \gamma {\bf 1}
\end{array}\right], \mbox{ with } \alpha ,\beta, \gamma >0\ .
\end{equation}
It is shown in Appendix \ref{sympl} that, in the cases where ${\cal H}$ is reducible, all symmetric matrices that commute with ${\cal H}$ are proportional to the identity, hence, Schur\rq{}s Lemma implies
\begin{equation}\label{M3}
M= \left[\begin{array}{cccc}
1 & {\bf 0} & {\bf 0} & {\bf 0} \\
{\bf 0} & \beta {\bf 1} & {\bf 0} & {\bf 0} \\
{\bf 0} & {\bf 0} & \alpha {\bf 1} & {\bf 0} \\
{\bf 0} & {\bf 0} & {\bf 0} & N
\end{array}\right], \mbox{ with } \alpha, \beta, N >0\ .
\end{equation}
The strictly-positive matrix $N$ must commute with all $(A\otimes B)$ with $A,B \in {\cal H}$.
\subsection{Block-diagonal transformations}\label{ql}
In this subsection we show that any block-diagonal reversible transformation
\begin{equation}\label{quasi loc}
\left[\begin{array}{cccc}
1 & {\bf 0} & {\bf 0} & {\bf 0} \\
{\bf 0} & B & {\bf 0} & {\bf 0} \\
{\bf 0} & {\bf 0} & A & {\bf 0} \\
{\bf 0} & {\bf 0} & {\bf 0} & C
\end{array}\right] \in {\cal G}\ ,
\end{equation}
satisfies $C= A\otimes B$ and $A,B \in {\rm SO}(d)$. This implies that block-diagonal transformations, although perhaps not implementable locally (if $A,B\not\in{\cal H}$), act independently on each subsystem. Therefore, this kind of dynamics does not let the systems interact, and does not create entanglement.
\medskip
Any block-diagonal transformation (\ref{quasi loc}) can be written as $M{\rm e}^{W} M^{-1}$ where
\begin{equation}\label{quasi loc 2}
W= \left[\begin{array}{cccc}
0 & {\bf 0} & {\bf 0} & {\bf 0} \\
{\bf 0} & Y & {\bf 0} & {\bf 0} \\
{\bf 0} & {\bf 0} & X & {\bf 0} \\
{\bf 0} & {\bf 0} & {\bf 0} & Z
\end{array}\right] \in \tilde\mathfrak{g}\ ,
\end{equation}
and $X,Y,Z$ are antisymmetric. Equality $C= A\otimes B$ is implied by $NZN^{-1}= X\otimes {\bf 1} + {\bf 1}\otimes Y$; so this is what we show next. Substituting $M{\rm e}^{\gamma W} M^{-1}$ in equation (\ref{const_1.2}) gives
\begin{equation}
1+ {\bf y} \cdot {\rm e}^{\gamma Y} {\bf b} + {\bf x} \cdot {\rm e}^{\gamma X} {\bf a} + ({\bf x}\otimes {\bf y}) \cdot N{\rm e}^{\gamma Z} N^{-1} ({\bf a} \otimes {\bf b}) \geq 0\ .
\label{eq33}
\end{equation}
Setting ${\bf b} = - {\rm e}^{-\gamma Y}{\bf y}$ gives ${\bf x} \cdot {\rm e}^{\gamma X} {\bf a} - ({\bf x}\otimes {\bf y}) \cdot N{\rm e}^{\gamma Z} N^{-1} ({\bf 1}\otimes {\rm e}^{-\gamma Y}) ({\bf a} \otimes {\bf y}) \geq 0$, which together with the same inequality after the transformation ${\bf x} \rightarrow -{\bf x}$ implies
\begin{equation}\label{eq18}
({\bf x}\otimes {\bf y}) \cdot \left[ ({\rm e}^{\gamma X} \otimes{\bf 1}) - N{\rm e}^{\gamma Z} N^{-1} ({\bf 1}\otimes {\rm e}^{-\gamma Y})\right] ({\bf a} \otimes {\bf y}) = 0\ .
\end{equation}
Differentiating with respect to $\gamma$ at $\gamma=0$ gives
\begin{equation}\label{eq19}
({\bf x}\otimes {\bf y}) \cdot \left[ (X \otimes{\bf 1})- N Z N^{-1} \right] ({\bf a} \otimes {\bf y}) = 0\ ,
\end{equation}
where we have used that ${\bf y}\cdot Y {\bf y} =0$. Analogously, ${\bf a}=-{\rm e}^{-\gamma X} {\bf x}$ in~(\ref{eq33}) yields
\begin{equation}\label{eq20}
({\bf x}\otimes {\bf y}) \cdot \left[ ({\bf 1}\otimes Y)- N Z N^{-1} \right] ({\bf x} \otimes {\bf b}) = 0\ .
\end{equation}
The space of real $d\times d$ matrices is denoted by ${\cal M}$, the subspace of symmetric ones by ${\cal M}_+$, and the subspace of antisymmetric ones by ${\cal M}_-$, so that ${\cal M} = {\cal M}_+ \oplus {\cal M}_-$. Equation (\ref{eq19}) implies that the projection onto ${\cal M} \otimes {\cal M}_+$ of $N Z N^{-1}$ is $X\otimes {\bf 1}$. Equation (\ref{eq20}) implies that the projection onto ${\cal M}_+ \otimes {\cal M}$ of $N Z N^{-1}$ is ${\bf 1}\otimes Y$. The combination of the two implies that $NZN^{-1} = X \otimes{\bf 1} + {\bf 1} \otimes Y + T$ where $T \in {\cal M}_- \otimes {\cal M}_-$. Differentiating (\ref{eq18}) two times with respect to $\gamma$ at $\gamma=0$, and using the fact that $({\bf x}\otimes {\bf y}) \cdot \left[ T ({\bf 1}\otimes Y) - ({\bf 1}\otimes Y) T \right] ({\bf a} \otimes {\bf y}) = 0$ and $({\bf x}\otimes {\bf y}) \cdot T (X\otimes{\bf 1})({\bf a} \otimes {\bf y}) =({\bf x}\otimes {\bf y}) \cdot (X\otimes{\bf 1})T({\bf a} \otimes {\bf y})= 0$, we obtain $({\bf x}\otimes {\bf y}) \cdot T^2 ({\bf a} \otimes {\bf y}) = 0$, which implies ${\rm tr} T^2 =0$. Since $T$ is symmetric $T^2$ is positive, hence $T=0$. Therefore $NZN^{-1} = X \otimes{\bf 1} + {\bf 1} \otimes Y$, which, when exponentiated, gives $C=A\otimes B$. Also, since $N$ is symmetric and $X,Y,Z$ antisymmetric we have $NZN^{-1} = N^{-1}ZN$, which together with the positivity of $N$ implies $NZ=ZN$.
\subsection{First- and second-order constraints}
For any $W\in \tilde\mathfrak{g}$ the group element $M {\rm e}^{\epsilon W} M^{-1} \in{\cal G}$ must satisfy
equation~(\ref{const_1.2}). Expanding it
to second order in $\epsilon$ we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{low1}
0\leq \frac 1 4 \left[ \begin{array}{c} 1 \\
{\bf x} \end{array} \right] \!\otimes\!
\left[ \begin{array}{c} 1 \\
{\bf y} \end{array} \right]\cdot
M \left({\bf 1} + \epsilon W
+\frac{\epsilon^2}{2} W^2
+{\cal O}(\epsilon^3) \right) M^{-1}
\left[ \begin{array}{c} 1 \\
{\bf a} \end{array} \right] \!\otimes\!
\left[ \begin{array}{c} 1 \\
{\bf b} \end{array} \right]
\leq 1\ .
\end{equation}
Now consider the special case ${\bf x}={\bf a}$ and ${\bf y}={\bf b}$. Then, for $\epsilon=0$, the expression~(\ref{low1}) equals unity.
Since $\epsilon$ can be positive and negative, the first order of (\ref{low1}) gives
\[
\left[ \begin{array}{c} 1 \\
{\bf a} \end{array} \right] \!\otimes\!
\left[ \begin{array}{c} 1 \\
{\bf b} \end{array} \right] \cdot
M W M^{-1}
\left[ \begin{array}{c} 1 \\
{\bf a} \end{array} \right] \!\otimes\!
\left[ \begin{array}{c} 1 \\
{\bf b} \end{array} \right]
= 0\ ,
\]
because otherwise, either small positive or small negative values of $\epsilon$ would yield probabilities larger than $1$.
Since the first order is zero, the constraint moves to second order
\[
\left[ \begin{array}{c} 1 \\
{\bf a} \end{array} \right] \!\otimes\!
\left[ \begin{array}{c} 1 \\
{\bf b} \end{array} \right] \cdot
M W^2 M^{-1}
\left[ \begin{array}{c} 1 \\
{\bf a} \end{array} \right] \!\otimes\!
\left[ \begin{array}{c} 1 \\
{\bf b} \end{array} \right]
\leq 0\ .
\]
We can get several additional inequalities by considering the lower bound in~(\ref{low1}).
For example, the special case
\[
\frac 1 4 \left[ \begin{array}{c} 1 \\
-{\bf a} \end{array} \right] \!\otimes\!
\left[ \begin{array}{c} 1 \\
{\bf y} \end{array} \right] \cdot
M \left({\bf 1} + \epsilon W
+\frac{\epsilon^2}{2} W^2
+{\cal O}(\epsilon^3) \right) M^{-1}
\left[ \begin{array}{c} 1 \\
{\bf a} \end{array} \right] \!\otimes\!
\left[ \begin{array}{c} 1 \\
{\bf b} \end{array} \right]
\geq 0
\]
equals zero for $\epsilon=0$ if $|{\bf a}|=1$, which implies
\begin{eqnarray*}
\left[ \begin{array}{c} 1 \\
-{\bf a} \end{array} \right] \!\otimes\!
\left[ \begin{array}{c} 1 \\
{\bf y} \end{array} \right] \cdot
M W M^{-1}
\left[ \begin{array}{c} 1 \\
{\bf a} \end{array} \right] \!\otimes\!
\left[ \begin{array}{c} 1 \\
{\bf b} \end{array} \right]
&=& 0\ ,
\\
\left[ \begin{array}{c} 1 \\
-{\bf a} \end{array} \right] \!\otimes\!
\left[ \begin{array}{c} 1 \\
{\bf y} \end{array} \right] \cdot
M W^2 M^{-1}
\left[ \begin{array}{c} 1 \\
{\bf a} \end{array} \right] \!\otimes\!
\left[ \begin{array}{c} 1 \\
{\bf b} \end{array} \right]
&\geq& 0\ .
\end{eqnarray*}
By exchanging the two subsystems we get analogous constraints. In summary, the first-order equalities are
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{e++}
\left[ \begin{array}{c} 1 \\
{\bf a} \end{array} \right] \!\otimes\!
\left[ \begin{array}{c} 1 \\
{\bf b} \end{array} \right] \cdot
M W M^{-1}
\left[ \begin{array}{c} 1 \\
{\bf a} \end{array} \right] \!\otimes\!
\left[ \begin{array}{c} 1 \\
{\bf b} \end{array} \right]
&=& 0\ ,
\\ \label{e-+}
\left[ \begin{array}{c} 1 \\
-{\bf a} \end{array} \right] \!\otimes\!
\left[ \begin{array}{c} 1 \\
{\bf y} \end{array} \right]\cdot
M W M^{-1}
\left[ \begin{array}{c} 1 \\
{\bf a} \end{array} \right] \!\otimes\!
\left[ \begin{array}{c} 1 \\
{\bf b} \end{array} \right]
&=&0\ ,
\\ \label{e+-}
\left[ \begin{array}{c} 1 \\
{\bf x} \end{array} \right] \!\otimes\!
\left[ \begin{array}{c} 1 \\
-{\bf b} \end{array} \right]\cdot
M W M^{-1}
\left[ \begin{array}{c} 1 \\
{\bf a} \end{array} \right] \!\otimes\!
\left[ \begin{array}{c} 1 \\
{\bf b} \end{array} \right]
&=&0\ ,
\end{eqnarray}
and the second-order inequalities are
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{e++2}
\left[ \begin{array}{c} 1 \\
{\bf a} \end{array} \right] \!\otimes\!
\left[ \begin{array}{c} 1 \\
{\bf b} \end{array} \right]\cdot
M W^2 M^{-1}
\left[ \begin{array}{c} 1 \\
{\bf a} \end{array} \right] \!\otimes\!
\left[ \begin{array}{c} 1 \\
{\bf b} \end{array} \right]
&\leq& 0\ ,
\\ \label{e-+2}
\left[ \begin{array}{c} 1 \\
-{\bf a} \end{array} \right] \!\otimes\!
\left[ \begin{array}{c} 1 \\
{\bf y} \end{array} \right]\cdot
M W^2 M^{-1}
\left[ \begin{array}{c} 1 \\
{\bf a} \end{array} \right] \!\otimes\!
\left[ \begin{array}{c} 1 \\
{\bf b} \end{array} \right]
&\geq&0\ ,
\\ \label{e+-2}
\left[ \begin{array}{c} 1 \\
{\bf x} \end{array} \right] \!\otimes\!
\left[ \begin{array}{c} 1 \\
-{\bf b} \end{array} \right]\cdot
M W^2 M^{-1}
\left[ \begin{array}{c} 1 \\
{\bf a} \end{array} \right] \!\otimes\!
\left[ \begin{array}{c} 1 \\
{\bf b} \end{array} \right]
&\geq&0\ ,
\end{eqnarray}
for all ${\bf a}, {\bf b}, {\bf x}, {\bf y}$ with $|{\bf a}|= |{\bf b}| =|{\bf x}|=|{\bf y}|=1$.
\subsection{Imposing the first-order constraints}
The goal of this section is to show that every $W\in\tilde\mathfrak{g}$ can be written in the block matrix form
\begin{equation}\label{genW}
W= \left[\begin{array}{cccc}
0&{\bf 0} &{\bf 0} &{\bf 0} \\
{\bf 0} & Y_0 & {\bf 0} & \sum_i {\bf e}_i^{\mbox{\tiny T}} \otimes Y_i \\
{\bf 0} & {\bf 0} & X_0 & \sum_i X_i \otimes {\bf e}_i^{\mbox{\tiny T}} \\
{\bf 0} & -\sum_i {\bf e}_i \otimes Y^{\mbox{\tiny T}}_i & -\sum_i X^{\mbox{\tiny T}}_i \otimes {\bf e}_i & \sum_j (U_j \otimes S_j + R_j \otimes V_j )
\end{array}\right].
\end{equation}
The antisymmetry of $W$ implies that all diagonal blocks (like $Y_0$ and $X_0$) are antisymmetric. Hence, the lower-right block belongs to the antisymmetric subspace of $\mathcal{M} \otimes \mathcal{M}$, that is $(\mathcal{M}_-\otimes \mathcal{M}_+) \oplus (\mathcal{M}_+ \otimes \mathcal{M}_-)$, and can be written in the Schmidt decomposition with $R_j, S_j \in \mathcal{M}_+$ and $U_j, V_j \in \mathcal{M}_-$. The two other sums (and their negative transposes) are also written in the Schmidt decomposition. In what follows we show how the zeroes in~(\ref{genW}) follow from the first-order constraints.
\medskip
By adding equality~(\ref{e++}) plus equality~(\ref{e-+}) with ${\bf y}={\bf b}$, plus equality~(\ref{e+-}) with ${\bf x}={\bf a}$, plus equality~(\ref{e+-}) with ${\bf x}=-{\bf a}$, we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{killj}
\left[ \begin{array}{c} 1 \\
{\bf 0} \end{array} \right] \!\otimes\!
\left[ \begin{array}{c} 1 \\
{\bf 0} \end{array} \right]\cdot
M W M^{-1}
\left[ \begin{array}{c} 1 \\
{\bf a} \end{array} \right] \!\otimes\!
\left[ \begin{array}{c} 1 \\
{\bf b} \end{array} \right]
=0\ .
\end{equation}
By adding equality~(\ref{e++}), plus equality~(\ref{e-+}) with ${\bf y}={\bf b}$, plus equality~(\ref{e+-}) with ${\bf x}={\bf a}$ and ${\bf b} \mapsto -{\bf b}$, plus equality~(\ref{e+-}) with ${\bf x}=-{\bf a}$ and ${\bf b} \mapsto -{\bf b}$, we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{killZ}
\left[ \begin{array}{c} 1 \\
{\bf 0} \end{array} \right] \!\otimes\!
\left[ \begin{array}{c} 1 \\
{\bf b} \end{array} \right]\cdot
M W M^{-1}
\left[ \begin{array}{c} 1 \\
{\bf a} \end{array} \right] \!\otimes\!
\left[ \begin{array}{c} 1 \\
{\bf 0} \end{array} \right]
=0\ .
\end{equation}
Adding equality~(\ref{killj}) to equality~(\ref{killj}) with ${\bf b} \mapsto -{\bf b}$ yields
\begin{equation}\label{killj2}
\left[ \begin{array}{c} 1 \\
{\bf 0} \end{array} \right] \!\otimes\!
\left[ \begin{array}{c} 1 \\
{\bf 0} \end{array} \right]\cdot
M W M^{-1}
\left[ \begin{array}{c} 1 \\
{\bf a} \end{array} \right] \!\otimes\!
\left[ \begin{array}{c} 1 \\
{\bf 0} \end{array} \right]
=0\ .
\end{equation}
Analogous equations can be obtained by
permuting the two systems and exchanging the role of states and effects in equations~(\ref{killj}), (\ref{killZ}) and (\ref{killj2}). Also, by adding equation~(\ref{killj2}), plus (\ref{killj2}) with ${\bf a} \mapsto -{\bf a}$, we get
\[
\left[ \begin{array}{c} 1 \\
{\bf 0} \end{array} \right] \!\otimes\!
\left[ \begin{array}{c} 1 \\
{\bf 0} \end{array} \right]\cdot
M W M^{-1}
\left[ \begin{array}{c} 1 \\
{\bf 0} \end{array} \right] \!\otimes\!
\left[ \begin{array}{c} 1 \\
{\bf 0} \end{array} \right]
=0\ .
\]
These equations yield the claimed zeroes in the block matrix $W$. We can get more information if $N \propto {\bf 1}$:
By adding equation~(\ref{e++}), plus equation~(\ref{e-+}) with ${\bf y} ={\bf b}$, we obtain
\[
\left[ \begin{array}{c} 1 \\
{\bf 0} \end{array} \right] \!\otimes\!
\left[ \begin{array}{c} 1 \\
{\bf b} \end{array} \right]\cdot
M W M^{-1}
\left[ \begin{array}{c} 1 \\
{\bf a} \end{array} \right] \!\otimes\!
\left[ \begin{array}{c} 1 \\
{\bf b} \end{array} \right]
=0\ .
\]
In the case where $N \propto {\bf 1}$, this implies that all $Y_i$ are antisymmetric. By exchanging the roles of
the two subsystem, we obtain analogously that all $X_i$ are antisymmetric if $N \propto {\bf 1}$.
\subsection{${\rm SO}(d)$ for $d\geq 4$}
In this subsection we show that, when ${\cal H} = {\rm SO}(d)$ and $d\geq 4$, the only group ${\cal G}$ satisfying our axioms is the group of local transformations ${\cal L}$. Since in this case ${\cal H}$ is irreducible, the matrix $M$ is of the form (\ref{M2}). Define the orthonormal basis
\[
{\bf e}_1 = \left[ \begin{array}{c} 1\\ 0 \\ \vdots \\ 0 \end{array}\right],\
{\bf e}_2 = \left[ \begin{array}{c} 0\\ 1 \\ \vdots \\ 0 \end{array}\right],
\ \ldots\
{\bf e}_d = \left[ \begin{array}{c} 0\\ 0 \\ \vdots \\ 1 \end{array}\right],
\]
the corresponding projectors $P_i = {\bf e}_i {\bf e}_i^{\mbox{\tiny T}}$, and their complements $Q_i = {\bf 1} -P_i$. The stabilizer subgroup of ${\cal H}$ on the vector ${\bf e}_1$ is ${\cal H}_1 =\{G\in {\cal H}: G{\bf e}_1 ={\bf e}_1\} \cong$ SO($d-1$). Since the fundamental representation of SO($d-1$) is irreducible for $d\geq 4$, Schur's Lemma states that $\int_{{\cal H}_1}\! dG\, G = P_1$ and
\[
\int_{{\cal H}_1}\!\! dG\, G Z G^{-1}=
z P_1 + z\rq{} Q_1\ ,
\]
for any $Z \in \mathbb{R}^{d \times d}$ and some $z, z\rq{} \in \mathbb{R}$ that depend on $Z$. Note that this does not hold for $d=3$, which allows quantum theory to have non-trivial dynamics and entanglement!
\medskip
If $W \in \tilde\mathfrak{g}$ then it is of the form~(\ref{genW}) with $X_i,Y_i$ antisymmetric, and
\begin{equation}\label{llast}
W' = \int_{{\cal H}_1}\!\! dG\, (\hat{\bf 1} \otimes\hat G) W (\hat{\bf 1} \otimes\hat G)^{-1} =
\left[\begin{array}{cccc}
0 &{\bf 0} &{\bf 0} &{\bf 0} \\
{\bf 0} &{\bf 0} & {\bf 0} & {\bf 0} \\
{\bf 0} &{\bf 0} & X_0 & X_1 \otimes {\bf e}_1^{\mbox{\tiny T}} \\
{\bf 0} &{\bf 0} & X_1 \otimes {\bf e}_1 & U_1' \otimes P_1 + U_2' \otimes ({\bf 1}-P_1)
\end{array}\right]
\end{equation}
is an element of $\tilde\mathfrak{g}$, where $U_1', U_2'$ are antisymmetric.
The matrix $H= {\bf 1} -2(P_1+P_2) \in {\cal H}$ satisfies $H {\bf e}_1 = -{\bf e}_1$ and $HP_1 H^{-1} =P_1$. Imposing constraint (\ref{e+-2}) on the element
\[
\frac 1 2 \left( W' - (\hat{\bf 1} \otimes\hat H) W' (\hat{\bf 1} \otimes\hat H)^{-1} \right) =
\left[\begin{array}{cccc}
0 &{\bf 0} &{\bf 0} &{\bf 0} \\
{\bf 0} &{\bf 0} & {\bf 0} & {\bf 0} \\
{\bf 0} &{\bf 0} & {\bf 0} & X_1 \otimes {\bf e}_1^{\mbox{\tiny T}} \\
{\bf 0} &{\bf 0} & X_1 \otimes {\bf e}_1 & {\bf 0}
\end{array}\right],
\]
with ${\bf b} ={\bf e}_2$ and ${\bf x} ={\bf a}$ gives ${\bf a}\!\cdot\! X_1^2 {\bf a} \geq 0$ for all ${\bf a}$. The simple fact $X_1^2 = - X_1^{\mbox{\tiny T}} X_1 = -|X_1|^2 \leq {\bf 0}$ implies $X_1= {\bf 0}$. A similar argument can be made by averaging over the stabilizer subgroup in the first system (instead of the second one, as in~(\ref{llast})), obtaining $Y_1 ={\bf 0}$. Also, the same can be done with the stabilizer subgroups on the rest of vectors ${\bf e}_2, \ldots, {\bf e}_d$, obtaining $X_i = Y_i = {\bf 0}$ for all $i$. In summary: every $W\in \tilde\mathfrak{g}$ must be block-diagonal (\ref{quasi loc 2}), which implies ${\cal G} \leq {\cal L}$.
\subsection{$-{\bf 1} \in {\cal H}$}\label{-id}
As shown in the Appendices, the ${\cal H}$-representations of ${\rm U}(d/2)$, ${\rm Sp}(d/4)$, ${\rm Sp}(d/4) \times {\rm U}(1)$, ${\rm Sp}(d/4) \times {\rm SU}(2)$, ${\rm Spin}(7)$ and ${\rm Spin}(9)$ contain minus the identity matrix. The group ${\cal H}_{{\rm SU}(d/2)}$ for $d$ multiple of four, also contains minus the identity. For the sake of clarity, in this subsection we use the notation $H=-{\bf 1}$. If $W\in \tilde\mathfrak{g}$ then it is of the form~(\ref{genW}) and
\begin{equation}\label{eq55}
\frac 1 2 \left(W - (\hat{\bf 1} \otimes\hat H) W (\hat{\bf 1} \otimes\hat H)^{-1}\right) =
\left[\begin{array}{cccc}
0 &{\bf 0} &{\bf 0} &{\bf 0} \\
{\bf 0} &{\bf 0} & {\bf 0} & {\bf 0} \\
{\bf 0} &{\bf 0} & {\bf 0} & \sum_i X_i \otimes {\bf e}_i^{\mbox{\tiny T}} \\
{\bf 0} &{\bf 0} & -\sum_i X_i ^{\mbox{\tiny T}} \otimes {\bf e}_i & {\bf 0}
\end{array}\right]
\end{equation}
also belongs to $\tilde\mathfrak{g}$. Constraints~(\ref{e+-2}) with ${\bf x} ={\bf a}$ and (\ref{e-+2}) with ${\bf y} =-{\bf b}$ give
\begin{eqnarray*}
-{\bf a}\cdot \Big[ \sum_i X_i X_i^{\mbox{\tiny T}} \Big] {\bf a} +
({\bf a}\otimes{\bf b})\cdot \Big[ N \sum_{ij} (X_i^{\mbox{\tiny T}} X_j) \otimes ({\bf e}_i {\bf e}_j^{\mbox{\tiny T}}) N^{-1} \Big] ({\bf a}\otimes{\bf b}) \geq 0,
\\
{\bf a}\cdot \Big[ \sum_i X_i X_i^{\mbox{\tiny T}} \Big] {\bf a} -
({\bf a}\otimes{\bf b})\cdot \Big[ N \sum_{ij} (X_i^{\mbox{\tiny T}} X_j) \otimes ({\bf e}_i {\bf e}_j^{\mbox{\tiny T}}) N^{-1} \Big] ({\bf a}\otimes{\bf b}) \geq 0 ,
\end{eqnarray*}
which together imply the equation
\[
{\bf a}\cdot \Big[ \sum_i X_i X_i^{\mbox{\tiny T}} \Big] {\bf a} =
({\bf a}\otimes{\bf b})\cdot \Big[ N \sum_{ij} (X_i^{\mbox{\tiny T}} X_j) \otimes ({\bf e}_i {\bf e}_j^{\mbox{\tiny T}}) N^{-1} \Big] ({\bf a}\otimes{\bf b}) .
\]
Summing this equation over the special cases ${\bf a}, {\bf b} \in \{{\bf e}_1\ldots {\bf e}_d\}$ gives
\[
d \sum_i {\rm tr}\! \left[X_i X_i^{\mbox{\tiny T}} \right] =
\sum_{ij} {\rm tr}\! \left[ N (X_i^{\mbox{\tiny T}} X_j) \otimes ({\bf e}_i {\bf e}_j^{\mbox{\tiny T}}) N^{-1} \right]=
\sum_{i} {\rm tr}\! \left[ X_i^{\mbox{\tiny T}} X_i \right],
\]
which is only possible if $X_1 =\cdots =X_d ={\bf 0}$. An analogous argument shows $Y_1 =\cdots =Y_d ={\bf 0}$. Therefore, all elements of ${\cal G}$ are block-diagonal and non-interacting as in (\ref{quasi loc}).
\subsection{${\rm SU}(d/2)$ for $d\geq 6$}
In this subsection we show that, when ${\cal H} = {\cal H}_{{\rm SU}(d/2)}$ and $d\geq 6$, all groups ${\cal G}$ are non-interacting. (The case ${\cal H}_{{\rm SU}(d/2)}$ with $d=4$ is analyzed in Section \ref{-id}.) The stabilizer of ${\cal H}$ on the vector ${\bf e}_1$ is ${\cal H}_1 =\{G\in {\cal H}: G{\bf e}_1 ={\bf e}_1\}$, or more concretely,
\[
{\cal H}_1 = \left\{ \left.
\left[\begin{array}{cccc}
1 &{\bf 0} & 0 &{\bf 0} \\
{\bf 0} & {\rm re} U & {\bf 0} & {\rm im} U \\
0 &{\bf 0} & 1 &{\bf 0} \\
{\bf 0} & -{\rm im} U & {\bf 0} & {\rm re} U
\end{array}\right]\,\, \right| \,\,
U \in {\rm SU}(d/2-1)
\right\}.
\]
One can check that $\int_{{\cal H}_1}\! dG\, G = P_1 + P_{d/2}$ and, for any $Z\in \mathbb{R}^{d \times d}$,
\begin{equation}\label{W depol}
\int_{{\cal H}_1}\!\! dG\, G \left[\begin{array}{ccc}
z_{1,1} & \cdots & z_{1,d} \\
\vdots & & \vdots \\
z_{d,1} & \cdots & z_{d,d} \\
\end{array}\right]
G^{-1} =
\left[\begin{array}{cccc|cccc}
z_{1,1} & & & & z_{1,d/2} & & & \\
& z & & & & z' & & \\
& & \ddots & & & & \ddots & \\
& & & z & & & & z' \\
\hline
z_{d/2,1} & & & & z_{d/2,d/2} & & & \\
& -z' & & & & z & & \\
& & \ddots & & & & \ddots & \\
& & & -z' & & & & z
\end{array}\right],
\end{equation}
for some $z, z\rq{} \in \mathbb{R}$ (all blank entries in the right-hand side are zeros). If $W\in \tilde\mathfrak{g}$ then
\[
W' = \int_{{\cal H}_1}\!\! dG\, (\hat{\bf 1} \otimes\hat G) W (\hat{\bf 1} \otimes\hat G)^{-1} =
\left[\begin{array}{cccc}
0 &{\bf 0} &{\bf 0} &{\bf 0} \\
{\bf 0} & Y_0 & {\bf 0} & \sum_i {\bf e}_i^{\mbox{\tiny T}} \otimes Y_i \\
{\bf 0} &{\bf 0} & X_0 & X_1 \otimes {\bf e}_1^{\mbox{\tiny T}} + X_{d/2} \otimes {\bf e}_{d/2}^{\mbox{\tiny T}}\\
{\bf 0} & \Box & \Box & \sum_j (U_j \otimes S_j + R_j \otimes V_j )
\end{array}\right]
\]
belongs to $\tilde\mathfrak{g}$ too, and $Y_0, Y_i, V_j, S_j$ are of the same form as the right-hand side of (\ref{W depol}).
The antisymmetry of $W\rq{}$ makes the $\Box$s unambiguous. Define
\[
H=
\left[\begin{array}{cc}
U & {\bf 0} \\
{\bf 0} & U
\end{array}\right]
\mbox{ where }\
U=\left[\begin{array}{ccccc}
-1 & & & & \\
& -1 & & & \\
& & 1 & & \\
& & & \ddots & \\
& & & & 1
\end{array}\right],
\]
and the blanks are zeros. Note that the right-hand side of (\ref{W depol}) commutes with $H$. The element
\[
\frac 1 2
\left( W'- (\hat{\bf 1} \otimes\hat H) W' (\hat{\bf 1} \otimes\hat H)^{-1} \right)=
\left[\begin{array}{cccc}
0 &{\bf 0} &{\bf 0} &{\bf 0} \\
{\bf 0} & {\bf 0} & {\bf 0} & {\bf 0} \\
{\bf 0} &{\bf 0} & {\bf 0} & X_1 \otimes {\bf e}_1^{\mbox{\tiny T}} + X_{d/2} \otimes {\bf e}_{d/2}^{\mbox{\tiny T}}\\
{\bf 0} & {\bf 0} & \Box & {\bf 0}
\end{array}\right] \in \tilde\mathfrak{g}\ ,
\]
has the same structure as (\ref{eq55}); therefore, arguing in the same way one obtains $X_1 = X_{d/2} ={\bf 0}$. Repeating this argument with the stabilizer of the vectors ${\bf e}_2, \ldots, {\bf e}_{d/2-1}$ gives $X_i =0$ for all $i$, and analogously for $Y_i$. Therefore, all elements of ${\cal G}$ are block-diagonal and non-interacting as in (\ref{quasi loc}).
\subsection{${\rm G}_2$}\label{G2s}
In this section we consider the case ${\cal H} = {\rm G}_2$ and show that all the corresponding groups ${\cal G}$ are non-interacting. Since ${\cal H}$ is irreducible, $M$ has the form (\ref{M2}). Schur\rq{}s Lemma \cite{group_book} together with irreducibility imply that any $W\in \tilde\mathfrak{g}$, which a priori has the generic structure (\ref{genW}), satisfies
\[
\int_{{\cal H}}\!\! dA \,
(\hat A \otimes \hat{\bf 1}) W (\hat A \otimes \hat{\bf 1})^{-1}
=
\left[\begin{array}{cccc}
0 &{\bf 0} &{\bf 0} &{\bf 0} \\
{\bf 0} & Y_0 & {\bf 0} & {\bf 0} \\
{\bf 0} &{\bf 0} & {\bf 0} & {\bf 0} \\
{\bf 0} & {\bf 0} & {\bf 0}
& {\bf 1}\otimes V
\end{array}\right] \in \tilde\mathfrak{g}\ .
\]
In addition, and according to Section~\ref{ql}, the above element must satisfy $V=Y_0$. This implies that for any element $W\in \tilde\mathfrak{g}$, there is another one
\begin{eqnarray*}
W' &=& W-
\int_{{\cal H}}\!\! dA \,
(\hat A \otimes \hat{\bf 1}) W (\hat A \otimes \hat{\bf 1})^{-1} -
\int_{{\cal H}}\!\! dB \,
(\hat {\bf 1} \otimes \hat B) W (\hat{\bf 1} \otimes \hat B)^{-1}
\\ &=&
\left[\begin{array}{cccc}
0&{\bf 0} &{\bf 0} &{\bf 0} \\
{\bf 0} & {\bf 0} & {\bf 0} & \sum_i {\bf e}_i^{\mbox{\tiny T}} \otimes Y_i \\
{\bf 0} & {\bf 0} & {\bf 0} & \sum_i X_i \otimes {\bf e}_i^{\mbox{\tiny T}} \\
{\bf 0} & -\sum_i {\bf e}_i \otimes Y^{\mbox{\tiny T}}_i & -\sum_i X^{\mbox{\tiny T}}_i \otimes {\bf e}_i &
\sum_j (U'_j \otimes S'_j + R'_j \otimes V'_j )
\end{array}\right] \in \tilde\mathfrak{g}\ ,
\end{eqnarray*}
with identical non-diagonal blocks, and null second and third diagonal blocks. (The fourth diagonal block might get modified, but we do not care.)
\medskip
The stabilizer subgroup of ${\cal H}$ on the vector ${\bf e}_1$ is ${\cal H}_1 =\{G\in {\cal H}: G{\bf e}_1 ={\bf e}_1\}$. It turns out that ${\cal H}_1 \cong {\cal H}_{{\rm SU}(3)}$, which is transitive on the 6-sphere. Hence, all vectors left invariant by ${\cal H}_1$ are proportional to ${\bf e}_1$, therefore $\int_{{\cal H}_1}\!\! dG\, G= P_1$. According to Appendix~\ref{SecG2}, for any $Z \in \mathbb{R}^{7\times 7}$ we have
\[
\int_{{\cal H}_1}\!\! dA\ A Z A^{-1}=
z_1 P_1 + z_2 Q_1 + z_3 T \ ,
\]
where $T$ is defined in~(\ref{def T}) and $z_1, z_2, z_3 \in \mathbb{R}$. The matrix $T$ commutes with ${\cal H}_1$ and satisfies: $T^{\mbox{\tiny T}}=-T$, $T{\bf e}_1=0$, and $T^2=-Q_1$. All the above implies that
\begin{eqnarray*}
W\rq{}\rq{} &=& \int_{{\cal H}_1}\!\! dA \int_{{\cal H}_1}\!\! dB\,
(\hat A \otimes \hat B) W' (\hat A \otimes \hat B)^{-1}
\\&=&
\left[\begin{array}{cccc}
0 &{\bf 0} &{\bf 0} &{\bf 0} \\
{\bf 0} &{\bf 0} & {\bf 0} & y\, {\bf e}_1^{\mbox{\tiny T}} \otimes T \\
{\bf 0} &{\bf 0} & {\bf 0} & x\, T\otimes {\bf e}_1^{\mbox{\tiny T}} \\
{\bf 0} &y\, {\bf e}_1 \otimes T & x\, T\otimes {\bf e}_1
& T\otimes S + R \otimes T
\end{array} \right] \in\tilde\mathfrak{g}\ ,
\end{eqnarray*}
where $x= \frac 1 6 {\rm tr} (TX_1)$, $y= \frac 1 6 {\rm tr} (TY_1)$, and $R,S$ are linear combinations of $P_1, Q_1$. The matrix $H\in {\cal H}$ defined in~(\ref{def H}) satisfies: $H{\bf e}_1 = -{\bf e}_1$, $HTH^{-1} = -T$, $HP_1 H^{-1} = P_1$, and $HQ_1 H^{-1} = Q_1$. This allows for the construction of the following element
\[
W\rq{}\rq{}\rq{} = \frac 1 2 \left(W\rq{}\rq{} +
(\hat H \otimes \hat H) W\rq{}\rq{} (\hat H \otimes \hat H)^{-1} \right)
=
\left[\begin{array}{cccc}
0 &{\bf 0} &{\bf 0} &{\bf 0} \\
{\bf 0} &{\bf 0} & {\bf 0} & y\, {\bf e}_1^{\mbox{\tiny T}} \otimes T \\
{\bf 0} &{\bf 0} & {\bf 0} & x\, T\otimes {\bf e}_1^{\mbox{\tiny T}} \\
{\bf 0} &y\, {\bf e}_1 \otimes T & x\, T\otimes {\bf e}_1 & {\bf 0}
\end{array}\right].
\label{eq67}
\]
Imposing (\ref{e-+2}) with ${\bf a} ={\bf b} ={\bf y} ={\bf e}_2$ we obtain $x^2-y^2 \geq 0$. Imposing (\ref{e+-2}) with ${\bf a} ={\bf b} ={\bf x} ={\bf e}_2$ we obtain $-x^2 +y^2 \geq 0$. These two inequalities imply $x=\pm y$.
\medskip
In what follows we show that for any $W\in \tilde\mathfrak{g}$ we have ${\rm tr} (TX_1) = {\rm tr} (TY_1) =0$, or equivalently $x=y=0$. We do this by assuming the opposite:
\[
W_\pm
=
\left[\begin{array}{cccc}
0 &{\bf 0} &{\bf 0} &{\bf 0} \\
{\bf 0} &{\bf 0} & {\bf 0} & \pm {\bf e}_1^{\mbox{\tiny T}} \otimes T \\
{\bf 0} &{\bf 0} & {\bf 0} & T\otimes {\bf e}_1^{\mbox{\tiny T}} \\
{\bf 0} &\pm {\bf e}_1 \otimes T & T\otimes {\bf e}_1 & {\bf 0}
\end{array}\right] \in \tilde\mathfrak{g}\ ,
\]
and obtaining a contradiction. For each $A\in\mathfrak{h}$ we have a local transformation
\[
L=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}
0 & {\bf 0} & {\bf 0} & {\bf 0} \\
{\bf 0} & {\bf 0} & {\bf 0} & {\bf 0} \\
{\bf 0} & {\bf 0} & A & {\bf 0} \\
{\bf 0} & {\bf 0} & {\bf 0} & A\otimes{\bf 1}
\end{array}\right]\in\mathfrak{l} \leq \tilde\mathfrak{g}\ .
\]
Since the Lie algebra $\mathfrak{g}$ is closed under commutations we have
\[
\left[ \strut[L, W_\pm], W_\pm\right] =\left[
\begin{array}{cccc}
0& {\bf 0} & {\bf 0} & {\bf 0} \\
{\bf 0} & {\bf 0} & {\bf 0} & {\bf 0} \\
{\bf 0} & {\bf 0} & [[A,T],T] & {\bf 0} \\
{\bf 0} & {\bf 0} & {\bf 0} & (A P_1 +P_1 A) \otimes T^2 + [[A,T],T] \otimes P_1
\end{array}
\right] \in \tilde\mathfrak{g}\ .
\]
According to Section~\ref{ql}, the above implies $(A P_1 +P_1 A) \otimes T^2 + [[A,T],T] \otimes P_1 = [[A,T],T] \otimes {\bf 1}$. Since $T^2 = -Q_1 = -({\bf 1} -P_1)$, this is equivalent to $[[A,T],T] = -(A P_1 +P_1 A)$. We can see that this equality is false by substituting $A$ by a generic element from $\mathfrak{h}$ of the form~(\ref{generic G2}); therefore $x=y=0$.
\medskip
The above shows that any $W\in \tilde \mathfrak{g}$ satisfies $\int_{{\cal H}_1} dG\, G X_1 G^{-1} = {\bf 0}$, hence
\begin{eqnarray}
W\rq{}\rq{}\rq{}\rq{} &=&
\int_{{\cal H}_1}\!\! dG\, (\hat G\otimes{\bf 1}) W' (\hat G\otimes{\bf 1})^{-1}
\nonumber \\ \label{e64} &=&
\left[\begin{array}{cccc}
0 & {\bf 0} & {\bf 0} & {\bf 0} \\
{\bf 0} & {\bf 0} & {\bf 0} & {\bf e}_1^{\mbox{\tiny T}} \otimes Y_1 \\
{\bf 0} & {\bf 0} & {\bf 0} & {\bf 0} \\
{\bf 0} & {\bf e}_1\otimes Y_1 & {\bf 0} &
P_1\otimes V+Q_1\otimes V' +T\otimes S
\end{array}\right] \in \tilde \mathfrak{g}\ .
\end{eqnarray}
If we use $H\in {\cal H}$ defined in~(\ref{def H}) we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{las}
\frac 1 2\left( W\rq{}\rq{}\rq{}\rq{}
-(\hat H\otimes{\bf 1}) W\rq{}\rq{}\rq{}\rq{} (\hat H\otimes{\bf 1})^{-1}\right)
=
\left[
\begin{array}{cccc}
0 & {\bf 0} & {\bf 0} & {\bf 0} \\
{\bf 0} & {\bf 0} & {\bf 0} & {\bf e}_1^{\mbox{\tiny T}} \otimes Y_1 \\
{\bf 0} & {\bf 0} & {\bf 0} & {\bf 0} \\
{\bf 0} & {\bf e}_1\otimes Y_1 & {\bf 0} & T\otimes S
\end{array}
\right]\in \tilde\mathfrak{g}\ .
\end{equation}
Imposing constraint~(\ref{e+-}) on the above element, and using the fact that ${\bf b}\cdot Y_1 {\bf b} =0$ for any ${\bf b}$, we obtain $S={\bf 0}$.
Constraint~(\ref{e-+2}) with ${\bf y}={\bf b}$ and ${\bf a}={\bf e}_2$ on element~(\ref{las}) yields ${\bf b}\cdot Y_1^2 {\bf b}\geq 0$ for
all ${\bf b}$. Since $Y_1^2=-Y_1^{\mbox{\tiny T}} Y_1\leq 0$, it follows that $Y_1={\bf 0}$.
\medskip
By integrating over the stabilizer subgroup on the vector ${\bf e}_1$ for the first system~(\ref{e64}), we have shown that any element $W\in \tilde \mathfrak{g}$ has $Y_1={\bf 0}$. By doing the same procedure for the second system we obtain $X_1= {\bf 0}$. Analogously, by considering the stabilizers of all vectors ${\bf e}_i$, we obtain $X_i = Y_i = {\bf 0}$ for all $i$. Therefore, all elements in $\tilde\mathfrak{g}$ are block-diagonal~(\ref{quasi loc 2}), and the group ${\cal G}$ has non-interacting dynamics.
\section{Conclusions}
In this work we have explored the existence of entanglement beyond QT. We have classified all continuously-reversible and locally-tomographic theories for bipartite systems where each subsystem has a Euclidean ball as its state space. We have shown that the only theory within this family which has interacting dynamics is QT; hence all the others do not allow for entanglement nor violation of Bell inequalities. These results illustrate the strong connection between the dynamics of a system and the geometry of its state space. In particular, these results suggest that once dynamics is taken into account, entanglement and violation of Bell inequalities are very singular phenomena. And this contrasts with the genericness of entanglement in the case where no assumption about the dynamics is made.
\medskip
We have introduced a method to construct state spaces of composite systems satisfying Continuous Reversibility. This exploits the connectedness of the group of reversible transformations to formulate the problem in terms of the representations of certain Lie algebras, which are highly structured objects. However, the central equation of our formalism, namely (\ref{const_1.2}), is valid regardless of the continuity of time evolution. Hence, this equation can be the starting point for relaxing the continuity assumption. Other ways of generalizing our results are going beyond Tomographic Locality and/or considering geometries for the local state spaces different than the Euclidean ball. Our ultimate goal would be to classify all state spaces which can be entangled with other copies of themselves through reversible dynamics.
\section{Acknowledgments}
LlM acknowledges support from CatalunyaCaixa, EU ERC Advanced Grant NLST, EU Qessence project, the Templeton Foundation and the FQXi large grant project ``Time and the structure of quantum theory". Research at Perimeter Institute is supported by the Government of Canada through Industry Canada and by the Province of Ontario through the Ministry of Research and Innovation. DP-G acknowledges support from the Spanish grants I-MATH, MTM2008-01366, S2009/ESP-1594 and the European project QUEVADIS. RA acknowledges support from AQUTE and TOQATA.
|
\section{Introduction}
\noindent
Periodic Schr\"odinger operators are encountered in the modeling of the electronic structure of crystals, as well as the study of photonic crystals. They are self-adjoint operators on $L^2(\mathbb{R}^d)$ with domain $H^2(\mathbb{R}^d)$ of the form
$$
H^0_{\rm per} = -\Delta + V_{\rm per},
$$
where $\Delta$ is the Laplace operator and $V_{\rm per}$ a ${\mathcal R}$-periodic function of $L^p_{\rm loc}(\mathbb{R}^d)$ ($\mathcal R$ being a periodic lattice of $\mathbb{R}^d$), with $p=2$ if $d \le 3$, $p > 2$ for $d=4$ and $p=d/2$ for $d \ge 5$.
Such operators describe perfect crystals, by contrast with real crystals, in which the underlying periodic structure is perturbed by the presence of local or extended defects. In solid state physics, local defects are due to impurities, vacancies, or interstitial atoms, while extended defects correspond to dislocations or grain boundaries. The properties of the crystal can be dramatically affected by the presence of defects. In this article, we consider the case of a $d$-dimensional crystal with a single local defect, whose properties are encoded in the perturbed periodic Schr\"odinger operator
\begin{equation} \label{eq:PPSO}
H = H^0_{\rm per} + W = -\Delta + V_{\rm per} + W, \qquad W \in L^\infty(\mathbb{R}^d), \qquad W(x) \mathop{\rightarrow}_{|x| \to \infty} 0.
\end{equation}
Note that we do not assume here that $W$ is compactly supported. This allows us in particular to handle the mean-field model considered in~\cite{CDL}. In the latter model, $d=3$ and the self-consistent potential $W$ generated by the defect is of the form $W = \rho \star |\cdot|^{-1}$ with $\rho \in L^2(\mathbb{R}^3) \cap {\mathcal C}$, $\mathcal C$ denoting the Coulomb space. Such potentials are continuous and vanish at infinity, but are not compactly supported in general.
\medskip
\noindent
Computing the spectrum of the operator $H$ is a key step to understand the properties of the system. It is well known that the self-adjoint operator $H^0_{\rm per}$ is bounded from below on $L^2(\mathbb{R}^d)$, and that the spectrum $\sigma(H^0_{\rm per})$ of $H^0_{\rm per}$ is purely absolutely continuous, and composed of a finite or countable number of closed intervals of $\mathbb{R}$~\cite{ReedSimon4}. The open interval laying between two such closed intervals is called a spectral gap. The multiplication operator $W$ being a compact perturbation of $H^0_{\rm per}$, it follows from Weyl's theorem~\cite{ReedSimon4} that $H$ is self-adjoint on $L^2(\mathbb{R}^d)$ with domain $H^2(\mathbb{R}^d)$, and that $H$ and $H^0_{\rm per}$ have the same essential spectrum:
$$
\sigma_{\rm ess}(H) = \sigma_{\rm ess}(H^0_{\rm per}) = \sigma(H^0_{\rm per}).
$$
Contrarily to $H^0_{\rm per}$, which has no discrete spectrum, $H$ may possess discrete eigenvalues. While the discrete eigenvalues located below the minimum of $\sigma_{\rm ess}(H)$ are easily obtained by standard variational approximations (in virtue of the Rayleigh-Ritz theorem~\cite{ReedSimon4}), it is more difficult to compute numerically the discrete eigenvalues located in spectral gaps, for spectral pollution may occur~\cite{BoultonLevitin}.
\medskip
In Section~\ref{sec:spectral_pollution}, we recall that the usual finite element Galerkin approximation may give rise to spectral pollution~\cite{BoultonLevitin}, and give a precise description of the corresponding spurious states. In Section~\ref{sec:supercell}, we show that the supercell model does not produce spectral pollution. Lastly, we extend in Section~\ref{sec:projector} results by Lewin and S\'er\'e~\cite{LewinSere} on some no-pollution criteria, which guarantee in particular that the numerical method introduced in \cite{CDL}, involving approximate spectral projectors, and is spectral pollution free.
\newpage
\section{Galerkin approximation}
\label{sec:spectral_pollution}
The discrete eigenvalues of $H$ and the associated eigenvectors can be obtained by solving the variational problem
$$
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\mbox{find }(\psi, \lambda)\in H^1(\mathbb{R}^d) \times \mathbb{R} \mbox{ such that}\\
\forall \phi \in H^1(\mathbb{R}^d), \; a(\psi, \phi) = \lambda \langle \psi, \phi \rangle_{L^2},\\
\end{array}
\right .
$$
where $\langle \cdot, \cdot \rangle_{L^2}$ is the scalar product of $L^2(\mathbb{R}^d)$ and $a$ the bilinear form associated with $H$:
$$
a(\psi,\phi) = \int_{\mathbb{R}^d} \nabla \psi \cdot \nabla \phi + \int_{\mathbb{R}^d} (V_{\rm per}+W) \psi\phi.
$$
A sequence $(X_n)_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ of finite dimensional subspaces of
$H^1(\mathbb{R}^d)$ being given, we consider for all $n\in\mathbb{N}$, the self-adjoint operator $H|_{X_n}: X_n \to X_n$ defined by
$$
\forall (\psi_n, \phi_n)\in X_n\times X_n, \; \langle H|_{X_n} \psi_n, \phi_n \rangle_{L^2} = a(\psi_n, \phi_n).
$$
The so-called Galerkin method consists in approximating the spectrum of the operator $H$ by the eigenvalues of the discretized operators $H|_{X_n}$ for $n$ large enough, the latter being obtained by solving the variational problem
\begin{equation}\label{eq:discdef}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\mbox{find }(\psi_n, \lambda_n)\in X_n \times \mathbb{R} \mbox{ such that}\\
\forall \phi_n \in X_n, \; a(\psi_n, \phi_n) = \lambda_n \langle \psi_n, \phi_n \rangle_{L^2}.\\
\end{array}
\right .
\end{equation}
According to the Rayleigh-Ritz theorem \cite{ReedSimon4}, under the natural assumption that the sequence $(X_n)_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ satisfies
\begin{equation}\label{eq:density}
\forall \phi\in H^1(\mathbb{R}^d), \; \inf_{\phi_n\in X_n} \|\phi-\phi_n\|_{H^1} \mathop{\longrightarrow}_{n\to\infty} 0,
\end{equation}
the Galerkin method allows to compute the eigenmodes of $H$ associated with the discrete eigenvalues located below the bottom of the essential spectrum. It is also known (see e.g.~\cite{Chatelin} for details) that, as $H$ is bounded below, (\ref{eq:density}) implies
\begin{equation} \label{eq:no_lack}
\sigma(H) \subset \liminf_{n \to \infty} \sigma\left(H|_{X_n}\right),
\end{equation}
where the right-hand side is the limit inferior of the sets $\sigma\left(H|_{X_n}\right)$, that is the set of the complex numbers $\lambda$ such that there exists a sequence $(\lambda_n)_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$, with $\lambda_n \in \sigma(H|_{X_n})$ for each $n \in \mathbb{N}$, converging toward $\lambda$. In particular, any discrete eigenvalue $\lambda$ of the operator $H$ is well-approximated by a sequence of eigenvalues of the discretized operators $H|_{X_n}$. On the other hand, (\ref{eq:density}) is not strong enough an assumption to prevent spectral pollution. Some sequences of eigenvalues of $\sigma(H|_{X_n})$ may indeed converge to a real number which does not belong to the spectrum of $H$:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:spectral_pollution}
\limsup_{n \to \infty} \sigma\left(H|_{X_n}\right) \nsubseteq \sigma(H) \quad \mbox{in general},
\end{equation}
where the limit superior of the sets $\sigma\left(H|_{X_n}\right)$ is the set of the complex numbers $\lambda$ such that there exists a subsequence $(\sigma(H|_{X_{n_k}}))_{k \in \mathbb{N}}$ of $(\sigma(H|_{X_n}))_{n \in \mathbb{N}}$ for which
$$
\forall k \in \mathbb{N}, \quad \exists \lambda_{n_k} \in \sigma(H|_{X_{n_k}}) \quad \mbox{and} \quad \lim_{k \to \infty} \lambda_{n_k} = \lambda.
$$
Spectral pollution has been observed in many situations in physics and mechanics, and this phenomenon is now well-documented (see e.g. \cite{review_spectral_pollution} and references therein). In~\cite{BoultonLevitin}, Boulton and Levitin report numerical simulations on perturbed periodic Schr\"odinger operators showing that ``{\em the natural approach of truncating $\mathbb{R}^d$ to a large compact domain and applying the projection method to the corresponding Dirichlet problem is prone to spectral pollution}''. Truncating $\mathbb{R}^d$ indeed seems reasonable since it is known that the bound states of $H$ decay exponentially fast at infinity~\cite{MantoiuPurice}. The following result provides details on the behavior of the spurious modes when the approximation space is constructed using the finite element method.
\medskip
\begin{proposition} \label{prop:Galerkin} Let $({\mathcal T}_n^\infty)_{n \in \mathbb{N}}$ be a sequence of uniformly regular meshes of $\mathbb{R}^d$, invariant with respect to
the translations of the lattice ${\mathcal R}$, and such that $h_n:=\max_{K \in {\mathcal T}_n^\infty} \mbox{\rm diam}(K) \mathop{\rightarrow}_{n \to \infty} 0$.
Let $(\Omega_n)_{n \in \mathbb{N}}$ be an increasing sequence of closed convex sets of $\mathbb{R}^d$ converging to $\mathbb{R}^d$,
${\mathcal T}_n := \left\{K \in {\mathcal T}_n^\infty \, | \, K \subset \Omega_n \right\}$ and $X_n$ the finite-dimensional approximation space of $H^1_0(\Omega_n) \hookrightarrow H^1(\mathbb{R}^d)$ obtained with ${\mathcal T}_n$ and $\mathbb{P}_m$ finite elements ($m \in \mathbb{N}^\ast$). Let $\lambda \in \limsup_{n \to \infty} \sigma\left(H|_{X_n}\right) \setminus \sigma(H)$ and $(\psi_{n_k},\lambda_{n_k}) \in X_{n_k} \times \mathbb{R}$ be such that $H|_{X_{n_k}}\psi_{n_k} = \lambda_{n_k}\psi_{n_k}$, $\|\psi_{n_k}\|_{L^2} = 1$ and $\lim_{k \to \infty}\lambda_{n_k} = \lambda$. Then, the sequence $(\psi_{n_k})_{k \in \mathbb{N}}$, considered as a sequence of functions of $H^1(\mathbb{R}^d)$, converges to $0$ weakly in $H^1(\mathbb{R}^d)$ and strongly in $L^q_{\rm loc}(\mathbb{R}^d)$, with $q=\infty$ if $d=1$, $q < \infty$ if $d=2$ and $q < 2d/(d-2)$ if $d \ge 3$, in the sense that
$$
\forall K \subset \mathbb{R}^d, \quad K \mbox{ compact}, \quad \int_K|\psi_{n_k}|^q \mathop{\longrightarrow}_{k \to \infty} 0,
$$
and it holds
\begin{equation}\label{eq:concentration}
\forall \epsilon > 0, \quad \exists R > 0 \quad \mbox{s. t.} \quad \liminf_{k \to \infty} \int_{\partial \Omega_{n_k} + B(0,R)} |\psi_{n_k}|^2 \ge 1-\epsilon.
\end{equation}
\end{proposition}
\medskip
The latter result shows that the mass of the spurious states concentrates on the boundary of the simulation domain $\Omega_{n_k}$.
\medskip
This phenomenon is clearly observed on the two dimensional numerical simulations reported below, which have been performed with the finite element software FreeFem++~\cite{FreeFEM}, with $V_{\rm per}(x,y)=\cos(x) + 3\sin(2(x+y)+1)$ and $W(x,y)=-(x+2)^2(2y-1)^2\exp(-(x^2+y^2))$. We have checked numerically, using the Bloch decomposition method, that there is a gap $(\alpha,\beta)$, with $\alpha \simeq -0.341$ and $\beta \simeq 0.016$, between the first and second bands of $H^0_{\rm per}=-\Delta+V_{\rm per}$. We have also checked numerically, using the pollution free supercell method (see Theorem~\ref{Th:supercell} below), that $H=H^0_{\rm per}+W$ has exactly one eigenvalue in the gap $(\alpha,\beta)$ approximatively equal to $-0.105$. Our simulations have been performed with a sequence of $\mathbb{P}_1$-finite element approximation spaces $(X_n)_{40 \le n \le 100}$, where for each $40 \le n \le 100$,
\begin{itemize}
\item $\dps \Omega_n= \left[-4\pi \frac{m_n}n,4\pi \frac{m_n}n\right]$, with $\dps m_n=\left[n\left(\frac{n-40}{20}+5\right)\right]$;
\item ${\cal T}_n^\infty$ is a uniform $2\pi\mathbb{Z}^2$-periodic mesh of $\mathbb{R}^2$ consisting of $2n^2$ isometrical isoceles rectangular triangles per unit cell.
\end{itemize}
The spectra of $H|_{X_n}$ in the gap $(\alpha,\beta)$ for $40 \le n \le 100$ are displayed on Fig.~1. We clearly see that all these operators have an eigenvalue close to $-0.1$, which is an approximation of a true eigenvalue of $H$. The corresponding eigenfunction for $n=88$ (blue circle on Fig.~1) is displayed on Fig.~\ref{fig:eigenfunction} (top); as expected, it is localized in the vicinity of the defect. On the other hand, most of these discretized operators have several eigenvalues in the range $(\alpha,\beta)$, which cannot be associated with an eigenvalue of $H$, and can be interpreted as spurious modes. The eigenfunction of $H|_{X_n}$ close to $-0.290$, obtained for $n=88$ (blue square on Fig.~1), is displayed on Fig.~\ref{fig:eigenfunction} (bottom); in agreement with the analysis carried out in Proposition~\ref{prop:Galerkin}, it is localized in the vicinity of the boundary of the computational domain.
\medskip
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\label{fig:spectrum}
\includegraphics[height=8truecm]{./spectre_final.eps}
\caption{Spectrum of $H|_{X_n}$ in the gap $(\alpha,\beta)$ for $40 \le n \le 100$}
\end{figure}
\medskip
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\label{fig:eigenfunction}
\begin{tabular}{c}
\includegraphics[height=6truecm]{./true_vraivep.eps} \\
\includegraphics[height=6truecm]{./true_favep_2.eps}
\end{tabular}
\caption{A true eigenfunction, localized close to the defect (top), and a ``spurious'' eigenfunction, localized close to the boundary (bottom).}
\end{figure}
\medskip
\begin{remark}
Using the results in \cite{half-line}, it is possible to characterize the spurious states generated by finite element discretizations of one-dimensional perturbed Schr\"odinger operators: for ${\mathcal R}=b\mathbb{Z}$ and $\Omega_n = [-(n+t)b,(n+t)b]$, the spurious eigenvalues are the discrete eigenvalues in $[\min(\sigma(H^0_{\rm per})),+\infty) \setminus \sigma(H)$ of the operators $H^+(t)$ and $H^-(t)$ on $L^2(\mathbb{R}_+)$ with domains $H^2(\mathbb{R}_+) \cap H^1_0(\mathbb{R}_+)$, respectively defined by $H^\pm(t) = -\dps \frac{d^2}{dx^2} + V_{\rm per}(x\pm tb)$. Besides, the spurious eigenvectors of $H|_{X_n}$ converge (in some sense, and up to translation) to the discrete eigenvectors of $H^\pm(t)$. As
$$
\left( \bigcup_{t \in [0,b)} \sigma(H^\pm(t)) \right) \cap [\min(\sigma(H^0_{\rm per})),+\infty) = [\min(\sigma(H^0_{\rm per})),+\infty),
$$
any $\lambda \in [\min(\sigma(H^0_{\rm per})),+\infty) \setminus \sigma(H)$ is a spurious eigenvalue, in the sense that there exists an increasing sequence $(\Omega_n)_{n \in \mathbb{N}}$ of closed intervals of $\mathbb{R}$ converging to $\mathbb{R}$ such that
$$
\lambda \in \liminf_{n \to \infty} \sigma(H|_{X_n}).
$$
We refer to~\cite{these} for a proof and a numerical illustration of this result. The proof of similar results for $d \ge 2$ is work in progress.
\end{remark}
\medskip
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:Galerkin}] We first notice that, since $H = -\frac 12 \Delta + \frac 12 \left( -\Delta + 2V_{\rm per} \right) + W$, with $W$ bounded in $L^\infty(\mathbb{R}^d)$ and $-\Delta +2V_{\rm per}$ bounded below, there exists a constant $C \in \mathbb{R}_+$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:lower_bound_a}
\forall \psi \in H^1(\mathbb{R}^d), \quad a(\psi,\psi) \ge \frac 12 \|\nabla \psi\|_{L^2}^2 - C \|\psi\|_{L^2}^2.
\end{equation}
As
$$
\forall k \in \mathbb{N}, \quad \|\psi_{n_k}\|_{L^2} = 1 \quad \mbox{and} \quad a(\psi_{n_k},\psi_{n_k})= \lambda_{n_k} \mathop{\longrightarrow}_{k \to \infty} \lambda,
$$
we infer from (\ref{eq:lower_bound_a}) that the sequence $(\psi_{n_k})_{k \in \mathbb{N}}$ is bounded in $H^1(\mathbb{R}^d)$. It therefore converges, up to extraction, to some function $\phi \in H^1(\mathbb{R}^d)$, weakly in $H^1(\mathbb{R}^d)$, and strongly in $L^q_{\rm loc}(\mathbb{R}^d)$ with $q=\infty$ if $d=1$, $q < \infty$ if $d=2$ and $q < 2d/(d-2)$ if $d \ge 3$. It is easy to deduce from (\ref{eq:density}) and the continuity of $a$ on $H^1(\mathbb{R}^d)\times H^1(\mathbb{R}^d)$ that $\phi$ satisfies $H\phi = \lambda \phi$ and therefore that $\phi=0$ since $\lambda \notin \sigma(H)$ by assumption. Consequently, the whole sequence $(\psi_{n_k})_{k \in \mathbb{N}}$ converges to zero weakly in $H^1(\mathbb{R}^d)$ and strongly in $L^q_{\rm loc}(\mathbb{R}^d)$.
\medskip
Let us now prove (\ref{eq:concentration}) by contradiction. Assume that there exists $\epsilon > 0$ such that
$$
\forall R > 0, \quad \liminf_{k \to \infty} \int_{\partial \Omega_{n_k} + B(0,R)}|\psi_{n_k}|^2 < 1-\epsilon.
$$
As $\|\psi_{n_k}\|_{L^2}=1$ for all $k$, the above inequality also reads
$$
\forall R > 0, \quad \limsup_{k \to \infty} \int_{\Omega_{n_k}^R}|\psi_{n_k}|^2 > \epsilon,
$$
where $\Omega_{n_k}^R = \left\{ x \in \Omega_{n_k} \, | \, d(x,\partial \Omega_{n_k}) \ge R \right\}$. We could then extract from $(\psi_{n_k})_{k \in \mathbb{N}}$ a subsequence, still denoted by $(\psi_{n_k})_{k \in \mathbb{N}}$, such that there exists an increasing sequence $(R_{n_k})_{k \in \mathbb{N}}$ of real numbers going to infinity such that
$$
\forall k \in \mathbb{N}, \quad \int_{\Omega_{n_k}^{R_{n_k}}}|\psi_{n_k}|^2 \ge \epsilon.
$$
Let us denote by
$$
C^0({\mathcal T}_n^\infty) = \left\{ v \in C^0(\mathbb{R}^d) \; | \; \forall K \in {\mathcal T}_n^\infty, \; v|_K \in \mathbb{P}_m \right\}
$$
the set of continuous functions built from ${\mathcal T}_n^\infty$ and $\mathbb{P}_m$-finite elements, and by
$$
X_n^\infty = C^0({\mathcal T}_n^\infty) \cap H^1(\mathbb{R}^d).
$$
The space $X_n^\infty$ is an (infinite dimensional) closed subspace of $H^1(\mathbb{R}^d)$. Obviously $X_n \hookrightarrow X_n^\infty$. We then introduce a sequence $(\chi_{n_k})_{k \in \mathbb{N}}$ of functions of $C^\infty_{\rm c}(\mathbb{R}^d)$ such that for all $k \in \mathbb{N}$,
$$
\mbox{\rm Supp}(\chi_{n_k}) \subset \Omega_{n_k}, \; \chi_k \equiv 1 \mbox{ on } \Omega_{n_k}^{R_{n_k}}, \; \mbox{and} \; \forall |\alpha| \le (m+1), \; \|\partial^\alpha \chi_{n_k}\|_{L^\infty} \le C R_{n_k}^{-|\alpha|},
$$
for a constant $C \in \mathbb{R}_+$ independent of $k$. Let $\widetilde \psi_{n_k} = P_{n_k} ( \chi_{n_k}\psi_{n_k})$, where $P_{n_k}$ is the interpolation projector on $X_{n_k}$. For all $k \in \mathbb{N}$, $\|\widetilde \psi_{n_k}\|_{L^2} \ge \epsilon^{1/2}$ and for all $\phi_{n_k}^\infty \in X_{n_k}^\infty$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
(a-\lambda_{n_k})(\widetilde \psi_{n_k},\phi_{n_k}^\infty) &=& (a-\lambda_{n_k})(\chi_{n_k}\psi_{n_k},\phi_{n_k}^\infty) \\ && - (a-\lambda_{n_k})(\chi_{n_k}\psi_{n_k}-P_{n_k}(\chi_{n_k} \psi_{n_k}),\phi_{n_k}^\infty) \\
&=& (a-\lambda_{n_k})(\psi_{n_k},\chi_{n_k}\phi_{n_k}^\infty) \\ && - (a-\lambda_{n_k})(\chi_{n_k}\psi_{n_k}-P_{n_k}(\chi_{n_k} \psi_{n_k}),\phi_{n_k}^\infty) \\
&& - \int_{\mathbb{R}^d} (\Delta\chi_{n_k} \psi_{n_k}\phi_{n_k}^\infty+2 \phi_{n_k}^\infty \nabla\chi_{n_k}\cdot\nabla\psi_{n_k}) \\
&=& (a-\lambda_{n_k})(\psi_{n_k},\chi_{n_k}\phi_{n_k}^\infty-P_{n_k}(\chi_{n_k} \phi_{n_k}^\infty)) \\
&& - (a-\lambda_{n_k})(\chi_{n_k}\psi_{n_k}-P_{n_k}(\chi_{n_k} \psi_{n_k}),\phi_{n_k}^\infty) \\
&& - \int_{\mathbb{R}^d} (\Delta\chi_{n_k} \psi_{n_k}\phi_{n_k}^\infty+2 \phi_{n_k}^\infty \nabla\chi_{n_k}\cdot\nabla\psi_{n_k}),
\end{eqnarray*}
where we have used that $(a-\lambda_{n_k})(\psi_{n_k},P_{n_k}(\chi_{n_k} \phi_{n_k}^\infty))=0$ since $P_{n_k}(\chi_{n_k} \phi_{n_k}^\infty) \in X_{n_k}$. Denoting by
$$
a^0(\psi,\phi) = \int_{\mathbb{R}^d}\nabla\psi\cdot\nabla\phi + \int_{\mathbb{R}^d} V_{\rm per}\psi\phi,
$$
we end up with
\begin{eqnarray}
(a^0-\lambda_{n_k})(\widetilde \psi_{n_k},\phi_{n_k}^\infty) &=& (a-\lambda_{n_k})(\psi_{n_k},\chi_{n_k}\phi_{n_k}^\infty-P_{n_k}(\chi_{n_k} \phi_{n_k}^\infty))\nonumber \\
&& - (a-\lambda_{n_k})(\chi_{n_k}\psi_{n_k}-P_{n_k}(\chi_{n_k} \psi_{n_k}),\phi_{n_k}^\infty) \nonumber \\
&& - \int_{\mathbb{R}^d} (\Delta\chi_{n_k} \psi_{n_k}\phi_{n_k}^\infty+2 \phi_{n_k}^\infty \nabla\chi_{n_k}\cdot\nabla\psi_{n_k})\nonumber \\
&& - \int_{\mathbb{R}^d} W \widetilde \psi_{n_k} \phi_{n_k}^\infty. \label{eq:aml}
\end{eqnarray}
\medskip
\noindent
Besides, for $h_{n_k}\le 1$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:interpolation}
\forall \phi_{n_k}^\infty \in X_{n_k}^\infty, \quad \|\chi_{n_k}\phi_{n_k}^\infty-P_{n_k}(\chi_{n_k}\phi_{n_k}^\infty)\|_{H^1} \le C h_{n_k}R_{n_k}^{-1} \|\phi_{n_k}^\infty\|_{H^1},
\end{equation}
for some constant $C$ independent of $k$ and $\phi_{n_k}^\infty$. To prove the above inequality, we notice that for all $K \in {\mathcal T}_{n_k}$, $(\chi_{n_k}\phi_{n_k}^\infty)|_K \in C^\infty(K)$, and $\partial^\beta\phi_{n_k}^\infty|_K=0$ if $|\beta|=m+1$, so that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\|\chi_{n_k}\phi_{n_k}^\infty-P_{n_k}(\chi_{n_k}\phi_{n_k}^\infty)\|_{H^1}^2 &=&
\sum_{K \in {\mathcal T}_{n_k}} \| (\chi_{n_k}\phi_{n_k}^\infty)|_K-(P_{n_k}(\chi_{n_k}\phi_{n_k}^\infty))|_K\|_{H^1(K)}^2 \\
&\le& C h_{n_k}^{2m} \sum_{K \in {\mathcal T}_{n_k}} \max_{|\alpha|=m+1} \| \partial^\alpha(\chi_{n_k}\phi_{n_k}^\infty)|_K\|_{L^2(K)}^2 \\
&\le& C h_{n_k}^{2m} \sum_{K \in {\mathcal T}_{n_k}} \max_{|\alpha|=m+1} \sum_{\beta \le \alpha} \| \partial^{\alpha-\beta} \chi_{n_k}\|_{L^\infty}^2 \|\partial^\beta \phi_{n_k}^\infty|_K\|_{L^2(K)}^2 \\
&\le& C h_{n_k}^{2m} R_{n_k}^{-2} \sum_{K \in {\mathcal T}_{n_k}} \max_{|\beta| \le m} \|\partial^\beta \phi_{n_k}^\infty|_K\|_{L^2(K)}^2 \\
&\le& C h_{n_k}^{2m} R_{n_k}^{-2} \sum_{K \in {\mathcal T}_{n_k}} (1+h_{n_k}^{-2(m-1)}) \|\phi_{n_k}^\infty|_K\|_{H^1(K)}^2 \\
&\le& Ch_{n_k}^2R_{n_k}^{-2} \|\phi_{n_k}^\infty\|_{H^1}^2,
\end{eqnarray*}
where we have used inverse inequalities and the assumption that the sequence of meshes $({\mathcal T}_n^\infty)_{n \in \mathbb{N}}$ is uniformly regular, to obtain the last but one inequality.
\medskip
\noindent
Using the boundedness of $(\psi_{n_k})_{k \in \mathbb{N}}$ in $H^1(\mathbb{R}^d)$, the properties of $\chi_{n_k}$ and $W$, and the fact that $(\psi_{n_k})_{k \in \mathbb{N}}$ strongly converges to $0$ in $L^2_{\rm loc}(\mathbb{R}^d)$, we deduce from (\ref{eq:aml}) and (\ref{eq:interpolation}) that
$$
\forall \phi_{n_k}^\infty \in X_{n_k}^\infty, \quad \left| (a^0-\lambda_{n_k})(\widetilde \psi_{n_k},\phi_{n_k}^\infty) \right| \le \eta_{n_k} \|\phi_{n_k}^\infty\|_{H^1},
$$
where the sequence of positive real numbers $(\eta_{n_k})_{k \in \mathbb{N}}$ goes to zero when $k$ goes to infinity.
\medskip
\noindent
We can now use Bloch theory (see e.g.~\cite{ReedSimon4}) and expand the functions of $X_{n_k}^\infty$ as
$$
\phi_{n_k}^\infty(x) = \fint_{\Gamma^\ast} (\phi_{n_k}^\infty)_q(x) \, dq,
$$
where $\Gamma^\ast$ is the first Brillouin zone of the perfect crystal, and where for all $q \in \Gamma^\ast$,
$$
(\phi_{n_k}^\infty)_q (x) = \sum_{R \in {\mathcal R}} \phi_{n_k}^\infty(x+R) e^{-i q \cdot R}.
$$
For each $q \in \Gamma^\ast$, the function $(\phi_{n_k}^\infty)_q$ belongs to the complex Hilbert space
$$
L^2_q(\Gamma):= \left\{ v(x) e^{iq\cdot x}, \; v \in L^2_{\rm loc}(\mathbb{R}^d), \; v \mbox{ ${\mathcal R}$-periodic} \right\},
$$
where $\Gamma$ denotes the Wigner-Seitz cell of the lattice ${\mathcal R}$
(notice that the functions $(\phi_{n_k}^\infty)_q$ are complex-valued). Recall that if ${\mathcal R}=b \mathbb{Z}^d$ (cubic lattice of parameter $b > 0$), then $\Gamma=(-b/2,b/2]^d$ and $\Gamma^\ast = (-\pi/b,\pi/b]^d$. The mesh ${\mathcal T}_{n_k}^\infty$ being invariant with respect to the translations of the lattice ${\mathcal R}$, it holds in fact
$$
(\phi_{n_k}^\infty)_q \in C^0({\mathcal T}_{n_k}^\infty) \cap L^2_q(\Gamma).
$$
We thus have for all $\phi_{n_k}^\infty \in X_{n_k}^\infty$,
$$
(a^0-\lambda_{n_k})(\widetilde \psi_{n_k},\phi_{n_k}^\infty)
= \fint_{\Gamma^\ast} (a^0_q-\lambda_n)((\widetilde \psi_{n_k})_q,(\phi_{n_k}^\infty)_q) \, dq,
$$
where
\begin{equation}\label{eq:a0q}
a^0_q(\psi_q,\phi_q) = \int_{\Gamma} \nabla\psi_q^\ast \cdot \nabla\phi_q + \int_\Gamma V_{\rm per} \psi_q^\ast \phi_q.
\end{equation}
Let $(\epsilon_{n,l,q},e_{n,l,q})_{1 \le l \le N_{n}}$, $\epsilon_{n,1,q} \le \epsilon_{n,2,q} \le \cdots \le \epsilon_{n,N_n,q}$, be an $L^2_q(\Gamma)$-orthonormal basis of eigenmodes of $a^0_q$ in $C^0({\mathcal T}_n^\infty) \cap L^2_q(\Gamma)$. Expanding $(\widetilde \psi_{n_k})_q$ in the basis $(e_{n_k,l,q})_{1 \le l \le N_{n_k} }$, we get
$$
(\widetilde \psi_{n_k})_q = \sum_{j=1}^{N_{n_k}} c_{n_k,j,q} e_{n_k,j,q}.
$$
Choosing $\phi_{n_k}^\infty$ such that
$$
(\phi_{n_k}^\infty)_q = \sum_{j=1}^{N_{n_k}} c_{n_k,j,q} (1_{\epsilon_{n_k,j,q}-\lambda_{n_k} \ge 0}-1_{\epsilon_{n_k,j,q}-\lambda_{n_k} < 0}) e_{n_k,j,q},
$$
we obtain $\|\phi_{n_k}^\infty\|_{L^2} = \|\widetilde \psi_{n_k}\|_{L^2}$ and
$$
(a^0-\lambda_{n_k})(\widetilde \psi_{n_k},\phi_{n_k}^\infty)
= \fint_{\Gamma^\ast} \sum_{j=1}^{N_{n_k}}
|\epsilon_{n_k,j,q}-\lambda_{n_k}| \, |c_{n_k,j,q}|^2.
$$
It is easy to check that $\dps \liminf_{k \to \infty}\max_{j,q} |\epsilon_{n_k,j,q}-\lambda_{n_k}| = \zeta:=\mbox{\rm dist}(\lambda,\sigma(H^0_{\rm per})) > 0$. Hence,
$$
\liminf_{k \to \infty}(a^0-\lambda_{n_k})(\widetilde \psi_{n_k},\phi_{n_k}^\infty)
\ge \zeta \epsilon.
$$
Besides,
$$
\|\phi_{n_k}^\infty\|_{L^2}=\|\widetilde \psi_{n_k}\|_{L^2} \quad \mbox{and} \quad a^0(\phi_{n_k}^\infty,\phi_{n_k}^\infty)=a^0(\widetilde \psi_{n_k},\widetilde \psi_{n_k}),
$$
which implies that the sequence $(\phi_{n_k}^\infty)_{k \in \mathbb{N}}$ is bounded in $H^1(\mathbb{R}^d)$. Consequently,
$$
0 < \zeta \epsilon \le \liminf_{k \to \infty}(a^0-\lambda_{n_k})(\widetilde \psi_{n_k},\phi_{n_k}^\infty) \le \liminf_{k \to \infty} \eta_{n_k} \|\phi_{n_k}^\infty\|_{H^1} = 0.
$$
We reach a contradiction.
\end{proof}
\medskip
A careful look on the above proof shows that the assumptions in Proposition~\ref{prop:Galerkin} can be weakened: in particular, the mesh ${\mathcal T}_n$ can be refined in the regions where $|W|$ is large, and coarsened in the vicinity of the boundary of $\Omega_n$ (see~\cite{these} for a more precise statement).
\section{Supercell method}
\label{sec:supercell}
In solid state physics and materials science, the current state-of-the-art technique to compute the discrete eigenvalues of a perturbed periodic Schr\"odinger operator in spectral gaps is the supercell method. Let ${\mathcal R}$ be the periodic lattice of the host crystal and $\Gamma$ its Wigner-Seitz cell. In the case of a cubic lattice of paramater $b > 0$, we have ${\mathcal R} = b \mathbb{Z}^d$ and $\Gamma = (-b/2,b/2]^d$. The supercell method consists in solving the spectral problem
\begin{equation}\label{eq:discdef2}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\mbox{find }(\psi_{L,N}, \lambda_{L,N})\in X_{L,N} \times \mathbb{R} \mbox{ such that}\\
\forall \phi_{L,N} \in X_{L,N}, \; a_L(\psi_{L,N}, \phi_{L,N}) = \lambda_{L,N} \langle \psi_{L,N}, \phi_{L,N} \rangle_{L^2_{\rm per}(\Gamma_L)}, \\
\end{array}
\right .
\end{equation}
where $\Gamma_L = L \Gamma$ (with $L \in \mathbb{N}^\ast$) is the supercell,
$$
L^2_{\rm per}(\Gamma_L) = \left\{ u_L \in L^2_{\rm loc}(\mathbb{R}^d) \; | \; u_L \mbox{ $L{\mathcal R}$-periodic} \right\},
$$
$$
a_L(u_L,v_L) = \int_{\Gamma_L} \nabla u_L \cdot \nabla v_L + \int_{\Gamma_L} (V_{\rm per}+W) u_Lv_L, \quad \langle u_L,v_L\rangle_{L^2_{\rm per}(\Gamma_L)} = \int_{\Gamma_L} u_L v_L,
$$
and $X_{L,N}$ is a finite dimensional subspace of
$$
H^1_{\rm per}(\Gamma_L) = \left\{ u_L \in L^2_{\rm per}(\Gamma_L) \; | \; \nabla u_L \in \left( L^2_{\rm per}(\Gamma_L) \right)^d\right\}.
$$
We denote by $H_{L,N} = H_L|_{X_{L,N}}$, where $H_L$ is the unique self-adjoint operator on $L^2_{\rm per}(\Gamma_L)$ associated with the quadratic form $a_L$. It then holds that
$D(H_L) = H^2_{\rm per}(\Gamma_L)$,
$$
\forall \phi_L \in H^2_{\rm per}(\Gamma_L), \quad H_L\phi_L = -\Delta \phi_L + (V_{\rm per} + W_L)\phi_L,
$$
and
$$
\forall \phi_{L,N} \in X_{L,N}, \quad H_{L,N}\phi_{L,N} = -\Delta \phi_{L,N} + \Pi_{X_{L,N}}\left( (V_{\rm per} + W_L)\phi_{L,N}\right),
$$
where $W_L\in L^{\infty}_{\rm per}(\Gamma_L)$ denotes the $L\mathcal{R}$-periodic extension of $W|_{\Gamma_L}$ and $\Pi_{X_{L,N}}$ is the orthogonal projector of $L^2_{\rm per}(\Gamma_L)$
on $X_{L,N}$ for the $L^2_{\rm per}(\Gamma_L)$ inner product.
Again for the sake of clarity, we restrict ourselves to cubic lattices (${\mathcal R} = b \mathbb{Z}^d$) and to the most popular discretization method for supercell model, namely the Fourier (also called planewave) method. We therefore consider approximation spaces of the form
$$
X_{L,N} = \left\{ \sum_{k \in 2\pi (bL)^{-1}\mathbb{Z}^d \, | \, |k| \le 2\pi (bL)^{-1}N} c_k e_{L,k} \; \big| \; \forall k, \, c_{-k}=c_k^\ast \right\},
$$
where $e_{L,k}(x) = |\Gamma_L|^{-1/2} e^{ik \cdot x}$.
From the classical Jackson inequality for Fourier truncation, we deduce by scaling the following property of the discretization spaces $X_{L,N}$: for all real numbers $r$ and $s$ such that $0\leq r \leq s$, there exists a constant
$C>0$ such that for all $L\in\mathbb{N}^*$ and all $\phi_L\in H^s_{\rm per}(\Gamma_L)$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:regularity}
\|\phi_L - \Pi_{X_{L,N}}\phi_L\|_{H^r_{\rm per}(\Gamma_L)} \leq C \left(\frac{L}{N} \right)^{s-r} \|\phi_L\|_{H^s_{\rm per}(\Gamma_L)}.
\end{equation}
\medskip
\noindent
Our analysis of the supercell method requires some assumption on the potential $V_{\rm per}$. We define the functional space ${\cal M}_{\rm per}(\Gamma)$ as
$$
{\cal M}_{\rm per}(\Gamma) =\left\{ v\in L^2_{\rm per}(\Gamma) \; | \; \|v\|_{{\cal M}_{\rm per}(\Gamma)}:=\sup_{L\in \mathbb{N}^\ast} \sup_{w\in H^1_{\rm per}(\Gamma_L)\setminus\left\{0\right\}}\frac{\| vw\|_{L^2_{\rm per}(\Gamma_L)}}{\| w \|_{H^1_{\rm per}(\Gamma_L)}} < \infty\right\}.
$$
It is quite standard to prove that ${\cal M}_{\rm per}(\Gamma)$ is a normed space and that the space of the ${\mathcal R}$-periodic functions of class $C^\infty$ is dense in ${\cal M}_{\rm per}(\Gamma)$. We denote the ${\cal R}$-periodic Lorentz spaces~\cite{BL} by $L^{p,q}_{\rm per}(\Gamma)$.
\medskip
\begin{proposition} The following embeddings are continuous:
\begin{eqnarray*}
&& {\rm for } \ d=1,\quad L^{2}_{\rm per}(\Gamma) \hookrightarrow {\cal M}_{\rm per}(\Gamma), \\
&& {\rm for } \ d=2,\quad L^{2,\infty}_{\rm per}(\Gamma) \hookrightarrow {\cal M}_{\rm per}(\Gamma), \\
&& {\rm for } \ d=3,\quad L^{3,\infty}_{\rm per}(\Gamma) \hookrightarrow {\cal M}_{\rm per}(\Gamma ).
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{proposition}
\medskip
\begin{proof} We only prove the result for $d=3$; the other two embeddings are obtained by similar arguments. Let us first recall that the Lorentz space $L^{3,\infty}(\Gamma)$ is a $L^2$-multiplier of $L^{6,2}(\Gamma)$ (this can be seen by combining results on convolution multiplier spaces \cite{Avci} and continuity properties of the Fourier transform on Lorentz spaces \cite{BL}), in the sense that
\begin{equation*}
\exists C_1\in\mathbb{R}_+ \; | \; \forall f\in L^{3,\infty}(\Gamma),\; \forall g\in L^{6,2}(\Gamma),\; \| fg\|_{L^2(\Gamma)}\le C_1 \| f\|_{L^{3,\infty}(\Gamma)} \| g\| _{L^{6,2}(\Gamma)}.
\end{equation*}
Besides, the embedding of $H^1(\Gamma)$ into $L^{6,2}(\Gamma)$ is continuous (see~\cite{Alvino} for instance)
\begin{equation}
\exists C_2\in\mathbb{R}_+ \; | \; \forall g \in H^1(\Gamma), \; \| g \|_{L^{6,2}(\Gamma)} \le C_2 \| g \|_{H^{1}(\Gamma)}.
\end{equation}
Let $v\in L^{3,\infty}_{\rm per}(\Gamma)$. Denoting by $\mathcal{I}_L := {\cal R} \cap (-Lb/2,Lb/2]^3$, we have, for all $w\in H^1_{\rm per}(\Gamma_L)$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\| vw\|^2_{L^2_{\rm per}(\Gamma_L)}&=&\int_{\Gamma_L}|v w|^2 = \sum_{R\in\mathcal{I}_L} \int_{\Gamma+R}|v(x) w(x)|^2 \, dx \\
&=& \sum_{R\in\mathcal{I}_L} \int_{\Gamma} |v(x) w(x+R)|^2 \, dx = \sum_{R\in\mathcal{I}_L} \|v w(.+R)\|_{L^2(\Gamma)}^2
\\
& \leq & C_1^2 \sum_{R\in\mathcal{I}_L} \|v\|^2_{L^{3,\infty}(\Gamma)} \|w(.+R)\|_{L^{6,2}(\Gamma)}^2\\
&\leq & C_1^2 \|v\|^2_{L^{3,\infty}(\Gamma)} \sum_{R\in\mathcal{I}_L} \|w(.+R)\|_{L^{6,2}(\Gamma)}^2\\
&\leq & C_1^2C_2^2 \|v\|^2_{L^{3,\infty}(\Gamma)} \sum_{R\in\mathcal{I}_L} \|w(.+R)\|_{H^{1}(\Gamma)}^2 \\
&\leq & C_1^2C_2^2 \|v\|^2_{L^{3,\infty}(\Gamma)}
\sum_{R\in\mathcal{I}_L} \int_{\Gamma} \left(|w(x+R)|^2 + |\nabla w(x+R)|^2\right)\,dx \\
&\leq & C_1^2C_2^2 \|v\|^2_{L^{3,\infty}(\Gamma)} \int_{\Gamma_L} \left(|w(x)|^2 + |\nabla w(x)|^2\right)\,dx \\
&\leq & C_1^2C_2^2 \|v\|^2_{L^{3,\infty}(\Gamma)} \|w\|^2_{H^1_{\rm per}(\Gamma_L)}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Therefore, $v \in {\cal M}_{\rm per}(\Gamma)$ and $\|v\|_{{\cal M}_{\rm per}(\Gamma)} \le C_1C_2 \|v\|_{L^{3,\infty}(\Gamma)}$.
\end{proof}
\medskip
\begin{remark} In dimension 3, the ${\mathcal R}$-periodic Coulomb kernel $G_1$ defined by
$$
-\Delta G_1 = 4\pi \left( \sum_{R \in {\cal R}} \delta_R - |\Gamma|^{-1} \right), \quad \min_{x \in \mathbb{R}^3} G_1(x)=0,
$$
is in $L^{3,\infty}_{\rm per}(\Gamma)$, hence in ${\cal M}_{\rm per}(\Gamma)$. The functional setting we have introduced therefore allows us to deal with the electronic structure of crystals containing point-like nuclei.
\end{remark}
\medskip
\begin{theorem} \label{Th:supercell} Assume that $V_{\rm per} \in {\cal M}_{\rm per}(\Gamma)$. Then
$$
\lim_{N,L \to \infty \, | \, N/L \to \infty} \sigma(H_{L,N}) = \sigma(H).
$$
\end{theorem}
\medskip
\begin{proof} Let us first establish that
$$
\sigma(H) \subset \liminf_{N,L \to \infty \, | \, N/L \to \infty} \sigma(H_{L,N}).
$$
Let $\lambda \in \sigma(H)$ and $(N_L)_{L\in\mathbb{N}^*}$ be a sequence of integers such that $\dps \frac{N_L}{L} \mathop{\longrightarrow}_{L\to \infty} \infty$. Let $\epsilon > 0$ and $\psi \in C^\infty_{\rm c}(\mathbb{R}^d)$ be such that $\|\psi\|_{L^2}=1$ and $\|(H-\lambda)\psi\|_{L^2} \le \epsilon$. We denote by $\psi_L$ the $L{\cal R}$-periodic extension of $\psi|_{\Gamma_L}$. Since $\psi$ is compactly supported, there exists $L_0 \in \mathbb{N}^\ast$ such that for all $L \ge L_0$, $\mbox{Supp}(\psi) \subset \Gamma_L$. Consequently, for all $L \ge L_0$,
$$
\|\psi_L\|_{L^2_{\rm per}(\Gamma_L)}=1 \quad \mbox{and} \quad
\|(H_L-\lambda)\psi_L\|_{L^2_{\rm per}(\Gamma_L)} \le \epsilon.
$$
Let $\psi_{L,N_L}:= \Pi_{X_{L,N_L}}\psi_L$. We are going to prove that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:convHL}
\left\|(H_L - \lambda)\psi_L - \left( H_{L,N_L} - \lambda\right) \psi_{L,N_L} \right\|_{L^2_{\rm per}(\Gamma_L)} \mathop{\longrightarrow}_{L\to\infty} 0.
\end{equation}
First, we infer from (\ref{eq:regularity}) and the density of $H^1_0(\Omega)$ in $L^2(\Omega)$ for any bounded domain $\Omega$ of $\mathbb{R}^d$, that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\forall \phi \in L^2_{\rm c}(\mathbb{R}^d), \quad \|(1-\Pi_{X_{L,N_L}})\phi_L\|_{L^2_{\rm per}(\Gamma_L)} \mathop{\longrightarrow}_{L \to \infty} 0,
\end{eqnarray*}
where $L^2_{\rm c}(\mathbb{R}^d)$ denotes the space of the square integrable functions on $\mathbb{R}^d$ with compact supports, and where $\phi_L$ is the $L{\cal R}$-periodic extension of $\phi|_{\Gamma_L}$. As $\psi$, $\Delta\psi$, $V_{\rm per}\psi$ and $W\psi$ are square integrable, with compact supports, we therefore have for all $L \ge L_0$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\|\psi_L - \psi_{L,N_L}\|_{L^2_{\rm per}(\Gamma_L)} = \left\|\left(1 - \Pi_{X_{L,N_L}}\right)\psi_L\right\|_{L^2_{\rm per}(\Gamma_L)} \mathop{\longrightarrow}_{L\to\infty} 0, \\
&&\|-\Delta \psi_L +\Delta \psi_{L,N_L}\|_{L^2_{\rm per}(\Gamma_L)} = \left\|\left(1 - \Pi_{X_{L,N_L}}\right)(-\Delta \psi)_L\right\|_{L^2_{\rm per}(\Gamma_L)} \mathop{\longrightarrow}_{L\to\infty} 0, \\
&&\|W_L\psi_L - \Pi_{X_{L,N_L}} (W_L \psi_L) \|_{L^2_{\rm per}(\Gamma_L)} = \left\|\left( 1 -\Pi_{X_{L,N_L}} \right) (W\psi)_L \right\|_{L^2_{\rm per}(\Gamma_L)} \mathop{\longrightarrow}_{L\to\infty} 0, \\
&& \|V_{\rm per}\psi_L - \Pi_{X_{L,N_L}}(V_{\rm per}\psi_L) \|_{L^2_{\rm per}(\Gamma_L)} = \left\|\left( 1 -\Pi_{X_{L,N_L}} \right) (V_{\rm per}\psi)_L \right\|_{L^2_{\rm per}(\Gamma_L)} \mathop{\longrightarrow}_{L\to\infty} 0.
\end{eqnarray*}
We infer from the last two convergence results that, on the one hand,
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\|W_L\psi_L - \Pi_{X_{L,N_L}} (W_L \psi_{L,N_L}) \|_{L^2_{\rm per}(\Gamma_L)}\\
&& \quad \leq \left\|W_L\psi_L - \Pi_{X_{L,N_L}} (W_L \psi_L) \right\|_{L^2_{\rm per}(\Gamma_L)} + \left\|\Pi_{X_{L,N_L}}\left(W_L(\psi_L - \psi_{L,N_L})\right) \right\|_{L^2_{\rm per}(\Gamma_L)}\\
&& \quad \leq \left\|W_L\psi_L - \Pi_{X_{L,N_L}} (W_L \psi_L)\right\|_{L^2_{\rm per}(\Gamma_L)}+ \|W\|_{L^{\infty}}\left\|\psi_L - \psi_{L,N_L} \right\|_{L^2_{\rm per}(\Gamma_L)} \\
&& \qquad \mathop{\longrightarrow}_{L\to\infty} 0,
\end{eqnarray*}
and that, on the other hand,
\begin{eqnarray*}
&& \|V_{\rm per}\psi_L - \Pi_{X_{L,N_L}}(V_{\rm per}\psi_{L,N_L}) \|_{L^2_{\rm per}(\Gamma_L)} \\
&& \quad \leq \left\|V_{\rm per}\psi_L - \Pi_{X_{L,N_L}}(V_{\rm per}\psi_{L}) \right\|_{L^2_{\rm per}(\Gamma_L)} + \left\|\Pi_{X_{L,N_L}}\left(V_{\rm per} (\psi_L - \psi_{L,N_L})\right)\right\|_{L^2_{\rm per}(\Gamma_L)}\\
&& \quad \leq \left\| \left( 1 - \Pi_{X_{L,N_L}}\right) V_{\rm per}\psi_L \right\|_{L^2_{\rm per}(\Gamma_L)} + \|V_{\rm per}\|_{{\cal M}_{\rm per}(\Gamma)} \|\psi_L - \psi_{L,N_L} \|_{H^1_{\rm per}(\Gamma_L)} \\
&& \qquad \mathop{\longrightarrow}_{L\to\infty} 0.
\end{eqnarray*}
Collecting the above results, we obtain (\ref{eq:convHL}). Thus, for $L$ large enough,
$$
\|(H_{L,N_L}- \lambda)\psi_{L,N_L}\|_{L^2_{\rm per}(\Gamma_L)} \leq 2\varepsilon.
$$
As $\|\psi_{L,N_L}\|_{L^2_{\rm per}(\Gamma_L)}=1$ for all $L \ge L_0$, we infer that for $L$ large enough, $\mbox{dist}(\lambda,\sigma(H_{L,N_L}))\le 2\epsilon$, so that $\dps \lambda \in \liminf_{L \to \infty} \sigma(H_{L,N_L})$.
\medskip
\noindent
Let us now prove that
$$
\limsup_{N,L \to \infty \, | \, N/L \to \infty} \sigma(H_{N,L}) \subset \sigma(H).
$$
We argue by contradiction, assuming that there exists $\lambda \in \mathbb{R} \setminus \sigma(H)$ and a sequence $(L_k,N_k)_{k \in \mathbb{N}}$ with $\dps L_k \mathop{\rightarrow}_{k \to \infty} \infty$, $\dps N_k \mathop{\rightarrow}_{k \to \infty} \infty$, $\dps N_k/L_k \mathop{\rightarrow}_{k \to \infty} \infty$, such that for each $k$, there exists $(\psi_{L_k,N_k},\lambda_{L_k,N_k}) \in X_{L_k,N_k} \times \mathbb{R}$ satisfying
\begin{equation*}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\forall \phi_{L_k,N_k} \in X_{L_k,N_k}, \; a_{L_k}(\psi_{L_k,N_k}, \phi_{L_k,N_k}) = \lambda_{L_k,N_k} \langle \psi_{L_k,N_k}, \phi_{L_k,N_k} \rangle_{L^2_{\rm per}(\Gamma_{L_k})} \\
\|\psi_{L_k,N_k}\|_{L^2(\Gamma_{L_k})} = 1,
\end{array}
\right .
\end{equation*}
and $\dps \lim_{k \to \infty} \lambda_{L_k,N_k}=\lambda$. Each function $\psi_{L_k,N_k}$ is then solution to the PDE
\begin{equation}\label{eq:psikeq}
- \frac 12 \Delta \psi_{L_k,N_k} + \Pi_{X_{L_k,N_k}} \left((V_{\rm per}+W_{L_k}) \psi_{L_k,N_k}\right) = \lambda_{L_k,N_k} \psi_{L_k,N_k}.
\end{equation}
Reasoning as in the proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:Galerkin}, it can be checked that the sequence $(\|\psi_{L_k,N_k}\|_{H^1_{\rm per}(\Gamma_{L_k})})_{k \in \mathbb{N}}$ is bounded, and that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:psiLkNk}
\psi_{L_k,N_k} \mathop{\longrightarrow}_{k \to \infty} 0 \quad \mbox{in } L^2_{\rm loc}(\mathbb{R}^d).
\end{equation}
\medskip
\noindent
For all $k$, we consider a cut-off function $\chi_k \in C^\infty_{\rm c}(\mathbb{R}^d)$ such that $0 \le \chi_k \le 1$ on $\mathbb{R}^d$, $\chi_k \equiv 1$ on $\Gamma_{L_k}$, $\mbox{\rm Supp}(\chi_k) \subset (L_k+L_k^{1/2})\Gamma$, $\|\nabla \chi_k\|_{L^\infty} \le C L_k^{-1/2}$, and $\|\Delta \chi_k\|_{L^\infty} \le C L_k^{-1}$ for some constant $C \in \mathbb{R}_+$ independent of $k$. We then set $\widetilde \psi_k = \chi_k \psi_{L_k,N_k}$. It holds $\widetilde \psi_k \in H^2(\mathbb{R}^d)$, $1 \le \|\widetilde \psi_k\|_{L^2} \le 2^{d/2}$ and
\begin{eqnarray}
- \frac 12 \Delta \widetilde \psi_k + V_{\rm per} \widetilde \psi_k - \lambda \widetilde \psi_k &=& \chi_k \left( V_{\rm per} \psi_{L_k,N_k} - \Pi_{X_{L_k,N_k}}\left(V_{\rm per} \psi_{L_k,N_k}\right)\right) \nonumber \\ &&
- \chi_k \Pi_{X_{L_k,N_k}}\left(W_{L_k} \psi_{L_k,N_k}\right) - \nabla\chi_k \cdot \nabla\psi_{L_k,N_k} \nonumber \\ && - \frac 12 \Delta\chi_k \psi_{L_k,N_k} + (\lambda_{L_k,N_k}-\lambda)\widetilde \psi_k . \label{eq:tildepsi}
\end{eqnarray}
As $(\lambda_{L_k,N_k})_{k \in \mathbb{N}}$ converges to $\lambda$ in $\mathbb{R}$ and $\|\widetilde \psi_k\|_{L^2} \le 2^{d/2}$, we have
$$
(\lambda_{L_k,N_k}-\lambda) \widetilde \psi_k \mathop{\longrightarrow}_{k \to \infty} 0 \quad \mbox{strongly in } L^2(\mathbb{R}^d).
$$
Using the facts that $\mbox{Supp}(\chi_k) \subset 2\Gamma_{L_k}$, $\|\nabla \chi_k\|_{L^\infty} \le C L_k^{-1/2}$ and $\|\Delta \chi_k\|_{L^\infty} \le C L_k^{-1}$ for a constant $C \in \mathbb{R}_+$ independent of $k$, and the boundedness of the sequence $(\|\psi_{L_k,N_k}\|_{H^1_{\rm per}(\Gamma_{L_k})})_{k \in \mathbb{N}}$, we get
$$
- \nabla\chi_k \cdot \nabla\psi_{L_k,N_k} - \frac 12 \Delta\chi_k \psi_{L_k,N_k} \mathop{\longrightarrow}_{k \to \infty} 0 \quad \mbox{strongly in } L^2(\mathbb{R}^d).
$$
It also follows from (\ref{eq:psiLkNk}) that the sequence $\| W_{L_k} \psi_{L_k,N_k}\|_{L^2_{\rm per}(\Gamma_{L_k})} $ goes to zero, leading to
$$
\chi_{k}\Pi_{X_{L_k,N_k}}\left(W_{L_k} \psi_{L_k,N_k}\right)\mathop{\longrightarrow}_{k \to \infty} 0 \quad \mbox{strongly in } L^2(\mathbb{R}^d).
$$
Lastly,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:conv}
\chi_k \left( V_{\rm per} \psi_{L_k,N_k} - \Pi_{X_{L_k,N_k}}\left(V_{\rm per} \psi_{L_k,N_k}\right) \right) \mathop{\longrightarrow}_{k \to \infty} 0 \quad \mbox{strongly in } L^2(\mathbb{R}^d).
\end{equation}
To show the above convergence result, we consider $\epsilon > 0$ and, using the density of e.g. $W^{1,\infty}_{\rm per}(\Gamma):= \{ W_{\rm per} \in L^\infty_{\rm per}(\Gamma) \; | \; \nabla W_{\rm per} \in L^{\infty}_{\rm per}(\Gamma)\}$
in ${\cal M}_{\rm per}(\Gamma)$, we can choose some $\widetilde{V}_{\rm per} \in W^{1,\infty}_{\rm per}(\Gamma)$ such that $\|V_{\rm per} - \widetilde{V}_{\rm per}\|_{{\cal M}_{\rm per}(\Gamma)} \leq \varepsilon$.
We then deduce from (\ref{eq:regularity}) that, for all $k\in\mathbb{N}$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\left\|V_{\rm per} \psi_{L_k,N_k} - \Pi_{X_{L_k,N_k}}\left(V_{\rm per} \psi_{L_k,N_k}\right)\right\|_{L^2_{\rm per}(\Gamma_{L_k})} \\
&& \leq \left\|(V_{\rm per} - \widetilde{V}_{\rm per}) \psi_{L_k,N_k}\right\|_{L^2_{\rm per}(\Gamma_{L_k})} + \left\|\widetilde{V}_{\rm per} \psi_{L_k,N_k} - \Pi_{X_{L_k,N_k}}\left(\widetilde{V}_{\rm per} \psi_{L_k,N_k}\right)\right\|_{L^2_{\rm per}(\Gamma_{L_k})} \\
&& \leq \|V_{\rm per} - \widetilde{V}_{\rm per}\|_{{\cal M}_{\rm per}(\Gamma)} \|\psi_{L_k,N_k}\|_{H^1_{\rm per}(\Gamma_{L_k})} + \frac{L_k}{N_k} \|\widetilde{V}_{\rm per} \psi_{L_k,n_k}\|_{H^1_{\rm per}(\Gamma_{L_k})}\\
&& \leq \varepsilon \|\psi_{L_k,N_k}\|_{H^1_{\rm per}(\Gamma_{L_k})} + \frac{L_k}{N_k} \|\psi_{L_k,n_k}\|_{H^1_{\rm per}(\Gamma_{L_k})}(\|\widetilde{V}_{\rm per}\|_{L^{\infty}} + \|\nabla \widetilde{V}_{\rm per}\|_{L^{\infty}}).\\
\end{eqnarray*}
Since the sequence $\left( \|\psi_{L_k,N_k}\|_{H^1_{\rm per}(\Gamma_{L_k})}\right)_{k\in\mathbb{N}^*}$ is bounded, this yields
$$
\left\| V_{\rm per} \psi_{L_k,N_k} - \Pi_{X_{L_k,N_k}}\left(V_{\rm per} \psi_{L_k,N_k}\right) \right\|_{L^2_{\rm per}(\Gamma_{L_k})} \mathop{\longrightarrow}_{k\to\infty} 0,
$$
which implies (\ref{eq:conv}).
\medskip
\noindent
Collecting the above convergence results, we obtain that the right-hand side of (\ref{eq:tildepsi}) goes to zero strongly in $L^2(\mathbb{R}^d)$. Therefore, $(\widetilde \psi_k/\|\widetilde \psi_k\|_{L^2})_{k \in \mathbb{N}}$ is a Weyl sequence for $\lambda$, which contradicts the fact that $\lambda \notin \sigma(H^0_{\rm per})$.
\end{proof}
\medskip
\noindent
A similar result was proved in~\cite{Soussi} for compactly supported defects in 2D photonic crystals, with $V_{\rm per} \in L^\infty(\mathbb{R}^2)$ and $N=\infty$. In~\cite{CEM}, we prove that the error made on the eigenvalues and the associated eigenvectors decays exponentially with respect to the size of the supercell. We did not consider here the error due to numerical integration. The numerical analysis of the latter is ongoing work and will be reported in \cite{these}.
\medskip
Note that, if instead of supercells of the form $\Gamma_L = L \Gamma$, $L \in \mathbb{N}^\ast$, we had used computational domains of the form $\Gamma_{L+t} = (L+t) \Gamma$, $t \in (0,1)$, we would have observed spectral pollution. As in the case studied in the previous section, the spurious eigenvectors concentrate on the boundary $\partial \Gamma_{L+t}$. In the one-dimensional setting (${\mathcal R}=b\mathbb{Z}$), and for a fixed value of $t$, the translated spurious modes $\phi_{L,N}(\cdot-(L+t)b/2)$ strongly converge in $H^1_{\rm loc}(\mathbb{R})$, when $L$ goes to infinity, to the normalized eigenmodes of the dislocation operator $H(t)=-\dps \frac{d^2}{dx^2} + 1_{x<0} V_{\rm per}(x+tb/2) +1_{x>0} V_{\rm per}(x-tb/2)$ studied in \cite{Korotyaev}. We refer to \cite{these} for further details.
\section{A no-pollution criterion}
\label{sec:projector}
Spectral pollution can be avoided by using e.g. the quadratic projection method, introduced in an abstract setting in \cite{QPM}, and applied to the case of perturbed periodic Schr\"odinger operators in~\cite{BoultonLevitin}. An alternative way to prevent spectral pollution is to impose constraints on the approximation spaces $(X_n)_{n \in \mathbb{N}}$. Consider a gap $(\alpha,\beta) \subset \mathbb{R} \setminus \sigma(H^0_{\rm per})$ in the spectrum of $H^0_{\rm per}$ and denote by $P=\chi_{(-\infty,\gamma]}(H^0_{\rm per})$ where $\gamma=\frac{\alpha+\beta}2$ and where $\chi_{(-\infty,\gamma]}$ is the characteristic function of the interval $(-\infty,\gamma]$.
\medskip
\begin{theorem}\label{Th:Wannier} Let $(P_n)_{n \in \mathbb{N}}$ be a sequence of linear projectors on $L^2(\mathbb{R}^d)$ such that for all $n\in\mathbb{N}$, $\mbox{Ran}(P_n) \subset H^1(\mathbb{R}^d)$, and $\sup_{n \in \mathbb{N}}\|P_n\|_{{\mathcal L}(L^2)} < \infty$,
and $(X_n)_{n \in \mathbb{N}}$ a sequence of finite dimensional discretization spaces satisfying (\ref{eq:density}) as well as the following two properties:
\begin{description}
\item[(A1)] $\forall n \in \mathbb{N}, \; X_n = X_n^+ \oplus X_n^- \; \mbox{with} \; X_n^- \subset \mbox{\rm Ran}(P_n) \; \mbox{and} \; X_n^+ \subset \mbox{\rm Ran}(1-P_n)$;
\item [(A2)] $\dps \mathop{\sup}_{\phi_n \in X_n \setminus \left\{0\right\}} \frac{\|(P-P_n)\phi_n\|_{H^1(\mathbb{R}^d)}}{\|\phi_n\|_{H^1(\mathbb{R}^d)}} \mathop{\longrightarrow}_{n\to\infty} 0$.
\end{description}
Then,
$$
\lim_{n \to \infty} \sigma(H|_{X_n}) \cap (\alpha,\beta) = \sigma(H) \cap (\alpha,\beta).
$$
\end{theorem}
\medskip
The above result is an extension, for the specific case of perturbed periodic Schr\"odinger operators, to the results in~\cite[Theorem~2.6]{LewinSere} in the sense that (i) the exact spectral projector $P$
is replaced by an approximate projector $P_n$, and (ii) the discretization space $X_n$ may consist of functions of $H^1(\mathbb{R}^d)$ (the form domain of $H$),
while in \cite{LewinSere}, the basis functions are assumed to belong to $H^2(\mathbb{R}^d)$ (the domain of $H$).
\medskip
\begin{proof}
From (\ref{eq:no_lack}), we already know that $\sigma(H) \cap (\alpha,\beta) \subset \liminf_{n \to \infty} \sigma(H|_{X_n}) \cap (\alpha,\beta)$. Conversely, let $\lambda \in (\limsup_{n \to \infty} \sigma(H|_{X_n}) \cap (\alpha,\beta))\setminus \sigma(H)$, and $(\psi_{n_k})_{k\in\mathbb{N}}$ be a sequence of functions of $H^1(\mathbb{R}^d)$ such that for all $k\in\mathbb{N}$, $\psi_{n_k} \in X_{n_k}$, $\|\psi_{n_k}\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^d)} = 1$ and
$(H|_{X_{n_k}} - \lambda)\psi_{n_k} \mathop{\longrightarrow}_{k\to\infty} 0$ strongly in $L^2(\mathbb{R}^d)$. Reasoning as in the proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:Galerkin}, we obtain that the sequence $(\psi_{n_k})_{k\in\mathbb{N}}$ converges to $0$, weakly in $H^1(\mathbb{R}^d)$, and strongly in $L^2_{\rm loc}(\mathbb{R}^d)$. Let us then expand $\psi_{n_k}$ as $\psi_{n_k} = \psi_{n_k}^+ + \psi_{n_k}^-$ with $\psi_{n_k}^+:=(1-P_{n_k})\psi_{n_k} \in X_{n_k}^+$ and $\psi_{n_k}^- := P_{n_k}\psi_{n_k} \in X_{n_k}^-$ and notice that
$$
(a^0-\lambda)(\psi_{n_k}^+, \psi_{n_k}^+) + (a^0-\lambda)(\psi_{n_k}^-, \psi_{n_k}^+) = (a-\lambda)(\psi_{n_k}, \psi_{n_k}^+) - \int_{\mathbb{R}^d} W \psi_{n_k} \psi_{n_k}^+.
$$
Since $\psi_{n_k}^+=(1-P_n)\psi_{n_k} \in X_{n_k}$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\left|(a-\lambda)(\psi_{n_k}, \psi_{n_k}^+)\right| &=& \left|\langle (H|_{X_{n_k}}-\lambda)\psi_{n_k},(1-P_n)\psi_{n_k} \rangle_{L^2} \right| \\
&\le& \left(1+\sup_{k \in \mathbb{N}}\|P_{n_k}\|_{{\mathcal L}(L^2)}\right) \|(H|_{X_{n_k}}-\lambda)\psi_{n_k}\|_{L^2} \mathop{\longrightarrow}_{k \to \infty} 0.
\end{eqnarray*}
Besides, as $W$ vanishes at infinity, $(\psi_{n_k})_{k \in \mathbb{N}}$ converges to $0$ in $L^2_{\rm loc}(\mathbb{R}^d)$ and $\sup_{k \in \mathbb{N}} \|\psi_{n_k}^+\|_{L^2} \le 1+\sup_{k \in \mathbb{N}}\|P_{n_k}\|_{{\mathcal L}(L^2)} < \infty$, we also have
$$
\int_{\mathbb{R}^d} W \psi_{n_k} \psi_{n_k}^+ \mathop{\longrightarrow}_{k \to \infty} 0.
$$
Therefore,
$$
(a^0-\lambda)(\psi_{n_k}^+, \psi_{n_k}^+) + (a^0-\lambda)(\psi_{n_k}^-, \psi_{n_k}^+) \mathop{\longrightarrow}_{k\to\infty} 0.
$$
Likewise,
$$
(a^0-\lambda)(\psi_{n_k}^+, \psi_{n_k}^-) + (a^0-\lambda)(\psi_{n_k}^-, \psi_{n_k}^-)=(a-\lambda)(\psi_{n_k}, \psi_{n_k}^-) - \int_{\mathbb{R}^d} W \psi_{n_k} \psi_{n_k}^- \dps \mathop{\longrightarrow}_{k\to\infty} 0.
$$
Substracting the second equation from the first one, we obtain
$$
(a^0-\lambda)(\psi_{n_k}^+, \psi_{n_k}^+) - (a^0-\lambda)(\psi_{n_k}^-, \psi_{n_k}^-) \mathop{\longrightarrow}_{k\to\infty} 0.
$$
Now, we notice that
\begin{eqnarray*}
(a^0-\lambda)(\psi_{n_k}^-, \psi_{n_k}^-) &= & (a^0-\lambda)(P_{n_k}\psi_{n_k}, P_{n_k} \psi_{n_k})\\
& = & (a^0-\lambda)(P\psi_{n_k}, P\psi_{n_k}) + 2(a^0-\lambda)(P\psi_{n_k}, (P_{n_k}-P)\psi_{n_k})\\
&& + (a^0-\lambda)((P_{n_k}-P)\psi_{n_k}, (P_{n_k}-P)\psi_{n_k}),
\end{eqnarray*}
and
\begin{eqnarray*}
(a^0-\lambda)(\psi_{n_k}^+, \psi_{n_k}^+) &= & (a^0-\lambda)((1-P_{n_k})\psi_{n_k}, (1-P_{n_k}) \psi_{n_k}) \\
& = & (a^0-\lambda)((1-P)\psi_{n_k}, (1-P)\psi_{n_k}) \\
&& + 2(a^0-\lambda)((1-P)\psi_{n_k}, (P-P_{n_k})\psi_{n_k})\\
&& + (a^0-\lambda)((P-P_{n_k})\psi_{n_k}, (P-P_{n_k})\psi_{n_k}).
\end{eqnarray*}
Besides, there exists $\eta_+, \eta_->0$ such that for all $\psi\in H^1(\mathbb{R}^d)$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
(a^0-\lambda)((1-P)\psi, (1-P)\psi) &\geq & \eta_+ \|(1-P)\psi\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^d)}^2, \\
-(a^0-\lambda)(P\psi, P\psi) & \geq & \eta_- \|P\psi\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^d)}^2.
\end{eqnarray*}
Thus,
\begin{eqnarray*}
(a^0-\lambda)(\psi_{n_k}^+, \psi_{n_k}^+) - (a^0-\lambda)(\psi_{n_k}^-, \psi_{n_k}^-) & \geq & \min(\eta_+, \eta_-) \|\psi_{n_k}\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^d)}^2 \\ &&
+ 2(a^0-\lambda)(\psi_{n_k}, (P-P_{n_k})\psi_{n_k}).
\end{eqnarray*}
From assumption $(A2)$ and the boundedness of $(\psi_{n_k})_{k \in \mathbb{N}}$ in $H^1(\mathbb{R}^d)$, we deduce that
$$
(a^0-\lambda)(\psi_{n_k}, (P-P_{n_k})\psi_{n_k}) \mathop{\longrightarrow}_{k\to\infty} 0,
$$
which imply that $\dps \|\psi_{n_k}\|_{L^2} \mathop{\longrightarrow}_{k\to\infty} 0$. This contradicts the fact that $\|\psi_{n_k}\|_{L^2}=1$ for all $k \in \mathbb{N}$.
\end{proof}
\medskip
The assumptions made in Theorem~\ref{Th:Wannier} allow in particular to consider approximation spaces built from approximate spectral projectors of $H^0_{\rm per}$. As a matter of illustration, let us consider the case when the approximate spectral projectors are constructed by means of the finite element method. As in Section~\ref{sec:spectral_pollution}, we consider a sequence $({\cal T}_n^\infty)_{n \in \mathbb{N}}$ of uniformly regular meshes of $\mathbb{R}^d$, invariant with respect to the translations of the lattice ${\cal R}$, and such that $h_n:=\max_{K \in {\cal T}_n^\infty} \mbox{diam}(K) \mathop{\longrightarrow}_{n \to \infty}0$, and denote by $X_n^\infty$ the infinite dimensional closed vector subspace of $H^1(\mathbb{R}^d)$ built from $({\cal T}_n^\infty)_{n \in \mathbb{N}}$ and $\mathbb{P}_m$-finite elements. Assume that we want to compute the eigenvalues of $H=H^0_{\rm per}+W$ located inside the gap $(\alpha,\beta)$ between the $J^{\rm th}$ and $(J+1)^{\rm st}$ bands of $H^0_{\rm per}$. Using Bloch theory \cite{ReedSimon4}, we obtain
$$
P = \chi_{(-\infty,\gamma]}(H^0_{\rm per}) = \fint_{\Gamma^\ast} P_q \, dq,
$$
where $P_q$ is the rank-$J$ orthogonal projector on $L^2_q(\Gamma)$ defined by
$$
P_q = \sum_{j=1}^J |e_{j,q}\rangle \, \langle e_{j,q}|,
$$
where $(\epsilon_{j,q},e_{j,q})_{j \in \mathbb{N}^\ast}$, $\epsilon_{1,q} \le \epsilon_{2,q} \le \cdots$, is an $L^2_q(\Gamma)$-orthonormal basis of eigenmodes of the quadratic form $a^0_q$ defined by (\ref{eq:a0q}). For $n$ large enough, we introduce
\begin{equation} \label{eq:defPn}
P_n := \fint_{\Gamma^\ast} \sum_{j=1}^J |e_{n,j,q}\rangle \, \langle e_{n,j,q}| \, dq,
\end{equation}
where $(\epsilon_{n,j,q},e_{n,j,q})_{1 \le j \le N_n}$, $\epsilon_{n,1,q} \le \epsilon_{n,2,q} \le \cdots \le \epsilon_{n,N_n,q}$, is the $L^2_q(\Gamma)$-orthonormal basis of eigenmodes of $a_q^0$ in $C^0({\mathcal T}_n^\infty) \cap L^2_q(\Gamma)$ already introduced in the proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:Galerkin}.
\medskip
\noindent
We have seen in Section~\ref{sec:spectral_pollution} that using approximation spaces of the form
$$
X_n = \left\{\psi_n \in X_n^\infty \; | \; \mbox{Supp}(\psi_n) \subset \Omega_n \right\},
$$
where $(\Omega_n)_{n \in \mathbb{N}}$ is an increasing sequence of closed convex sets of $\mathbb{R}^d$ converging to $\mathbb{R}^d$, leads, in general, to spectral pollution. We now consider the approximation spaces
\begin{equation} \label{eq:augmented}
\widetilde X_n = X_n^+ \oplus X_n^- \quad \mbox{where} \quad X_n^-=P_nX_n\quad \mbox{and} \quad X_n^+ = (1-P_n)X_n.
\end{equation}
Note that $\widetilde X_n= X_n + P_n X_n$, so that $\widetilde X_n$ can be seen as an augmentation of $X_n$.
\medskip
\begin{corollary} \label{Cor:Wan}
The sequence of approximation spaces $(\widetilde X_n)_{n \in \mathbb{N}}$ defined by (\ref{eq:augmented}) satisfies (\ref{eq:density}) and it holds
\begin{equation} \label{eq:wan}
\lim_{n \to \infty} \sigma(H|_{\widetilde X_n}) \cap (\alpha,\beta) = \sigma(H) \cap (\alpha,\beta).
\end{equation}
\end{corollary}
\medskip
\begin{proof} As $\widetilde X_n= X_n + P_n X_n$ with $(X_n)_{n \in \mathbb{N}}$ satisfying (\ref{eq:density}), it is clear that $(\widetilde X_n)_{n \in \mathbb{N}}$ satisfies (\ref{eq:density}). The sequence $(P_n)_{n \in \mathbb{N}}$ is a sequence of orthogonal projectors of $L^2(\mathbb{R}^d)$ such that $\mbox{Ran}(P_n) \subset X_n^\infty \subset H^1(\mathbb{R}^d)$. Besides, $\|P_n\|_{{\mathcal L}(L^2)}=1$ since the projector $P_n$ is orthogonal. It follows from the minmax principle~\cite{ReedSimon4} and usual a priori error estimates for linear elliptic eigenvalue problems \cite{linear} that
$$
\sup_{1 \le j \le J, \, q \in \Gamma^\ast} \epsilon_{n,j,q} \mathop{\longrightarrow}_{n \to \infty} \alpha \qquad \mbox{and} \qquad \inf_{j \ge J+1, \, q \in \Gamma^\ast} \epsilon_{n,j,q} \mathop{\longrightarrow}_{n \to \infty} \beta,
$$
and that there exists $C \in \mathbb{R}_+$ such that
$$
\| P_n-P \|_{{\mathcal L}(H^1)} \le C \, \sup_{q \in \Gamma^\ast} \sup_{\begin{array}{l} v_q \in {\rm Ran}(P_q) \\ \|v_q\|_{L^2_q(\Gamma)}=1 \end{array}} \inf_{v^n_q \in C^0({\mathcal T}_n^\infty) \cap L^2_q(\Gamma)} \|v_q-v^n_q\|_{H^1_q(\Gamma)} \mathop{\longrightarrow}_{n \to \infty} 0.
$$
We conclude using Theorem~\ref{Th:Wannier}.
\end{proof}
\medskip
\noindent
Let us finally present some numerical simulations illustrating Corollary~\ref{Cor:Wan} in a one-dimensional setting, with $V_{\rm per}(x) = \cos(x) + 3\sin(2x+1)$ and $W(x) = -(x+2)^2 e^{-x^2}$. We focus on the spectral gap $(\alpha,\beta)$ located between the first and second bands of $H^0_{\rm per}=-\frac{d^2}{dx^2}+V_{\rm per}$ (corresponding to $J=1$). Numerical simulations done with the pollution-free supercell model show that $\alpha \simeq -1.15$ and $\beta \simeq -0.65$, and that $H$ has exactly two discrete eigenvalues $\lambda_1 \simeq -1.04$ and $\lambda_2 \simeq -0.66$ in the gap $(\alpha,\beta)$.
The simulations below have been performed with a uniform mesh of $\mathbb{R}$ centered on $0$, consisting of segments of length $h = \pi/50$, and with $\Omega = [-L,L]$, for different values of $L$. The sums over ${\mathcal R}$ have been truncated using very large cut-offs; likewise, the integrals on the Brillouin zone have been computed numerically on a very fine uniform integration grid, in order to eliminate the so-called $k$-point discretization errors. The numerical analysis of the approximations resulting from the truncation of the sums over ${\mathcal R}$ and from the numerical integration on $\Gamma^\ast$, is work in progress.
The spectra of the operators $H|_{X_n}$ (standard finite element discretization spaces) and $H|_{\widetilde X_n}$ (augmented finite element discretization spaces defined by (\ref{eq:augmented})) are displayed in Figure~\ref{fig:Wannier}. The variational approximation of $H$ in $X_n$ is seen to generate spectral pollution, while, in agreement with Corollary~\ref{Cor:Wan}, no spectral pollution is observed with the discretization spaces $\widetilde X_n$.
\medskip
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\label{fig:Wannier}
\begin{tabular}{c}
\includegraphics[height=5.5truecm]{./spectrum_noWannier.eps} \\
\includegraphics[height=5.5truecm]{./spectrum_withWan.eps}
\end{tabular}
\caption{The spectra of the variational approximations of $H$ for various sizes of the simulation domain, obtained with standard finite element discretization spaces $X_n$ (top) and with augmented finite element discretization spaces $\widetilde X_n$ defined by (\ref{eq:augmented}) (bottom).}
\end{figure}
\bigskip
\section*{Acknowledgements} We thank Fran\c cois Murat for helpful discussions.
\bigskip
|
\section{Introduction}
For some time, we have suggested rather persistently (see
Refs.~\cite{Maxin:2011hy,Li:2011hr,Li:2011gh,Li:2011rp,Li:2011fu})
that events featuring ultra-high jet multiplicities represent a rather
distinctive signal at the LHC for at least specific models of supersymmetry (SUSY).
Recently, the ATLAS~\cite{Aad:2011qa} and CMS~\cite{PAS-SUS-09-001} collaborations
have each presented data on multi-jet production which is capable of beginning to substantively
test this hypothesis. Our personal interests are actualized in a definite way
by a model combining the ${\cal F}$-lipped $SU(5)$ Grand Unified Theory
(GUT)~\cite{Barr:1981qv,Derendinger:1983aj,Antoniadis:1987dx},
two pairs of hypothetical TeV scale vector-like SUSY multiplets with origins in
${\cal F}$-theory~\cite{Jiang:2006hf,Jiang:2009zza,Jiang:2009za,Li:2010dp,Li:2010rz},
and the dynamically established boundary conditions of No-Scale
Supergravity~\cite{Cremmer:1983bf,Ellis:1983sf, Ellis:1983ei, Ellis:1984bm, Lahanas:1986uc}.
For recent discussions, see Refs.~\cite{Benhenni:2011yt,Benhenni:2011jx}.
We have demonstrated that this model, dubbed No-Scale
$\cal{F}$-$SU(5)$~\cite{Li:2010ws,Li:2010mi,Li:2010uu,Li:2011dw,Li:2011hr,Maxin:2011hy,Li:2011xu,Li:2011in,Li:2011gh,Li:2011rp,Li:2011fu,Li:2011xg,Li:2011ex},
possesses a distinctive collider signal of precisely the type described\footnote{
For a more complete review, the reader is directed to the appendix of Ref.~\cite{Maxin:2011hy},
and to the references therein.}.
It has been demonstrated that a majority of the bare-minimally constrained~\cite{Li:2011xu} parameter space of No-Scale $\cal{F}$-$SU(5)$,
as defined by consistency with the world average top-quark mass $m_{\rm t}$, the dynamically established boundary conditions of No-Scale supergravity,
radiative electroweak symmetry breaking, the centrally observed WMAP7 CDM relic density~\cite{Komatsu:2010fb}, and precision LEP constraints on the
lightest CP-even Higgs boson $m_{h}$~\cite{Barate:2003sz,Yao:2006px} and other light SUSY chargino and neutralino mass content,
remains viable even after careful comparison against the first 1.1~${fb}^{-1}$ of LHC data~\cite{Li:2011fu}.
Moreover, a highly favorable ``golden'' subspace~\cite{Li:2010ws,Li:2010mi,Li:2011xg} exists which may simultaneously account for the key rare process limits on
the muon anomalous magnetic moment $(g~-~2)_\mu$ and the branching ratio of the flavor-changing neutral current decays
$b \to s\gamma$ and $B_{s}^{0} \to \mu^+\mu^-$.
In addition, the isolated mass parameter responsible for the global SUSY particle mass normalization, the gaugino boundary mass $M_{1/2}$, is
dynamically determined at a secondary local minimization of the minimum of the Higgs potential $V_{\rm min}$, in a manner which is deeply
consistent with all precision measurements at the physical electroweak scale~\cite{Li:2010uu,Li:2011dw,Li:2011ex}.
In the present work, we extend prior studies which have been modeled primarily after a leading CMS
search strategy, and which have specifically deconstructed only the CMS data returns, to explicitly
include an analysis of the most recent ATLAS multi-jet data~\cite{Aad:2011qa}.
In the case of both experiments, the low statistics thus far accumulated can only place a lower
bound on the universal gaugino boundary mass $M_{1/2}$ of No-Scale $\cal{F}$-$SU(5)$ (or equivalently on the
lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP) mass $m_{\rm LSP}$). However, it should be emphasized that
the models in the most favorable neighborhood of the parameter space, representing the overlap of
each of the previously mentioned constraints, do not merely passively survive the new collider
data, but moreover actively enhance the (low statistics) congruity of the results from both
detectors. These facts should be absorbed in unison with the rather generically stable No-Scale
$\cal{F}$-$SU(5)$ prediction of $120^{+3.5}_{-1}$~GeV for the Higgs boson mass~\cite{Li:2011xg}, which is
again consistent not only with rapidly narrowing exclusion limits from the CMS~\cite{PAS-HIG-11-022},
ATLAS~\cite{ATLAS-CONF-135,ATLAS:2011ww}, CDF and D\O~Collaborations~\cite{:2011ra}, but likewise also
with certain intriguing examples of positive low statistical excesses.
In addition to providing detailed recommendations
for which event selection modes may prove most effective in probing SUSY models with the targeted
signature, we will also attempt to project what prospective discoveries the near-term future might
hold in store, as the LHC advances both the intensity and the energy frontiers. It will be suggested
that the regions of the No-Scale $\cal{F}$-$SU(5)$ parameter space which best explain the current experiments may,
under a suitable signal cutting prescription, approach the gold standard signal-to-background
discovery ratio of $S/\sqrt{B+1} = 5$ at the level of about $5~{fb}^{-1}$ of integrated luminosity
at the current beam energy of $\sqrt{s} = 7~$TeV. This luminosity is expected to be delivered to each
of the experiments by close of the calendar year. To accomplish this, we shall emphasize the intimate statistical
fitting of the gaugino mass $M_{1/2}$=518 GeV to the ATLAS and CMS observations. We thus justify optimism that No-Scale $\cal{F}$-$SU(5)$ is not a
lamb, silently awaiting an incremental and inevitable slaughter under steady accumulation of larger
statistics, but rather a lioness, leading the charge to explain early LHC observations.
\section{The Ultra-High Jet Multiplicity Signal of No-Scale $\cal{F}$-$SU(5)$}
Supergravity (SUGRA) is an ubiquitous infrared limit of string theory, and forms the starting point of any
target space action, whereupon mandatory localization of the Supersymmetry (SUSY) algebra leads to general
coordinate invariance and an Einstein field theory limit. However, only the No-Scale SUGRAs
are capable of naturally providing for SUSY breaking, while maintaining a vanishing vacuum energy
at tree level, thereby avoiding a cosmological constant which scales as a power of the Planck mass,
and facilitating the observed longevity and cosmological flatness of our Universe~\cite{Cremmer:1983bf}.
At the minimum of the null scalar potential, there exist flat directions for the vacuum expectation values
(VEVs) of the dynamic moduli specifying the geometry of the compact spacetime, thus leaving these
moduli undetermined by the classical equations of motion. The corresponding VEVs are thus dynamically
stabilized at loop order, by minimization of the corrected scalar potential. The scale and structure so
imparted to the compact dimensions will directly encode the effective Planck mass in the expansive spacetime,
and also specify the coupling strengths and symmetries of all gauged interactions. In particular, the high energy
gravitino mass $M_{3/2}$, and also the proportionally equivalent universal gaugino mass $M_{1/2}$, represent
moduli which will be established in this way. Subsequently, all gauge mediated SUSY breaking soft-terms
will be dynamically evolved down from this boundary under the renormalization group~\cite{Ellis:1984bm,Giudice:1998bp},
establishing in large measure the low energy phenomenology, including the absence of flavor-changing neutral currents~\cite{Ellis:1981ts}.
For some earlier attempts along these lines, see Ref.~\cite{superworld}.
Crucially, this scenario, and in particular application of the non-trivial boundary condition $B_\mu =0$ on the
on the soft SUSY breaking coupling from the bilinear Higgs mass term $\mu H_d H_u$, appears to come into its
own only when applied at a unification scale approaching the Planck mass $M_{\rm Pl}$~\cite{Ellis:2001kg,Ellis:2010jb,Li:2010ws}.
The standard scale of gauge coupling near $10^{16}$~GeV will simply not suffice. There is an intriguing
possibility in the flipped $SU(5)$ GUT that the natural decoupling of an intermediate unification for the
$SU(2)_{\rm L} \times SU(3)_{\rm c} \Rightarrow SU(5)$ subgroup from a final unification
with the remixed hypercharge $U(1)_{\rm X}$ might be exploited to push the upper unification within
the targeted proximity of $M_{\rm Pl}$. With only the field content of the minimal supersymmetric standard
model (MSSM), the unification of the three gauge couplings is already sufficiently well tuned that the second
phase of running in the renormalization group equations (RGEs) is quite short. The separation of these
scales would be equivalent to the realization of true string-scale gauge coupling unification in
free fermionic string models~\cite{Jiang:2006hf,Lopez:1995cs,Lopez:1992kg}, or the decoupling scenario in $\cal{F}$-theory
models~\cite{Jiang:2009zza,Jiang:2009za,Li:2010dp,Li:2010rz}. It has been shown that avoiding a Landau pole for the strong
coupling constant restricts the set of vector-like multiplets which may be introduced around the TeV scale
to a pair of explicitly realized constructions~\cite{Jiang:2006hf}. Both such modifications turn out to
enhance the (formerly negative) one-loop $\beta$-function coefficient of the strong coupling, causing it to
become precisely zero. The flatness in the running of the strong coupling $\alpha_{\rm s}$ creates a wide
gap between the couplings $\alpha_{32} \simeq \alpha_{\rm s}$ and the much smaller $\alpha_{\rm X}$
at the intermediate unification. This gap can only be closed by a very significant secondary running phase,
which may thus elevate the final unification scale by the necessary 2-3 orders of magnitude~\cite{Li:2010dp}.
By contrast, the same field modifications made to the standard $SU(5)$ gauge group leave the point of single unification
(which may require additional threshold corrections for consistency) close to the original GUT scale~\cite{Li:2010dp}.
The effect of these changes to the $\beta$-function coefficients on the colored gaugino, or gluino, is direct in the running down
from the high energy boundary, leading to the relation $M_3/M_{1/2} \simeq \alpha_3(M_{\rm Z})/\alpha_3(M_{32}) \simeq \mathcal{O}\,(1)$
and precipitating a conspicuously light gluino mass assignment. Likewise, the large mass splitting expected from the heaviness
of the top quark, via its strong coupling to the Higgs, is responsible for a rather light stop squark $\widetilde{t}_1$.
The distinctively predictive $M({\widetilde{t_1}}) < M({\widetilde{g}}) < M({\widetilde{q}})$ mass hierarchy of a light stop
and gluino, both much lighter than all other squarks, is stable across the full No-Scale $\cal{F}$-$SU(5)$ model space, but is
not precisely replicated in any constrained MSSM (CMSSM) constructions of which we are aware, and
certainly not by any of the ten standard ``Snowmass Points and Slopes'' (SPS) benchmarks~\cite{Allanach:2002nj}.
This spectrum generates a unique event topology starting from the pair production of heavy squarks
$\widetilde{q} \widetilde{\overline{q}}$, except for the light stop, in the initial hard scattering process,
with each squark likely to yield a quark-gluino pair $\widetilde{q} \rightarrow q \widetilde{g}$. Each gluino may be expected
to produce events with a high multiplicity of virtual stops, via the (possibly off-shell) $\widetilde{g} \rightarrow \widetilde{t}$
transition, which in turn may pass through the dominant chains
$\widetilde{g} \rightarrow \widetilde{t}_{1} \overline{t} \rightarrow t \overline{t} \widetilde{\chi}_1^{0}
\rightarrow W^{+}W^{-} b \overline{b} \widetilde{\chi}_1^{0}$ and $\widetilde{g} \rightarrow \widetilde{t}_{1} \overline{t}
\rightarrow b \overline{t} \widetilde{\chi}_1^{+} \rightarrow W^{-} b \overline{b} \widetilde{\tau}_{1}^{+} \nu_{\tau}
\rightarrow W^{-} b \overline{b} \tau^{+} \nu_{\tau} \widetilde{\chi}_1^{0}$, as well as the conjugate processes
$\widetilde{g} \rightarrow \widetilde{\overline{t}}_{1} t \rightarrow t \overline{t} \widetilde{\chi}_1^{0}$ and $\widetilde{g}
\rightarrow \widetilde{\overline{t}}_{1} t \rightarrow \overline{b} t \widetilde{\chi}_1^{-}$.
The $W$ bosons will produce mostly hadronic jets and some leptons. Employing the
{\tt MadGraph}~\cite{MGME} {\tt SDECAY} calculator, we find that a single ${\cal F}$-$SU(5)$ gluino may produce at least
4 hard jets more than 40\% of the time. Processes similar to those described may then consistently exhibit a net product
of eight or more hard jets emergent from a single squark pair production event, passing through a single intermediate gluino pair.
When the further processes of jet fragmentation are allowed after the primary hard scattering events, this sequence
will ultimately result in a spectacular signal of ultra-high multiplicity final state jet events.
Detection by the LHC of this ultra-high jet signal could thus constitute a suggestive evocation
of the intimately linked stringy origins of $\cal{F}$-$SU(5)$, and could possibly even provide a glimpse into
the underlying structure of the fundamental string moduli.
The preferred subspace, which we shall refer to as the ``Golden Strip'', describes the model transversion of the bare-minimal constraints of Ref.~\cite{Li:2011xu} with the rare-decay processes
$b \to s \gamma$, $B_s^0 \to \mu^+ \mu^-$, and the muon anomalous magnetic moment. Recall, the bare-minimal constraints are
defined by compatibility with the world average top quark mass $m_{\rm t}$ = $173.3\pm 1.1$ GeV~\cite{:1900yx}, the prediction of a suitable candidate source of cold dark matter (CDM) relic density matching the upper and lower thresholds $0.1088 \leq \Omega_{CDM} \leq 0.1158$ set by the WMAP7
measurements~\cite{Komatsu:2010fb}, a rigid prohibition against a charged lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP), conformity with the precision LEP
constraints on the lightest CP-even Higgs boson ($m_{h} \geq 114$ GeV~\cite{Barate:2003sz,Yao:2006px}) and other light SUSY chargino, stau, and neutralino mass content, and a self-consistency specification on the dynamically evolved value of $B_\mu$ measured at the boundary scale $M_{\cal{F}}$. An uncertainty of $\pm 1$~GeV on $B_\mu = 0$ is allowed, consistent with the induced variation from fluctuation of the strong coupling within its error bounds and the expected scale of radiative electroweak (EW) corrections.
The bare-minimal constraints are further condensed by the confluence with the $b \to s \gamma$, $B_s^0 \to \mu^+ \mu^-$, and the muon anomalous magnetic moment processes to define the Golden Strip. For the experimental limits on the flavor changing neutral current process $b \rightarrow s\gamma$, we draw on the two standard deviation limits $Br(b \to s \gamma)=3.52 \pm 0.66 \times 10^{-4}$, where the theoretical and experimental errors are added in quadrature~\cite{Barberio:2007cr, Misiak:2006zs}. We likewise apply the two standard deviation boundaries $\Delta a_{\mu}=27.5 \pm 16.5 \times 10^{-10}$~\cite{Bennett:2004pv} for the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon, $(g - 2)_\mu$. Lastly, we use the recently published upper bound of $Br(B_{s}^{0} \rightarrow \mu^{+}\mu^{-}) < 1.9 \times 10^{-8}$~\cite{Chatrchyan:2011kr} for the process $B_{s}^{0} \rightarrow \mu^+ \mu^-$. We do note nonetheless that an alternate theoretical Standard Model (SM) treatment gives ${\rm Br} (b \to s\gamma) = (2.98 \pm 0.26) \times 10^{-4}$~\cite{Becher:2006pu}, and furthermore there exist additional uncertainties attributable to the perturbative and non-perturbative QCD corrections~\cite{Misiak:2010dz}, suggesting that a relaxation of the lower bound to the vicinity of $2.75 \times 10^{-4}$ is also certainly plausible.
\section{Simulation and Selection\label{sct:selection}}
In order to make a tangible connection between the abstraction of a given theoretical construct, and the
actuality of detailed collider level observations, a sophisticated and reliable mechanism of simulation is essential.
For the Monte Carlo analysis of No-Scale $\cal{F}$-$SU(5)$, we have adopted a suite of industry standard tools, sequentially
employing the {\tt MadGraph}~\cite{Stelzer:1994ta,MGME}, {\tt MadEvent}~\cite{Alwall:2007st}, {\tt PYTHIA}~\cite{Sjostrand:2006za}
and {\tt PGS4}~\cite{PGS4} chain. When intending specifically to model the ATLAS or CMS detectors, we make use of the detector cards
distributed for this purpose with the {\tt PGS4} package; in the former case, we modify the card to specify an anti-$k_t$ jet
clustering algorithm, with an angular distance parameter of $0.4$. It is necessary to seed this simulation with specific SUSY particle
mass calculations, which we obtain from {\tt MicrOMEGAs 2.1}~\cite{Belanger:2008sj}, employing a proprietary modification of
{\tt SuSpect 2.34}~\cite{Djouadi:2002ze} to run the RGEs. For SUSY processes, we oversample the Monte Carlo and scale down to
the required luminosity, which has the effect of suppressing statistical fluctuations. All such 2-body final state diagrams are
included in our simulation, following the procedure detailed in Ref.~\cite{Maxin:2011hy}.
We have previously emphasized the all-important role of the data selection cuts in the extraction of a rare signal from a dominant
background~\cite{Maxin:2011hy,Li:2011hr,Li:2011fu}. For this critical final post-processing, we employ a custom script
{\tt CutLHCO}~\cite{cutlhco} (freely available for download), which also counts and compiles the associated net statistics. In prior versions
of this software, we have focused on replicating the selection criteria common to the CMS collaboration~\cite{Maxin:2011hy,Li:2011fu}, also
presenting modifications of that basic scheme which highlight the distinctive signal of No-Scale $\cal{F}$-$SU(5)$. In the presently available
{\tt V1.4} release, we extend the functionality of this program to mimic selections specific to the ATLAS collaboration.
In particular, the present section algorithmically details our attempt to closely replicate the cuts described in
Ref.~\cite{Aad:2011qa}, a study of high-multiplicity jet events by the ATLAS collaboration. We will provide the names of
selection variables to be specified in the {\tt CutLHCO} card file in typewriter font as we go, summarizing afterward
in Table~(\ref{tab:cuts}). Before proceeding, we carefully reiterate that cuts designed for efficiency in a single given task are not
guaranteed to be suitable for any secondary purpose, and in particular, that habits established in lower jet multiplicity searches do
not necessarily carry over into the ultra-high jet multiplicity search regime
As a first step in replicating the ATLAS high jet search methodology~\cite{Aad:2011qa},
we calculate the full event missing transverse energy,
\begin{equation}
H_{\rm T}^{\rm miss} \equiv \sqrt{{\left( \sum p_{\rm T} \cos \phi \right)}^2 + {\left( \sum p_{\rm T} \sin \phi \right)}^2} \, ,
\label{EQ:HTM}
\end{equation}
defined as the magnitude of the vector sum over the momentum $p_{\rm T}$ transverse
to the beamline, where $\phi$ is the azimuthal angle about the beamline.
This sum includes all calorimeter clusters (jets, leptons and photons),
with pseudorapidity $\eta \equiv - \ln \tan(\theta/2)$ no greater than a soft cut of $({\tt CUT\_PRS} = 4.50)$.
Note that the zenith angle $\theta$ is measured from the instantaneous direction of travel of the counterclockwise
beam element, such that forward (or backward) scattering corresponds to $\eta$ equals plus (or minus) infinity,
while $\eta = 0$ is a purely transverse scattering event.
We next discard all taus, plus any light leptons which fail the classification requirements of
$p_{\rm T} \ge ({\tt CUT\_PTE} = 20)$~GeV and $|\eta| \le ({\tt CUT\_PRE} = 2.47)$ for electrons, or
$p_{\rm T} \ge ({\tt CUT\_PRM} = 10)$~GeV and $|\eta| \le ({\tt CUT\_PRM} = 2.40)$ for muons. We note
in passing that an alternatively plausible interpretation of the ATLAS selections, which reclassifies
these discarded leptons as jet candidates, yields no net change in the final jet count per bin.
An initial filtering is then made on jets, restricting candidates to the subset satisfying
$p_{\rm T} \ge ({\tt CUT\_PTR} = 20)$~GeV and $|\eta| \le ({\tt CUT\_PRK} = 2.80)$.
Next, jets are dismissed which lie within a cone of
$\Delta R \equiv \sqrt{{\left(\Delta \eta \right)}^2 + {\left(\Delta \phi \right)}^2} < ({\tt CUT\_RJE} = 0.2)$
around an electron. Subsequently, any electrons within $\Delta R < ({\tt CUT\_REJ} = 0.4)$ of a surviving jet
are rejected, and likewise for any muons within the same $\Delta R < ({\tt CUT\_RMJ} = 0.4)$ perimeter.
At this point, the net scalar sum on transverse momentum
$H_{\rm T} \equiv \sum_{\rm jets} \left| {\vec{p}}_{\rm T} \right|$ may be calculated,
for all jets surviving a second round of soft cuts on $p_{\rm T} \ge ({\tt CUT\_PTS} = 40)$~GeV.
A hard cut is then made on jets with transverse momenta below a threshold established by the desired
signal region, keeping, for example, jets with $p_{\rm T} \ge ({\tt CUT\_PTC} = 55)$~GeV.
Finally, any jets within a distance of $\Delta R < ({\tt CUT\_RJJ} = 0.6)$ from another jet are pruned
in a sequenced designed to systematically minimize the number of eliminations.
Having filtered the jet and lepton candidate classifications, there are also several cuts which may
reject events as a whole. First, any events with remaining light leptons are discarded
by zeroing out the filter on maximal electron or muon transverse momentum $({\tt CUT\_EMC} = 0.0)$.
ATLAS relies heavily in the referenced search~\cite{Aad:2011qa} on the statistic
$H_{\rm T}^{\rm miss}/\sqrt{H_{\rm T}}$, which is designed to indicate the significance of the
event missing energy relative to the expected uncertainty in the jet energy resolution. We tabulate this
based upon the factors described previously, and subsequently execute a filter of
$H_{\rm T}^{\rm miss}/\sqrt{H_{\rm T}} \ge ({\tt CUT\_RMH} = 3.5)~{\rm GeV}^{1/2}$.
Likewise, events with less than the stipulated minimum jet multiplicity for the desired signal region, for
example $({\tt CUT\_JET} = 7)$, are also removed at this stage. Either of these latter event cuts may be
relaxed for the purposes of sorting events will be sorted on the $H_{\rm T}^{\rm miss}/\sqrt{H_{\rm T}}$
or jet multiplicity statistics into subordinate bins for direct comparison to the ATLAS
observations. We summarize, in the left-hand column in Table~(\ref{tab:cuts}), the parameter input which should be fed into the
{\tt CutLHCO}~\cite{cutlhco} program in order to replicate the ``ATLAS'' style cuts for the {\bf{7j55}}
signal region presently described. The parameter option of ``UNDEF'' is a new feature available in the current
software release, for easily disabling any given selection criteria.
In the right-hand column of Table~(\ref{tab:cuts}), the prescription is given for a selection
which we shall refer to here as the ``CMS HYBRID''. These cuts trace their origins
from our original attempt at modeling a leading ``CMS'' style search~\cite{PAS-SUS-09-001} (described carefully in
Ref.~\cite{Maxin:2011hy}), but they share important commonalities with our own suggestions for a simplified
``ULTRA'' style cut designed to emphasize an ultra-high jet multiplicity signal. In particular, we emphasize that the
$\alpha_{\rm T}$ statistic, which is designed to suppress false missing energy diagnoses~\cite{PAS-SUS-09-001,PAS-SUS-11-003},
has been nullified. We have argued~\cite{Maxin:2011hy,Li:2011fu} that this statistic is actually actively biased against
high jet multiplicities, and that it is moreover unnecessary in this regime, given a substantial natural suppression of the
background based simply on the jet count threshold itself. We acknowledge with much interest and applause that the
CMS collaboration has on at least one occasion provided data~\cite{PAS-SUS-11-003} which is processed without a cut on
$\alpha_{\rm T}$, {\it and} binned according to jet count, including ultra-high jet multiplicities. The CMS HYBRID cuts
are in fact our attempt to model this approach, precisely as first demonstrated in the applicable portions of
Ref.~\cite{Li:2011fu}. As in that reference, when binning on jet multiplicity, the $({\tt CUT\_JET} = 9)$ threshold which
we favor as a simple overarching diagnostic is relaxed for the purpose of revealing the individual per jet counts.
Although it is not yet clear how prominently these selections will be integrated into the wider search strategy of the
CMS collaboration (the role of searches which feature $\alpha_{\rm T}$ remains the principal theme of even the quoted
reference), we consider them to represent a very favorable compromise, the possible implications of which are reviewed
in Section
\ref{sct:future}. In Section~\ref{sct:pt50}, we revisit the significance
of the larger limits on transverse momentum per jet which are preferred by both LHC collaborations than what we have
previously advocated in the ULTRA selection cuts. Surprisingly, we unearth a dependence on the LSP mass which rescues
the higher thresholds for the currently preferred mass ranges.
\begin{table}[htbp]
\centering
\caption{We list the full parameter specification for our emulations of the key
ATLAS and CMS multi-jet event SUSY search strategies.}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|} \hline
~~Cut Name~~ & ~~ATLAS~~ & ~~CMS HYBRID~~ \\ \hline \hline
{\tt CUT\_FEM} & UNDEF & 0.9 \\ \hline
{\tt CUT\_PRC} & UNDEF & 3 \\ \hline
{\tt CUT\_PTS} & 40 & 30 \\ \hline
{\tt CUT\_PTC} & 55 & 50 \\ \hline
{\tt CUT\_PTR} & 20 & UNDEF \\ \hline
{\tt CUT\_PRK} & 2.8 & UNDEF \\ \hline
{\tt CUT\_PRS} & 4.5 & UNDEF \\ \hline
{\tt CUT\_PTE} & 20 & UNDEF \\ \hline
{\tt CUT\_PRE} & 2.47 & UNDEF \\ \hline
{\tt CUT\_PTM} & 10 & UNDEF \\ \hline
{\tt CUT\_PRM} & 2.40 & UNDEF \\ \hline
{\tt CUT\_RJE} & 0.2 & UNDEF \\ \hline
{\tt CUT\_REJ} & 0.4 & UNDEF \\ \hline
{\tt CUT\_RMJ} & 0.4 & UNDEF \\ \hline
{\tt CUT\_RJJ} & 0.6 & UNDEF \\ \hline
{\tt CUT\_JET} & 7 & 9 \\ \hline
{\tt CUT\_PTL} & UNDEF & 100 \\ \hline
{\tt CUT\_HTC} & UNDEF & 375 \\ \hline
{\tt CUT\_MET} & UNDEF & 100 \\ \hline
{\tt CUT\_PRL} & UNDEF & 2.5 \\ \hline
{\tt CUT\_ATC} & UNDEF & UNDEF \\ \hline
{\tt CUT\_RTC} & UNDEF & 1.25 \\ \hline
{\tt CUT\_PHI} & UNDEF & UNDEF \\ \hline
{\tt CUT\_PHC} & UNDEF & 25 \\ \hline
{\tt CUT\_EMC} & 0.0 & 10 \\ \hline
{\tt CUT\_RMH} & 3.5 & UNDEF \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:cuts}
\end{table}
\section{Comparison to ATLAS and CMS Results}
In Figure Set~(\ref{fig:ATLAS_6plex}), we overlay our simulation of the No-Scale $\cal{F}$-$SU(5)$
model space onto stacked-bar histograms released by the ATLAS collaboration~\cite{Aad:2011qa}
for six binning intervals, taking $H_{\rm T}^{\rm miss}/\sqrt{H_{\rm T}}$ in the ranges
$(1.5 \to 2.0)$, $(2.0 \to 3.0)$ and $(3.5 \to \inf)$, each for cuts on the transverse
momentum per jet of $55$ and $80$~GeV~\footnote{The lower two figures have been made available in
the cited arXiv preprint source package~\cite{Aad:2011qa}, but are not included in the compiled
document itself.}. Note that the lower binning intervals of $H_{\rm T}^{\rm miss}/\sqrt{H_{\rm T}}$ are
intended chiefly as calibration spaces, with low missing energy; consistently, our SUSY signal does
not significantly contribute in these regions. The underlying plots feature multi-jet
observations at a center-of-mass collision energy $\sqrt{s} = 7$~TeV, and an integrated
luminosity of $1.34~{fb}^{-1}$, in conjunction with high precision Monte Carlo
and data-driven backgrounds. Our overlays are presented in summation with the net
SM prediction, to facilitate easy comparison with the observed jet counts. We remark
that a visual inspection suggests a superior fit to the data by the SUSY-enhanced
$\cal{F}$-$SU(5)$ totals than by the SM in isolation. We favor models in the range of about
$500 < M_{1/2} < 600$~GeV, corresponding to an LSP mass in the approximate range of
$100$ to $120$~GeV. The range of substantially lighter models which appears
to be strongly excluded for overproduction is consistent with that portion of the space rejected
in our prior analysis~\cite{Li:2011fu} of the CMS multi-jet data~\cite{PAS-SUS-11-003}. Likewise, the range of models which efficiently account for the low-statistics excesses which are actually observed also
overlaps exceedingly well with our analysis for the CMS results.
\begin{figure*}[htp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{55_1p5-2.eps}
\hspace{0.05\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{80_1p5-2.eps} \\
\vspace{0.05\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{55_2-3.eps}
\hspace{0.05\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{80_2-3.eps} \\
\vspace{0.05\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{55_3p5-INF.eps}
\hspace{0.05\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{80_3p5-INF.eps}
\caption{The ATLAS signal and background statistics for $1.34~{fb}^{-1}$ of integrated luminosity
at $\sqrt{s} = 7$~TeV, as presented in \cite{Aad:2011qa}, are reprinted with an overlay consisting of a Monte Carlo
collider-detector simulation of the No-Scale $\cal{F}$-$SU(5)$ model space benchmarks of Table~\ref{tab:MCProduction}. The plot counts events per jet multiplicity. The Monte Carlo overlay consists of the $\cal{F}$-$SU(5)$ supersymmetry signal plus the Standard Model background, thus permitting a direct visual evaluation against the ATLAS observed data points.}
\label{fig:ATLAS_6plex}
\end{figure*}
In Table~(\ref{tab:MCProduction}), we make a detailed numerical comparison of the No-Scale $\cal{F}$-$SU(5)$
model space against the same ATLAS collaboration high jet multiplicity survey~\cite{Aad:2011qa},
using their combined reporting of four signal regions as our metric. The statistics of merit are
the count of events with seven or more jets at a transverse momentum of at least 55~GeV ({\bf{7j55}}),
and, in a common notation, also the cases {\bf{8j55}}, {\bf{6j80}}, and {\bf{7j80}}. In all cases,
$H_{\rm T}^{\rm miss}/\sqrt{H_{\rm T}} \ge 3.5$ is enforced, along with the other selection cuts
outlined in Section~\ref{sct:selection}. The quantity ``$\Delta \sigma$'' represents the difference
between the experimental event count and the combined SM and $\cal{F}$-$SU(5)$ contributions, in units of the
square root of one plus the quoted SM signal background. A value of zero is desirable, representing precise
model and observation correspondence. Values outside of two standard deviations are printed in strikethrough,
while values inside a single standard deviation are printed in bold. Given unaccounted uncertainties
in the tools used to produce our estimates for $\cal{F}$-$SU(5)$, these limits may be overly strict.
Nevertheless, we judge the range $500 < M_{1/2} < 600$~GeV to be very satisfactory, corresponding
to an LSP mass in the approximate range of $100$ to $120$~GeV. Restrictions are strongest from
the {\bf{6j80}} scenario, for which the reported data observation and SM background expectation are
identical. This is in contrast to each of the other three signal regions, where at least some
production excess over the SM is observed.
\begin{table*}[htbp]
\caption{We compare the No-Scale $\cal{F}$-$SU(5)$ model space against
recent high jet multiplicity results from the ATLAS collaboration~\cite{Aad:2011qa},
integrating over $1.34~{fb}^{-1}$ of luminosity, collected at
a $\sqrt{s}=7$~TeV center-of-mass collision energy.
Nineteen representative $\cal{F}$-$SU(5)$ points are selected, each satisfying the bare-minimal
phenomenological constraints outlined in Ref.~\cite{Li:2011xu}.
We tabulate the number of events expected for each scenario, based on our
own Monte Carlo simulation, under a set of selection cuts designed to mimic the
ATLAS methodology. The ``$\Delta \sigma$'' column indicates the deviation from the observed
data exhibited by the combined Standard Model (as reported by ATLAS) and supersymmetry $\cal{F}$-$SU(5)$
event expectation, in units of the square root of one plus the Standard Model event expectation.
Positive (negative) deviations represent over-production (under-production).
Event counts which are outside the two standard deviation boundary are indicated visually with a
strikethrough. Those which are inside a single standard deviation are marked in bold.
Units of GeV are taken for the dimensionful parameters $M_{1/2}, M_{\rm V}, m_{t}~{\rm and}~m_{\rm LSP}$.
}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c||c|c||c|c||c|c||c|c|} \hline
\multicolumn{5}{|c||}{ Signal Region $\Rightarrow$} &
\multicolumn{2}{|c||}{\bf 7j55} & \multicolumn{2}{|c||}{\bf 8j55} & \multicolumn{2}{|c||}{\bf 6j80} & \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{\bf 7j80} \\ \hline \hline
\multicolumn{5}{|c||}{ Events Observed (ATLAS) $\Rightarrow$} &
\multicolumn{2}{|c||}{$45$} & \multicolumn{2}{|c||}{$4$} & \multicolumn{2}{|c||}{$26$} & \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{$3$} \\ \hline
\multicolumn{5}{|c||}{ Standard Model Expectation $\Rightarrow$} &
\multicolumn{2}{|c||}{$39\pm9$} & \multicolumn{2}{|c||}{$2.3^{+4.4}_{-0.7}$} & \multicolumn{2}{|c||}{$26\pm6$} & \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{$1.3^{+0.9}_{-0.4}$} \\ \hline
\multicolumn{5}{|c||}{ Signal Significance $S/\sqrt{B+1}$ $\Rightarrow$} &
\multicolumn{2}{|c||}{0.95} & \multicolumn{2}{|c||}{0.94} & \multicolumn{2}{|c||}{0.00} & \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{1.12} \\ \hline \hline
$ ~~~M_{1/2}~~~ $&$ ~~~M_{\rm V}~~~ $&$ ~\tan\beta~ $&$ ~~~m_{\rm t}~~~ $&$ ~m_{\rm LSP}~ $&
{~Events~} &$ ~~~\Delta \sigma~~~ $& {~Events~} &$ ~~~\Delta \sigma~~~ $& {~Events~} &$ ~~~\Delta \sigma~~~ $& {~Events~} &$ ~~~\Delta \sigma~~~ $ \\ \hline \hline
385 & 3575 & 19.8 & 172.5 & 75 & \cancel{44.8} & +6.1 & \cancel{9.7} & +4.4 & \cancel{39.2} & +7.5 & \cancel{6.4} & +3.1 \\ \hline
395 & 2075 & 19.7 & 172.5 & 75 & \cancel{42.5} & +5.8 & \cancel{8.4} & +3.7 & \cancel{35.0} & +6.7 & \cancel{6.9} & +3.5 \\ \hline
400 & 1450 & 19.5 & 173.7 & 75 & \cancel{35.2} & +4.6 & \cancel{7.6} & +3.2 & \cancel{31.5} & +6.1 & \cancel{4.9} & +2.1 \\ \hline
410 & 925 & 19.4 & 174.4 & 75 & \cancel{30.9} & +3.9 & \cancel{7.8} & +3.4 & \cancel{27.2} & +5.2 & 4.5 & +1.8 \\ \hline
425 & 3550 & 20.4 & 172.2 & 83 & \cancel{32.4} & +4.2 & \cancel{7.5} & +3.2 & \cancel{27.7} & +5.3 & \cancel{5.2} & +2.3 \\ \hline
435 & 2000 & 20.1 & 173.1 & 83 & \cancel{29.4} & +3.7 & \cancel{7.2} & +3.1 & \cancel{26.0} & +5.0 & \cancel{5.9} & +2.8 \\ \hline
445 & 1125 & 19.9 & 174.4 & 83 & \cancel{24.2} & +2.9 & 5.1 & +1.8 & \cancel{20.9} & +4.0 & 4.0 & +1.5 \\ \hline
465 & 3850 & 20.7 & 172.2 & 92 & \cancel{20.4} & +2.3 & \cancel{5.6} & +2.2 & \cancel{18.2} & +3.5 & 4.0 & +1.5 \\ \hline
475 & 2400 & 20.6 & 173.1 & 92 & 18.4 & +2.0 & 4.0 & +1.2 & \cancel{15.9} & +3.1 & \bf{3.2} & +1.0 \\ \hline
485 & 1475 & 20.4 & 174.3 & 92 & 15.8 & +1.5 & 4.3 & +1.4 & \cancel{15.0} & +2.9 & 3.6 & +1.2 \\ \hline
505 & 3700 & 21.0 & 172.6 & 101 & 13.9 & +1.2 & 4.2 & +1.4 & \cancel{12.3} & +2.4 & \bf{2.8} & +0.7 \\ \hline
510 & 2875 & 21.0 & 174.1 & 100 & \bf{12.4} & +1.0 & \bf{3.5} & +1.0 & \cancel{10.8} & +2.1 & \bf{2.5} & +0.6 \\ \hline
518 & 3050 & 21.0 & 173.3 & 102 & \bf{10.9} & +0.8 & \bf{3.5} & +1.0 & \cancel{11.0} & +2.1 & \bf{2.7} & +0.6 \\ \hline
520 & 1725 & 20.7 & 174.4 & 100 & \bf{10.4} & +0.7 & \bf{3.3} & +0.9 & 9.3 & +1.8 & \bf{2.0} & +0.2 \\ \hline
560 & 1875 & 21.0 & 174.4 & 109 & \bf{6.2} & +0.0 & \bf{2.0} & +0.2 & 6.4 & +1.2 & \bf{1.6} & -0.1 \\ \hline
570 & 4000 & 21.5 & 173.2 & 115 & \bf{7.0} & +0.2 & \bf{2.4} & +0.4 & 6.3 & +1.2 & \bf{1.9} & +0.1 \\ \hline
650 & 4700 & 22.0 & 173.4 & 133 & \bf{2.2} & -0.6 & \bf{0.7} & -0.5 & \bf{2.4} & +0.5 & \bf{0.6} & -0.7 \\ \hline
750 & 5300 & 22.5 & 174.4 & 156 & \bf{0.4} & -0.9 & \bf{0.1} & -0.9 & \bf{0.4} & +0.1 & 0.1 & -1.1 \\ \hline
900 & 6000 & 23.0 & 174.4 & 191 & \bf{0.1} & -0.9 & \bf{0.0} & -0.9 & \bf{0.1} & +0.0 & 0.0 & -1.1 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\label{tab:MCProduction}
\end{table*}
We remark that the statistical significance of the ATLAS overproduction, as gauged by the indicator of signal (observations minus background)
to background ratio $S/\sqrt{B+1}$, is quite low, never much more than one. By contrast, as elaborated in the next section, the CMS overproduction
for a comparably luminosity is closer to $2.7$. Given overlapping regions of compliance between the projections of No-Scale $\cal{F}$-$SU(5)$ onto the
two data sets, we judge that the ATLAS cuts are somewhat harder than the CMS HYBRID cuts on the exemplified ultra-high multiplicity jet signal.
This is an issue which we shall document in Section~\ref{sct:future}. Our judgment, based on this observation, is that the current CMS
multi-jet results are slightly better suited for isolating a currently favored region of the No-Scale $\cal{F}$-$SU(5)$ model, while we simultaneously maintain basic consistency with the ATLAS results, within appropriate statistical margins.
\begin{figure*}[htp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{55_3p5-INF_518.eps}
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{80_3p5-INF_518.eps}
\caption{The ATLAS signal and background statistics for $H_{\rm T}^{\rm miss}/\sqrt{H_{\rm T}} \ge 3.5$ for $1.34~{fb}^{-1}$ of integrated luminosity at $\sqrt{s} = 7$~TeV, as presented in \cite{Aad:2011qa}, are reprinted with an overlay consisting of a Monte Carlo
collider-detector simulation of the No-Scale $\cal{F}$-$SU(5)$ model benchmark $M_{1/2}$=518 GeV for $p_T > 55$ GeV (left) and $p_T > 80$ GeV (right). The plot counts events per jet multiplicity. The Monte Carlo overlay consists of the $\cal{F}$-$SU(5)$ supersymmetry signal plus the Standard Model background, thus permitting a direct visual evaluation against the ATLAS observed data points.}
\label{fig:ATLAS_data}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[htp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{1ifb_data.eps}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{CMS_1p1ifb_518.eps}
\caption{The CMS signal and background statistics for $1.1~{fb}^{-1}$ of integrated luminosity
at $\sqrt{s} = 7$~TeV, as presented in \cite{PAS-SUS-11-003}, are reprinted with an overlay consisting of a Monte Carlo
collider-detector simulation of the No-Scale $\cal{F}$-$SU(5)$ model space benchmarks of Table~\ref{tab:MCProduction} (left) and only the benchmark $M_{1/2}$=518 GeV (right). The plot counts events per jet multiplicity. The Monte Carlo overlay consists of the $\cal{F}$-$SU(5)$ supersymmetry signal plus the Standard Model background, thus permitting a direct visual evaluation against the CMS observed data points.}
\label{fig:CMS_data}
\end{figure*}
The cumulative result from application of all the experimental constraints is a narrow region of the parameter space from about $M_{1/2}$=500 GeV to 600 GeV. This Golden Strip is in accord with the region of the $\cal{F}$-$SU(5)$ model space that maintains consistency with the CMS and ATLAS observations. The coalescence of the most favored phenomenological subspace upon the region synchronous with the CMS and ATLAS collider signals is a tantalizing development indeed. To zoom in even further in Figure Set (\ref{fig:ATLAS_6plex}) and the left plot space of Figure Set (\ref{fig:CMS_data}), we find the best fit to both the CMS and ATLAS data points within this $M_{1/2}$=500-600 GeV window is in the neighborhood of a $M_{1/2}$=518 GeV gaugino mass, as we shall elaborate next; hence we shall use this mass as the basis for our prediction at the milestone luminosity of 5 $fb^{-1}$, projected to be attained by the end of calendar year 2011. As a result, we select the model parameters $M_{1/2}$=518 GeV, $M_V$=3050 GeV, tan$\beta$=21, $m_t$=173.3 GeV for the Monte Carlo collider-detector simulation. The full SUSY spectrum of this benchmark is provided in Table~\ref{tab:spect}. In addition to a superior fit to the CMS and ATLAS collider signals, this point also generates a Higgs boson mass of $m_h$=$120$ GeV, consistent with the accumulated CMS, ATLAS, CDF and D\O~ statistics.
\begin{table}[htbp]
\small
\centering
\caption{Spectrum (in GeV) for the favored benchmark point.
Here, $M_{1/2}$ = 518 GeV, $\tan \beta = 21.0$, $M_{V}$ = 3050, $m_{t}$ = 173.3 GeV, $M_{Z}$ = 91.187 GeV,
$\Omega_{\chi}$ = 0.115, $\sigma_{SI} = 1.9 \times 10^{-10}$ pb. The central prediction for
the $p \!\rightarrow\! {(e\vert\mu)}^{\!+}\! \pi^0$ proton lifetime is around $4 \times 10^{34}$ years.
The lightest neutralino is 99.8\% Bino.}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c||c|c||c|c||c|c||c|c||c|c|} \hline
$\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$&$102$&$\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}$&$221$&$\widetilde{e}_{R}$&$196$&$\widetilde{t}_{1}$&$560$&$\widetilde{u}_{R}$&$1,027$&$m_{h}$&$120.2$\\ \hline
$\widetilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$&$221$&$\widetilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$&$864$&$\widetilde{e}_{L}$&$556$&$\widetilde{t}_{2}$&$964$&$\widetilde{u}_{L}$&$1,116$&$m_{A,H}$&$933$\\ \hline
$\widetilde{\chi}_{3}^{0}$&$859$&$\widetilde{\nu}_{e/\mu}$&$550$&$\widetilde{\tau}_{1}$&$111$&$\widetilde{b}_{1}$&$916$&$\widetilde{d}_{R}$&$1,066$&$m_{H^{\pm}}$&$938$\\ \hline
$\widetilde{\chi}_{4}^{0}$&$863$&$\widetilde{\nu}_{\tau}$&$537$&$\widetilde{\tau}_{2}$&$546$&$\widetilde{b}_{2}$&$1,019$&$\widetilde{d}_{L}$&$1,119$&$\widetilde{g}$&$712$\\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:spect}
\end{table}
Closely examining Figure Set (\ref{fig:ATLAS_data}) for the ATLAS observations, the highest energy binning range of $H_{\rm T}^{\rm miss}/\sqrt{H_{\rm T}} \ge 3.5$, which is the least suppressive of multijet events, shows that the $M_{1/2}$=518 GeV gaugino mass plus the Standard Model background generates the required number of observed events at nine jets for $p_T > 55$ GeV and at seven jets for $p_T > 80$ GeV. For $p_T > 55$ GeV, the $M_{1/2}$=518 GeV gaugino mass plus the Standard Model background generates 1.07 events with nine jets, when in fact only one event was observed by ATLAS. Furthermore, for $p_T > 80$ GeV, the $M_{1/2}$=518 GeV gaugino mass plus the Standard Model background produces 3.36 events with seven jets, and precisely 3 events were observed by ATLAS. Events with a higher number of jets for each of these respective cases cannot yet produce at least one event at this small luminosity of 1.34 $fb^{-1}$ in the $\cal{F}$-$SU(5)$ plus the Standard Model background, and we find there were no events observed by ATLAS for events with more than nine jets for $p_T > 55$ GeV nor for events with more than seven jets for $p_T > 80$ GeV.
In relation to the CMS 1.1 $fb^{-1}$ data points in Figure Set (\ref{fig:CMS_data}), we see that $M_{1/2}$=518 GeV plus the Standard Model background generates 6.54 events with nine jets, and 7 events with nine jets were observed by CMS. Moreover, $M_{1/2}$=518 GeV plus the Standard Model background produces 1.49 events with ten jets, where 1 event was actually observed by CMS with ten jets. For events with greater than ten jets, the $M_{1/2}$=518 GeV gaugino mass plus the Standard Model background cannot produce at least one event at the low luminosity of 1.1 $fb^{-1}$, and in fact no events with more than ten jets were observed by CMS.
Such clear-cut correlations between the $\cal{F}$-$SU(5)$ supersymmetry signals plus the Standard Model background with the actual observations at the LHC by CMS and ATLAS suggestively hints that \textit{the figures contained herewith may in fact already be revealing an authentic supersymmetry signal}.
\section{Revisiting the Jet Transverse Momentum Threshold\label{sct:pt50}}
\begin{figure}[htp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{Discovery_Ratio.eps}
\caption{Dependence on $M_{1/2}$ of the improvement in the Discovery Index of a $p_T>$ 20 GeV jet cut in an event over a $p_T>$ 50 GeV cut. The $p_T>$ 20 GeV jet cut is very advantageous in the low mass regime of the model space of about $M_{1/2}<$ 500 GeV, however, the $p_T>$ 50 GeV cut on jets is superior within the larger mass region of the parameter space, at about $M_{1/2}>$ 600 GeV. The two disparate cuts appear to garner relatively equivalent results in the Golden Strip subspace of about $M_{1/2}$=500-600 GeV.}
\label{fig:Discovery}
\end{figure}
We have previously advocated a rather low cut on the transverse momentum $p_{\rm T}$ per jet, of around 20~GeV~\cite{Maxin:2011hy,Li:2011fu},
demonstrating the superiority of that selection in contrast to more convention thresholds of around 50~GeV, under Monte Carlo simulation.
Our first analysis~\cite{Maxin:2011hy} of the preferred cutting mechanism for emphasizing the ultra-high multiplicity jet signal
exemplified by No-Scale $\cal{F}$-$SU(5)$ was undertaken before LHC results of substantial statistical significance had been released, and well before any
suitable analyses of very high jet counts had been published. Consequently, we focused attention at that time on the lightest portions of the model
space, which would produce the most vigorous signal. With the advent of usable LHC statistics, we established~\cite{Li:2011fu} the first exclusion
boundaries on the No-Scale $\cal{F}$-$SU(5)$ model space, and began to focus attention on the regions of the model featuring intermediate mass scales, which
successfully accounted for the small data excesses which began to appear. However, we did not at this time reevaluate the consequences of variation
in the threshold on minimal jet $p_{\rm T}$, implicitly assuming that the established conventional wisdom should carry over intact.
Presently, we revisit that analysis, having now explicitly looked into scale dependencies of this cut. We do indeed find a rather subtle dependence
on the mass of the LSP which had not previously been apparent. The effect is summarized by Figure~(\ref{fig:Discovery}), where we plot the relative
advantage (as a ratio of required luminosities) for the discovery of No-Scale $\cal{F}$-$SU(5)$ under $p_{\rm T} \ge 20$~GeV cuts, as opposed to
$p_{\rm T} \ge 50$~GeV, as a function of the mass parameter $M_{1/2}$. The plot strongly reaffirms our prior results for the lighter model space,
where an advantage of a full order of magnitude applies for the low momentum cut. However, for our presently favored mass range of
$500 < M_{1/2} < 600$~GeV, we find that the relative advantage of the weaker cuts is erased, with comparable outcomes possible for the more
conventional selection. Moving substantially above this scale, the advantage actually turns strongly toward the higher $p_T$ cut. This result may
come as welcome news to our experimental colleagues, who have expressed to us certain practical difficulties with implementation of the previously
advocated threshold.
Specifically, the quantity plotted in Figure~(\ref{fig:Discovery}) is the ratio of two values of the ``discovery index'' $N$, defined in Ref.~\cite{Li:2011gh}, as
\begin{equation}
N = \frac{12.5\, B}{S^2} \times \left[ 1 + \sqrt{ 1 + {\left( \frac{2S}{5B} \right)}^2} \,\right] \, ,
\label{eq:discovery}
\end{equation}
where $S$ and $B$ are respectively the observed signal and background at some reference luminosity, conveniently chosen as $1~{fb}^{-1}$.
The value of $N$ is the relative luminosity factor by which both $S$ and $B$ should be scaled in order to
achieve a baseline value of five for the statistic of merit $S/\sqrt{B+1}$ for overall model visibility. The backgrounds used in this
calculation are our own Monte Carlo simulation of the $t \overline{t} + {\rm jets}$ processes. Although this sampling may be materially
incomplete, we have argued~\cite{Li:2011fu} that its sufficiency should be enhanced by use of the ratio. The selection cuts employed are
of the CMS HYBRID variety. We sampled also for cuts at $p_{\rm T} \ge 30$~GeV, and $p_{\rm T} \ge 40$~GeV, but find that the single demonstrated plot
successfully encapsulates the phenomenon.
The problem with the use of the $p_{\rm T} = 20$ GeV cut seems to be the large backgrounds which survive. Of course, there is always larger event capture
overall in this case (about 15 times the net event count for the lightest models and about 5 times for the heavier models), but the statistical
significance in comparison to the background can easily turn unfavorable. There are about 20 events which pass the
CMS HYBRID selections from $t \overline{t} + {\rm jets}$ alone, for the $p_{\rm T} \ge 20$~GeV, simulating $1~{fb}^{-1}$ of data, and that is of course
constant for all of our models. By contrast, the elevated cut is fully efficient, leaving no background. This is not a problem for the lighter spectra,
which can compete nicely. But, for the heavier spectra, as the event count drops significantly below 20, the luminosity required to measure such minuscule
excesses becomes enormous. With no background competition, the heavier cuts give much softer asymptotic behavior as the counts get low on the heavier spectra.
\section{The Once and Future LHC\label{sct:future}}
\begin{figure*}[htp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.00\textwidth]{5ifb_prediction.eps}
\caption{Predictions of the number of observed events for the CMS and ATLAS experiments for 5 $fb^{-1}$ of luminosity. The thick line represents the Standard Model expectation as determined by CMS and ATLAS, while the dots represent the sum of the Standard Model plus the simulated event count for the $\cal{F}$-$SU(5)$ gaugino mass $M_{1/2}$=518 GeV. The tables provide the absolute predicted event count, where the final column in the tables represents the signal significance using $S/\sqrt{B+1}$. As shown, only the CMS experiment will achieve a five standard deviation signal significance for 5 $fb^{-1}$.}
\label{fig:CMS_prediction}
\end{figure*}
\begin{table*}[h]
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.0}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c||c|}\hline
$M_{1/2}$&$ 385$&$ 395$&$ 400$&$ 410$&$ 425$&$ 435$&$ 445$&$ 465$&$ 475$&$ 485$&$ 505$&$ 510$&$ {\color{red} 518}$&$ 520$&$ 560$&$ 570$&$ 650$&$ 750$&$ 900$&$ {\rm SM} $ \\ \hline \hline
$ {\rm 9j} $&$ 45.2$&$ 46.4$&$ 41.4$&$ 35.3$&$ 34.6$&$ 29.9$&$ 26.2$&$ 25.9$&$ 22.4$&$ 21.1$&$ 18.5$&$ 16.2$&$ {\color{red} 15.7}$&$ 12.9$&$ 9.5$&$ 8.6$&$ 4.0$&$ 0.7$&$ 0.1$&$ 14.1$ \\ \hline
$ {\rm 10j} $&$ 12.4$&$ 12.8$&$ 11.9$&$ 13.2$&$ 10.8$&$ 8.4$&$ 6.8$&$ 8.6$&$ 7.8$&$ 7.1$&$ 6.9$&$ 5.9$&$ {\color{red} 5.6}$&$ 5.1$&$ 3.6$&$ 3.9$&$ 1.7$&$ 0.3$&$ 0.1$&$ 1.2$ \\ \hline
$ {\rm 11j} $&$ 1.4$&$ 3.2$&$ 2.7$&$ 1.4$&$ 2.4$&$ 1.8$&$ 1.9$&$ 2.1$&$ 2.4$&$ 1.9$&$ 2.3$&$ 1.9$&$ {\color{red} 1.1}$&$ 1.4$&$ 1.2$&$ 1.0$&$ 0.5$&$ 0.1$&$ 0.0$&$ 0.4$ \\ \hline
$ {\rm 12j} $&$ 0.4$&$ 0.6$&$ 0.4$&$ 0.0$&$ 0.3$&$ 0.7$&$ 0.4$&$ 0.5$&$ 0.2$&$ 0.2$&$ 0.4$&$ 0.6$&$ {\color{red} 0.4}$&$ 0.4$&$ 0.3$&$ 0.1$&$ 0.2$&$ 0.0$&$ 0.0$&$ 0.0$ \\ \hline
$ {\rm 13j} $&$ 0.0$&$ 0.1$&$ 0.0$&$ 0.1$&$ 0.1$&$ 0.1$&$ 0.1$&$ 0.2$&$ 0.2$&$ 0.0$&$ 0.1$&$ 0.1$&$ {\color{red} 0.0}$&$ 0.1$&$ 0.0$&$ 0.2$&$ 0.0$&$ 0.0$&$ 0.0$&$ 0.0$ \\ \hline
$ {\rm 14j} $&$ 0.0$&$ 0.0$&$ 0.0$&$ 0.0$&$ 0.0$&$ 0.1$&$ 0.0$&$ 0.0$&$ 0.0$&$ 0.0$&$ 0.0$&$ 0.1$&$ {\color{red} 0.0}$&$ 0.0$&$ 0.0$&$ 0.0$&$ 0.0$&$ 0.0$&$ 0.0$&$ 0.0$ \\ \hline \hline
$ {\rm \ge9j} $&$ 59.4$&$ 63.1$&$ 56.4$&$ 50.0$&$ 48.2$&$ 41.0$&$ 35.4$&$ 37.3$&$ 33.0$&$ 30.3$&$ 28.2$&$ 24.8$&$ {\color{red} 22.8}$&$ 19.8$&$ 14.6$&$ 13.7$&$ 6.4$&$ 1.1$&$ 0.2$&$ 15.7$ \\ \hline
$S/ \sqrt{B+1}$&$ \textbf{14.5}$&$ \textbf{15.4}$&$ \textbf{13.8}$&$ \textbf{12.2}$&$ \textbf{11.8}$&$ \textbf{10.0}$&$ \textbf{8.7}$&$ \textbf{9.1}$&$
\textbf{8.1}$&$ \textbf{7.4} $&$ \textbf{6.9}$&$ \textbf{6.0}$&$ {\color{red} \textbf{5.6}}$&$ \textbf{4.8}$&$ \textbf{3.5}$&$ \textbf{3.4}$&$ \textbf{1.6}$&$ \textbf{0.27}$&$\textbf{0.05}$&-- \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Predicted event counts for the CMS experiment from a Monte Carlo collider-detector simulation of the No-Scale $\cal{F}$-$SU(5)$ model space for 5 $fb^{-1}$ of luminosity at the LHC for events with greater than or equal to nine jets. The array of $M_{1/2}$ given here consists of the benchmarks of Table~\ref{tab:MCProduction}. The number of Standard Model background events are given in the final column. The bottom row computes the signal significance at 5 $fb^{-1}$ via the ratio $S/\sqrt{B+1}$ for events with greater than or equal to nine jets.}
\label{tab:CMS_table}
\end{table*}
\begin{table*}[h]
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.0}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c||c|}\hline
$M_{1/2}$&$ 385$&$ 395$&$ 400$&$ 410$&$ 425$&$ 435$&$ 445$&$ 465$&$ 475$&$ 485$&$ 505$&$ 510$&$ {\color{red} 518}$&$ 520$&$ 560$&$ 570$&$ 650$&$ 750$&$ 900$&$ {\rm SM} $ \\ \hline \hline
$ {\rm 9j} $&$ 4.9 $&$ 2.4 $&$ 6.1 $&$ 6.4 $&$ 5.0 $&$ 3.7 $&$ 3.5 $&$ 2.8 $&$ 2.1 $&$ 2.5 $&$ 2.0 $&$ 2.8 $&$ {\color{red} 3.1} $&$ 1.8 $&$ 1.6 $&$ 1.5 $&$ 0.5 $&$ 0.1 $&$ 0.0 $&$ 0.9$ \\ \hline
$ {\rm 10j} $&$ 0.5 $&$ 0.5 $&$ 0.0 $&$ 0.0 $&$ 0.0 $&$ 0.6 $&$ 0.3 $&$ 1.3 $&$ 0.4 $&$ 0.2 $&$ 0.5 $&$ 0.5 $&$ {\color{red} 0.5} $&$ 0.4 $&$ 0.1 $&$ 0.4 $&$ 0.0 $&$ 0.0 $&$ 0.0 $&$ 0.2$ \\ \hline
$ {\rm 11j} $&$ 0.5 $&$ 0.0 $&$ 0.0 $&$ 0.0 $&$ 0.3 $&$ 0.0 $&$ 0.0 $&$ 0.0 $&$ 0.0 $&$ 0.2 $&$ 0.0 $&$ 0.0 $&$ {\color{red} 0.2} $&$ 0.1 $&$ 0.1 $&$ 0.0 $&$ 0.0 $&$ 0.0 $&$ 0.0 $&$ 0.0$ \\ \hline \hline
$ {\rm \ge9j} $&$ 5.9 $&$ 2.9 $&$ 6.1 $&$ 6.4 $&$ 5.3 $&$ 4.3 $&$ 3.8 $&$ 4.1 $&$ 2.5 $&$ 2.8 $&$ 2.5 $&$ 3.3 $&$ {\color{red} 3.8} $&$ 2.3 $&$ 1.9 $&$ 1.9 $&$ 0.6 $&$ 0.1 $&$ 0.0 $&$ 1.1$ \\ \hline
$ S/ \sqrt{B+1} $&$ \textbf{4.1} $&$ \textbf{2.0} $&$ \textbf{4.2} $&$ \textbf{4.4} $&$ \textbf{3.6} $&$ \textbf{3.0} $&$ \textbf{2.6} $&$ \textbf{2.8} $&$ \textbf{1.7} $&$ \textbf{1.9} $&$ \textbf{1.7} $&$ \textbf{2.3} $&$ {\color{red} \textbf{2.6}} $&$ \textbf{1.6} $&$ \textbf{1.3} $&$ \textbf{1.3} $&$ \textbf{0.4} $&$ \textbf{0.1} $&$ \textbf{0.0} $& -- \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Predicted event counts for the ATLAS experiment for $p_T > 55$ GeV and $H_{\rm T}^{\rm miss}/\sqrt{H_{\rm T}} \ge 3.5$ from a Monte Carlo collider-detector simulation of the No-Scale $\cal{F}$-$SU(5)$ model space for 5 $fb^{-1}$ of luminosity at the LHC for events with greater than or equal to nine jets. The array of $M_{1/2}$ given here consists of the benchmarks of Table~\ref{tab:MCProduction}. The number of Standard Model background events are given in the final column. The bottom row computes the signal significance at 5 $fb^{-1}$ via the ratio $S/\sqrt{B+1}$ for events with greater than or equal to nine jets.}
\label{tab:ATLAS_table1}
\end{table*}
\begin{table*}[h]
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.0}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c||c|}\hline
$M_{1/2}$&$ 385$&$ 395$&$ 400$&$ 410$&$ 425$&$ 435$&$ 445$&$ 465$&$ 475$&$ 485$&$ 505$&$ 510$&$ {\color{red} 518}$&$ 520$&$ 560$&$ 570$&$ 650$&$ 750$&$ 900$&$ {\rm SM} $ \\ \hline \hline
$ {\rm 7j} $&$ 21.1 $&$ 21.0 $&$ 15.1 $&$ 14.6 $&$ 16.2 $&$ 18.4 $&$ 14.3 $&$ 12.6 $&$ 10.4 $&$ 11.1 $&$ 8.8 $&$ 7.7 $&$ {\color{red} 7.9} $&$ 5.6 $&$ 4.9 $&$ 5.3 $&$ 1.9 $&$ 0.3 $&$ 0.0 $&$ 4.7 $ \\ \hline
$ {\rm 8j} $&$ 2.2 $&$ 4.4 $&$ 2.4 $&$ 1.7 $&$ 3.1 $&$ 3.5 $&$ 0.8 $&$ 2.2 $&$ 1.2 $&$ 1.8 $&$ 1.7 $&$ 1.4 $&$ {\color{red} 1.8} $&$ 1.7 $&$ 0.8 $&$ 1.4 $&$ 0.3 $&$ 0.0 $&$ 0.0 $&$ 0.3 $ \\ \hline
$ {\rm 9j} $&$ 0.5 $&$ 0.5 $&$ 0.9 $&$ 0.4 $&$ 0.0 $&$ 0.3 $&$ 0.0 $&$ 0.0 $&$ 0.2 $&$ 0.3 $&$ 0.0 $&$ 0.4 $&$ {\color{red} 0.1} $&$ 0.3 $&$ 0.1 $&$ 0.3 $&$ 0.0 $&$ 0.0 $&$ 0.0 $&$ 0.0 $ \\ \hline
$ {\rm 10j} $&$ 0.0 $&$ 0.0 $&$ 0.0 $&$ 0.0 $&$ 0.0 $&$ 0.0 $&$ 0.0 $&$ 0.0 $&$ 0.2 $&$ 0.2 $&$ 0.0 $&$ 0.0 $&$ {\color{red} 0.2} $&$ 0.0 $&$ 0.0 $&$ 0.0 $&$ 0.0 $&$ 0.0 $&$ 0.0 $&$ 0.0 $ \\ \hline \hline
$ {\rm \ge7j} $&$ 23.8 $&$ 25.9 $&$ 18.4 $&$ 16.7 $&$ 19.4 $&$ 22.1 $&$ 15.1 $&$ 14.8 $&$ 11.9 $&$ 13.4 $&$ 10.5 $&$ 9.5 $&$ {\color{red} 10.0} $&$ 7.6 $&$ 5.9 $&$ 7.0 $&$ 2.2 $&$ 0.3 $&$ 0.0 $&$ 4.9 $ \\ \hline
$ S/ \sqrt{B+1} $&$ \textbf{9.8} $&$ \textbf{10.6} $&$ \textbf{7.5}$&$ \textbf{6.9} $&$ \textbf{8.0} $&$ \textbf{9.1} $&$ \textbf{6.2} $&$ \textbf{6.1} $&$ \textbf{4.9} $&$ \textbf{5.5} $&$ \textbf{4.3} $&$ \textbf{3.9} $&$ {\color{red} \textbf{4.1}} $&$ \textbf{3.1} $&$ \textbf{2.4} $&$ \textbf{2.9} $&$ \textbf{0.9} $&$ \textbf{0.1} $&$ \textbf{0.0} $& -- \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Predicted event counts for the ATLAS experiment for $p_T > 80$ GeV and $H_{\rm T}^{\rm miss}/\sqrt{H_{\rm T}} \ge 3.5$ from a Monte Carlo collider-detector simulation of the No-Scale $\cal{F}$-$SU(5)$ model space for 5 $fb^{-1}$ of luminosity at the LHC for events with greater than or equal to seven jets. The array of $M_{1/2}$ given here consists of the benchmarks of Table~\ref{tab:MCProduction}. The number of Standard Model background events are given in the final column. The bottom row computes the signal significance at 5 $fb^{-1}$ via the ratio $S/\sqrt{B+1}$ for events with greater than or equal to seven jets.}
\label{tab:ATLAS_table2}
\end{table*}
There are two frontiers that the LHC is expected to continue probing with greater efficacy in the coming months and years.
The first is the intensity frontier, marked by the incredibly rapid escalation from the initial reports of early 2011,
featuring a few dozen picobarns of data~\cite{Khachatryan:2011tk, daCosta:2011hh, daCosta:2011qk}, to the current
Fall and end of Summer~\cite{Aad:2011qa,PAS-SUS-09-001} publications across the femtobarn threshold, and the anticipated
round of papers for the first $5~{fb}^{-1}$ expected to be delivered to each detector by the close of 2011.
It is with this luminosity in mind that we have projected our expectations for future findings at the LHC,
assuming $M_{1/2} = 518 GeV$ in Figure~(\ref{fig:CMS_prediction}) and tabulating more
general results in Tables~(\ref{tab:CMS_table})-(\ref{tab:ATLAS_table2}).
Critically, as demonstrated in Tables~(\ref{tab:CMS_table})-(\ref{tab:ATLAS_table2}), the statistical significance of the projected
results for our favored $500 < M_{1/2} < 600$~GeV model space may surpass the benchmark value of five for the lighter
of the favored models for the CMS experiment, and is expected somewhat more generically to be larger than three.
We contrast that the cuts presently exemplified by the ATLAS collaboration appear to be slightly harder on the ultra-high
jet multiplicity content, and a discover at $5~{fb}^{-1}$ appears unlikely for the models within the viable mass range.
The second very interesting possibility is an upgrade on the energy frontier side. Of course, the LHC was originally
designed to operate at 14~TeV, but the disastrous early failure of certain poor connections in the soldering has forced
a fairly cautious institutional stance to take hold, until the joints in question may all be retrofitted with protective bypass
systems and thoroughly tested. However, serious debates are ongoing within the LHC leadership about the risk-to-benefit
tradeoffs which would accompany a transition from $\sqrt{s} = 7$~TeV to 10 TeV. There is no doubt that such a move would be highly
favorable for our model, assuming that it could be made safely. We have previously made explicit comparisons between the current
7 TeV beam and speculative upgrades to 8,10,12 and 14 TeV~\cite{Li:2011gh, Li:2011rp}. We briefly summarize our most recent analysis,
for a representative model in the favored $500 < M_{1/2} < 600$~GeV range, giving advantages in the discovery index of Eq.~(\ref{eq:discovery}),
relative to the 7 TeV beam, applying the CMS HYBRID selection cuts. An 8 TeV beam is expected to be around twice as productive, a 10 TeV beam is
expected to be around 10 times as productive, a 12 TeV beam is expected to be around 25 times as productive, and a 14 TeV beam is expected to be
around 40 times as productive. Again, these numbers represent the ratio of integrated luminosity which we project to be required for SUSY
discovery at the various beam energies. In other words, they may be correctly interpreted as time efficiencies, and we suspect that one year of
running at 10 TeV might be equivalent to a decade of running at 7 TeV, with respect to the visibility of our particular model,
and given selection cuts tuned for the 9+ jet signal.
\section{Conclusions}
If we could somehow peer into the future, the imagination can wonder what events we may glimpse. In some small manner, this is exactly what we attempt to accomplish here. History has taught us that significant advancements in physics begin with a theoretical prediction, subsequently necessitating an experimental verification that cements the new theory as dogma within science. We thus embarked upon a bold journey to lay all our cards on the line, so to speak, and introduce a high-precision forecast of future collider signals to be observed by the end of this calendar year at the LHC, inspired by the convergence of the ${\cal F}$-$SU(5)$ supersymmetry event profile upon the recently published observations by the CMS and ATLAS Collaborations.
Constructed from the tripodal foundation of the ${\cal F}$-lipped $SU(5)$ GUT, extra TeV-scale vector-like multiplets with origins in F-Theory, and the dynamics of No-Scale supergravity, the ${\cal F}$-$SU(5)$ framework has demonstrated a rare consistency between parameters determined dynamically (top-down approach) and experimentally constrained parameters (bottom-up approach). Our numerous explorations of the ${\cal F}$-$SU(5)$ model have revealed deep fundamental correlations, motivating our thrust to statistically measure its collider signal spectrum in relation to currently ongoing tests of supersymmetry by CMS and ATLAS at the LHC.
A traditional phrase, originally borrowed from America's pastime of baseball, has long been ``three strikes and you're out'', though here we coin a whimsical twist fitting to our continuing challenge, and that is ``three strikes and you're in''. We have demonstrated that the ${\cal F}$-$SU(5)$ is consistent with all three major tests of supersymmetry and particle physics presently underway at the colliders. First, in~\cite{Li:2011fu} and extended upon here, we presented an in-depth analysis of the CMS 1.1 $fb^{-1}$ collider signals and illustrated through a precision Monte Carlo analysis that the ${\cal F}$-$SU(5)$ readily explains compelling data excesses in multijet events possessing more than nine jets. As such, we established a lower boundary on the gaugino mass of $M_{1/2}$=485 GeV, with the most engaging alignment between the actual observations and the supersymmetry simulations residing in the $M_{1/2}$=500-600 GeV ``golden'' subspace, the ${\cal F}$-$SU(5)$'s most phenomenologically desirable region, in the neighborhood of $M_{1/2}$=518 GeV.
Second, we submitted a previous prediction in~\cite{Li:2011xg} that the Higgs boson mass within the generic ${\cal F}$-$SU(5)$ parameter space persists at a fairly constrained $m_h$=$120^{+3.5}_{-1}$ GeV. The rapidly confining exclusion boundaries determined by the CMS, ATLAS, CDF and D\O~Collaborations are consistent with a 120 GeV ${\cal F}$-$SU(5)$ Higgs boson mass.
Third, and as expounded upon in this work in great detail, we showed that the ${\cal F}$-$SU(5)$ supersymmetry signals are not just consistent with, but exhibit a very strong correlation to the recently published ATLAS observations at the LHC. Duplicating the ATLAS jet cutting strategy and investigating the ATLAS preferred six binning intervals for the statistic $H_{\rm T}^{\rm miss}/\sqrt{H_{\rm T}}$, we presented sharp correlations between the ${\cal F}$-$SU(5)$ Monte Carlo and the ATLAS 1.34 $fb^{-1}$ of observed data, supplementing the unequivocal correspondence witnessed in the CMS search methodology. In similar accordance with the conclusions of our CMS analysis, we uncover here that the golden subspace of $M_{1/2}$=500-600 GeV is generally consistent, within two standard deviations, with the ATLAS reported collider signals.
The congruent results amongst two independently operated and managed detectors at the LHC, in parallel with the conflux of the ${\cal F}$-$SU(5)$ 120 GeV Higgs boson mass and the steadily amassing convincing statistics by the CMS, ATLAS, CDF and D\O~Collaborations of a physical 120 GeV Higgs boson, is certainly cause for reflection on whether CMS and ATLAS are indeed accumulating ${\cal F}$-$SU(5)$ supersymmetry events. We were thus motivated to ascertain the anticipated CMS and ATLAS event profile for the next significant milestone luminosity of 5 $fb^{-1}$, projected to be attainable by the conclusion of 2011. The baseline for our prediction remains our preferred gaugino mass of $M_{1/2}$=518 GeV, which fittingly generates a five standard deviation signal for the CMS experiment at 5 $fb^{-1}$ for events with greater than nine jets, the universally adopted standard signal-to-background discovery ratio, and a less substantial four standard deviation signal for the ATLAS experiment at 5 $fb^{-1}$ for $p_T >$ 80 GeV and $H_{\rm T}^{\rm miss}/\sqrt{H_{\rm T}} \ge 3.5$.
For high-energy physicists, these are certainly interesting times. The realization of a forty-year quest for supersymmetry may actually be on the proverbial doorstep of the LHC. If our bold prediction so presented here is physically observed, then the high-energy physics community in the year 2011 could finally enjoy the manifestation of the first categorical evidence of supersymmetry in our Universe.
\begin{acknowledgments}
We thank Michael Koratzinos for very helpful discussions,
which spurred certain of the new investigations in this report.
This research was supported in part
by the DOE grant DE-FG03-95-Er-40917 (TL and DVN),
by the Natural Science Foundation of China
under grant numbers 10821504 and 11075194 (TL),
by the Mitchell-Heep Chair in High Energy Physics (JAM),
and by the Sam Houston State University
2011 Enhancement Research Grant program (JWW).
We also thank Sam Houston State University
for providing high performance computing resources.
\end{acknowledgments}
|
\section{Introduction}
Subdwarf B stars (sdBs) are core-helium burning stars with thin hydrogen envelopes. They are situated between the main sequence and the white dwarf cooling track at the blueward extension of the horizontal branch, the so-called Extreme or Extended Horizontal Branch \citep{ heb1984, heb1986,saf1994}. Subdwarf B stars have colours and spectral characteristics corresponding to those of a B star, but the Balmer lines are abnormally broad for the colour compared with population I main-sequence B stars due to their high surface gravities ($\log g \simeq 5.0 - 6.0$). Subdwarf B stars have a typical mass of 0.5$\mathrm{\,M_{\odot}}$ \citep{heb1984} and can be found in all Galactic populations. They are thought to be the dominant source for the UV-upturn in early type galaxies \citep{fer1991, bro2000}. A fraction of sdBs pulsate \citep{cha1996, kil1997}, giving great opportunities to derive fundamental parameters (e.g. the stellar mass) and study their internal structure in detail \citep{gre2003, fon2008, ost2009, ost2010}. Subdwarf B stars are also suggested to be very useful as age indicators using evolutionary population synthesis \citep{bro1997}, or as distance indicators \citep{kil1999}. Since a large fraction of sdBs are members of binary systems \citep{max2001} and because they are intrinsically bright and ubiquitous, they are therefore an ideal population in which to study binary star evolution. For a comprehensive review on hot subdwarf stars we refer the reader to \citet{heb2009}.
\citet{han2003} describe in detail the formation and evolution of sdBs by using binary population synthesis models. They find that sdBs form via five main evolutionary channels: the first and second common envelope channels, the first and second stable Roche lobe overflow channels and the helium white dwarf merger channel. This last channel is the only one that results in the formation of single sdBs. They find that the contribution of the second Roche lobe overflow channel is not significant, leaving only three channels to form sdB binaries. Each of these three binary formation channels predicts a different orbital period distribution for the population of sdBs. The binaries formed through the first common envelope channel should display orbital periods between 0.5 and $\sim$40 days and the companions to the sdBs will be main sequence stars. Binaries formed via the second common envelope channel are expected to have white dwarf companions and their range of orbital periods will be wider, extending further into the short periods but not to long periods. Note as well that these common envelope phases are not very well understood. \citet{nel2000} have concluded from the observed double white dwarf population that its outcome may not always be a strong reduction of the orbital separation.
Finally, sdB binaries formed through the first stable Roche lobe overflow channel will have main sequence companions and will display orbital periods between 0.5 and $\sim$2000 days.
\citet{han2003} conclude that their set 2 of simulations is the model that best describes the observed sample of short period sdB binaries \citep{mor2003}. In this particular model (and also in 9 out of the 12 models they describe) the majority of sdB binaries, between 60 and 70 percent of the total, are formed via the first stable Roche lobe overflow channel. At the same time, this is the channel most affected by observational selection effects decreasing the number of observable sdB binaries formed through this channel. These observational effects are primarily that sdBs with companions that are brighter than the sdB itself will not be identified as sdBs at all. The second effect has to do with observational limitations: it is easier to detect radial velocity variations from a short orbital period system than from a long one, as these are smaller and take longer to determine in the second case.
Despite extensive observational work, not a single system has been found in this long-period regime (first stable RLOF channel), whereas at present $\sim$100 sdB binaries with short periods are confirmed (\citealt{gei2011} and \citealt{cop2011}). The orbital periods are mostly below 1 day, with a median period of 0.61 days.
However, in this work we will report on PG\,1018--047, the first truly long-period subdwarf B binary. While this may be the product of binary evolution as suggested by the \citet{han2002, han2003} models, we will find that it could also be the remnant of a hierarchical triple, as recently outlined by \citet{CW2011}.
Our target, PG\,1018--047 has an apparent visual (Str\"omgren) magnitude $m_{y} = 13.32$ and was discovered as an ultraviolet-excess stellar object in the Palomar-Green Survey \citep{GSL1986}. It was subsequently observed by \citet{max2001} to check for radial velocity variations. Although weak spectral features from a late-type companion are visible in the spectrum, \citet{max2001} did not find any significant radial velocity shifts using their variability criteria. This led to the conclusion that PG\,1018--047 is probably not a binary with a short orbital period. The presence of the companion in the spectrum prompted continued follow-up of the system in order to determine how such a binary could have formed in the first place.
We present the results after more than a decade of monitoring.\\
\section{Observations and reduction}
We have observed PG\,1018--047 spectroscopically with several different instrument setups over a period of ten years. In Table \ref{tbl:obs} we summarize the observing dates, the setup used in each case, the wavelength range covered and the number of spectra obtained during each epoch. The data were obtained using the Isaac Newton Telescope (INT), William Herschel Telescope (WHT)\footnote{Both the INT and WHT belong to the Isaac Newton Group of Telescopes (ING).} and Nordic Optical Telescope (NOT) on the Island of La Palma, the Radcliffe telescope at the South African Astronomical Observatory (SAAO) and the Hobby-Eberly Telescope (HET) located at the McDonald Observatory in Texas. The different instrument setups were as follows:
For the \textbf{INT-R}ed spectra the intermediate dispersion spectrograph (IDS) was used. It is a long-slit spectrograph mounted on the Cassegrain Focal Station of the INT. The 500\,mm camera together with the high resolution R1200R grating and a windowed Tek5 CCD centered in $\lambda=6560\,\mathrm{\AA}$ covered the $H_{\alpha}$ region. A 1\,arcsec slit was used.
\textbf{INT-B}lue: The INT with the IDS, equipped with the 235 camera, the R1200B grating and a windowed EEV10 CCD was used to obtain these blue spectra. The 2002-2007, 2008-2009 spectra were centered on respectively $\lambda=4348\,\mathrm{\AA}$ and $\lambda=4505\,\mathrm{\AA}$, covering as many Balmer lines to the blue as possible, including $H_{\beta}$ at 4861.327\,\AA. For all exposures a 1\,arcsec slit was used.
The \textbf{SAAO} data were obtained using the Radcliffe 1.9\,m telescope together with the grating spectrograph plus the SITe back-illuminated CCD. Grating 4, with 1200 grooves per millimeter was used to obtain spectra covering $H_{\gamma}$ and $H_{\beta}$ with a dispersion of 0.5\,\AA/pix and a resolution of 1\,$\mathrm{\AA}$ at 4600\,\AA. The slit width varied from 1.2 to 1.5\,arcsec depending on the seeing.
\textbf{WHT-R}ed: The WHT was equipped with the double arm Intermediate dispersion Spectrograph and Imaging System (ISIS). The R1200R grating and the Red+ CCD were used to obtain the red spectra centered on $\lambda=6560\,\mathrm{\AA}$ (2007 data) and on $\lambda=6521\,\mathrm{\AA}$ (2009 data). A slit width of 1.2\,arcsec was used for the 2007 observations and a 1\,arcsec slit for the 2009 ones.
The setup \textbf{WHT-B}lue denotes WHT data obtained using the ISIS spectrograph with the R600B grating and the blue EEV10. The grating was centered on $\lambda=4388\,\mathrm{\AA}$ with a 1\,arcsec slit (2006 observations), on $\lambda=4500\,\mathrm{\AA}$ with a 1.5\,arcsec slit (2007 data), $\lambda=4339\,\mathrm{\AA}$ with a slit width of 0.62\,arcsec (2008) and on $\lambda=4349\,\mathrm{\AA}$ with a 1.04\,arcsec slit during the 2009 observations.
\begin{table*}
\centering
\begin{minipage}{160mm}
\caption{Journal of observations. Observers: P. F. L. Maxted (P. M.), T. Augustijn (T. A.), T. R. Marsh (T. M.), Luisa Morales-Rueda (L. M.), G. Nelemans (G. N.),
C. Copperwheat (C. C.),
R.A. Wade (R. W.) and M. A. Stark (M. S.).
}\label{tbl:obs}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{lccccc}\hline\hline
Date & Setup & $\lambda$ region & \# Spectra & Mean dispersion & Observer(s) \\
& & & & ($\rm\AA/pixel$) & \\\hline
11 - 19/04/00 & INT-R & $H_{\alpha}$ & 4 & 0.39 & P. M. \\
08 - 13/03/01 & INT-R & $H_{\alpha}$ & 11 & 0.39 & P. M. \\
01 - 07/05/01 & INT-R & $H_{\alpha}$ & 9 & 0.39 & P. M. \\
26 - 30/03/02 & SAAO & Blue & 6 & 0.49 & T. M. \\
25 - 27/04/02 & INT-B & Blue & 6 & 0.48 & T. A. \& T. M. \\
09 - 16/04/03 & INT-B & Blue & 27 & 0.48 & T. M. \\
30/03 - 05/04/04 & SAAO & Blue & 5 & 0.49 & L. M. \\
23 - 24/06/05 & SAAO & Blue & 2 & 0.50 & L. M. \\
06/02/06 & WHT-R & $H_{\alpha}$ & 2 & 0.22 & G. N. \\
& WHT-B & Blue & 2 & 0.44 & G. N. \\
09/03/07 & WHT-B & Blue & 4 & 0.44 & service \\
27/03 - 07/04/07 & INT-B & Blue & 11 & 0.48 & T. M. \\
29 - 31/03/07 & WHT-R & $H_{\alpha}$ & 5 & 0.25 & G. N. \\
& WHT-B & Blue & 5 & 0.44 & G. N. \\
21 - 22/03/08 & INT-B & Blue & 4 & 0.48 & C. C. \\
01/05/08 & WHT-R & $H_{\alpha}$ & 2 & 0.49 & P. M. \\
& WHT-B & Blue & 2 & 0.44 & P. M. \\
11/03/09 & INT-B & Blue & 2 & 0.48 & C. C. \\
30/04/09 & WHT-R & $H_{\alpha}$ & 4 & 0.25 & T. M. \\
& WHT-B & Blue & 4 & 0.44 & T. M. \\
03/04/10 & NOT & $H_{\alpha}$ + Blue & 1 & 0.03 & service \\
06/12/07 - 23/03/10 & HET & $H_{\alpha}$ + Blue & 7 & 0.12 & R. W \& M. S. \\\hline\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{minipage}
\end{table*}
The \textbf{NOT} data were taken using the 2.56\,m Nordic Optical Telescope. The FIES (Fibre-fed Echelle Spectrograph) highest resolution fiber (the 1.3 arcsec fibre offering a spectral resolution of R = 67000) covered the entire spectral range 3700 - 7300 $\mathrm{\AA}$ without gaps in a single fixed setting.
The final setup, \textbf{HET}, refers to data from the bench-mounted echelle fibre-fed High Resolution Spectrograph, mounted on the 9.2m Hobby-Eberly Telescope operated in its R = 15000 resolution mode. In the ``2x3'' on-chip binning mode that was used, the dispersion was about 6 km/s per binned output pixel. A 2-arcsecond optical fibre was used for the stellar target, and two additional fibers were used to record the sky spectrum. A cross-dispersing grating with 600 grooves per millimeter was used, centering $\lambda \approx 5822\,\mathrm{\AA}$ at the boundary between the ``blue" and ``red" CCDs. The useful wavelength coverage extended from 4810$\,\mathrm{\AA}$ to 6760$\,\mathrm{\AA}$.
To reduce the spectra from the INT, WHT and SAAO, standard Starlink routines were used. Flatfields were taken to correct for the pixel to pixel variations in the CCD and the bias correction was carried out by using the overscan region in each CCD frame. The objects were extracted with the optimal extraction algorithm of \citet{mar1989}. CuAr+CuNe arc spectra were taken before and after each target spectrum or after each set of two spectra at the target's position to calibrate these in wavelength. Fourth order polynomials were computed to fit the lines in the arcs and the solutions were used for the calibration of the corresponding spectra.\\
The NOT data were reduced with the automatic data reduction software package FIEStool\footnote{Developed by Eric Stempels (http://www.not.iac.es/instru-ments/fies/fiestool/FIEStool.html)}, which makes use of the IRAF and NumArray packages via a Python interface. After preprocessing, the raw frames were debiased and subsequently divided by a 2D normalized flatfield, correcting for the shape of each spectral order. Next the science spectra were extracted using the optimal extraction algorithm from \citet{hor1986} and corrected for the blaze shape. The wavelength calibration was done from a ThAr lamp spectrum taken right before the science data.
For the HET spectra we used standard IRAF tasks, organized using``pipeline" scripts, to process the images and extract the spectra. Observations of PG1018-047 were taken as pairs of 750-second exposures.
Each pair was combined within IRAF, using the ``crreject" option in the task ``imcombine" to reduce cosmic-ray contamination; additional rejection of cosmic-ray artifacts was done later by hand.
As a result of this observational effort, we have a total of 125 spectra of PG\,1018--047.
\section{Results}
\subsection{The optical spectrum of PG\,1018--047}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\begin{minipage}{160mm}
\centering
\epsfig{file=Fig1.eps, width=6.35cm, angle=270}
\caption{The mean spectrum of PG\,1018--047 for the region covering H$_\beta$ to H$_\iota$ (left) and the region around H$_\alpha$ (right). Plotted below the mean spectrum (shifted down for clarity) is a model spectrum for an sdB star (see text for details). Lines from the K-dwarf are clearly seen in the red part, but the lines in the blue are from the sdB. }\label{fig:optspec}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure*}
The normalised optical spectrum of PG\,1018--047 is shown in Figure \ref{fig:optspec}. It is obtained by averaging over a number of the ING/SAAO spectra taken at the same orbital phase, calculated using our best orbital solution from section \ref{sec:orbsol}. In order to normalise the spectra, we fitted third order polynomials to the regions free from absorption lines and divided the spectra by these fits.
The mean spectrum shows several metal lines in the region between H$_\beta$ and H$_\gamma$. However, the \ion{He}{I} line at 4472\,\AA, which is typical of sdB stars is absent. Instead the \ion{Si}{iii} triplet (4553, 4568, 4575\,\AA) is the strongest feature. Several lines in the region between 4600 and 4700\,\AA\ can be identified with \ion{O}{ii} lines and possibly also \ion{N}{ii}.
We made a fit to the mean spectrum of PG\,1018--047 using the LTE model grids of Heber et al.~(2000), with explicit metals of solar composition and abundances depleted by 0.0, 0.5, 1.0, 1.5 and 2.0 dex relative to solar. A reasonable fit is achieved with $T_{\rm eff}$\,=\,30500\,$\pm$\,200 K, log\,$g$\,=\,5.50\,$\pm$\,0.02, and with the N and O abundance 1/10 of the solar value.
In Figure~1, a synthetic spectrum with these parameters broadened to match the resolution of the observed spectrum is shown. The model spectrum contains helium at a fraction log\,N(He)/N(H) = -3.0, but even this is clearly too much. In order to make helium fit with the observed spectrum, the model must be depleted to log\,N(He)/N(H) $<$ -\,4. It is also clear that the abundances of the various elements are quite far from solar composition relative to each other, which is not unusual for the sdBs (Heber et al.~2000).
Note that the K-star contributes some light also in the blue part of the spectrum, but insufficient to make any lines clearly visible in the spectrum. However, the contribution to the continuum might still be sufficient to affect the fitting procedure. In the H$_\alpha$ region, however, metal lines from the K-star are clearly seen. Our high S/N mean spectrum has too low resolution to reliably infer the abundances of the individual components, and our high resolution spectra have insufficient S/N.
\begin{table*}
\centering
\begin{minipage}{160mm}
\caption{Narrow absorption lines present in the optical spectrum (Figure \ref{fig:optspec}). The identification was done using the mid- and high-resolution spectral library of \citet{mon1997} and also \citet{ral2010}. The lines with a * were included in the template to determine the radial velocities of the secondary (see section \ref{sec:sec}). For reference, we have added the wavelengths for the Balmer lines we adopted in our analysis as well.}\label{tbl:seclines}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{clclclcl}
\hline\hline
$\lambda$ (\AA) & Element & $\lambda$ (\AA) & Element & $\lambda$ (\AA) & Element & $\lambda$ (\AA) & Element \\\hline
4153.30 & \ion{O}{ii} & 4596.17 & \ion{O}{ii} & 6337.28* & & 6609.05* & \\
4164.79 & \ion{Fe}{iii}, blend & 4630.54 & \ion{N}{ii} & 6359.45* & & 6614.42* & \\
4189.80 & \ion{O}{ii} & 4639.70 & \ion{O}{ii}, blend & 6363.71* & & 6637.09* & \\
4253.59 & \ion{S}{iii} + \ion{O}{ii} & 4642.26\,\, & \ion{O}{ii}, \ion{N}{ii} & 6394.45* & & 6644.39* & \\
4276.74 & \ion{O}{ii}, blend & 4649.14\,\, & \ion{O}{ii} & 6400.43* & & 6664.37* & \\
4414.91 & \ion{O}{ii} & 4661.04\,\, & \ion{O}{ii} & 6408.96* & & 6678.97* & \\
4416.58 & \ion{O}{ii} & 4676.23\,\, & \ion{O}{ii} & 6412.37* & & & \\
4442.49 & \ion{O}{ii} & 4700.31\,\, & \ion{O}{ii}, blend & 6422.05* & & 4101.735 & $H_{\delta}$ \\
4552.65 & \ion{Si}{iii} & 4705.44\,\, & \ion{O}{ii} & 6431.44* & & 4340.465 & $H_{\gamma}$ \\
4567.87 & \ion{Si}{iii} & 4710.04\,\, & \ion{O}{ii} & 6439.70* & & 4861.327 & H$_{\beta}$ \\
4574.78 & \ion{Si}{iii} & & & 6450.51* & & 6562.800 & H$_{\alpha}$ \\
4590.57 & \ion{O}{ii} & 6335.83* & & 6456.49* & & & \\
\hline\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{minipage}
\end{table*}
\subsection{The orbit of PG\,1018--047}\label{sec:orbsol}
\subsubsection{Radial velocity measurements}\label{sec:radvelmeas}
The radial velocities (RVs) of the INT, WHT, SAAO and NOT spectra were determined following the procedure described by \citet{mor2003}, i.e. least squares fitting of a line profile model. This line profile model was built up from three Gaussians per Balmer line with different widths and depths, but with a common central wavelength position which varies between the spectra. The parameters of the Gaussians were optimized by comparing the model to the normalized average spectrum over all observations; see \citet{mmm2000c} for further details of this procedure. For the blue spectra we fit simultaneously for $H_{\beta}$, $H_{\gamma}$\ and $H_{\delta}$, whereas for the red spectra only the $H_{\alpha}$\ line can be fitted. The RV of the NOT spectrum was determined using a model containing $H_{\alpha}$, $H_{\beta}$\ and $H_{\gamma}$\ (see also Table \ref{tbl:seclines}). The radial velocities from the 7 HET spectra are obtained from the $H_{\beta}$\ absorption line using simple Gaussian fitting to the core of the line within the IRAF "splot" task.
A list of the radial velocitities and the uncertainties measured is given in Table \ref{tbl:radvel}.
\begin{table*}
\centering
\begin{minipage}{160mm}
\caption{The 125 radial velocity measurements for PG\,1018--047 with their formal errors from the least squares fitting routine. }\label{tbl:radvel}
\centering
\begin{threeparttable}
\begin{tabular*}{14cm}{p{2cm}p{2cm}p{2cm}p{2cm}p{2cm}p{2cm}}\hline\hline
HJD & RV & HJD & RV & HJD & RV \\
-2450000 & (km/s) & -2450000 & (km/s) & -2450000 & (km/s) \\\hline
1646.47135 & 31.3 $\pm$ 4.4 &2741.52795 & 49.8 $\pm$ 3.0 &4189.54710 & 52.1 $\pm$ 1.4 \\
1646.47650 & 20.5 $\pm$ 4.3 &2741.53909 & 53.3 $\pm$ 3.1 &4189.54712 & 42.9 $\pm$ 1.0 \\
1654.46074 & 24.7 $\pm$ 3.8 &2741.54857 & 48.8 $\pm$ 3.4 &4190.40980 & 51.9 $\pm$ 1.0 \\
1654.46780 & 32.1 $\pm$ 3.7 &2741.55807 & 48.2 $\pm$ 4.3 &4190.40982 & 46.0 $\pm$ 0.7 \\
1977.48220 & 49.6 $\pm$ 5.3 &2743.42040 & 50.4 $\pm$ 4.5 &4190.42420 & 53.5 $\pm$ 1.0 \\
1978.62533 & 55.2 $\pm$ 3.8 &2743.43451 & 60.3 $\pm$ 4.5 &4190.42422 & 50.7 $\pm$ 0.7 \\
1979.54044 & 45.0 $\pm$ 3.2 &2743.52128 & 52.2 $\pm$ 6.3 &4191.59677 & 52.1 $\pm$ 1.4 \\
1979.59958 & 65.5 $\pm$ 3.3 &2744.35895 & 54.3 $\pm$ 3.5 &4191.59677 & 44.1 $\pm$ 1.0 \\
1979.60655 & 54.0 $\pm$ 3.3 &2744.37308 & 49.7 $\pm$ 2.8 &4193.37192 & 51.4 $\pm$ 7.8 \\
1982.51489 & 52.2 $\pm$ 3.9 &2744.39186 & 49.4 $\pm$ 2.8 &4195.35718 & 41.6 $\pm$ 1.9 \\
1982.52185 & 54.6 $\pm$ 4.1 &2744.40598 & 51.4 $\pm$ 2.7 &4195.37121 & 36.4 $\pm$ 1.7 \\
1982.55421 & 57.8 $\pm$ 4.0 &2744.42529 & 53.9 $\pm$ 2.6 &4195.61447\tnote{$\spadesuit$} & 35.5 $\pm$ 2.5 \\
1982.56118 & 52.6 $\pm$ 3.9 &2744.43941 & 52.2 $\pm$ 2.6 &4195.62457\tnote{$\spadesuit$} & 38.1 $\pm$ 4.5 \\
1982.60059 & 57.5 $\pm$ 3.9 &2745.37982 & 48.8 $\pm$ 3.5 &4197.51456 & 43.8 $\pm$ 1.8 \\
1982.60755 & 53.2 $\pm$ 4.0 &2745.39394 & 45.3 $\pm$ 3.1 &4197.52858 & 43.6 $\pm$ 1.9 \\
2031.36769 & 62.1 $\pm$ 8.3 &2745.40987 & 51.4 $\pm$ 2.8 &4441.00811 & 39.7 $\pm$ 2.0 \\
2031.37466 & 41.4 $\pm$ 8.4 &2745.42399 & 51.9 $\pm$ 2.7 &4469.93158 & 36.0 $\pm$ 2.0 \\
2031.38641 & 49.5 $\pm$ 4.4 &2746.44131 & 54.6 $\pm$ 2.5 &4502.85094 & 33.5 $\pm$ 2.0 \\% HET 3
2032.48243 & 54.9 $\pm$ 3.0 &2746.45544 & 51.0 $\pm$ 2.5 &4547.37872 & 33.0 $\pm$ 1.7 \\
2032.49633 & 53.6 $\pm$ 3.5 &2746.47412 & 55.4 $\pm$ 2.2 &4547.40665 & 31.1 $\pm$ 1.6 \\
2033.39672 & 53.8 $\pm$ 4.1 &2746.48824 & 44.8 $\pm$ 2.3 &4547.62144 & 29.6 $\pm$ 2.0 \\
2033.40369 & 53.8 $\pm$ 4.3 &3095.38227 & 26.8 $\pm$ 6.7 &4547.64844 & 32.4 $\pm$ 2.2 \\
2037.45584 & 54.1 $\pm$ 3.8 &3095.40336 & 19.0 $\pm$ 6.6 &4550.71405 & 26.7 $\pm$ 2.0 \\% HET 4
2037.46282 & 50.9 $\pm$ 3.5 &3098.33704 & 12.9 $\pm$ 9.8 &4562.68846 & 29.6 $\pm$ 2.0 \\% HET 5
2360.36683\tnote{*} & -33.8 $\pm$ 25.0 &3101.31890 & 18.8 $\pm$ 9.2 &4588.35123 & 29.7 $\pm$ 2.5 \\
2360.37745\tnote{*} & -4.6 $\pm$ 22.9 &3101.32956 & 19.7 $\pm$ 8.7 &4588.35125\tnote{$\clubsuit$} & 34.2 $\pm$ 2.6 \\
2362.36641\tnote{*} & 17.5 $\pm$ 19.3 &3545.21953 & 51.4 $\pm$ 7.2 &4588.35646\tnote{$\clubsuit$} & 22.8 $\pm$ 2.6 \\
2362.38049\tnote{*} & 5.4 $\pm$ 20.3 &3546.20756 & 52.6 $\pm$ 5.8 &4588.35648 & 29.5 $\pm$ 2.4 \\
2364.39275 & 23.1 $\pm$ 6.0 &3772.55466 & 35.6 $\pm$ 0.8 &4902.42320 & 34.8 $\pm$ 4.5 \\
2364.40338 & 17.9 $\pm$ 6.7 &3772.55467 & 26.7 $\pm$ 1.2 &4902.44418 & 36.6 $\pm$ 4.9 \\
2390.51113 & 34.6 $\pm$ 17.1 &3772.68564\tnote{$\bullet $} & 15.3 $\pm$ 0.9 & 4952.38360 & 55.2 $\pm$ 2.8 \\
2390.52179 & 32.8 $\pm$ 9.0 &3772.68565 & 34.6 $\pm$ 1.4 &4952.38359 & 54.3 $\pm$ 5.1 \\
2391.37270 & 30.1 $\pm$ 4.3 &4169.43214 & 43.8 $\pm$ 1.2 &4952.39761 & 53.6 $\pm$ 3.9 \\
2391.38337 & 32.7 $\pm$ 3.6 &4169.44290 & 47.3 $\pm$ 1.4 &4952.39762 & 49.6 $\pm$ 2.2 \\
2392.36580 & 28.3 $\pm$ 2.1 &4169.45704 & 56.5 $\pm$ 2.0 &4952.41400 & 58.4 $\pm$ 1.8 \\
2392.37993 & 24.5 $\pm$ 2.0 &4169.46774 & 52.6 $\pm$ 6.1 &4952.41401 & 51.8 $\pm$ 2.9 \\
2739.51074 & 45.0 $\pm$ 3.6 &4186.54793 & 38.0 $\pm$ 3.6 &4952.42802 & 51.1 $\pm$ 2.3 \\
2739.52029 & 46.7 $\pm$ 3.8 &4186.55810 & 40.1 $\pm$ 11.8 &4952.42802 & 58.4 $\pm$ 1.5 \\
2740.44514 & 49.8 $\pm$ 3.2 &4188.41925 & 39.9 $\pm$ 3.0 &5202.92761 & 36.5 $\pm$ 2.0 \\% HET 6
2740.45465 & 51.9 $\pm$ 3.0 &4188.43328 & 42.1 $\pm$ 2.9 &5278.71693 & 32.8 $\pm$ 2.0 \\% HET 7
2741.50896 & 49.7 $\pm$ 3.1 &4189.53608 & 49.9 $\pm$ 1.5 &5295.96094 & 35.0 $\pm$1.6 \\
2741.51846 & 49.4 $\pm$ 3.1 &4189.53609 & 42.6 $\pm$ 1.0 & & \\\hline\hline
\end{tabular*}
\begin{tablenotes}
\item[*] \small{The SAAO science frames belonging to these 4 radial velocities were made with very marginal observing conditions. The resulting unreliable RVs are therefore not considered in the remaining analysis.}
\item[$\bullet$] \small{This is a discrepant WHT data point, taken during service observations in 2006. It is not in line with the other data taken at on the same night and therefore given no weight in the remaining analysis.}
\item[$\spadesuit$] \small{For the blue WHT science frames belonging to these two RVs, only a single arc frame was available, taken before the first of the two subsequent observations.}
\item[$\clubsuit$] \small{These two WHT observations in the $H_{\beta}$ - $H_{\delta}$ region had no flat fields or bias frames available.}
\end{tablenotes}
\end{threeparttable}
\end{minipage}
\end{table*}
\subsubsection{Orbital parameters}\label{sec:orbpar}
Once the radial velocities for all spectra were known, we used the floating mean periodogram \citep{CMB1999}, a generalization of the well-known Lomb-Scargle periodogram \citep{lom1976, sca1982}, to determine the most probable frequencies (periods) present in the data. The method consists in fitting the radial velocity data with a model composed of a sinusiod plus a constant of the form:
\begin{equation}
v = \gamma + K\sin[2\pi f(t-t_{0})],\label{eq:orbit}
\end{equation}
with $f$ the frequency and $t$ the time of observation. This means we assume the binary system to have a circular orbit with semi-amplitude $K$ and a systemic velocity $\gamma$. For each frequency ($f$=1/$P$) we perform least squares fitting of the data, solving for $\gamma$ and $K$ simultaneously using singular value decomposition \citep{pre2002}. In this way we can obtain the $\chi^{2}$ statistic of the model as a function of frequency, or in other words the periodogram.
In our initial period determination, the $\chi^{2}$ values turned out larger than expected given the number of data points, indicating that there must have been an extra unaccounted source of uncertainty, most likely due to systemic effects, intrinsic variability of the star or slit-filling errors (see also \citealt{mor2003}). Such errors are unlikely to be correlated with either the orbit or the statistical errors we have estimated. To allow for this we compute the level of systematic uncertainty ($\sigma$) per telescope that when added in quadrature to our error estimates gives a reduced $\chi^{2}\approx 1$ for each of the INT, WHT subsets, telescope by telescope, relative to the preliminary fit.
We increased the errors by $\sigma_{\rm{INT}}=\,$2.15 km s$^{-1}$ and $\sigma_{\rm{WHT}}=\,$3.4 km s$^{-1}$ for respectively the INT and WHT data. The formal NOT and HET errors were left unchanged since these are fibre-fed instruments which do not suffer from normal slit-guiding errors. Also the 9 SAAO RVs were left as they were. Second we used the average residual from each data set to our best orbital fit at that point to apply offsets to the INT, WHT and SAAO data sets\footnote{Table \ref{tbl:fitrvs} presents the RVs at this stage.} (respectively 0.85, -2.00 and 4.63 km s$^{-1}$, predicted minus observed). Finally, we scale the errors of the entire data set multiplicatively by a factor 1.244 to obtain a $\chi^{2}$ value equal to the degrees of freedom (dof).
Figure \ref{fig:oripgram} shows the resulting radial velocity periodogram for PG\,1018--047\ in the region where we find the lowest $\chi^{2}$ values. The best solution is found around 760 days, followed by a group of 1 day aliases and the yearly aliases of the long period around 250 days. An overview of the best aliases with their corresponding $\chi^{2}$ values is given in Table \ref{tbl:bestaliases}. Given the large inhomogeneity of the data sets, we realize that the treatment of the errors described above might not be perfect in all details. Therefore we have considered alternative methods to weight the data and errors as well, but the essential result, the long period, was unchanged throughout. \\
\begin{figure}
\begin{minipage}{85mm}
\epsfig{file=Fig2.eps, width=9.5cm}
\caption{The radial velocity periodogram for PG\,1018--047, showing the most probable orbital periods present in the data.}\label{fig:oripgram}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{minipage}{80mm}
\caption{The best orbital periods found from the radial velocity periodogram for PG\,1018-047. The $\chi^{2}$ value, mass function of the companion and the minimum mass of the companion obtained by assuming an sdB mass of 0.5$\,\mathrm{M_{\odot}}$ are also given.}\label{tbl:bestaliases}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccccc}\hline\hline
Alias & Period (d) & $\chi^{2}$ & $f_{m}$ ($M_{\odot}$) & $M_{2min}$ ($M_{\odot}$) \\\hline
1 & 759.80 & 117 & 0.17245 & 0.58927 \\
2 & 0.9987 & 188 & 0.00018 & 0.03704 \\
3 & 241.35 & 238 & 0.02602 & 0.24313 \\
4 & 267.93 & 258 & 0.05582 & 0.34031 \\
5 & 1.0184 & 259 & 0.00013 & 0.03332 \\\hline\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{minipage}
\end{table}
In Table \ref{tbl:bestaliases} we also quote the mass functions of the companion, calculated using
\begin{equation}\label{eq:minmass}
f_{m}=\frac{M_{MS}^{3}\sin^{3}i}{(M_{sdB}+M_{MS})^{2}}=\frac{PK_{sdB}^{3}}{2\pi G}.
\end{equation}
The minimum mass of the companion, assuming a typical sdB mass of $0.5\rm\,M_{\odot}$ \citep{heb1984}, is also given in each case. These numbers will be used later to constrain the nature of the companion star and vice versa to show that our orbital solution is plausible given the properties of the secondary.
Table \ref{tbl:bestorbsol} lists the orbital parameters for our best orbital solution found for PG\,1018--047\ and in Figure \ref{fig:bestorbsol} the radial velocity curve folded on the period is shown.
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{minipage}{80mm}
\caption{The best orbital solution for PG\,1018--047\, assuming a circular and eccentric orbit.}\label{tbl:bestorbsol}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{lrr}\hline\hline
& Circular & Eccentric \\\hline
$\mathrm{P_{orb}}$ (d) & 759.8$\pm$5.8 & 755.9$\pm$5.1 \\
$\gamma$ (km/s) & 38.2$\pm$0.5 & 38.0$\pm$0.9 \\
$e$ & 0 & 0.246$\pm$0.052 \\
$\omega$ ($^{\circ}$) & & 0$\pm$24 \\
HJD$_{0}$ (d) & 2453335.0$\pm$10.5 & 2453343.0$\pm$14.7 \\
$\mathrm{K_{sdB}}$ (km/s) & 13.0$\pm$0.8 & 12.6$\pm$0.8 \\
$\mathrm{K_{MS}}$ (km/s) & 8.1$\pm$1.0 & \\\hline\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{minipage}
\end{table}
\subsubsection{The secondary orbit}\label{sec:sec}
Narrow metal lines of a cool companion were present in addition to the Balmer absorption lines from the sdB star, allowing us to obtain radial velocity variations for the secondary star. The blue spectra did not contain enough signal from the companion to be useful, so we focussed on the HET, NOT and red WHT/INT spectra.
We determined the radial velocities of the secondary by means of cross correlation with a template spectrum \citep{td1979}.
For the HET data we cross-correlated with 61 Cyg B (K7V), which was obtained as part of a different program on April 15, 2010, using HRS in its R = 30,000 mode with a 316 groove/millimeter cross disperser centred at 6948\,\AA. As a result only seven orders from the red CCD (six, on one night) were available for cross correlation, covering 6000 - 6760\,\AA\ (orders containing $H_{\alpha}$\ or strong telluric lines were excluded).
For the other data we constructed a template from our data using the average red spectrum of PG\,1018--047 (the upper panel in Figure \ref{fig:optspec}). Every (by eye) recognisable absorption feature of the secondary was fitted with a Gaussian profile, similar to the method described in section \ref{sec:radvelmeas}. All features possibly originating in the primary or of telluric origin were masked out, leaving a total of 19 lines from the cool companion in the template (see also Table \ref{tbl:seclines}).
Unfortunately the quality of the secondary radial velocities obtained from the red INT and WHT spectra were not sufficient to derive any trustworthy orbital period from a periodogram or to estimate the orbital semi-amplitude $K_{MS}$ for the secondary. We therefore used our best orbital period obtained from the primary RVs (Table \ref{tbl:bestorbsol}) to phase-bin the 37 medium-resolution red spectra before the cross-correlation routine. In total 7 out of 40 bins are filled. The HET and NOT spectra were left unbinned.
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{minipage}{80mm}
\caption{The radial velocities of the cool companion.}\label{tbl:secrv}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{cccc}\hline\hline
& \# spectra & Average & RV \\
Bin & in bin & phase & (km/s) \\\hline
0.100 - 0.125 & 2 & 0.1247 & 35.7 $\pm$ 1.9 \\
0.125 - 0.150 & 7 & 0.1277 & 32.9 $\pm$ 1.3 \\
0.200 - 0.225 & 11 & 0.2176 & 29.2 $\pm$ 3.3 \\
0.250 - 0.275 & 9 & 0.2867 & 29.0 $\pm$ 4.3 \\
0.4556 & HET & & 36.7 $\pm$ 2.8 \\
0.4585 & HET & & 34.8 $\pm$ 0.9 \\
0.4937 & HET & & 39.0 $\pm$ 1.5 \\
0.5370 & HET & & 41.3 $\pm$ 1.1 \\
0.5583 & HET & & 41.9 $\pm$ 0.7 \\
0.575 - 0.600 & 2 & 0.5759 & 43.5 $\pm$ 2.2 \\
0.5810 & NOT & & 40.2 $\pm$ 0.6 \\
0.6000 & HET & & 44.5 $\pm$ 1.1 \\
0.6158 & HET & & 43.6 $\pm$ 0.6 \\
0.625 - 0.650 & 2 & 0.6496 & 39.4 $\pm$ 4.9 \\
0.775 - 0.800 & 4 & 0.7826 & 44.8 $\pm$ 4.9 \\\hline\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{minipage}
\end{table}
In Figure \ref{fig:secfit} we have plotted phase versus radial velocity. Using least squares fitting we estimated the projected semi-amplitude of the secondary to be $K_{MS} = 8.1 \pm 1.0$ km/s,
which constrains the mass ratio of the secondary to the primary star to be $q = M_{MS}/M_{sdB} = 1.6 \pm 0.2$. The $\chi^{2}$ value of the fit was 13.29, given 15 data points minus 2 fitting parameters.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\begin{minipage}{160mm}
\begin{center}
\epsfig{file=Fig3.eps, width=14cm}
\caption{Radial velocity curve for the sdB component of PG\,1018--047. We have averaged the RVs per observation run. The small lower panel shows the residuals. The black squares are the 7 RVs from the HET spectra, the red dot is the NOT/FIES data point, yellow squares are the SAAO observations, the blue left triangles and red right triangles are the respectively blue and red INT data points, and the cyan up and magenta down triangles correspond to the blue and red WHT radial velocities.}\label{fig:bestorbsol}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\begin{minipage}{160mm}
\begin{center}
\epsfig{file=Fig4.eps, width=14cm, height=9.5cm}
\caption{The orbital fit for the secondary star. The red triangles are the radial velocities from the cool companion, obtained from the intermediate resolution spectroscopy. The NOT measurement is plotted with a blue dot and the HET data with black squares. The radial velocity curve (dashed green) is also shown.}\label{fig:secfit}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure*}
\subsubsection{Eccentricity of the orbit}
In sections \ref{sec:orbpar} and \ref{sec:sec} the analysis was based upon the assumption that PG1018-047 has a circular orbit. However, we also tried fitting eccentric orbits using the Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC; \citealt{GRS1995}) method obtaining an eccentricity of $0.246 \pm 0.052$; the favoured period for these fits decreased from $759.8 \pm 5.7$ days to $755.9 \pm 5.1$ days and had $\chi^{2} = 152$, starting from the radial velocities in Table \ref{tbl:fitrvs}. To obtain $\chi^{2}/\rm{dof} = 1$ we needed to scale the errors by a factor 1.153. Table \ref{tbl:bestorbsol} presents the orbital parameters. The argument of periapsis ($\omega$) is defined as the angle in the orbital plane between the ascending node and the line of apsides. 0 degrees indicates that the major axis of the ellipse is in the plane of sky. Note as well that HJD$_{0}$ is given as the ascending node passage minus $\mathrm{P_{orb}/4}$ to be consistent with our definition for the circular orbit (see eq. (\ref{eq:orbit})).
Computing the F-statistic we tested whether eccentricity was needed in our model. Assuming a locally linear model, the variable $X = \chi^{2}_{circ} - \chi^{2}_{ecc}$ should itself have a $\chi^2$ distribution with 2 dof (the eccentricity fit parameters), independent of the $\chi^{2}$ of the 114 degrees of freedom of the eccentric orbit.
\begin{equation*}
\rm{F} = \frac{(\chi^{2}_{circ} - \chi^{2}_{ecc})/2}{\chi^{2}_{ecc}/114} = 11.24
\end{equation*}
should then be distributed as F(2;114) under the null hypothesis that the orbit is circular. The chances of such a large value are very small, meaning we reject the null hypothesis at the 99.9\% significance level in favour of an eccentric orbit.
Although formally significant the heterogeneous nature of our data and the limited phase coverage lead us to be wary of claiming a definitive detection of eccentricity. However, it is equally true that the orbit could be significantly non-circular.
\subsection{The nature of the companion}
We determined the spectral type of the companion star by minimizing the residuals after subtracting different template star spectra from the mean red PG\,1018--047\ spectrum in the wavelength region between 6390\,\AA\ and 6700\,\AA. We masked out $H_{\alpha}$, because the line contains a large contribution from the sdB. This optimal subtraction routine \citep{MRW1994} is sensitive to both the rotational broadening $v_{rot}\sin i$ and the fractional contribution $f$ of the companion star to the total flux.
We used template stars from two different origins in the spectral range F0 to M9: Kurucz models (Munari et al. 2005, solar composition) and 43 real star templates \citep{mon1997}. All templates were prepared so that they had the same wavelength coverage and resolution as our normalised PG\,1018--047\ spectrum in the $H_{\alpha}$\ region.
Figure \ref{fig:kurucz} clearly shows the difference in $\chi^{2}$ between the dwarf and (sub)giant templates. The main sequence models, which have the lowest $\chi^{2}$-values, show a distinct minimum at spectral type K4 - K6, whereas the (sub)giant models seem to converge to a spectral type G5. This is consistent with the set of template spectra from \citet{mon1997} as well, where we find the best $\chi^{2}$ for the K5V star HD\,201091 (61 Cyg A), followed by a K7V and K3V star. For M stars the worst values are found. The best non-dwarf templates were both G5 stars.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{minipage}{80mm}
\epsfig{file=Fig5.eps, width=8cm, height=5.8cm}
\caption{Results of the optimal subtraction routine for the Kurucz templates. The circle curve are the results for dwarf stars, whereas the triangles and squares plot the reduced $\chi^{2}$ versus spectral type for respectively subgiant and giant stars.}\label{fig:kurucz}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}
Since PG\,1018--047\ was observed by 2MASS, we adopt a similar approach as \citet{SW2003} as a complementary way to identify the spectral type of the companion star.
We choose to focus on $J-K_{S}$ versus $B-V$ and $J-K_{S}$ versus $V-K_{S}$ and converted the Str\"omgren magnitudes to the Johnson system following the approach of \citet{tur1990}. The calculated colours are given in the lower part of table \ref{tbl:phot}.
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{minipage}{80mm}
\caption[Magnitudes and colours for PG\,1018--047.]{\textit{Magnitudes and colours for PG\,1018--047. The $B-V$ colour is calculated using the transformation formula from Turner (1990)}.}\label{tbl:phot}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{cccc}\hline\hline
\multicolumn{2}{c}{2MASS (infrared)} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Str\"omgren (visual)} \\
\multicolumn{2}{c}{(\underline{Skrutskie et al. 2006})} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{(\underline{Wesemael et al 1992})} \\
J $\;\:$ & = 13.298 (.026) & y & = 13.320 (.005) \\
H$\;\:$ & = 12.980 (.027) & b-y & = -0.086 (.004) \\
K$_S$ & = 12.928 (.033) & u-b & = -0.073 (.006) \\
& & m$_1$ & = $\;$0.076 (.013) \\\hline
& \multicolumn{2}{c}{ \underline{Calculated colours}} & \\
& B-V$\;$ & = -0.20 (.007)\\
& J-K$_S$ & = 0.370 (.042) \\
& V-K$_S$ & = 0.392 (.038) \\\hline\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{minipage}
\end{table}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\begin{minipage}{160mm}
\centering
\epsfig{file=Fig6.eps, width=14cm}
\caption{Grid of composite colours in $B-V$ versus $J-K_{S}$ space by combining the light from a typical hot subdwarf with that of a population I main-sequence star assuming various fractional contributions to the total light in the $V$ band by the late-type star. The blue dot marks the values for PG\,1018--047. A close-up is shown in the small inset figure. The diagonal cyan line indicates the location of the population I main sequence.}
\label{fig:45}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure*}
The next step is to compare the PG\,1018--047\ colours to a theoretical grid of colours for sdB-MS binaries while varying the fraction of light at $V$ that arises from the companion. Defining this fraction as
\begin{equation*}
f=\frac{F_{V_{\rm{MS}}}}{F_{V}}=\frac{F_{V_{\rm{MS}}}}{F_{V_{\rm{sdB}}}+F_{V_{\rm{MS}}}},
\end{equation*}
we find the combined colour (e.g. for B--V) from the expression
\small{}
\begin{eqnarray*}
\lefteqn{(B-V)_{\rm{sdB+MS}} = }\\
& & -2.5\log\left[(1-f)\cdot10^{-(B-V)_{\rm{sdB}}/2.5} + f\cdot 10^{-(B-V)_{\rm{MS}}/2.5}\right].
\end{eqnarray*}
\normalsize{}
Colour indices for late-type stars are taken from \citet{john1966}. The typical colours for a single sdB we take from \citet{SW2003}.
Figure \ref{fig:45} shows that as the fractional contribution $f$ at $V$ from the secondary increases, the $B-V$ index shifts to redder values. On the other hand, the cooler the companion becomes, the more the $K_{S}$-band dominates the $J-K_{S}$ index. Swapping the $B-V$ index for the $V-K_{S}$ colour shows a similar trend. Zooming in on PG\,1018--047, we find a spectral classification $K3 - K6$, which is consistent with the results from the optimal subtraction routine. We estimate the contribution of the secondary to be $6.1\pm1.0\,\%$ in the V-band. \\
\section{Discussion}\label{sec:discussion}
The role of the long period binary system PG\,1018--047\ in refining our understanding of the origin and evolution of hot subdwarf stars depends on whether its present orbit is circular or eccentric.
\subsection{Evolution assuming a circular orbit}
If PG\,1018--047\, indeed has a circular orbit, one can assume that tidal interaction has occurred between the sdB and the dK5 star. This means that from a theoretical point of view PG\,1018--047\ might be an important system, as it becomes a good candidate for formation through the first stable Roche lobe overflow channel described by \citet{han2003}. From Figure 15 in \citet{han2003} we deduce that an sdB binary with a mid-K companion is feasible.
However these systems are all subgiants and giants evolved from B stars (i.e. more massive stars at a later evolutionary state).
Also, to have stable RLOF on the first giant branch onto a companion that is only 0.6-0.7$\,\rm{M_{\odot}}$ and still to end up with such a long period, mass transfer would have to be close to conservative to avoid excessive angular momentum loss. If we want the mass donor to evolve in a Hubble time, it must have started with an initial mass of 0.8$\,M_{\odot}$ or greater, meaning that the initial mass of the present K star must have been no more than $\sim$0.3-0.4$\,\rm{M_{\odot}}$. But then the initial mass ratio $q_0 \gtrsim 2$ is not compatible with conservative mass transfer on the red giant branch, leading to a contradiction.
Second we can consider the alternative common-envelope prescription from \citet{nel2000}. In \citet{nel2010}, a population of sdB stars is simulated in which the first phase of mass transfer can be described by this alternative common-envelope prescription \citep{nel2001a}. Interestingly, in that model a substantial fraction of the sdB stars with low and intermediate mass main sequence companions have rather large orbital periods (100\,-\,1000 days, see their Figure 2) and the parameters of PG\,1018--047\ actually fall right in a densely populated area of the model. Thus a sample of these long-period sdB binaries will give another way of testing the outcome of the common-envelope phase.
\subsection{Evolution assuming an eccentric orbit}
\citet{CW2011} propose that binaries similar to PG\,1018--047\ can be the remnants of original hierarchical triple systems, in which the inner binary has merged and evolved into the sdB star, and the outer (current sdB+MS) binary was never tidally interacting and is thus irrelevant to the production of the sdB. In the \citet{han2002, han2003} merger scenario, two helium white dwarfs merge to make an object capable of core helium burning, and the resulting range of masses for the sdB star is 0.3-0.8$\,\rm{M_{\odot}}$. In the new formation channel proposed by \citet{CW2011}, a helium white dwarf merges with a low-mass hydrogen-burning star whose resultant total mass is $\sim$0.6$\,\rm{M_{\odot}}$. Depending on the mixing history, this object has either a pre-formed helium core or is helium-enriched throughout, and the star experiences a greatly accelerated evolution to the tip of the red giant branch. Only minimal loss is required to remove the residual hydrogen envelope from this object at the time of normal degenerate helium ignition, so the expected mass range for the sdB star in this channel is narrow and at the "canonical" value $\sim$0.5$\,\rm{M_{\odot}}$. There is ample room inside the $\sim$760 day orbit of the present-day PG\,1018--047\ binary system to accomodate an inner binary which underwent such evolution, and there is no cause for the outer orbit to have been circularised.
The \citet{CW2011} scenario could account for stars like PG\,1018--047\ with long (and possibly eccentric) binary orbits. Stable RLOF on the other hand predicts perfectly circular orbits.
\section{Conclusions}
With an orbital period of 760 $\pm$ 4.7 days, PG\,1018--047\ is the first long period sdB+MS system for which a period has been determined. The spectral type of the companion was found to be a K5 dwarf star, consistent with the mass ratio $M_{\rm MS}/M_{\rm sdB} = 1.6 \pm 0.2$ derived from the radial velocity amplitudes of both stars. However, one has to note that the stated numbers are only indicative of the true orbital parameters, since they are sensitive to the exact uncertainties assigned to the RV data and the assumption of a circular versus eccentric orbit.
At first sight PG\,1018--047\ is a good candidate for formation through stable Roche lobe overflow if the orbit can be demonstrated to be circular. The predicted number of sdB binaries formed through this channel amounts to the largest contribution of sdB binaries according to binary population synthesis calculations \citep{han2002, han2003}. At the same time, the number of known binaries that have been confirmed as having formed through this channel is small/nil compared to those formed through the common envelope channels. Alternatively, if the common envelope is governed by the gamma-formalism for the common envelope, as used in \citet{nel2010}, there is a population of long period post-common envelope binaries with low-mass secondaries. Thus observing more of these binaries can constrain the first phase of mass transfer.
If the orbit turns out to be eccentric, the present binary may instead be the remnant of a hierarchical triple-star progenitor system, as outlined by \citet{CW2011}.
Further observations are needed to better establish the orbit of PG\,1018--047.
\normalsize{}
\section*{Acknowledgments}
TRM and CMC was supported under a Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC) rolling grant during the course of this work.
RH\O\ has received funding from the European Research Council under the European Community's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007--2013) /ERC grant agreement N$^{\underline{\mathrm o}}$\,227224 ({\sc prosperity}), as well as from the Research Council of K. U. Leuven grant agreement GOA/2008/04.
LM-R was supported by a PPARC post-doctoral grant and by NWO-VIDI grant 639.042.201 to P. J. Groot during this work. R.A.W. and M.A.S. gratefully acknowledge support from NSF grant AST-0908642. The Isaac Newton and William Herschel Telescopes are operated on the Island of La Palma by the Isaac Newton Group in the Spanish Observatorio del Roque de los Muchachos of the Instituto de Astrof\'isica de Canarias. We thank PATT for their support of this program. We also thank the ING service scheme for obtaining some of the data. This paper uses observations made at the South African Astronomical Observatory (SAAO). A portion of the data reported herein was obtained with the Hobby-Eberly Telescope (HET), which is a joint project of the University of Texas at Austin, the Pennsylvania State University, Stanford University University, Ludwig-Maximillians-Universit\"atM\"unchen, and Georg-August-Universit\"at G\"ottingen. The HET is named in honor of its principal benefactors, William P. Hobby and Robert E. Eberly. This paper also uses observations made with the Nordic Optical Telescope, operated on the island of La Palma jointly by Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden, in the Spanish Observatorio del Roque de los Muchachos of the Instituto de Astrof\'isica de Canarias.\\
|
\section{Introduction}
The Steiner distance of a set of vertices of a graph was introduced
as a generalization of the distance between two vertices
\cite{chartrand-first}. In this sense, Steiner sets in graphs could
be understood as a generalization of geodetic sets in graphs.
Nevertheless, its relationship is not exactly obvious. Some of the
primary results in this topic were presented in
\cite{chartrand-zhang}, where the authors tried to obtain a result
relating geodetic sets and Steiner sets. That is, they tried to show
that every Steiner set of a graph is also a geodetic set.
Fortunately, the author of \cite{pelayo-comment} showed by a
counterexample that not every Steiner set of a graph is a
geodetic set, and it was pointed out an open question related
to characterizing those graphs satisfying that every Steiner set is
geodetic or vice versa. Some relationships between Steiner sets and
geodetic sets were obtained in
\cite{pelayo-1,chartrand-zhang,li-da-tong,SteinerGeodetic,pelayo-comment}.
For instance, \cite{pelayo-1} was dedicated to obtain some families
of graphs in which every Steiner set is a geodetic set, but the
problem of characterizing such a graphs remains open.
In this work we show some classes of graph in which every Steiner
set is a geodetic set. For instance, we prove that if $G$ is a graph
with diameter two, then every Steiner set of $G$ is also a geodetic
set. We also obtain some relationships between the Steiner (geodetic)
sets of corona product graphs and the Steiner (geodetic) sets of its
factors and, as a consequence of this study, we obtain that if $G$ is a corona product graph, then every Steiner set of $G$ is a
geodetic set.
We begin by stating some terminology and notation. In this paper $G=
(V,E)$ denotes a connected simple graph of order $n=|V|$. We denote two adjacent vertices $u$ and $v$ by $u\sim v$. Given
a set $W\subset V$ and a vertex $v\in V$, $N_W(v)$ represents the
set of neighbors that $v$ has in $W$, i.e. $N_W(v)=\{u\in
W\,:\,u\sim v\}$. The subgraph induced by a set $W\subset V$ will be denoted by $\langle W\rangle$.
The distance $d_G(u,v)$ between two vertices $u$ and
$v$ is the length of a shortest $u-v$ path in $G$. If there is no ambiguity, we will use the notation $d(u,v)$ instead of $d_G(u,v)$.
A shortest $u-v$ path is called $u-v$ \textit{geodesic}.
We define $I_G[u,v]$\footnote{If there is no ambiguity, then we will
use $I[u,v]$.} to be the set of all vertices lying on some $u-v$
geodesic of $G$, and for a nonempty set $S\subseteq V$,
$I_G[S]=\bigcup_{u,v\in S}I_G[u,v]$ ($I[S]$ for short). A set
$S\subseteq V$ is a \textit{geodetic set} of $G$ if
$I_G[S]=V$ and a geodetic set of minimum cardinality is called a
\textit{minimum geodetic set} \cite{HaLoTs}. The cardinality of a minimum geodetic set of $G$ is called the \textit{geodetic number} of $G$ and it is
denoted by $g(G)$. A vertex $v\in V$ is \emph{geodominated} by a pair
$x,y\in V$ if $v$ lies on an $x-y$ geodesic of $G$. For an integer
$k\ge 2$, a vertex $v$ of a graph $G$ is $k$-\emph{geodominated} by a pair
$x,y$ of vertices in $G$ if $d(x,y)=k$ and $v$ lies on an $x-y$
geodesic of $G$. A subset $S\subseteq V$ is a \textit{$k$-geodetic
set} if each vertex $v$ in $\overline{S}=V - S$ is
$k$-geodominated by some pair of vertices of $S$. The minimum
cardinality of a $k$-geodetic set of $G$ is its \textit{$k$-geodetic
number} $g_k(G)$. It is clear that $g(G)\leq g_k(G)$ for every $k$.
For a nonempty set $W$ of vertices of a connected graph, the \emph{Steiner
distance} $d(W)$ of $W$ is the minimum size of a connected subgraph
of $G$ containing $W$ \cite{chartrand-first}. Necessarily, such a
subgraph is a tree and it is called a \emph{Steiner tree} with respect to
$W$ or a Steiner $W$-tree, for short. For a set $W\subseteq V$, the
set of all vertices of $G$ lying on some Steiner $W$-tree is denoted
by $S_G[W]$ (or by $S[W]$, if there is no ambiguity). If $S_G[W]=V$,
then $W$ is called a Steiner set of $G$. The \emph{Steiner number} of a graph $G$,
denoted by $s(G)$, is the minimum cardinality among the Steiner sets of $G$.
Let $G$ and $H$ be two graphs and let $n$ be the order of $G$.
The corona product $G\odot H$ is defined as the graph obtained from
$G$ and $H$ by taking one copy of $G$ and $n$ copies of $H$ and
then joining by an edge, all the vertices from the $i^{th}$-copy of
$H$ with the $i^{th}$-vertex of $G$. Throughout the article we will
denote by $V=\{v_1,v_2,...,v_{n}\}$ the set of vertices of $G$ and by $H_i=(V_i,E_i)$ the copy of $H$ in $G\odot H$ such that $v_i\sim v$ for every $v\in V_i$.
\section{Geodetic number of corona product graphs}
We begin by stating some results that we will use as tool in this section. The first one is the following well-known result.
\begin{lemma}{\em \cite{HaLoTs}}\label{geo-kn}
Let $G$ be a connected graph of order $n$. Then $g(G)=n$ if and only
if $G\cong K_n$.
\end{lemma}
Our second tool will be the following useful lemma related to the geodetic
sets of corona product graphs.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma-principal-geo}
Let $G=(V,E)$ be a connected graph of order $n$ and let $H$ be a
graph. Let $H_1=(V_1,E_1),H_2=(V_2,E_2),...,H_{n}=(V_{n},E_{n})$ be the
$n$ copies of $H$ in $G\odot H$.
\begin{itemize}
\item[{\rm (i)}] Given three different vertices $a$, $b$ and $v$ of $G\odot H$, if $v\in V_i$ and $(a\notin V_i$ or $b\notin V_i)$, then $v\notin I_{G\odot H}[a,b]$.
\item[{\rm (ii)}] If $W$ is a geodetic set of $G\odot H$, then $W\cap V_i\ne \emptyset$, for every $i\in \{1,...,n\}$.
\item[{\rm (iii)}] If $W$ is a minimum geodetic set of $G\odot H$ and either $n\ge 2$ or $(n=1$ and $H$ is a non-complete graph$)$,
then $W\cap V=\emptyset$.
\item[{\rm (iv)}] If $H$ is a non-complete graph and $W$ is a minimum geodetic set of $G\odot H$, then for every
$i\in \{1,...,n\}, $ $W_i=W\cap V_i$ is a geodetic set of
$\langle v_i\rangle \odot H_i$.
\end{itemize}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} (i) and (ii) follow directly from the fact that the vertices belonging to $V_i$ are adjacent to only one vertex not in $V_i$.
Now let $W'$ be a geodetic set of $G\odot H$ and let $W=W'-V$. We will show that $W$ is a geodetic set of
$G\odot H$. By (ii) we have that for every $i\in
\{1,...,n\}$ it is satisfied, $W\cap V_i\ne \emptyset$, and by
(i), we have that if $v\in V_i$, then there exist $a',b'\in V_i\cap W$,
such that $v\in I_{G\odot H}[a',b']$. Now, if $n\ge 2$, then for
every vertex $v_i\in V$ we have that $v_i\in I_{G\odot H}[c,d]$,
with $c\in W\cap V_i$ and $d\in W\cap V_j$, $j\ne i$. Thus, $W$
is a geodetic set of $G\odot H$. On the other hand, if $n=1$ and
$H$ is a non-complete graph, then $G\odot H$ is a non-complete graph and, by Lemma \ref{geo-kn}, $g(G\odot H)\le n_2$, where $n_2$ is the order of $H$. Hence, $\langle W\rangle$ is
not isomorphic to a complete graph. So, there exist two vertices $x,y\in W$ such that the vertex of $G\cong K_1$ belongs to $
I_{G\odot H}[x,y]$. Moreover, by (i), every vertex of $\overline{W}$ different from the vertex of $G$ is
geodominated by two vertices of $W$. Thus, $W$ is a
geodetic set of $G\odot H$ and, as a consequence, (iii) follows.
Finally, let $H$ be a non-complete graph and let $W$ be a minimum geodetic set of $G\odot H$. By (ii) we have that $W_i=W\cap V_i\ne \emptyset$. Also, by (iii) we have that $V\cap W=\emptyset$. Now we suppose that $W_i$ is not a geodetic set of $\langle v_i\rangle \odot H_i$.
Hence, there exists $v\in V_i\cup \{v_i\}$ such that $v\notin
I_{\langle v_i\rangle \odot H_i}[x,y]$ for every $x,y\in W_i$. By (i) we have that if $v\in V_i-W$, then $v$ must be geodominated by vertices of $W_i$, which is a contradiction, so $v\not\in V_i$, i.e., $v=v_i$. Now, since
$v_i$ is adjacent to every vertex of $H_i$ and $H_i$ is a non-complete graph, we obtain that there exist two non-adjacent vertices $c,d$ of $H_i$ such that $c,d\in W_i$. Hence, $v_i\in I_{\langle v_i\rangle \odot H_i}[c,d]$, a contradiction. Therefore, (iv) follows.
\end{proof}
The following relation between $g(H)$ and $g(K_1\odot H)$, which we will
use here, was obtained in \cite{pelayo-1}.
\begin{lemma}{\em \cite{pelayo-1}}\label{geo-H-K1+H}
For any graph $H$, $g(K_1\odot H)\ge g(H)$.
\end{lemma}
A vertex $v$ is an extreme vertex in a graph
$G$ if the subgraph induced by its neighbors is complete.
The following lemma is a consequence of the observation
that each extreme vertex $v$ of $G$ is either the initial or
terminal vertex of a geodesic containing $v$.
\begin{lemma}{\em \cite{ChHaZh3}}\label{lemmaExtreme} Every geodetic set of a graph contains its
extreme vertices.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proposition}\label{general-bound-geo}
Let $G$ be a connected graph of order $n_1$ and let $H$ be a graph
of order $n_2$. If $n_1\ge 2$ or $(n_1=1$ and $H$ is a non-complete graph$)$, then $$n_1g(H)\le g(G\odot H)\le n_1n_2.$$
The upper bound is achieved if and only if $H$ is isomorphic
to a graph in which every connected component is isomorphic to a
complete graph.
Moreover, if no connected component of $H$ is isomorphic to a
complete graph, then $$g(G\odot H)\le n_1(n_2-1).$$
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
If $H\cong K_{n_2}$, the vertices of the set $\cup_{i=1}^{n_1} V_i$ are extreme vertices. Then, by Lemma \ref{lemmaExtreme} we have $g(G\odot K_{n_2})\ge n_1n_2=n_1g(K_{n_2}).$ For non-complete graphs the lower bound follows directly from Lemma \ref{lemma-principal-geo} (iv)
and Lemma \ref{geo-H-K1+H}. On the other hand, if $n_1\ge 2$, then every vertex
$v_i\in V$ is geodominated, in $G\odot H$, by two vertices belonging
to different copies of $H$. So, the set $\bigcup_{i=1}^{n_1}V_i$ is
a geodetic set of $G\odot H$. Thus, $g(G\odot H)\le n_1n_2$. Finally, if $n_1=1$, then the order of $G\odot H$ is $n_2+1$. Hence, if $H$ is a non-complete graph, then Lemma \ref{geo-kn} leads to the upper bound $g(K_1\odot H)\le n_2$.
Now, let us suppose that
there is a component of $H$ which is not isomorphic to a complete
graph. In such a case, there are three different vertices $u_i,x_i,y_i\in V_i$
such that $u_i\in I_{H_i}[x_i,y_i]$, with $i\in \{1,...,n_1\}$. Let $V=\{v_1,...,v_{n_1}\}$,
$U_i=V_i-\{u_i\}$, with $i\in \{1,...,n_1\}$, and let
$U=\bigcup_{i=1}^{n_1}U_i$. We will show that $U$ is a geodetic set of $G\odot H$. Since for every vertex $u_i\in \overline{U}_i$ we have
that $u_i\in I_{H_i}[x_i,y_i]$, we obtain that $u_i\in I_{G\odot
H}[U]$. Also, as for every $v_i\in V$, we have that $v_i\in
I_{G\odot H}[a,b]$, for some $a\in U_i$ and $b\in U_j$, with $i\ne
j$, we obtain that $v_i\in I_{G\odot H}[U]$. Therefore, $U$ is a
geodetic set of $G\odot H$ and, as a consequence, $g(G\odot H)\le |U|=n_1(n_2-1)$. Therefore, if $g(G\odot H)=n_1n_2$, then $H$
is isomorphic to a graph in which every connected component is
isomorphic to a complete graph.
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}\label{geodetic-corona-suma}
Let $G$ be a connected graph of order $n$ and let $H$ be a non-complete graph. Then, $$g(G\odot H)=ng(K_1\odot H).$$
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Let $W$ be a minimum geodetic set of $G\odot H$. From
Lemma \ref{lemma-principal-geo} (iii) we have that $W\cap V=\emptyset$. Also, by Lemma
\ref{lemma-principal-geo} (ii) and (iv) we have that for every $i\in
\{1,...,n\}$, the set $W_i=W\cap V_i\ne \emptyset$ is a geodetic set of
$\langle v_i\rangle \odot H_i\cong K_1\odot H$. Hence, we have
$$g(G\odot H)=|W|=\sum_{i=1}^{n}|W_i|\ge \sum_{i=1}^{n}g(\left\langle v_i\right\rangle \odot H_i)=ng(K_1\odot H).$$
On the other hand, let $U_i\subset V_i\cup \{v_i\}$ be a minimum geodetic set of
$\left\langle v_i\right\rangle \odot H_i$ and let $U=\cup_{i=1}^{n}U_i$. Notice that, by Lemma \ref{lemma-principal-geo} (iii),
$v_i\not\in U_i$. We will show that $U$ is a geodetic set of
$G\odot H$. Let us consider a vertex $x$ of $G\odot H$. We have the
following cases.
Case 1: If $x\in (V_i\cup\{v_i\})-U_i$, then there exist $u,v\in
U_i$ such that $x\in I_{\left\langle v_i\right\rangle \odot H_i}[u,v]$. So, $x\in I_{G\odot
H}[u,v]$.
Case 2: If $x=v_i\in V$ and $n\ge 2$, then for every vertex $v\in
U_i$ and some $u\in U_j$, $j\ne i$ we have that $x\in I_{G\odot
H}[u,v]$. Also, if $x\in V$ and $n=1$, then as $H$ is a non-complete graph, there exist two different vertices $a,b\in U=U_1$, such that
$x\in I_{G\odot H}[a,b]$.
Thus, every vertex $x$ of $G\odot H$ is geodominated by a pair of
vertices of $U$ and, as a consequence, $g(G\odot H)\le ng(K_1\odot H)$.
Therefore, we obtain that $g(G\odot H)= ng(K_1\odot H)$.
\end{proof}
The geodetic number of wheel graphs and fan graphs were studied in
\cite{pelayo-1} and \cite{canoy}.
\begin{remark}{\rm \cite{pelayo-1}}\label{geo-wheel}
If $n\ge 4$, then
$g(W_{1,n})={\left\lceil{\frac{n}{2}}\right\rceil}$.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}{\rm \cite{pelayo-1,canoy}}\label{geo-fan}
If $n\ge 3$, then
$g(F_{1,n})={\left\lceil{\frac{n+1}{2}}\right\rceil}$.
\end{remark}
As a particular cases of Theorem \ref{geodetic-corona-suma} and by
using the above remarks we obtain the following results.
\begin{corollary}
Let $G$ be a connected graph of order $n_1$.
\begin{itemize}
\item[{\rm (i)}]If $n_2\ge 4$, then $g(G\odot
C_{n_2})=n_1g(W_{1,n_2})=n_1\left\lceil\frac{n_2}{2}\right\rceil$.
\item[{\rm (ii)}]If $n_2\ge 3$, then $g(G\odot
P_{n_2})=n_1g(F_{1,n_2})=n_1\left\lceil\frac{n_2+1}{2}\right\rceil$.
\end{itemize}
\end{corollary}
>From Lemma \ref{geo-H-K1+H} we have that $g(K_1\odot H)\ge g(H)$. Hence,
Theorem \ref{geodetic-corona-suma} leads to the lower bound of Proposition
\ref{general-bound-geo}. Now we are interested in those graphs in which
$g(H)=g(K_1\odot H)$.
\begin{theorem}\label{geodetic-iff-2-geo}
For a connected graph $H$, the following statements are equivalent:
\begin{itemize}
\item $g(H)=g(K_1\odot H)$.
\item $g(H)=g_{_2}(H)$.
\end{itemize}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} Let us suppose $g(H)=g_{_2}(H)$. Let $W$ be a $2$-geodetic set of minimum cardinality in $H$. Hence, for every vertex $u\in
\overline{W}$ there exist $a,b\in W$, such that $u\in I_H[a,b]$ and
$d_H(a,b)=2$. Since every geodesic of length two in $H$ is a
geodesic in $K_1\odot H$, we have that $W$ is a geodetic set of $K_1\odot H$.
As a consequence, $g(H)\ge g(K_1\odot H)$. Hence, by Lemma \ref{geo-H-K1+H}
we conclude that $g(H)=g(K_1\odot H)$.
On the other hand, let us suppose $g(H)=g(K_1\odot H)$. Let $U$ be a
minimum geodetic set of $K_1\odot H$ and let $v$ be the
vertex of $K_1$. Since $H$ can not be a complete graph, by Lemma \ref{lemma-principal-geo} (iii) we have
that $v\notin U$.
Now, since $K_1\odot H$ has diameter two, we have that for
every vertex $u$ of $H$ not belonging to $U$, there exist $a,b\in U$ such that $u\in
I_{K_1\odot H}[a,b]$ and $d_{H}(a,b)=2$ (Note that if $d_{H}(a,b)>2$, then $u\not\in I_{K_1\odot H}[a,b]=\{a,b,v\}$). Hence, $U$ is a $2$-geodetic set of $H$. Thus, $g_{_2}(H)\le
|U|=g(K_1\odot H)=g(H)$. Also, as $g(H)\le
g_{_2}(H)$, we obtain that $g(H)=g_{_2}(H)$.
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}\label{Thgeodetic2geodetic}
Let $G$ be a connected graph of order $n$ and let $H$ be a connected non-complete graph. Then the following statements are equivalent:
\begin{itemize}
\item $g(G\odot H)=ng(H)$.
\item $g(H)=g_{_2}(H)$.
\end{itemize}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
The result is a direct consequence of Theorem \ref{geodetic-corona-suma} and Theorem \ref{geodetic-iff-2-geo}.
\end{proof}
Since for every graph $H$ of diameter two we have $g(H)=g_{_2}(H)$, Theorem \ref{Thgeodetic2geodetic} leads to the following result.
\begin{corollary}\label{geodeticDiam2GH=n1H-Corollary}
Let $G$ be a connected graph of order $n$ and let $H$ be a
graph. If $D(H)=2$, then $$g(G\odot
H)=ng(H).$$
\end{corollary}
Another consequence of Theorem \ref{geodetic-iff-2-geo} is the following result.
\begin{corollary}
Let $G$ and $H$ be two connected graphs of order $n_1$ and $n_2$, respectively. Let $N_k$ be the empty graph of order $k\ge 2$. Then
$$g(G\odot (H\odot N_k))=n_1n_2k.$$
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
The result follows from the fact that $g(H\odot N_k)=g_{_2}(H\odot N_k)=n_2k$. That is, the set composed by the $n_2k$ pendant vertices of $H\odot N_k$ form a geodetic set of $H\odot N_k$ which is a 2-geodetic set. So, $g(H\odot N_k)\le g_{_2}(H\odot N_k)\le n_2k$. Moreover, since every pendant vertex is an extreme vertex, by Lemma \ref{lemmaExtreme} we have $g(H\odot N_k)\ge n_2k$. Therefore, the result follows.
\end{proof}
The following result improves the lower bound in Proposition \ref{general-bound-geo} for those graphs whose geodetic number is different from its 2-geodetic number.
\begin{theorem}
Let $G$ be a connected graph of order $n$ and let $H$ be a non-complete graph.
If $g(H)\ne g_{_2}(H)$, then $$g(G\odot H)\ge n\left( g(H)- 1\right).$$
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
As a direct consequence of Theorem \ref{geodetic-iff-2-geo} and Lemma \ref{geo-H-K1+H} we obtain that, if $g(H)\ne g_{_2}(H)$, then
\begin{equation}\label{eqIntermedia}
g(K_1\odot H)\ge g(H)- 1.
\end{equation} Hence, the result follows directly by Theorem \ref{geodetic-corona-suma} and (\ref{eqIntermedia}).
\end{proof}
\section{Steiner number of corona product graphs}
In this section the main tool will be the following basic lemma.
\begin{lemma}\label{lema-steiner-new}
Let $G=(V,E)$ be a connected graph of order $n_1$ and let $H$ be a graph
of order $n_2$. Let $H_1=(V_1,E_1),H_2=(V_2,E_2),...,H_{n}=(V_{n},E_{n})$ be the
$n_1$ copies of $H$ in $G\odot H$.
\begin{enumerate}[{\rm (i)}]
\item If $n_1\ge 2$ and $A\subseteq \cup_{i=1}^{n_1}V_i$ with $A\cap V_i\ne \emptyset$, for every $i\in \{1,...,n_1\}$, then every Steiner $A$-tree contains all vertices of $G$
\item If $U$ is a Steiner set of $G\odot H$, then $U\cap V_i\ne \emptyset$, for every $i\in \{1,...,n\}$.
\item If $n_1\ge 2$ or $n_2\ge 2$, then for every Steiner set $U$ of minimum cardinality in $G\odot H$ it follows $U\cap V=\emptyset$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
(i) follows from the fact that if there exists a Steiner $A$-tree $T$ not containing a vertex of $G$, then $T$ is not connected, which is a contradiction. (ii) follows directly from the fact that the vertices belonging to $V_i$ are adjacent to only one vertex not in $V_i$.
Now let $U'$ be a Steiner set of $G\odot H$ and let $U=U'-V$. We will show that $U$ is a Steiner set for
$G\odot H$. By (ii) we have that $U\cap V_i\ne \emptyset$, for every $i\in \{1,...,n\}$. Also, if $v\in V_i$, then we have that there exists a
Steiner $U$-tree in $G\odot H$ such that it contains the vertex $v$. Now, since $n_1\ge 2$ we obtain that
every vertex $v_i\in V$ belongs to every Steiner $U$-tree (note that every shortest $u-v$ path, where $v\in V_i$ and $u\in V_j$, $j\ne i$, must contain $v_i$). Thus, $U$ is a Steiner set for
$G\odot H$ and (iii) follows.
\end{proof}
The next lemmas obtained in \cite{chartrand-zhang} will be useful to obtain
our results.
\begin{lemma}{\em \cite{chartrand-zhang}}\label{steiner-kn}
Let $G$ be a connected graph of order $n$. Then $s(G)=n$ if and only
if $G\cong K_n$.
\end{lemma}
Before present our main results about the Steiner number, let us show the following useful lemma.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma+K1Steiner}
For any graph $G$, $s(K_1\odot G)\ge s(G)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $n$ be the order of $G$. If $G\cong K_n$, then $K_1\odot G\cong K_{n+1}$, so by Lemma \ref{steiner-kn}, $s(K_1\odot G)=n+1>n=s(G).$ If $G\not\cong K_n$, then the result follows immediately from Lemma \ref{lema-steiner-new} (iii).
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}\label{general-bound-stein}
Let $G=(V,E)$ be a connected graph of order $n_1$ and let $H$ be a graph
of order $n_2$. If $n_1\ge 2$, then $s(G\odot H)=n_1n_2.$
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Let $A=\cup_{i=1}^{n_1}V_i$. By Lemma \ref{lema-steiner-new} (iii) we have that every Steiner set of minimum cardinality is a subset of $A$. Thus, $A$ is a Steiner set of $G\odot H$ and, as a consequence, $s(G\odot H)\le n_1n_2.$
Now, let us suppose $B$ is a Steiner set of minimum cardinality in $G\odot H$. By Lemma \ref{lema-steiner-new} (iii) we have that $B$ does not contain any vertex of $G$. Now, let us suppose there exists a vertex $v_i\in V$ such that $B\cap V_i\subsetneq V_i$. Let $B_i=B\cap V_i$ and let $u\in V_i-B_i$. Since every vertex of $B_i$ is adjacent to $v_i$, and $v_i$ belongs to every Steiner $B$-tree $T$, we have that the size of the restriction of $T$ to $V_i\cup\{v_i\}$ is $|B_i|$. Thus, the vertex $u$ does not belong to any Steiner $B$-tree in $G\odot H$, which is a contradiction. Thus, for every $i\in \{1,...,n_1\}$ we have that $B\cap V_i=V_i$. Therefore, $s(G\odot H)\ge n_1n_2$. The proof is complete.
\end{proof}
The Steiner number of wheel graphs and fan graphs were studied in
\cite{pelayo-1} and \cite{canoy}.
\begin{remark}{\rm \cite{pelayo-1}}\label{stein-wheel}
If $n\ge 4$, then $s(W_{1,n})=n-2$.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}{\rm \cite{pelayo-1,canoy}}\label{stein-fan}
If $n\ge 3$, then $g(F_{1,n})=n-1$.
\end{remark}
\begin{theorem}\label{steinerK1+H-iff-diam2}
Let $H$ be a connected non complete graph. Then the following statements are equivalent:
\begin{itemize}
\item $s(K_1\odot H)=s(H)$.
\item $D(H)=2$.
\end{itemize}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Let $B$ be a Steiner set of minimum cardinality in $H$ and let $v$ be the vertex of $K_1$. If $D(H)=2$,
then there exist three vertices of $H$ such that $x,y\in B$ and $z\not \in B$, $d_H(x,y)=2$ and $x,y\in N_B(z)$.
So, if we take a Steiner $B$-tree $T$ in $H$ containing the path $xzy$, then replacing the vertex $z$ of $T$ by the vertex $v$, and replacing every edge $uz$ of T by a new edge $uv$, we obtain a Steiner $B$-tree $T'$ in $K_1\odot H$. Hence, $B$ is a Steiner set for $K_1\odot H$. Therefore, $s(H)\ge s(K_1\odot H)$ and, by Lemma \ref{lemma+K1Steiner}, we conclude $s(H)= s(K_1\odot H)$.
Now, let $H$ be a graph such that $s(K_1\odot H)=s(H)$. Let $W$ be a Steiner set of minimum cardinality in $K_1\odot H$ and let $v$ be the vertex of $K_1$. We first show that $W$ is a Steiner set for $H$. Note that by Lemma \ref{lema-steiner-new} (iii), $v\not\in W$. Since the star graph of center $v$ is a Steiner $W$-tree, we have that the Steiner distance of $W$ in $K_1\odot H$ is $d(W)=|W|$. If $\langle W\rangle$ is connected,
then $|W|$ is the order of $K_1\odot H$, which is a contradiction. Thus,
$\langle W\rangle$ is non connected. Let $\langle W_1\rangle$, $\langle W_2\rangle$, ...,$\langle W_k\rangle$ be the connected components of $\langle W\rangle$. If there exists a vertex $u$ of $H$ such that $u\not \in W$ and $N_{W_i}(u)=\emptyset$, for some $i$, then the Steiner distance of $W$ in $K_1\odot H$ is $d(W)>\sum_{i=1}^k|W_i|=|W|$, which is a contradiction. So, every vertex $u$ of $H$ not belonging to $W$ is at distance one to every connected component of $\langle W\rangle$ and, as a consequence, $W$ is a Steiner set of $H$, which has minimum cardinality since $s(K_1\odot H)=s(H)$.
Let us show that $D(H)=2$. On the contrary, we suppose that $D(H)\ge 3$ (note that $H$ is not a complete graph).
>From the assumption $D(H)\ge 3$, we conclude that for each vertex $u$ of $H$, not belonging to $W$, there exist $y\in W_i$ (for some $i$) such that $d(y,u)=2$. Let $x\in W_i$ be a neighbor of both $u$ and $y$, and let $W'=W-\{x\}$. Then we have that every Steiner $W$-tree of $H$ is a Steiner $W'$-tree of $H$ and, as a consequence, $W'$ is a Steiner set of $H$, which is a contradiction. Therefore, $D(H)=2$.
\end{proof}
\section{Relationships between the geodetic number and the Steiner number}
Here we show some classes of graphs where the Steiner number is greater than or equal to the geodetic number.
\begin{theorem}\label{geodetic-steiner-diam-2}
If $G$ is a graph of diameter two, then every Steiner set for $G$ is a geodetic set for $G$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Let $W$ be a Steiner set of minimum cardinality in $G$ and let $n$ be the order of $G$. If $\langle W\rangle$ is connected,
then $|W|=n$. So, by Lemma \ref{steiner-kn} we have that $G\cong
K_n$, which is a contradiction because $G$ has diameter two. Thus,
$\langle W\rangle$ is non connected. Let $\langle B_1\rangle,\langle B_2\rangle,...,\langle B_r\rangle$ be the
connected components of $W$. We assume that $W$ is not a geodetic set.
Then there exists a vertex $x$ of $G$ such that $x\not\in I[W]$.
Thus, $x\notin W$ and $x\notin I[u,v]$ for every $u,v\in W$. Hence,
$N_W(x)\subseteq B_i$, for some $i\in \{1,...,r\}$. Since $G$ has
diameter two, any Steiner $W$-tree is formed by $r$ Steiner
$B_i$-trees connected by vertices $v_1,v_2,...,v_t$, $t\ge 1$, not
belonging to $W$ such that $N_W(v_i)\not\subset B_j$, for every
$i\in \{1,...,t\}$ and $j\in \{1,...,r\}$. Hence,
$S[W]=\left(\bigcup_{i=1}^rB_i\right)\cup\left(\bigcup_{i=1}^t\{v_i\}\right)$.
Therefore $x\not\in S[W]$, which is a contradiction.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}\label{coro-geodetic-steiner-diam-2}
If $G$ is a graph of diameter two, then $g(G)\le s(G)$.
\end{corollary}
Now, from Theorem \ref{geodetic-corona-suma}, Proposition
\ref{general-bound-stein} and Corollary
\ref{coro-geodetic-steiner-diam-2} we obtain the following
interesting result in which we give an infinite number of graphs $G$
satisfying that $g(G)\le s(G)$.
\begin{theorem}
Let $G$ be a connected graph of order $n_1\ge 2$ and let $H$ be any
non complete graph of order $n_2$. Then, $$g(G\odot H)\le s(G\odot H).$$
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
By Theorem \ref{geodetic-corona-suma} we have that $g(G\odot
H)=ng(K_1\odot H)$. Since, $K_1\odot H$ has diameter two, by using Corollary
\ref{coro-geodetic-steiner-diam-2} we have that $g(K_1\odot H)\le
s(K_1\odot H)$. Finally, by Proposition \ref{general-bound-stein} we know that $s(G\odot H)=n_1n_2$. Hence,
$$g(G\odot H)=n_1g(K_1\odot H)\le n_1s(K_1\odot H)\le n_1n_2=s(G\odot H).$$
\end{proof}
\noindent{\large\bf Acknowledgments}
We would like to thank Dr. Ayyakutty Vijayan for his helpful suggestions and comments.
|
\section{Introduction}
One way to express complementarity of quantum mechanical observables is to
say that their eigenstates form a pair of mutually unbiased (MU) bases: if a system resides in an eigenstate of one of these observables, the
probability distribution to find the system in the eigenstates of the other observable is
\emph{flat}. The state space of a $d$-level system
accommodates maximally $(d+1)$ pairwise complementary observables known
as a \emph{complete set} of MU bases which satisfy
\begin{equation} \label{eq: overlaps}
| \bk{j_a}{k_b}|^{2}
= \frac{1}{d}(1-\delta_{ab})+\delta_{jk}\delta_{ab},\quad
j,k=0\ldots d-1,\,a,b=0\ldots d\,,
\end{equation}
where the set $\{\ket{j_a}\}$ for fixed $a$ is one orthonormal basis of $\mathbb{C}^{d}$. If it exists, a complete set allows one to reconstruct the unknown quantum state of a $d$-level system with least statistical redundancy \cite{ivanovic81,wootters+89} and to set up secure methods of quantum key distribution \cite{cerf+02}, for example.
In prime-power dimensions $d=p^{k}$, with $k$ a positive integer, complete sets of MU bases have been constructed in a number of ways \cite{wootters+89,bandyo+02,klappenecker+04,durt04}. The uses and known properties of MU bases for discrete and continuous \cite{Wilkinson+09} variables have been reviewed in \cite{Durt+10}.
For bipartite systems of composite dimension given by $d=pq$, with prime numbers $p<q$, say, complete sets of $(pq+1)$ MU bases have not been found, even for a quantum system with only six levels, i.e. $d=6$. In fact, all current evidence supports the conjecture \cite{zauner+99} that no more than \emph{three} MU bases exist in dimension six. Substantial numerical data \cite{butterley+07,brierley+08} seem to rule out the existence of more than three MU bases, while exact results drawn from both numerical calculations with rigorous error bounds \cite{Jaming+2009} and computer-algebraic methods \cite{grassl04,brierley+09} prove the impossibility to add more than one MU basis to specific given pairs. For the pair of MU bases corresponding to $\{ I,S_6\}$ it is not even possible to find a third MU basis \cite{brierley+10}; here $I$ is the identity matrix in $\mathbb{C}^{6}$ and $S_6$ is Tao's matrix \cite{tao04}.
The purpose of this contribution is to derive a rigorous result regarding the impossibility to extend certain pairs of MU bases in dimension six to complete sets. The special property of the MU bases we consider is that they only contain \emph{product} states $\ket{\psi,\Psi}\equiv \ket{\psi}\otimes \ket{\Psi}$ of the state space $\mathbb{C}^{6}$, with $\ket{\psi} \in \mathbb{C}^{2}$, and $\ket{\Psi} \in \mathbb{C}^{3}$. This approach complements studies of the entanglement structure of complete sets, mostly in prime power dimensions \cite{Romero+05,Wiesniak+11,Lawrence+11}. We will show that no \emph{pair} of MU product bases can figure in a complete set as stated by the following theorem.
\begin{thm}\label{thm:noproductbases}
If a complete set of seven MU bases in dimension six exists, it contains at most one product basis.
\end{thm}
This is, in fact, the \emph{strongest possible} bound on the number of MU product bases since one can always map one MU basis of a complete set to the standard basis. The proof will start from the exhaustive list of pairs of MU product bases of $\mathbb{C}^{6}$ constructed in \cite{mcnulty+11}. Not all of the listed pairs were given in the standard form which requires the first basis to be the computational basis \cite{weigert+10}. Thus, we will first bring the pairs of the list to standard form, using unitary equivalence transformations. We will find that the second MU product basis of each pair is mapped either to a member of the Fourier family of Hadamard matrices, discovered in \cite{haagerup97}, or to Tao's matrix \cite{tao04}. Using some of the results mentioned earlier, it is then straightforward to prove Theorem \ref{thm:noproductbases}.
To begin, we reproduce the set of pairs of MU product bases of a quantum system with six orthogonal states obtained in \cite{mcnulty+11}. They are expressed in terms of the complete sets of MU bases for $\mathbb{C}^{2}$ and $\mathbb{C}^{3}$, given by $\{\ket{j_z}\}$, $\{\ket{j_x}\}, \{\ket{j_y}\}$, and $\{\ket{J_z}\}, \{\ket{J_x}\}, \{\ket{J_y}\}, \{\ket{J_w}\}$, respectively. The bases consist of the eigenstates of the Heisenberg-Weyl operators $Z, X,Y$ $\equiv XZ$, (and $W\equiv X^2Z)$ \cite{bandyo+02}, with clock and shift operators $Z$ and $X$ which satisfy $ZX=\omega XZ$, where $\omega = e^{2\pi i/d}$, $d=2,3$.
\begin{thm}
\label{thm:All-pairs-d=00003D6} Any pair of MU product bases in the
space $\mathbb{C}^{2}\otimes\mathbb{C}^{3}$ is equivalent to a member
of the families \begin{align}
\mathcal{P}_{0} & =\{\ket{j_{z},J_{z}};\,\ket{j_{x},J_{x}}\}\,, \nonumber \\
\mathcal{P}_{1} &
=\{\ket{j_{z},J_{z}};\,\ket{0_{x},J_{x}},\ket{1_{x},\hat{R}_{\xi,\eta}J_{x}}\}\,,\nonumber\\
\mathcal{P}_{2} &
=\{\ket{0_{z},J_{z}},\ket{1_{z},J_{y}};\,\ket{0_{x},J_{x}},\ket{1_{x},J_{w}}\}\,,\nonumber \\
\mathcal{P}_{3} &
=\{\ket{0_{z},J_{z}},\ket{1_{z},\hat{S}_{\zeta,\chi}J_{z}};\,\ket{j_{x},0_{x}},\ket{\hat{r}_{\sigma}j_{x},1_{x}},\ket{\hat{r}_{\tau}j_{x},2_{x}}\}\,, \label{list}
\end{align}
with $j=0,1$ and $J=0,1,2$. The unitary operator $\hat{R}_{\xi,\eta}$
is defined as
$\hat{R}_{\xi,\eta}=\kb{0_{z}}{0_{z}}+e^{i\xi}\kb{1_{z}}{1_{z}}+e^{i\eta}\kb{2_{z}}{2_{z}}\,,$
for $\eta,\xi\in[0,2\pi)$, and $\hat{S}_{\zeta,\chi}$ is defined
analogously with respect to the $x$-basis; the unitary operators
$\hat{r}_{\sigma}$ and $\hat{r}_{\tau}$ act on the basis
$\{\ket{j_{x}}\}\equiv\{\ket{\pm}\}$
according to $\hat{r}_{\sigma}\ket{j_{x}}=(\ket{0_{z}}\pm
e^{i\sigma}\ket{1_{z}})/\sqrt{2}$
for $\sigma\in(0,\pi)$, etc.
\end{thm}
The ranges of the six real parameters $\xi,\eta, \dots, \sigma, \tau$, are chosen in such a way that no MU product pair occurs more than once in the list (\ref{list}). For example, the operator $\hat{R}_{\xi,\eta}$ in $\mathcal{P}_{1}$ is required to be different from the identity in order not to reproduce the Heisenberg-Weyl pair $\mathcal{P}_{0}$. There are four sets of MU product pairs in dimension six but
both $\mathcal{P}_{1}$ and $\mathcal{P}_{3}$ connect to $\mathcal{P}_{0}$, which is the only \emph{direct} product basis (cf. \cite{Wiesniak+11}) in the list while $\mathcal{P}_{2}$ is an \emph{isolated} pair.
It will be convenient to represent the MU product pairs of Theorem \ref{thm:All-pairs-d=00003D6} in terms of $(6 \times 6)$ unitary matrices. We associate the standard bases of $\mathbb{C}^{2}$ and $\mathbb{C}^{3}$ with $\{\ket{j_z}\}$ and $\{\ket{J_z}\}$, respectively. Then, $\{\ket{J_z}\}$ is represented by the identity $I_3$ and $\{\ket{J_x}\}$ by the Fourier matrix
\begin{equation}
F_3=\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
1 & 1 & 1\\
1 & \omega & \omega^{2}\\
1 & \omega^{2} & \omega\end{array}\right)\,,
\label{xmatrix}\end{equation}
where $\omega=e^{2\pi i/3}$ is a third root of unity. The bases $\{\ket{J_y}\}$ and $\{\ket{J_w}\}$, both of which are MU to $\{\ket{J_z}\}$ and $\{\ket{J_x}\}$ and among themselves, are represented by the unitary matrices
\begin{equation}
H_{y}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
1 & 1 & 1\\
\omega & \omega^{2} & 1\\
\omega & 1 & \omega^{2}\end{array}\right)\,,\quad
H_{w}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
1 & 1 & 1\\
\omega^{2} & 1 & \omega\\
\omega^{2} & \omega & 1\end{array}\right)\,,\label{yandwmatrix}
\end{equation}
respectively. Thus, the MU product pairs given in (\ref{list}) can be represented by the following pairs of matrices,
\begin{align}
\label{p0}
\mathcal{P}_0&= \{I;\,\widetilde{F}(0,0)\}\, ,\\
\label{p1}
\mathcal{P}_1&= \{I;\,\widetilde{F}^\text{T}(\xi,\eta)\}\, , \\
\label{p2}
\mathcal{P}_2&= \{\widetilde{I}(4\pi/3,4\pi/3);\,\widetilde{F}^{\text{T}}(4\pi/3,4\pi/3)\}\, ,\\
\label{p3}
\mathcal{P}_3&= \{\widetilde{I}(\zeta,\chi);\,\widetilde{F}(\sigma,\tau)\}\, .
\end{align}
Here, the unitary matrix $\widetilde{F}(\xi,\eta)$ is given by
\begin{equation}\label{Ftilde}
\widetilde{F}(\xi,\eta)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}
F_3 & F_3\\
F_3D & -F_3D\end{array}\right),
\end{equation}
with $F_3$ from Eq. (\ref{xmatrix}) and a diagonal matrix $D=\text{diag}(1,e^{i\xi},e^{i\eta})$, a form occurring already in \cite{bengtsson+07}. The transpose of $\widetilde{F}$, present in $\mathcal{P}_1$ and $\mathcal{P}_2$, is denoted by $\widetilde{F}^\text{T}(\xi,\eta)$.
The family of non-standard bases $\widetilde{I}(\zeta,\chi)$ is given by
\begin{equation}
\widetilde{I}(\zeta,\chi)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
I_3 & 0\\
0 & S_{\zeta,\chi}\end{array}\right),
\quad \mbox{where}\quad
S_{\zeta,\chi}=\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}
a & c & b\\
b & a & c\\
c & b & a
\end{array}\right)\, , \label{matrixP_4}
\end{equation}
with
\begin{align}
a(\zeta,\chi)&=\frac{1}{3}(1+e^{i\zeta}+e^{i\chi})\, ,\\
b(\zeta,\chi)&=\frac{1}{3}(1+\omega^2e^{i\zeta}+\omega e^{i\chi})\, ,\\
c(\zeta,\chi)&=\frac{1}{3}(1+\omega e^{i\zeta}+\omega^2e^{i\chi})\, ,
\end{align}
$S_{\zeta,\chi}$ being diagonal in the eigenbasis of the operator $X$.
First, we show that the pair $\mathcal{P}_1 = \{I;\, \widetilde{F}^\text{T}(\xi,\eta) \}$ is equivalent to $\{I;\, \widetilde{F}(\xi,\eta) \}$. To see this we multiply the pair $\{I;\, \widetilde{F} \}$ with $\widetilde{F}^\dagger$, the adjoint of $\widetilde{F}$, from the left. The pair $\{I;\,\widetilde{F}\}$ becomes $\{\widetilde{F}^\dagger;\,I\}$, and taking the complex conjugate of the pair $\{\widetilde{F}^\dagger;\,I\}$ leaves us with $\{\widetilde{F}^{\text{T}};\,I\}$ which, after a swap, is indeed $\mathcal{P}_1$.
Next, we show that the matrix $\widetilde{F}(\xi,\eta)$ is equivalent to the Fourier family of Hadamard matrices $F(\xi,\eta)$ as defined in \cite{tadej+06}. First we permute rows $2$ and $5$ of the matrix $\widetilde{F}(\xi,\eta)$, resulting in $\widetilde{F}^\prime(\xi,\eta)$, the columns of which are no longer product vectors. Then we reorder the columns of $\widetilde{F}^\prime$ such that columns $2,3,5$ and $6$ become columns $6,2,3$ and $5$, respectively, producing immediately the Fourier family $F(\xi,\eta)$. In a sense, we have \emph{derived} the Fourier family of Hadamard matrices through constructing MU product bases, thereby ``explaining'' why this set depends on two real parameters. Since the transformations just described do not affect the standard basis, we have shown the equivalence of
$\mathcal{P}_1$ with the pair $\{I;\, F(\xi,\eta) \}$.
Now we will show that the pair $\mathcal{P}_3\equiv\{\widetilde{I}(\zeta,\chi);\, \widetilde{F}(\sigma,\tau)\}$ is also equivalent to $\mathcal{P}_1$. To see this, we transform the first basis $\widetilde{I}(\zeta,\chi)$ into the identity by multiplying it from the left with its inverse,
\begin{equation}
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
I_3 & 0\\
0 & S_{\zeta,\chi}^{\dagger}\end{array}\right),\label{eq:unitaryd=6}\end{equation}
where $S_{\zeta,\chi}^{\dagger}$ is the adjoint of $S_{\zeta,\chi}$, defined in $(\ref{matrixP_4})$, simultaneously mapping the matrix $\widetilde{F}(\sigma,\tau)$ (see Eq. (\ref{Ftilde}) to
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}
F_3 & F_3\\
S_{\zeta,\chi}^{\dagger}F_3D & -S_{\zeta,\chi}^{\dagger}F_3D\end{array}\right) \, .
\end{equation}
Since $S_{\zeta,\chi}$ is diagonal in the $X$ basis, $S_{\zeta,\chi}^\dagger$ simply multiplies the columns of each matrix $F_3$ by phase factors. Writing $\sigma^\prime=\sigma-\zeta$, we obtain the desired equivalence
\begin{equation} \label{sim1and3}
\mathcal{P}_3
\sim \{ I; \,\widetilde{F}(\sigma-\zeta,\tau-\chi)\}
= \{ I; \,\widetilde{F}(\sigma^\prime,\tau^\prime)\}
\sim \mathcal{P}_1 \, .
\end{equation}
Finally, we show that $\mathcal{P}_2$ is equivalent to the pair
$\{I;\,S_6\}$. Expressing the pair as
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{P}_2 = \left\{\left( \begin{array}{cc}
I_3 & 0 \\
0 & -iH_y \end{array} \right);\,
\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left( \begin{array}{cc}
F_3 & H_w\\
F_3 & -H_w \end{array} \right)\right\},
\end{equation}
with matrices $H_y$ and $H_w$ defined in Eq. $(\ref{yandwmatrix})$, suggests to map the first matrix to the identity by multiplying it with
\begin{equation}
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
I_3 & 0\\
0 & iH^{\dagger}_y\end{array}\right)\label{eq:unitaryd=6number2}
\end{equation}
from the left. The second matrix of $\mathcal{P}_2$ turns into
\begin{equation}
\widetilde{S}_6=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}
F_3 & H_w\\
iH^{\dagger}_yF_3 & -iH^{\dagger}_yH_w\end{array}\right),
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
iH^{\dagger}_yF_3=\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
1 & \omega & \omega\\
\omega & 1 & \omega\\
\omega & \omega & 1\end{array}\right)\quad\mbox{and}\quad
iH^{\dagger}_yH_w=-\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
1 & \omega^2 & \omega^2\\
\omega^2 & 1 & \omega^2\\
\omega^2 & \omega^2 & 1\end{array}\right).
\end{equation}
To transform $\widetilde{S}_6$ into the Hadamard matrix $S_6$ we perform a number of simple operations. First we swap the second row of $\widetilde{S}_6$ with its third row as well as its fourth and fifth rows. Then we permute columns two with six, three with five, and four with five, followed by a multiplication of rows four and six by $\omega^2$. These equivalence transformations indeed result in the matrix $S_6$ while their action on the identity is easily undone by column operations, thus establishing the equivalence relation
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{P}_2\sim\{I;\,S_6\} \, ,
\end{equation}
which concludes the simplification of the list of MU product pairs. As with the Fourier family, we have ``derived'' Tao's matrix $S_6$ from a pair of MU product bases.
To summarize, the standard form of the set of MU product pairs listed in Eqs. $(\ref{p0})$-$(\ref{p3})$ reduces to
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{P}_0&\sim&\{I;\,F(0,0)\} \, , \nonumber \\
\mathcal{P}_1\sim\mathcal{P}_3&\sim&\{I;\,F(\xi,\eta)\} \, , \nonumber \\
\mathcal{P}_2&\sim&\{I;\,S_6\} \, , \label{reducedlist}
\end{eqnarray}
with $\mathcal{P}_1$ and $\mathcal{P}_3$ equivalent to a two-parameter family and $\mathcal{P}_2$ being an isolated pair.
It is now straightforward to complete the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:noproductbases}. Using computer-algebraic methods, it has been shown that the standard basis together with the isolated Hadamard $S_6$ \emph{cannot} be extended to a triple of MU bases: there are 90 vectors MU to $\{I;\,S_6\}$ \cite{brierley+09} but no two of them are orthogonal \cite{brierley+10}. Thus, $\mathcal{P}_2$ cannot figure in a complete set of seven MU bases. Combining numerical calculations with rigorous error bounds \cite{Jaming+2009}, all pairs of MU bases involving members of the Fourier family\footnote{In terms of our conventions, the result \cite{Jaming+2009} applies to the \emph{transposed} Fourier family, i.e. directly to the pair $\mathcal{P}_1$ in Eq. (\ref{p1}).} have been shown rigorously not to extend to quadruples of MU bases. These two results cover all cases given in (\ref{reducedlist}), hence all MU product pairs of the list (\ref{list}). It follows that \emph{no complete set of seven MU bases in $d=6$ contains a pair of MU product bases}, i.e. Theorem \ref{thm:noproductbases}.
We set out in \cite{mcnulty+11} with the modest goal to construct all MU product basis in dimension six. Using the resulting exhaustive list of MU product pairs, we have now been able to conclude that six of the seven MU bases required for a complete set in $\mathbb{C}^{6}$ must contain entangled states - if such a set exists. To our knowledge, this is the strongest rigorous result concerning the structure of MU bases for $d=6$. It considerably generalises the result that no pair of MU bases associated with the Heisenberg-Weyl operators of $\mathbb{C}^{6}$ can give rise to a complete set \cite{grassl04}, at the same time providing an independent proof thereof. It is also stronger than a result given in \cite{Wiesniak+11}, where the fixed entanglement content of a complete set in $d=6$ has been used to show that no more than \emph{three} of the seven hypothetical MU bases can be product bases. In addition, the current approach sheds some light on the particular character of the Fourier family of Hadamard matrices and Tao's matrix, since these - and only these - matrices emerge naturally upon constructing all pairs of MU product bases in dimension six.
\subsubsection*{Acknowledgements}
We thank M. Matolcsi to confirm that the result \cite{Jaming+2009} applies to the Fourier family \emph{and} the transposed Fourier family. This work has been supported by EPSRC.
|
\section{Introduction}
One fundamental aspect of graphene lies in the linear dispersion relation
of its low-energy charge carriers (electrons and holes) around the so-called Dirac points.
These charge carriers behave as relativistic massless chiral Dirac fermions and can be described
by a two-dimensional (2D) Dirac equation.
\cite{Weiss1958, Semenoff1984, Haldane1988}
The linear dispersion relation
is responsible for many discoveries in recent graphene
research,\cite{Geim2009} such as
half-integer quantum Hall effect,\cite{Sharapov2005,Kim2006}
Klein's paradox,\cite{Klein1929,Katsnelson2006}
and Zitterbewegung. \cite{Zitter}
Other than to graphene, Dirac or Dirac-like equations
naturally apply to cold atoms, \cite{Ohberg2008,Lee2009,Oh2010,Pachos2011,Alexandrov2011} trapped
ions, \cite{Lamata2011}
semiconductors, \cite{Zawadzki2011} or polaritons. \cite{Unanyan2010}
Motivated by the importance of Dirac equations in such a wide variety of frontier research areas, we study in this work
disorder-induced localization~\cite{Anderson1958,Kramer1993} of
massless Dirac particles
in random potentials. Though our results are presented in the
context of disordered
graphene superlattices (GSLs, see below) we expect them to be
useful for many other settings as well.
For example, when disorder is introduced to cold-atom simulations
of graphene \cite{Lee2009} or GSLs, \cite{Alexandrov2011} our general
treatment can be adapted to study the impact of randomness on
the transport of Dirac matter waves.
GSL refers to graphene under external periodic scalar\cite{X_Zhang2007,Louie2008,Pereira2008,Louie2008_2,Lin2009,
Fertig2009,Peeters2010,SYZhu2010,Louie2011} or vector potentials.\cite{Louie2011,Peeters2008,
Peeters2009,Sharma2009,Martino2009,SJYang2008,Snyman2009,Louie2010,Titov2010}
Because GSLs further tailor the band dispersion relation of graphene,
they may be used to construct graphene-based quantum devices.
Theoretical studies of GSLs and graphene under periodic
corrugation\cite{Jonson2008,Vozmediano2008,Lichtenstein2008} have been
highly fruitful, with remarkable
findings such as electron beam supercollimation \cite{Louie2008_2} and the
emergence of extra Dirac
points. \cite{Fertig2009,Peeters2010,SYZhu2010,Louie2011}
On the experimental side, GSLs with scalar potential barriers
can be created via the electric field effect or chemical doping. \cite{Nov2004,Firsov2005,Kim2005}
Two-dimensional (2D) GSLs with a period as small as $5\,$nm have been created through electron-beam induced
deposition of carbon. \cite{Zettl2008}
Also triangular GSLs growing on different metal surfaces
have been observed.
\cite{Wintterlin2007,Miranda2008,Sutter2008,Greber2008,Michely2008,Michely2008_2,Michely2009}
Besides, nano-ripple arrays are generated by chemical vapor deposition (CVD). \cite{Avsar2011}
Vector potentials are induced by magnetic
fields\cite{Egger2007} or physical strain, \cite{Neto2009}
so vector GSLs can be realized by mounting
graphene on a substrate with a periodic array of ferromagnetic strips or
a periodically structured substrate. \cite{Peeters2009_3}
All these laboratory-produced GSLs cannot be perfectly periodic, due to
intrinsic randomness and uncontrollable factors during production.
Therefore, a more realistic GSL should be modeled by a periodic
potential plus some weak disorder in potential height, potential
width, or lattice spacing. This randomness causes Anderson
localization, which
turns conductors into insulators and is especially severe in low dimensions. \cite{Anderson1958,Kramer1993}
Consequently, the focus of our work is on
the localization behavior of a 2D Dirac particle in
weakly disordered 1D GSLs.
In a related work, \cite{ZDWang2009} localization
of Dirac particles in 1D disordered potentials was studied, but
only for zero incidence angle $\theta$ (i.e., wave vector of charge
carriers normal to the interface between different GSL layers) and without analytical results for the localization length.
Another closely related theoretical study of disordered GSLs
\cite{Nori2009} comprised an analytical discussion of the scattering transmission only
for sufficiently small $\theta$
and random barrier heights. Our work extends all previous results, to the best of our knowledge,
inasmuch as it covers the analytical properties of the localization
length for all values of $\theta$, for different types of disorder,
and for both scalar and vector GSLs.
The paper is organized as follows. In Sec.~II, we begin by modeling disordered scalar and vector
GSLs by 1D rectangular potential barriers or wells. Using
a transfer matrix formalism,
we then derive the weak-disorder expansion of the localization length,
or equivalently the associated Lyapunov exponent.
In Sec.~III we present analytical and numerical results
for the Lyapunov exponent of scalar GSLs, as modeled by disordered delta or
rectangular potentials. It is found that at fixed energy,
the localization length depends very intricately upon
the incidence angle $\theta$ of 2D Dirac particles in the graphene
plane.
We also predict and confirm the existence
of delocalization resonances other than for perpendicular incidence: along these directions the
Lyapunov exponent vanishes. Our theoretical predictions are fully supported by numerical
results, as also reported below.
Section IV is in parallel with Sec.~III, but treats
GSLs with vector potentials.
In addition, assisted by a numerical
study of wave-packet dynamics in Sec.~V, we propose to
use the angular dependence of the localization length to realize a
disorder-based filtering mechanism.
Section VI
concludes.
\section{Localization length in disordered graphene superlattices}
\subsection{Disordered graphene superlattices}
Thanks to their linear dispersion relation, low-energy charge carriers
near the Dirac points in graphene are well described by the
2D massless Dirac Hamiltonian:
\begin{equation}
\label{First}
H = v_F \boldsymbol\sigma\cdot\boldsymbol{p} + V(x).
\end{equation}
In graphene, $v_F\approx 10^{6}\,$m/s is the Fermi velocity;
$\boldsymbol\sigma\equiv (\sigma_{x},\sigma_{y})$ is the vector of Pauli
matrices.
We consider a graphene superlattice (GSL) of parallel potential
barriers, such that the external potential $V(x)$ depends only on
$x$.
In the following, we consider both scalar and vector superlattices.
A general scalar
superlattice potential can be described by
\begin{equation}\label{scalarpot}
V(x) = \sum_{n\in\mathbbm{Z}} V_n(x-x_n).
\end{equation}
We will consider rectangular potential barriers (or wells) as depicted
in Fig.~\ref{fig:KP}. A perfect GSL has identical potential barriers (or wells) of height
$V$ and width $w$, i.e.\
$V_n(x) = V$ if $0<x<w$ and 0 elsewhere, at lattice positions $x_n= n l$. Due to unavoidable experimental
imperfections, or deliberate introduction of randomness, these
potential parameters
fluctuate from site to site:
\begin{align}
V_n &= V+\delta V_n ,\\
x_n & = nl +\delta x_n, \\
w_n &= w+\delta w_n.
\end{align}
This randomness can induce localization, as will be discussed at
length in Sec.~\ref{scalarpot.sec}.
A vector-potential superlattice is defined in terms of the
matrix-valued potential
\begin{equation} \label{vectorpot}
V(x)= -\sigma_y \frac{e v_F}{c} \sum_{n\in\mathbbm{Z}}{A_n (x-x_n)}.
\end{equation}
Defining $V_n = e v_F A_n/c$ and assuming $A_n(x-x_n)$ is of the same
form as $V_n(x-x_n)$, one deals with the same parameters
as in the scalar case. The different
potential nature, however, implies very different
localization properties, as will become clear in Sec.~\ref{vectorpot.sec}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{fig_dgsl.pdf}
\caption{Top: Disordered graphene superlattice (GSL)
realized as a scalar potential, Eq.~\eqref{scalarpot}, or vector potential,
Eq.~\eqref{vectorpot}.
Deviations from the clean GSL (dotted) can occur via fluctuations in barrier height $\delta
V$, barrier width $\delta w$, lattice spacing $\delta l$, and
combinations thereof. Bottom: Right- and left-travelling
wavefunction amplitudes are mapped from one barrier to the other by
the transfer matrix, Eq.~\eqref{Mn}.
}
\label{fig:KP}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Transfer-matrix formalism}
Because the potential $V(x)$ is separable, the problem of describing
the transmission across the lattice is effectively 1D,
and the transfer matrix formalism is
particularly suited.\cite{Soukoulis2008}
The scattering of a massless Dirac particle through a single square
barrier (well) is well understood, for scalar as well as vector
potentials. \cite{Katsnelson2006,Neto2009}
Since the potential is piecewise constant, the solution to the Dirac
equation is a plane wave, both inside and outside the barrier.
Outside the barrier, solutions of energy $E=s\hbar v_F k$
with $s=\pm 1$ and $k=|\boldsymbol{k}| = (k_x^2+k_y^2)^{1/2}$ are the Dirac
bispinors
\begin{equation} \label{freePsi}
\Psi^{\pm}(x,y) = e^{\pm i k_x x + i k_y y} \begin{pmatrix} 1 \\ \pm
s e^{\pm i\theta} \end{pmatrix},
\end{equation}
travelling towards
right ($+$) and left ($-$), with $k_x\ge0$ by convention.
\begin{equation}
\theta=\tan^{-1} \frac{k_y}{k_x}
\end{equation}
is the incidence angle, or angle of propagation (outside the barrier) with respect to the $x$-axis.
In the lattice, the wave function
between barriers, where $V(x)=0$, is a superposition of free right- and
left-moving components created by repeated elastic reflexion and transmission.
It is useful to parametrize the wave function on the left side of the $n$th barrier, $\Psi_n =
\lim_{\epsilon\to0^+}\Psi(x_n-\epsilon)$, as
\begin{equation}
\Psi_n = \psi^+_n \begin{pmatrix} 1 \\ s e^{i
\theta}\end{pmatrix} e^{ik_y y} + \psi^-_n \begin{pmatrix} 1 \\
-s e^{-i \theta}\end{pmatrix} e^{ik_y y}.
\end{equation}
Since the free solutions \eqref{freePsi} between barriers
are fixed, scattering cannot mix the two components of the
bispinor, and it suffices to introduce the two amplitudes
$\psi^{\pm}_n$, just as for a
scalar wave obeying Schr\"odinger's
equation on a 1D lattice.
These amplitudes are mapped from $n$ to $n+1$ by the transfer matrix:
\begin{equation}
\tmatrix{\psi_{n+1}^+}{\psi_{n+1}^-}
= M_n
\tmatrix{\psi_{n}^+}{\psi_{n}^-}
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
\label{Mn}
M_n = \begin{bmatrix}
\dfrac{1}{t_n^*} e^{i\Delta_n}& - \dfrac{r_n^*}{t_n^*}e^{i\Delta_n} \\
-\dfrac{r_n}{t_n} e^{-i\Delta_n}& \dfrac{1}{t_n}e^{-i\Delta_n}
\end{bmatrix}.
\end{equation}
Reflection and transmission amplitudes $r_n$ and $t_n$ are known
functions of barrier parameters $\{V_n,x_n,w_n\}$ and quantum numbers $\{k_x,k_y,s\}$ or equivalently
$\{E,\theta,s\}$\cite{Katsnelson2006,Neto2009}.
$\Delta_n \equiv k_x (x_{n+1}-x_n)$ is the free propagation phase
between superlattice points in the absence of any barriers.
The transfer matrix is largely determined by
the symmetries of the scattering
problem. \cite{Soukoulis2008,Delande2010}
Unitarity or current conservation
implies $\det M_n = 1 = |r_n|^2 +
|t_n|^2$. Thus the total reflection and
transmission probabilities can be expressed as $R_n= |r_n|^2 = \sin^2\phi_n$ and $T_n=
|t_n|^2 = \cos^2\phi_n$, and we find it useful to
parameterize $M_n$ as
\begin{equation}
\label{Para}
M_n = \begin{bmatrix} e^{i\alpha_n} \sec \phi_n & e^{i\beta_n} \tan \phi_n \\
e^{-i\beta_n} \tan \phi_n & e^{-i\alpha_n} \sec \phi_n
\end{bmatrix}.
\end{equation}
By construction, the net transfer matrix across $N$ barriers is the product
\begin{equation}
\label{PN}
P_N = \prod_{n=1}^N M_n.
\end{equation}
Before studying this product for the random matrices $M_n$ arising from disorder, we first discuss its
implications for clean GSLs.
\subsection{Clean graphene superlattices}
In a clean GSL, all transfer matrices $M_n=M$ are identical. In other words, a single transfer matrix contains all
information about the dispersion relation in the lattice, which is the
essence of Bloch's theorem.
If parameters are such that $|\mathrm{tr} M| < 2$, the energy $E$ lies within the conduction band of the
GSL.
In this case the eigenvalues of the transfer matrix are of the form $\lambda_\pm =
e^{\pm i\mu}$ with $\mu\in \mathbbm{R}$, such that
$\mathrm{tr} M = 2\cos\mu$. The transfer phase $\mu = K_xl$ across one lattice
cell determines the Bloch vector $K_x$ of the extended solution in the
$x$ direction.
In terms of the parametrization Eq.~\eqref{Para} the
dispersion relation in the clean GSL
therefore reads \cite{Peeters2010,Soukoulis2008}
\begin{equation}\label{Dispersion0}
\cos K_x l = \cos \mu = \sec\phi \cos\alpha.
\end{equation}
The structure of this dispersion is analogous to that of the
Kronig-Penny model,
\cite{GalindoPascualQM1} from which it differs
only in the functional dependence of
the transfer parameters $\{\phi,\alpha\}$ on the
potential parameters $\{V,l,w\}$ and $\{E,\theta,s\}$. This dependence will be made
explicit for the two cases of scalar and vector potentials in
Secs.~\ref{scalarpot.sec} and \ref{vectorpot.sec}, respectively.
In the case $|{\mathrm{tr} M}| > 2$, the energy $E$ falls into a
band gap. The wave cannot propagate, and $|{\mathrm{tr} M}| = 2 \cosh\kappa_x l$ defines the exponential decay rate
$\gamma = \kappa_x l$ across one
lattice cell. This characteristic
localization exponent
\begin{equation}\label{gamma_gap}
\gamma = \ln |\lambda_+|
\end{equation}
is determined by the larger one of the two eigenvalues of the
transfer matrix $M$, which also defines the Lyapunov exponent of
the product $P_N = M^N$, whose larger eigenvalue grows like
$\exp\{\gamma N\}$.
\subsection{Disordered graphene superlattices}
\label{cleanGSL.sec}
The transmission across a disordered lattice is described by the
product $P_N$ of random matrices shown in Eq.~\eqref{PN}.
Since the pioneering work of Furstenberg, \cite{Furstenberg} it is well
known that the larger eigenvalue of such a product grows
exponentially with probability one. This implies that a wave
incident on the disordered GSL at barrier number
$1$ has an
exponentially small probability of transmission after barrier number
$N$, which is one of the hallmarks of disorder-induced
localization. Indeed, at the first barrier, the wave splits into reflected and
transmitted components, and so on across the lattice. The boundary
condition is actually simpler after the last barrier $N$, where there is only the
transmitted component, but no component is incident from the right.
Starting with the reverse boundary condition (such as $\psi_{1}^+=1$
and $\psi_1^-=0$) at the left, the product in Eq.~\eqref{PN} predicts that the solution grows like
\begin{equation}\label{PN11}
|\psi_N^+|^2 = |(P_N)_{11}|^{2} \sim \exp\{2N \gamma\},
\end{equation}
which suggests the expected exponential localization.
The Lyapunov exponent, mathematically defined as
\begin{equation}
\label{Lya}
\gamma= \lim_{N\to\infty} \frac{1}{2N} \ln |(P_N)_{11}|^2 =
-\lim_{N\to\infty} \frac{1}{2N} \ln T_N,
\end{equation}
thus determines the localization length $l_\text{loc}
= l/\gamma$.
Here $T_N\in [0,1]$ is the net transmission probability after $N$
barriers.
The transmission is a random variable, with a very
wide probability distribution for long enough samples. In the localized regime, its
most probable (or typical) value differs vastly from its mean. The extinction
$|{\ln T(N)}|$, however, has a probability distribution that converges
towards a normal distribution, such that its most probable value is
equal to the mean, and the right hand side of Eq.~\eqref{Lya} indeed
converges to the Lyapunov exponent. \cite{Delande2010,Abrikosov1981}
While it is an elementary exercise to multiply random matrices and
extract the Lyapunov exponent numerically, there is no simple, general method of calculating the Lyapunov
exponent exactly for a given model of disorder with arbitrary energy.
Different situations require different approaches.
In the following, we treat two different cases that are relevant in the GSL
context and allow for
analytical calculations.
\subsection{Randomly spaced, identical barriers}
\label{randomposition.sec}
First we consider the very simple case where identical barriers are
distributed with random positions such that
the free propagation phase
between barriers is
uniformly distributed in $[0,2\pi]$. Under an ensemble average
$\avg{(\cdot)}$ over
these random phases, the extinction $|{\ln
T_N}|$ across $N$ barriers is found to be additive along the
sample:
$\avg{\ln T_N} = N \ln
T_1$.\cite{Berry1997,Delande2010}
Here,
$T_1$ is the single-barrier transmission at
given energy $E$ and propagation angle $\theta$.
Equation~\eqref{Lya} then immediately yields the Lyapunov exponent
$ \gamma = -\frac{1}{2} \ln T_1$.
This result holds as long as the phases are random enough to satisfy the
assumption of a uniform distribution,
but no matter how small $T_1$,
i.e.\ how strong the scattering.
At a given energy, a rectangular barrier becomes perfectly transmitting
at certain incident angles, and notably at perpendicular incidence
($\theta=0$) for all energies---this phenomenon is known as Klein tunneling.\cite{Katsnelson2006}
In these cases, $T_1=1$ implies of course $\gamma=0$ and
absence of localization, because all barriers share the same resonance
condition.
\subsection{Weak-disorder expansion}
Although the previous elementary model captures the essence of disorder-induced
exponential localization, it cannot describe the more interesting, and
arguably more relevant, case of
barriers with slightly random width, height, and/or spacing.
In the following, we adapt the weak-disorder expansion of Derrida et
al.\cite{Derrida1987} to our case. Here, we describe briefly the steps
leading to the main result; details can be found in Appendices.
First, we Taylor-expand
\begin{equation}
\label{Mn2}
M_n = M + \epsilon_n M' + \frac{\epsilon_n^2}{2}M'' + O(\epsilon_n^3),
\end{equation}
where $M$ is the transfer matrix of the corresponding clean GSL, the prime $(.)'$
indicates differentiation with respect to the perturbed variable
$V$, $w$ or $d$), and $\epsilon_n$ is the weak perturbation ($\epsilon_n =
\delta V_n$, $\delta w_n$ or $\delta d_n$). We assume that the random variables at
different sites are independent and
identically distributed, with zero mean and finite variance:
\begin{align}
\avg{\epsilon} & = \lim_{N\to\infty}\frac{1}{N} \sum_{n=1}^N\epsilon_n
=0, \quad \label{avgeps}\\
\avg{\epsilon^2} & = \lim_{N\to\infty}\frac{1}{N}
\sum_{n=1}^N\epsilon_n ^2 \ge 0. \label{vareps}
\end{align}
Second, we expand
the product \eqref{PN} to order $\epsilon^2$
in the eigenbasis of $M$, where
$\tilde M
= \text{diag}(\lambda_+,\lambda_-)$. The eigenbasis of $M$ can be used
to find the Lyapunov exponent because
the exponential growth rate is independent of the representation. The matrix element required in
\eqref{PN11} then reads, neglecting terms of order $\epsilon^3$,
\begin{align}
\label{tildePN}
(\tilde P_N)_{11} = \lambda_+^N \bigg[ 1
& + \lambda_+^{-1} \sum_{n =1}^N \left\{ \epsilon_n \tilde M'_{11} +
\frac{\epsilon_n^2}{2} \tilde M''_{11} \right\}
\\
& + \sum_{n<m}
\epsilon_n\epsilon_m \lambda_+^{n-m-1}
(\tilde M'\tilde M^{m-n-1}\tilde M')_{11}
\bigg]. \nonumber
\end{align}
The second line involves only fluctuations at different sites and gives no contribution
after the ensemble average (see App.~\ref{lyap1.apx} for details).
Inserting the first line
into Eq.~\eqref{Lya}, and further using
Eqs.~\eqref{avgeps} and \eqref{vareps}, one obtains the
disorder-induced Lyapunov exponent
\begin{equation}
\label{LyaM}
\gamma = \frac{l}{l_\text{loc}} = \frac{\avg{\epsilon^2}}{2}
\Re\left\{ \lambda_+^{-1}\tilde M''_{11} - \lambda_+^{-2}\left(\tilde M'_{11}\right)^2
\right\} .
\end{equation}
In a third step we perform the
diagonalization from $M$ to $\tilde M$ in order to arrive at an explicit expression as function of the
system variables (see App.~\ref{lyap2.apx} for details). In terms of
the parametrization \eqref{Para}
one obtains a relatively compact result:
\begin{equation}
\label{LyaF}
\gamma
= \frac{\avg{\epsilon^2}}{2}
\left\{
\frac{\tan^4\phi}{\sin^2\mu}\left[\left(\frac{\sin\alpha}{\sin\phi}\right)'\right]^2 + \beta'^2 \tan^2\phi\right\}.
\end{equation}
Here, $\sin\mu$ is a function of
$\{\alpha,\phi\}$ via the clean dispersion relation
\eqref{Dispersion0}, which is assumed to be satisfied by a propagating
solution of energy $E$ (otherwise, this perturbative result of order
$\avg{\epsilon^2}$ is merely a small correction to the band-gap extinction of Sec.~\ref{cleanGSL.sec}).
Before we discuss the localization exponent
\eqref{LyaF} in detail for scalar and vector potentials
(Secs.~\ref{scalarpot.sec} and \ref{vectorpot.sec}), we comment
on its limit of validity.
Eq.~\eqref{LyaF} diverges at the band edges, where $\sin\mu=0$. It is
well known that localization at these special points occurs with an
anomalous localization length that differs from the perturbative
result.\cite{Derrida1984,Izrailev1998}
However, exponential localization
in the conduction band away from these special points is very well described by Eqs.~\eqref{LyaM}
and \eqref{LyaF}, as will be checked via numerical calculations
below.
\section{Scalar Potential}
\label{scalarpot.sec}
Now we specify the transfer-matrix parametrization in Eq.~\eqref{Para}
for a single scalar potential barrier, the building block of the scalar GSL, in order
to analyze the Lyapunov exponent given in Eq.~\eqref{LyaF}.
The reflection and transmission amplitudes $r$ and $t$ are found
by piecing together a continuous plane-wave solution across the barrier:\cite{Katsnelson2006}
\begin{align}
\frac{1}{t} & = e^{iw k_x}
\left[
\cos\varphi +i s \sin\varphi \frac{v -
\varepsilon \cos^2\theta}{ql \cos\theta }
\right],
\label{scalar1overtn}\\
\frac{r}{t} & = - s e^{i
w k_x} e^{i\theta} \tan\theta \frac{v\sin\varphi}{ql} .
\label{scalarrnovertn}
\end{align}
Here $\varepsilon = E l/\hbar v_F = s|\boldsymbol{k}|l $ and $v = V l/\hbar v_F$ are energy and
barrier height expressed in lattice units. Furthermore,
$\varphi = q w $ is the phase picked
up by the plane wave with wavevector $q =
[(v-\varepsilon)^2l^{-2} - k_y^2]^{1/2}$ in the $x$-direction across the potential barrier.
In the next Sec.~\ref{deltascalarpot.sec}, we first discuss the limiting case of $\delta$-like barriers, which admits
simple expressions and helps to guide the understanding of the general
case, tackled in Sec.~\ref{generalscalarpot.sec}.
\subsection{Amplitude-disordered delta scalar potential}
\label{deltascalarpot.sec}
Consider an amplitude-disordered Dirac-Kronig-Penney model, made out of
regularly spaced $\delta$-peaks of random strength, or $\delta$GSL for
short. This description is appropriate in the low-energy regime, where
barriers become very narrow and high, $k_x w \ll 1 $ and
$v \gg \varepsilon $.
In the limit $w\to0$ and $v\to\infty$ at fixed $vw/l = \varphi$,
one has $ql\to v$, and the reflection and transmission coefficients
in Eqs.~\eqref{scalar1overtn} and \eqref{scalarrnovertn} become
\begin{align}
\frac{1}{t} & =\cos\varphi +i s \frac{\sin\varphi}{\cos\theta },
\label{scalar1overtn_delta}\\
\frac{r}{t} & = - s e^{i\theta} \tan\theta \sin\varphi.
\label{scalarrnovertn_delta}
\end{align}
These expressions depend on the barrier parameters only via the
combination $\varphi = vw/l$. Therefore, they cover randomness in both barrier width and
height. We assume a resulting phase-shift distribution with mean
$\varphi=\avg{\varphi_n}$, and fluctuations $\epsilon_n = \varphi_n -
\varphi$ with variance $\avg{\epsilon^2} = \avg{\delta \varphi^2}$.
Substituting Eqs.~\eqref{scalar1overtn_delta}
and \eqref{scalarrnovertn_delta}
into Eq.~\eqref{Mn} and then comparing with Eq.~\eqref{Para}, one has
\begin{align}
e^{i\alpha} \sec \phi & = \left(\cos \varphi - i s \frac{\sin \varphi}{\cos\theta}\right)e^{ik_xl}, \label{Sa}\\
e^{i\beta} \tan \phi & = s \sin \varphi \tan\theta e^{-i\theta} e^{i k_x l}. \label{Sb}
\end{align}
Taking the real part of the first relation, we find the clean dispersion
for this $\delta$GSL,
\begin{equation} \label{dispersion_DeltaGSL_scalar}
\cos \mu = \cos k_xl \cos \varphi +
\frac{\varepsilon}{k_xl} \sin k_xl \sin \varphi.
\end{equation}
We recall $k_xl = [\varepsilon^2 - l^2 k_y^2]^{1/2}=s \varepsilon\cos\theta$.
This relation links the energy
$\varepsilon$ to the Bloch-vector
components $K_x=\mu/l$ and $K_y = k_y$ in the bulk superlattice. The dispersion is periodic in the potential strength
$\varphi$, as discussed in detail by Barbier et al.\cite{Peeters2009_2}, and it
suffices to consider $0\leq\varphi< 2\pi$. In the following, the
implications of disorder are assessed.
\subsubsection{Analytical Lyapunov exponent}
From Eq.~\eqref{Sb}, it becomes apparent that $\beta = k_x
l -\theta $ is independent of $\varphi$. Consequently, $\beta'=0$ in
Eq.~\eqref{LyaF}. Furthermore, by combining both relations,
we can evaluate $\partial_\varphi(\sin\alpha/\sin\phi)$
such that the weak-disorder Lyapunov exponent finally reads
\begin{equation}
\label{LyaDelSF}
\gamma = \frac{\avg{\delta\varphi^2}}{2} \frac{\sin^2k_xl}{\sin^2 \mu}
\tan^2
\theta.
\end{equation}
This expression differs in a characteristic manner from the
corresponding result for a massive Schr\"odinger
particle:\cite{Krokhin2002}
instead of being inversely proportional to the energy, it is
proportional to $\tan^2\theta$. This has (at least) three important implications:
First, instead of diverging as $\varepsilon^{-1}$, the weak-disorder result of Eq.~\eqref{LyaDelSF} stays valid even at low
energy $\varepsilon$. Second,
for perpendicular incidence $\theta=0$, there is no
localization, $\gamma=0$, as required by chiral symmetry via Klein
tunneling\cite{Katsnelson2006,ZDWang2009}.
Third, the overall angular dependence as
$\tan^2 \theta$ implies that charge carriers incident with larger angles are
localized quite rapidly. Therefore, a random $\delta$GSL can act as a
\emph{directional filter}, with preferential transmission perpendicular to the
superlattice barriers.
Indeed, in the case $\varphi = 0$, i.e., for a purely random potential
without a regular superlattice component, Eq.~\eqref{dispersion_DeltaGSL_scalar} reduces to $\mu=k_xl$, and the
Lyapunov exponent
\begin{equation}
\label{GV0}
\gamma = \frac{\avg{\delta\varphi^2}}{2} \tan^2 \theta
\end{equation}
becomes totally independent of energy $\varepsilon$. The simple, and sharp angular
dependence $\tan^2\theta$ realizes a disorder filter at larger
angles, allowing only particles around perpendicular incidence
$\theta=0$ to transmit ballistically.
Of course, a richer angular structure arises
via the dependence on $k_xl = s\varepsilon \cos\theta$ and the dispersion
relation in Eq.~
\eqref{dispersion_DeltaGSL_scalar}, so that a more
detailed discussion is in order.
It is helpful to distinguish two limiting cases.
First, for $\varepsilon\to 0$ and thus $k_xl\to0$,
Eq.~\eqref{dispersion_DeltaGSL_scalar} always has the real (hence propagating) solution
$\mu = K_xl = \varphi$. Therefore, unless $\varphi = 0,\pi$, one has $\sin k_xl/\sin\mu\to0$, and
therefore delocalization ($\gamma\to 0$) occurs for all angles as $\varepsilon\to 0$.
Second, for large enough $|\varepsilon|\ge \pi$, one has $\sin k_xl=0$ for
$\varepsilon \cos\theta_n = n\pi$ ($n\neq 0$),
while allowing $\cos\mu=\pm\cos\varphi\neq 0$. Equation~\eqref{LyaDelSF} then indicates that $\sin k_xl=0$
gives angular transmission windows $\gamma=0$ at
\begin{equation} \label{theta_n}
\theta_n =
\arccos (n\pi/\varepsilon).
\end{equation}
Therefore, if the incident angle of a 2D plane wave is $\theta_n$, then the Dirac particle will be delocalized.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{DeltaS10.png}
\caption{Lyapunov exponent $\gamma$, Eq.~\eqref{Lya}, vs.\
angle $\theta$ at energy $\varepsilon= El/\hbar v_F= 2\pi$ in a
lattice of $\delta$-barriers with $\pm5\%$ fluctuations around
the average strength $\varphi=\pi/2$.
In the grey shaded areas in panel \textbf{a}, the angle falls into a
band-gap sector, and $\gamma$ is given by Eq.~\eqref{gamma_gap}. White areas:
conduction sectors, with $\gamma$ due to disorder given by
Eq.~\eqref{LyaDelSF},
shown on a magnified scale in panels \textbf{b}, \textbf{c}.
The numerical data confirms the delocalization resonance at
$\theta_1= \arccos(\pi/\varepsilon) = 60^{\circ}$, Eq.~\eqref{theta_n}.}
\label{fig:DeltaS}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Numerical experiment}
We now turn to numerical experiments in order to check
these predictions.
The localization Lyapunov exponents are extracted numerically by use
of Eq.~\eqref{Lya}, after first multiplying random matrices according to Eq.~\eqref{PN}.
Unless specified otherwise, we always take $N=1000$ random potential barriers and then ensemble-average
over 30 samples to reach negligible statistical error.
Figure~\ref{fig:DeltaS} compares the analytical result of
Eq.~\eqref{LyaDelSF} with the numerical data, for a varying incident
angle $\theta$
at fixed energy $\varepsilon= 2\pi$. The
average lattice strength
is set to $\varphi = \pi/2$, and we allow
$5\%$ equiprobable fluctuations
($\avg{\delta v^2}/v^2=0.01/12$).
In the overview panel \textbf{a}, grey shading shows the intervals
where $\varepsilon$ falls into a band gap. The
incident wave then turns into an evanescent wave, whose attenuation is
described by $\gamma$ of Eq.~\eqref{gamma_gap},
with negligible corrections due to disorder.
For the given parameters,
the band edges are located at angles $\theta_b$ solving $\cos\theta_b = \pm
\sin(\varepsilon\cos\theta_b)$, i.e.\ $\theta_b \in \{ 32.7^\circ,
52.9^\circ, 64.6^\circ\}$. At these points, Fig.~\ref{fig:DeltaS}
shows hardly visible spikes, where the perturbative result of Eq.~\eqref{LyaDelSF} is expected
to fail.\cite{Derrida1984,Izrailev1998}
Inside the conduction intervals, shown in the magnified
view of panels \textbf{b} and \textbf{c}, the Lyapunov exponent
$\gamma$ given by Eq.~\eqref{LyaDelSF} is in excellent
agreement with numerical results. The
delocalization resonance at $\theta_1= 60^\circ$
is confirmed, with $\gamma$ vanishing there.
\subsubsection{Exact delocalization resonance}
Interestingly, the numerical evidence suggests that the
delocalization resonance not only holds perturbatively to order
$\epsilon^2$, as predicted by Eq.~\eqref{LyaDelSF}, but instead is an
exact resonance. So we seek non-perturbative insights
by returning to the transfer matrices.
Under the resonance condition, $k_x l= \varepsilon \cos\theta_n=n\pi$, the
free propagation phase is $e^{i k_x l}=\pm 1$. Without losing generality,
let us assume $e^{i k_x l}=1$. The transfer matrix $M_n$ in
Eq.~\eqref{Para} then
depends on the random variable $\varphi_n$ via
\begin{equation}
\label{M_phi}
M_n=M(\varphi_n) = \begin{bmatrix}
\cos \varphi_n - i s \frac{\sin \varphi_n}{\cos\theta} & s \sin \varphi_n \tan\theta e^{-i\theta} \\
s \sin \varphi_n \tan\theta e^{i\theta}& \cos \varphi_n + i s \frac{\sin \varphi_n}{\cos\theta}
\end{bmatrix}.
\end{equation}
The product of transfer matrices obeys the remarkable property
\begin{equation}
M(\varphi_{n})M(\varphi_{n-1}) = M(\varphi_n + \varphi_{n-1}).
\end{equation}
Hence, the net transfer matrix across $N$ barriers is
$P_N
= M(\Phi_N)$
where $\Phi_N=\sum_{n=1}^N {\varphi_n}$.
As a consequence, the transmission probability
\begin{equation}
T_N = \frac{1}{\cos^2 \Phi_N + \frac{\sin^2 \Phi_N}{\cos^2 \theta}} = \frac{\cos^2\theta}{1 - \sin^2 \theta \cos^2 \Phi_N}.
\label{TN}
\end{equation}
is bounded from below by
$\cos^2\theta$. So for the resonance angles $\theta_n$ of
Eq.~\eqref{theta_n}, $T_N$ cannot be
an exponentially decaying function of $N$, thus proving $\gamma=0$. We emphasize that this delocalization
is no longer based on a weak-disorder expansion. Rather,
it is an exact result for arbitrary disorder strength.
\subsection{Disordered square scalar potential}
\label{generalscalarpot.sec}
We return to the general case of a rectangular potential superlattice, and proceed
as previously. With Eqs.~\eqref{scalar1overtn}
and \eqref{scalarrnovertn}
used in
\eqref{Mn}, the comparison with Eq.~\eqref{Para} yields
\begin{align}
e^{i\alpha} \sec \phi & = e^{i \delta} \left(\cos \varphi - i \sin \varphi \frac{\varepsilon v -
\kappa^2}{\kappa ql }\right), \label{SGa}\\
e^{i\beta} \tan \phi & = e^{i (\delta- \theta)} \tan\theta \frac{v \sin \varphi}{s ql} . \label{SGb}
\end{align}
We denote $\kappa = lk_x = s\varepsilon \cos\theta$ and $ql = [v^2 - 2 \varepsilon v
+\kappa^2]^{1/2}$, as well as $\varphi = qw $. We have introduced
$\delta = k_x d $ as
the phase picked up over the distance $d=l-w$ between barriers on average.
In terms of these parameters, the dispersion relation of the clean
GSL reads\cite{Peeters2010}
\begin{equation}
\label{DisperS}
\cos \mu= \cos \delta \cos \varphi + \frac{\varepsilon v-\kappa^2
}{\kappa ql} \sin\delta \sin \varphi.
\end{equation}
\subsubsection{Lyapunov exponent}
In the disordered case, Eq.~\eqref{SGb} fixes $\beta = k_x d -\theta$, which
now depends on the distance $d=l-w$ between consecutive barriers,
such that $\beta'$ in Eq.~\eqref{LyaF} is finite for barriers of variable
distance $d$.
By combining Eqs.~\eqref{SGa} and \eqref{SGb}, one finds
\begin{equation}
\label{FinalLya}
\gamma=\frac{\avg{\epsilon^2}}{2} \left\{
\frac{v^2 \sin^2\varphi}{q^2l^2 \sin^2 \mu} [S']^2
+ \beta'^2\right\}
\frac{v^2 \sin^2\varphi}{q^2l^2}
\tan^2 \theta,
\end{equation}
where $S'$ denotes the derivative of
\begin{equation} \label{Svwdef}
S = \frac{ql\sin\delta\cos\varphi + k_xl \cos\delta
\sin\varphi}{v\sin\varphi} - \frac{\varepsilon}{k_xl}\cos\delta
\end{equation}
with respect to the fluctuating
barrier parameter.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{S10.png}
\caption{Lyapunov exponent $\gamma$, Eq.~\eqref{Lya}, vs.\
angle $\theta$ at energy $\varepsilon= El/\hbar v_F= 2\pi$ in a
lattice of potential barriers with fixed width $w= 0.5 l$, and
$5\%$ fluctuations around average height $v=Vl/\hbar v_F=\pi$,
such that
$w v/l = \pi/2$ matches the $\delta$ barrier
strength $\varphi$ used in Fig.~\ref{fig:DeltaS}.
In the grey shaded areas in panel \textbf{a}, the angle points into a
band-gap direction, and $\gamma$ is given by Eq.~\eqref{gamma_gap}. White areas:
conduction sectors, with $\gamma$ due to disorder given by
Eq.~\eqref{FinalLya},
shown on a magnified scale in panels \textbf{b}, \textbf{c}.
The numerical data for stronger disorder in panel \textbf{c} shows
that the perturbative delocalization resonance at
$\theta \approx 51.5^{\circ}$ exists only for weak disorder.}
\label{fig:L05}
\end{figure}
The relation between the Lyapunov exponent $\gamma$ and the incidence
angle $\theta$ established by Eqs.~\eqref{FinalLya} and \eqref{Svwdef}
is rather complicated. But the overall factor $\tan^2\theta$ guarantees
absence of localization due to Klein tunneling in the forward
direction, as well as the efficient filtering of large-angle components.
To verify our analytical prediction, we plot in
Fig.~\ref{fig:L05} the Lyapunov exponent $\gamma$
as function of $\theta$ at fixed $\varepsilon$ for barriers with randomly
varying height,
together with the data from the numerical solution. The agreement is
excellent.
\subsubsection{Approximate delocalization resonance}
\label{scalarRes.sec}
The numerical results show that there exists a delocalization resonance
$\gamma=0$ also in
this case, but at a slightly different angle, $\theta\approx
51.5^\circ$, compared to the $\delta$-barriers of
Sec.~\ref{deltascalarpot.sec}.
Let us see how this result comes about. With $\beta'=0$ (because
in Fig.~\ref{fig:L05} only the barrier height fluctuates) in
Eq.~\eqref{FinalLya}, there are two non-trivial factors that can
vanish, $\sin\varphi$ and $S'$.
First, there is the obvious candidate $\sin \varphi=0$, which is the single-barrier resonance condition $qw
=n\pi$.\cite{Katsnelson2006} But this zero is exactly cancelled by the
most singular contribution to $S'$ in Eq.~\eqref{Svwdef}, namely
$S' = q \varphi'\sin \delta /(v\sin^{2}\varphi)+O\left[(\sin\varphi)^{-1}\right]$.
Since for $\sin\varphi=0$ the dispersion relation Eq.~\eqref{DisperS} reads $\cos\mu=\pm\cos\delta$, Eq.~\eqref{FinalLya} can be further reduced to
\begin{equation}\label{gamma_res_scal}
\gamma=\frac{\avg{\delta v^2}}{2}
\frac{w^2 v^2 (v-\varepsilon)^2}{l^6q^4}
\tan^2 \theta.
\end{equation}
This expression could be thought to vanish for $v=\varepsilon$, i.e., when the energy equals the mean potential height.
However, $v=\varepsilon$ implies $q=i k_y $, which is impossible because it
contradicts the initially assumed resonance condition $qw =n\pi$.
Therefore, $S'=0$ must be responsible for the observed delocalization resonance
$\gamma=0$. In general, the equation $S'=0$ is too complicated to admit
an analytical solution,
but the resonance angles $\theta_n$ can be found numerically. For the
present parameters it is the
resonance angle $\theta_1$ that is observed in Fig.~\ref{fig:L05}. In contrast to
the case of $\delta$-barriers, though, this resonance is not
exact. In Fig.~\ref{fig:L05}c, numerical results for stronger disorder
show a deviation from $\gamma=0$, thus indicating the absence
of a true delocalization resonance.
We note that for a purely random
potential, $v=0$ and $\epsilon_n = v_n$,
the Lyapunov exponent Eq.~\eqref{FinalLya} reduces to
\begin{equation}
\label{FinalLyaV0}
\gamma
= \frac{\avg{\delta v^2}}{2} \frac{\sin^2(k_x w)}{k_x^2l^2} \tan^2 \theta,
\end{equation}
Now the single-barrier resonance condition
$k_xw = n\pi$ does lead to $\gamma=0$. Consistently, the limit $v\to0$ of
Eq.~\eqref{gamma_res_scal} vanishes. Here, to lowest order in
$\epsilon=\delta v$, the wavevector inside the barrier is
$k_x$, and the resonance condition can be satisfied everywhere.
But it needs to be emphasized that also this result holds only for weak disorder, and hence the Lyapunov
exponent is not absolutely zero due to higher-order terms of $\epsilon$.
\section{Vector potential}
\label{vectorpot.sec}
This section parallels the
previous one, with results pertaining to disordered vector-potential GSLs, as introduced in Eq.~\eqref{vectorpot}.
The single-barrier reflection and transmission amplitudes $r$ and $t$
are
\cite{Neto2009}
\begin{align}
\frac{1}{t} & = e^{i w k_x} \left(\cos \varphi - i \sin \varphi \frac{u \sin\theta + \varepsilon \cos^2\theta}{\tilde q l \cos\theta}\right), \label{VPt} \\
\frac{r}{t} & = e^{i w k_x} e^{i\theta} \sec\theta \frac{u \sin \varphi}{\tilde q l} . \label{VPrt}
\end{align}
Here $\varepsilon = E l/\hbar v_F = s|\boldsymbol{k}|l $ and $u = e A l/\hbar c$ are energy and
barrier height expressed in lattice units. Besides,
$\varphi = \tilde q w $ is the phase picked
up by the plane wave with wavevector $\tilde q =l^{-1}
[\varepsilon^2 - (l k_y - u)^2]^{1/2}$
across the potential barrier.
The variable $\tilde q$ differs from the wavevector $q$ in the previous scalar potential case.
In particular, $\tilde q$ can be imaginary if $u$ is large,
leading to bound states inside a barrier.\cite{Neto2009}
\subsection{Amplitude-disordered delta vector potential}
\label{deltavectorpot.sec}
Very narrow and high potentials barriers
\emph{i.e.}, $k_x w \ll 1 $ and $u \gg \varepsilon $, realize a vector $\delta$GSL.
In the limit $w\to0$ and $u\to\infty$ at fixed $uw/l = \varphi$,
one has $\tilde q\to i u/l$, and the reflection and transmission coefficients
in Eqs.~\eqref{VPt} and \eqref{VPrt} reduce to
\begin{align}
\frac{1}{t}& = \cosh \varphi - i \sinh \varphi \tan \theta, \label{VPt_delta}\\
\frac{r}{t}& = e^{i\theta} \sec\theta \sinh \varphi. \label{VPrt_delta}
\end{align}
The fluctuating phase $\varphi=uw/l$ describes randomness in both width $w$ and
height $u$.
We assume a distribution with mean
$\varphi=\avg{\varphi_n}$, and small fluctuations $\epsilon_n = \varphi_n -
\varphi$ with variance $\avg{\epsilon^2} = \avg{\delta \varphi^2}$.
Substituting Eqs.~\eqref{VPt_delta} and \eqref{VPrt_delta} into Eq.~\eqref{Mn} and comparing with Eq.~\eqref{Para},
one has
\begin{align}
e^{i\alpha} \sec \phi & = (\cosh \varphi + i \sinh \varphi \tan \theta)e^{ik_xl}, \label{Va}\\
e^{i\beta} \tan \phi & = - \sinh \varphi \sec\theta e^{-i\theta} e^{i k_x l}. \label{Vb}
\end{align}
The clean dispersion \eqref{Dispersion0} for the vector $\delta$GSL is found
by taking the real part of the first relation:
\begin{equation}
\label{DisV}
\cos \mu = \cosh \varphi \cos \kappa - \tan \theta \sinh \varphi \sin \kappa.
\end{equation}
where $\kappa = k_xl = [\varepsilon^2 - l^2 k_y^2]^{1/2}$.
\subsubsection{Lyapunov exponent}
For regularly spaced potentials, $\beta'=0$ in
Eq.~\eqref{LyaF}. Using Eqs.~\eqref{Va} and \eqref{Vb}
to evaluate $\partial_\varphi(\sin\alpha/\sin\phi)$,
we find the weak-disorder Lyapunov exponent
\begin{equation}
\label{LyaDeltaV}
\gamma = \frac{\avg{\delta \varphi^2}}{2} \frac{\sin^2 k_xl}{\sin^2 \mu} \sec^2 \theta.
\end{equation}
This expression ressembles much the scalar $\delta$GSL result \eqref{LyaDelSF},
except that the $\tan^2\theta$ factor is replaced by $\sec^2 \theta$.
Therefore, vector $\delta$GSL and scalar $\delta$GSL share (at least) one
interesting feature: Instead of diverging as $\varepsilon^{-1}$ in the Schr\"odinger case,
the weak-disorder prediction of the localization length stays valid even at low
energy $\varepsilon$. On the other hand, because $\sec^2 \theta=1$ at $\theta=0$,
there is no reason to expect delocalized solutions close to
perpendicular incidence on general grounds.
\subsubsection{Absence of delocalization resonances}
For $\varphi =0$, representing a random vector potential with zero
mean, Eq.~\eqref{LyaDeltaV} reduces to the energy-independent expression
$\gamma = \frac{1}{2}\avg{\delta\varphi^2}\sec^2 \theta$.
The angular dependence
$\sec^2\theta$ differs from Eq.~\eqref{GV0} for scalar $\delta$GSL in
that localization stays finite even at perpendicular incidence
$\theta=0$, but becomes just as strong at grazing incidence
$\theta\to\pi/2$ where
$\sec\theta\approx\tan\theta$.
For the general situation with $\varphi\neq 0$, we analyze two representative cases.
Consider first the low-energy limit $\varepsilon\to 0$ and thus $\kappa\to0$. Then the dispersion
Eq.~\eqref{DisV} reads
$\cos\mu =\cosh \varphi$, which requires an imaginary $\mu$
and hence describes a non-propagating solution inside the band gap.
As such, the vector $\delta$GSL acts as an insulator for small $\varepsilon$
and arbitrary incidence angle $\theta$.
Next we turn to cases with sufficiently large $|\varepsilon|\ge \pi$. If $\varepsilon \cos\theta_n = n\pi$ ($n\neq 0$),
one has $\sin\kappa=0$ and hence $\gamma=0$. Note that under this condition, $|{\cos\mu}|=\cosh\varphi$,
which again implies a non-propagating solution. So here $\gamma=0$ merely
indicates that the disorder-induced correction to the decay exponent of the evanescent wave is zero. Putting all the above
considerations together, it appears that the localization behavior in vector $\delta$GSLs is not as rich as
in scalar $\delta$GSLs.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{DeltaV10.png}
\caption{Lyapunov exponent $\gamma$, Eq.~\eqref{Lya}, vs. incident angle $\theta$, for
a vector $\delta$GSL, with average lattice strength $\varphi=1$,
energy $\varepsilon=2\pi$, and
disorder modeled by $\pm 5\%$ fluctuations around $\varphi$. In the grey shaded areas
in panel \textbf{a}, the incident angle falls into a band-gap direction. The white area is the
conduction sector, in which the anaytical Lyapunov exponent is given by Eq.~\eqref{LyaDeltaV}, as
shown in Panel \textbf{b} on a larger scale.}
\label{fig:DeltaV}
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{fig:DeltaV} compares the analytical prediction
Eq.~\eqref{LyaDeltaV} with numerical results, for varying incidence
angle $\theta$ at fixed energy $\varepsilon= 2\pi$. The
average lattice strength is $\varphi = 1$, and disorder is
modeled by $5\%$ equiprobable fluctuations around $\varphi$.
In the overview panel \textbf{a}, band-gap regimes are grey shaded.
The band edges lie at the angles $\theta_b \in \{ 42^\circ,
57^\circ\}$. Exactly at these points, abnormal spikes are seen
in panel \textbf{a}, signaling the expected failure of Eq.~\eqref{LyaDeltaV}.\cite{Derrida1984,Izrailev1998}
Inside the conduction band, shown on a magnified scale in panel \textbf{b}, the agreement between
theory and numerics is excellent. In particular, no delocalization resonance is seen, as analyzed above.
\subsection{Disordered square vector potential}
\label{generalvectorpot.sec}
The general case of a disordered rectangular vector potential is somewhat
more complicated and considerably richer in physics.
Following the same procedure as for scalar GSLs, the first step is to connect
the transfer-matrix parameters $\alpha$, $\beta$ and $\phi$ to the GSL parameters $w$, $u$, and $l$, as well as the Dirac-particle quantum numbers $\varepsilon,\theta,s$. For that purpose we
use Eqs.~\eqref{VPt}, \eqref{VPrt}, \eqref{Mn}, and \eqref{Para} to
obtain
\begin{align}
e^{i\alpha} \sec \phi & = e^{i\delta} \left(\cos \varphi + i \sin
\varphi \frac{\kappa^2 + u \varepsilon \sin\theta}{l\tilde q \kappa}\right), \label{VPa}\\
e^{i\beta} \tan \phi & = -e^{i(\delta-\theta)} \frac{u
\sin \varphi}{l\tilde q} \sec\theta. \label{VPb}
\end{align}
Here $\kappa = lk_x = \varepsilon \cos\theta$, $l\tilde q = [\varepsilon^2 - (l k_y - u)^2]^{1/2}$,
and $\varphi = \tilde q w$.
$\delta = k_x (l-w)$ is
the phase picked up
between neighboring barriers.
In terms of these parameters, the dispersion relation of a clean
GSL becomes
\begin{equation}
\label{DisperV}
\cos \mu= \cos \delta \cos \varphi - \frac{\kappa^2 + u
\varepsilon\sin\theta}{l\tilde q\kappa} \sin \delta \sin \varphi.
\end{equation}
\subsubsection{Lyapunov exponent}
Using Eqs.~\eqref{VPa} and \eqref{VPb}, we can apply our general result Eq.~\eqref{LyaF} once again, leading to
\begin{equation}
\label{FinalLyaV}
\gamma=\frac{\avg{\epsilon^2}}{2} \left\{
\frac{u^2 \sin^2\varphi}{l^2\tilde q^2 \sin^2 \mu} [\tilde S']^2
+ \beta'^2\right\}
\frac{u^2 \sin^2\varphi}{l^2\tilde q^2}
\sec^2 \theta ,
\end{equation}
where $\tilde S'$ denotes the derivative of
\begin{equation} \label{SvwdefV}
\tilde S = \frac{l\tilde q\sin\delta\cos\varphi + \kappa \cos\delta
\sin\varphi}{u\sin\varphi} + \frac{\varepsilon}{\kappa}\cos\delta\sin\theta
\end{equation}
with respect to the fluctuating
barrier parameter.
In contrast to the scalar potential with overall $\tan^2\theta$
dependence, the factor $\sec^2\theta$ in Eq.~\eqref{FinalLyaV}
does not lead to a simple
delocalization resonance at perpendicular incidence, just as for the vector $\delta$GSL of Sec.~\ref{deltavectorpot.sec}.
Our numerical data confirm these predictions, as seen in
Fig.~\ref{fig:L05V2}. The statistical fluctuations in
Fig.~\ref{fig:L05V2}b appear larger than before because
for the present parameters, the Lyapunov exponent $\gamma$ is
extremely small.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{V10.png}
\caption{Lyapunov exponent $\gamma$, Eq.~\eqref{Lya}, vs. incident angle $\theta$,
at energy $\varepsilon=2\pi$ for a disordered lattice of rectangular vector potentials.
Disorder is modeled by $\pm 5\%$ fluctuations around an average barrier
height $u=2$, while periodicity $l$ and barrier width
$w=0.5l$ are fixed, such that
$w u/l = 1$ matches the $\delta$ barrier strength $\varphi$ used
in Fig.~\ref{fig:DeltaV}.
The grey shaded area
in panel \textbf{a} indicates a band gap and the white area
indicates conducting solutions.
Panels \textbf{b} and \textbf{c} show details of the conduction sector.
An approximate delocalization resonance appears around $\theta=18.5^{\circ}$, for both analytical and numerical results.
The numerical data for stronger disorder in Panel \textbf{c} proves the departure from the weak-disorder
resonance. }
\label{fig:L05V2}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Approximate delocalization resonance}
Figure \ref{fig:L05V2} also reveals
a delocalization resonance $\gamma=0$ at $\theta\approx
18.5^\circ$, all the more remarkable because no such resonance occurs in the $\delta$-barrier limit
of Sec.~\ref{deltavectorpot.sec}.
In order to explain this analytically,
we return to Eq.~\eqref{FinalLyaV}. First of all, for the amplitude
randomness studied in Fig.~\ref{fig:L05V2},
$\beta'=0$. Then, $\gamma=0$ at $u\neq 0$ implies $\sin\varphi=0$ or
$S'=0$.
Let us begin by analyzing the case $\sin \varphi=0$, which is
equivalent to the barrier resonance condition
$\tilde q w= (w/l)[\varepsilon^2 - (\varepsilon\sin\theta -u)^2]^{1/2} = n\pi$.
To leading order in $1/\sin\varphi$,
we find $|{S'}| = |q \varphi' \sin\delta / (u \sin^2\varphi)|$ from
Eq.~\eqref{SvwdefV}. So
the $\sin^4\varphi$ factors cancel in
Eq.~\eqref{FinalLyaV}, which reduces to
\begin{equation}
\label{vec_res}
\gamma=\frac{\avg{\delta u^2}}{2} \frac{w^2 u^2 (u-lk_y)^2}{l^6\tilde q^4} \sec^2 \theta.
\end{equation}
This expression vanishes (remember $u\neq 0$)
for $u=lk_y$, which is equivalent to $u=\varepsilon\sin\theta$.
Together with the barrier resonance condition, this fixes $\varepsilon_n = n\pi l/w$.
Therefore, resonances should
occur whenever
\begin{equation}\label{tildethetan}
\tilde \theta_n = \arcsin (u/\varepsilon_n)
\end{equation}
For the parameters of
Fig.~\ref{fig:L05V2} ($u=2$, $\varepsilon=2\pi$, and $w=l/2$),
Eq.~\eqref{tildethetan} predicts a resonance at $\tilde \theta_1\approx
18.6^{\circ}$, in perfect agreement with the data in
Fig.~\ref{fig:L05V2}\textbf{c}. As shown by the data for stronger
disorder, the delocalization resonance only holds to lowest order of the
weak-disorder expansion.
Are there other delocalization resonances caused by $S'=0$?
A direct answer is difficult on account of the rather complex
expression for $S'$.
Numerically, we have scanned the values of $S'$ and find
that when $S'$ is zero, the associated solution falls inside a band gap. This being the case,
the $S'=0$ condition does not produce new delocalization resonances,
in marked difference to the scalar GSLs studied in
Sec.~\ref{scalarRes.sec}.
\section{Wave Packet Dynamics: disorder-induced filtering}
\label{wavepackeet.sec}
Our analytical results have revealed an interesting functional dependence of the localization length upon the incident angle
of charge carriers. In particular, the Lyapunov exponent
$\gamma=l/l_\text{loc}$ of a scalar GSL is proportional to
$\tan^2\theta$. This factor indicates a strong angular dependence of
disordered-induced
localization: the localization length diverges for small $\theta$ and quickly decreases as $\theta$ increases. Certainly,
for $\theta$ too close to $\theta=\pi/2$, an infinite Lyapunov
exponent or vanishing localization length
is an artifact of weak-disorder perturbation theory.
With this clarified, it is nevertheless clear that
scattering waves with
larger $\theta$ tend to be much more localized than
those with small $\theta$. And wave components with localization length shorter than
the GSL sample will not contribute to the conductance. This realizes a
filtering effect due to disorder.
The main goal of the present, comparatively short section is to
confirm this effect by a direct dynamical simulation of wave-packet
transmission across a scalar GSL, both with and without
disorder.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{fig6.pdf}
\caption{
Contour plot of the probability density, from 2D wave-packet dynamics
simulations, for various
amplitudes $v=Vl/\hbar v_F$ of clean (upper row) and
amplitude-disordered (lower row) scalar GSL potentials $V(x)$,
Eq.~\eqref{scalarpot}.
The time evolution samples all incidence angles $\theta$ at once,
starting with an isotropic wave packet centered around energy
$\varepsilon=El/\hbar v_F=2\pi$ (see text).
Comparison between panels \textbf{a}-\textbf{b}, and \textbf{c}-\textbf{d} demonstrates disorder-induced
filtering: since wave-packet components at larger angle
$\theta$ have a shorter localization length, they cannot contribute
to propagation in $x$ direction, and the transmitted part of the wave packet appears more focused.
The GSL potential in panels \textbf{e}-\textbf{f} is sufficiently strong to induce the wave-packet
collimation that accompanies the emergence of new Dirac
cones. Panel \textbf{f} shows that disorder has rather little effect on collimation.}
\label{fig:AllTogether}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{fig:AllTogether} shows the result of a numerical solution of the time-dependent Dirac
equation with Hamiltonian \eqref{First} and a scalar GSL potential,
Eq.~\eqref{scalarpot}, with symmetric barrier width $w=0.5l$ filling the
half-space $x>10l$.
In order to sample all incidence angles at once, we
choose as initial condition an isotropic
wave packet with momentum components $\Psi(p) \propto
\exp\{-(|\boldsymbol{p}|-p_0)^2/(2\Delta p^2)\}$ centered on the radial value $p_0 = 2\pi
\hbar/l$ with spread $\Delta p=0.2 \hbar/l$; the wave packet's central energy therefore is $\varepsilon=2\pi$ in
lattice units.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:AllTogether}, we plot the
probability density at time $t=70l/v_F$; in some cases, a substantial part of the wave packet is reflected into
the half-space $x<10l$ (not shown). The upper row shows the results for clean GSLs of different strengths,
whereas the lower row shows the results for a single realization of
the corresponding disordered GSLs with fluctuating potential heights.
Panels \textbf{a} and \textbf{b} compare a pristine graphene sheet to
a purely amplitude-disordered scalar GSL with zero mean potential
strength and equiprobable fluctuations $\delta v\in[-1,1]$.
Whereas the clean substrate allows for isotropic
propagation, in the disordered GSL the larger-angle components are
localized more strongly, as expressed by the $\tan^2\theta$-behavior of
the Lyapunov exponent,
Eq.~\eqref{FinalLyaV0}.
Consequently, the propagating part of the wave packet is
concentrated around the forward direction $\theta=0$, thus supporting
our filtering conjecture above.
Panels \textbf{c} and \textbf{d} compare again the clean and
disordered situation, now in presence of a GSL with finite strength
$v=\pi$, with the same lattice geometry and energy as used for
Fig.~\ref{fig:L05}, but relatively strong amplitude fluctuations of
$\pm 30\%$. A strong filtering effect analogous to panel \textbf{b} is
observed,
where the largest part of the transmitted probability density
is concentrated in the forward direction $\theta=0$,
as expressed by the overall $\tan^2\theta$-behavior of
the Lyapunov exponent, Eq.~\eqref{FinalLya}.
The wave propagation in the clean GSL of panel \textbf{c} is quite isotropic, because
the associated dispersion relation is almost isotropic for the parameters chosen.
If, however, the potential strength of a scalar GSL is greater than a certain critical value,
new Dirac points emerge.\cite{Louie2011}
The resulting, strongly anisotropic dispersion
relation then collimates the wave packet.\cite{Louie2008_2} This is shown in panel \textbf{e},
where the potential strength $v=4\pi$ makes the wave packet
stay sharply focused in the forward direction. We have investigated whether this collimation effect is robust against
disorder. Panel \textbf{f} shows the effect of $10\%$
fluctuations in potential strength. The collimation is
seen to survive, with hardly noticeable disorder effects.
A quantitative analysis is difficult because the new Dirac points
appear at band edges where the weak-disorder expansion we have used
fails. Instead, one could possibly adapt the appropriate singular-point
expansions \cite{Derrida1984,Izrailev1998} to the Dirac-GSL problem,
which is a research program beyond the scope of the present work.
Here, we conclude that
disorder-induced filtering can coexist with band-structure
collimation.
\section{Concluding Remarks }
Drawing on a general weak-disorder expansion,
we have derived the Lyapunov exponent (inverse localization length) of various
1D disordered GSLs modeled by random delta or rectangular potentials,
both for scalar and vector potentials. The analytical
results have been thoroughly checked by numerical experiments. We
emphasize that, though the GSL is assumed to be 1D, the physics is far
more complicated than for a conventional 1D scattering problem due to the intrinsic coupling between the
translational motion and the spinor degree of freedom. One important complication we have predicted is the strong
dependence of the localization length on the incident angle of the charge carriers injected to a GSL. To our knowledge,
this is the first time that a complete theoretical picture of
this incident-angle dependence is obtained.
We have also
proposed to exploit such angular dependence of the localization length to turn disorder into good use, namely, a possible
disorder-assisted filtering effect.
Considering that large-size GSLs may be manufactured in the near future, our theoretical
results offer a quantitative tool to analyze and predict disorder effects in GSLs.
Our analytical and numerical results also provide evidence for
intriguing delocalization resonances:
Along specific incident angles, the localization exponent
can be identically zero, or at least approach zero for weak disorder. Both scalar and vector GSLs admit
delocalization resonances in the conduction band, but for opposite
reasons: scalar potentials can have an approximate, weak-disorder resonance because
a complex term has zero solutions [i.e., $S'=0$, see Eq.~(\ref{FinalLya}) and (\ref{Svwdef})],
whereas vector potentials have an approximate resonance because of a simple barrier
resonance condition [$\sin\varphi=0$, see Eq.~(\ref{FinalLyaV})]. Moreover, the corresponding $\delta$-limits of scalar and vector GSLs
show very distinct features: the scalar $\delta$GSL admits an exact delocalization by virtue
of an inter-peak resonance, whereas the vector $\delta$GSL has no
resonance at all in the conduction band. In all cases, it is
important to realize that
whenever numerical or laboratory experiments are performed with finite-size samples, a lowest-order vanishing
Lyapunov exponent can very well appear as a rather sharp mobility
jump, which signals an effective delocalization across the sample.\cite{Izrailev2001,Krokhin2002,Lugan2009}
In the context of 2D GSLs, a recent study \cite{Aihua2010} cautioned that lattice constants less than
10 nm may induce inter-valley scattering or sublattice symmetry breaking, either of which may
lead to a band gap and hence break the linear dispersion relation of the charge carriers.
The implication of this important finding for our work is twofold. First, to directly apply
our theoretical results based on a linear dispersion relation, it is safer to
consider GSLs with lattice constants larger than 10 nm or with a
potential preserving the symmetry between different Dirac points or between different sublattices. Second,
as a possible extension of this work, one may now also apply our main theoretical tool here to
investigate how a disordered GSL with a sufficiently small lattice constant may generate a novel physical situation, where
charge carriers possess disordered mass as a consequence of inter-valley scattering or sublattice symmetry breaking.
\acknowledgments J.G.\ is grateful to Prof.\ Chun Zhang for stimulating discussions on graphene superlattices and
for providing several useful references on this topic. C.M.\
acknowledges helpful correspondence with Felix Izrailev.
|
\section{Introduction}\label{Sect:Introduction}
Many areas of computational astrophysics entail simultaneous solution
of systems of equations spanning multiple physical domains. These
domains may themselves span broad ranges in length and time scales,
and separate domains may be tightly coupled on the scales of interest.
The combination of many competing physical processes and large dynamic
range, together with the sheer size of the computation, represents a
major theoretical challenge for computational astrophysics. As
simulations and data analysis become increasingly complex,
computational scientists face an increasing need for flexible
frameworks capable of integrating new and existing scientific codes
and allowing scientists to easily build their simulation workflow.
The targets of interest here, young massive star clusters and galactic
nuclei, are dense stellar environments in which gravitational
dynamics, radiative processes, stellar physics, and gas dynamics all
play important roles. Spatial and temporal scales range from
$10^3$\,m and $10^{-3}$\,s on the small end to $10^{20}$\,m and
$10^{17}$\,s at the other extreme. Close encounters and physical
collisions among stars and binaries are commonplace, and large and
small scales are intimately coupled by stellar mass loss, binary
heating, stellar collisions, dynamical mass segregation, and core
collapse. The number of stars can exceed $10^6$ in many cases.
Combining all these elements within a large-scale simulation of such a
system poses significant software development problems.
The present generation of cluster simulation packages---often
generically referred to as ``kitchen-sink'' codes---have been very
successful in modeling the long-term dynamical evolution of star
clusters, from a few megayears after formation to their eventual
dissolution possibly gigayears later in the galactic tidal field.
These packages include both N-body
\citep{Aarseth2003,PortegiesZwart_etal2001} and Monte Carlo codes
\citep{FregeauRasio2007,Giersz_etal2008}. All contain sophisticated
and comprehensive treatments of stellar dynamics and binary/multiple
interactions---a reflection of their historical development---but
these are generally coupled with much more approximate treatments of
other physical aspects of the system. For example, stellar evolution
is typically calculated as a look-up from precomputed results
\citep{Hurley_etal2000}, while binary evolution consists of a set of
rules of varying accuracy, implemented on top of the stellar evolution
subsystem.
Other aspects of the simulation, such as stellar collisions, are
treated even more approximately. Stars are modeled as ``sticky
spheres'' which merge when they come into contact, preserving
virtually none of the underlying stellar physics. Still other
physical processes, such as global gas dynamics and the effects of
stellar winds and radiation, which are now regarded as critical
components as we push our simulations back into the star-formation
phase, are not included at all. An additional limitation of most
kitchen sink codes is that specific implementations of each physical
process are hard-coded into the simulation, so adoption of a
particular package implies a particular choice of dynamical
integrator, stellar modeling, binary evolution, and so on.
We submit that the monolithic design and consequent internal
complexity of existing codes are limiting their future development,
making alternate treatments of existing physics hard to implement and
new physical processes even more difficult to deploy. We expect that
these codes will encounter more and greater structural challenges as
the demands of greater realism and more comprehensive content mount.
In this paper we describe AMUSE, the Astrophysical Multipurpose
Software Environment, a modular simulation framework designed to
address the shortcomings just described. The individual modules in
AMUSE contain dedicated and efficient implementations of specific
pieces of the calculation, and are linked by a high-level scripting
language to ensure flexibility and facilitate management. Modules can
contain wrapped legacy code or new code developed specifically for the
project. All have a standard interface exposing only necessary
functionality, allowing them to be easily mixed and replaced as
needed. We use the term ``community code'' to refer collectively to
public domain codes encompassed by the AMUSE framework. Section
\ref{Sect:AMUSE} discusses the structure of AMUSE in more detail;
Section \ref{Sect:Applications} presents some simple applications of
the framework.
\section{The AMUSE Software Framework}\label{Sect:AMUSE}
The global structure of the AMUSE environment is illustrated in Figure
1. In the AMUSE programming model, each piece of physics (advance the
stellar or hydrodynamics to a specified time, evolve a star, collide
two stars, etc.) is implemented as a module with a standard interface
onto the rest of the system, but the details are private to each
module. For example, all stellar modules include accessor functions
that provide information on the mass and radius of a specified star,
but the details of what a ``star'' is (an analytic formula, an entry
in a look-up table, or a set of 1- or 2-D arrays describing the run of
density, temperature, composition, etc.) are internal to the module
and are normally invisible to the user. Objects within each module
are identified by a global ID, and it is the responsibility of the
module implementation to provide the required accessor functions for a
specified ID.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=4.75in, bb = 50 45 750 520,
clip = true]{McMillan_S_Fig1.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{The AMUSE environment. The top-level flow control layer is
typically a custom GUI or user-written Python script that
specifies the structure of the program, effectively replacing the
top-level loop of a traditional program. Each of the four physics
areas shown in the interface layer may be instantiated by one of
several modules, allowing arbitrary combinations to be explored.}
\end{figure}
The high-level ``glue'' language for AMUSE is Python, chosen for its
rich feature set, ease of programming and rapid prototyping,
object-oriented capabilities, large user base in the astronomical
community, and extensive user-written software. The design of AMUSE
places no restrictions on the choice of language for any given module,
except that it must support the parallel Message Passing Interface
(MPI).\footnote{See {\tt http://www.mcs.anl.gov/mpi}.} In a typical
application, the top-level loop (the flow control layer in Figure 1)
of a simulation is written entirely in Python, allowing monitoring,
analysis, graphics, grid management, and other Python tools to be
employed. The modular design and the use of private internal data
minimizes both the computational overhead of the Python code segments
and data flow between modules. The relatively low speed of the
language does not significantly impact performance, because in
practice virtually all of the computational load is carried by the
(high-performance) modules.
The concept and value of modular software frameworks for program
integration are familiar to most computational scientists. Perhaps
less obvious is the use of MPI as the communication tool among
modules. In the initial implementation of AMUSE, individual modules
written in Fortran 77, Fortran 90, Fortran 95, C, and C++ were
interfaced with Python using f2py or swig.\footnote{See {\tt
http://www.scipy.org/F2Py} and {\tt http://www.swig.org}.} This
approach works well for simple demonstration programs
\citep[see][]{PortegiesZwart_etal2009}, but it has a number of serious
technical drawbacks when deployed in a parallel, high-performance
environment. It (1) imposes namespace restrictions that cause
conflicts between independent modules, (2) makes it impossible to
instantiate multiple independent copies of a given module, and,
perhaps most importantly, (3) rules out incorporation of parallel
modules into the AMUSE framework.
All of these problems can be eliminated by replacing the standard
swig/f2py interface by an explicitly parallel structure in which MPI
is used throughout the AMUSE system for communication between all
modules (serial or parallel). Like Python, MPI is easily available,
well documented, and widely used in the astronomical community. As a
practical matter, the process of generating the necessary interface
code is completely automated, using a syntax similar to that found in
swig, so ease of implementation is not a significant consideration for
the applications programmer. The result is that serial and parallel
modules are indistinguishable one another, as seen from the flow
control level (Figure 1), making them easy to combine, largely
transparently to the user. In addition, the top-level script can run
modules concurrently, should the structure of the problem allow it.
Currently, AMUSE contains at least two (and in most cases
substantially more) independent modules for each physical process
supported, allowing ``plug and play'' interchangeability between
implementations. This and encourages approach enables direct
comparison and calibration of different implementations of the same
physical processes, and facilitates experimentation in constructing
new models. For the current list of available modules and their
properties, and to download and install AMUSE, see the project web
site, {\tt http://amusecode.org}.
Figure 2 illustrates schematically the AMUSE programming environment
in a star cluster simulation typical of those carried out by current
kitchen-sink codes. The python script acts as a scheduler for the
stellar dynamical and stellar evolution modules and takes appropriate
action when unscheduled events (such as collisions or supernovae)
occur. In most cases there is no need for communication between
modules beyond the data transferred through the standard interface.
However, additional information may be needed in some
circumstances---for example, the collision and stellar evolution
modules may need to exchange detailed structural data before and after
a physical stellar collision. At present all such exchanges are
implemented as two MPI transfers (red arrows) through and under the
control of the top-level Python layer. So far, we have not found this
approach to contribute significantly to the total cost of a
simulation. Should these data transfers become too expensive, direct
module-to-module communication can be implemented.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=4.75in, bb = 30 60 680 475,
clip = true]{McMillan_S_Fig2.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{Structure of a typical AMUSE program. The user-written
Python script acts as a scheduler for the modules, and as a
manager for unscheduled events. The short (black) arrows indicate
routine communication through the module interfaces. Additional
module to module communication is managed through the Python
layer, as indicated by the long (red) arrows. All communications
are carried out using MPI. In this case, two of the modules are
serial, the other two parallel, but the script author need not be
aware of their internal organization.}
\end{figure}
N-body experts will notice that binary and multiple interactions
(including two-body encounters) are treated by the scheduler at the
same level as actual physical collisions. In the AMUSE model, the
dynamical integrator follows only the centers of mass of binaries and
multiples, which are regarded as unperturbed until a close encounter
occurs. Encounters are flagged by the dynamics module, integrated to
completion in isolation by the multiples module, and the products are
then reinserted into the dynamics module. This approach is unusual
for N-body codes, in which binaries and multiples are generally
integrated simultaneously with the rest of the dynamics, and
represents perhaps the greatest departure of AMUSE from traditional
N-body practice. (See, however, the ``gorilla'' code described by
\citeauthor{TanikawaFukushige2009} \citeyear{TanikawaFukushige2009}.)
However, this is precisely the way in which multiples are handled in
the leading Monte Carlo codes. To the best of our knowledge, it has
never been demonstrated that the neglect of weak perturbations on
binaries introduces any bias into the large-scale dynamics of the
system. Secular evolution of a binary due to occasional wide
encounters can be modeled by integrating the orbit-averaged equations
for the binary elements as the center of mass moves.
\section{Applications of AMUSE}\label{Sect:Applications}
AMUSE has been applied to a number of ``proof of concept'' problems
involving interactions between the large-scale dynamical modules and
the stellar evolution and multiples modules. We describe two of them
here. For a more sophisticated simulation carried out using AMUSE,
see the contribution by Portegies Zwart et al. elsewhere in these
proceedings.
Figure 3 is drawn from a study of mass loss from star clusters carried
out by Whitehead et al. \citetext{2012, in preparation}. The goals of
the investigation are (1) to demonstrate that AMUSE can reproduce
existing results for large simulations, (2) to quantify the run-to-run
variations in simulations differing only in the random seed used to
generate their initial conditions, and (3) to determine the effect of
the choice of stellar evolution model on cluster lifetimes. All runs
are performed using 16k or 32k particles initialized from
\citet{King1966} model distributions, with power-law ($dN/dM \propto
M^\alpha$) stellar mass spectra, and tidal radii corresponding to one
of the \citet{ChernoffWeinberg1990} families (where increasing family
number indicates larger galactocentric distance). In all cases, the
AMUSE {\tt ph4} dynamical module is used. This C++ integrator
includes an MPI parallel fourth-order Hermite integration scheme
\citep{MakinoAarseth1992} with block time steps and GPU acceleration.
The {\tt ph4} module is coupled with one of several stellar evolution
modules: the simple scheme adopted by \citet[CW in the figure, written
in Python]{ChernoffWeinberg1990}, the look-up formula presented by
\citet[EFT89/C]{Eggleton_etal1989}, the {\tt SeBa} package drawn from
Starlab's {\tt kira} integrator
\citep[SeBa/C++]{PortegiesZwart_etal2001}, and the two-dimensional SSE
interpolation scheme of \citet[SSE/Fortran-77]{Hurley_etal2000}.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=2.6in, bb = 80 40 600 470,
clip = true]{McMillan_S_Fig3a.eps}~
\includegraphics[width=2.6in, bb = 80 40 600 470,
clip = true]{McMillan_S_Fig3b.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{AMUSE simulations of mass loss in tidally limited star
clusters. (a) Comparison of the evolution of different
\citet{ChernoffWeinberg1990} families. All models began as
tidally limited $W_0=3$ King models at one of four galactocentric
radii, with a power-law $dN/dM\propto M^{-2.5}$ stellar mass
function. Solid (colored) lines represent the median behavior of
55 simulations performed for each family; grey-shaded regions
represent the full range of the results. (b) Effect of varying
the prescription for stellar evolution in otherwise identical
simulations. From left to right at the lower right of the figure,
the curves correspond to the EFT89, SeBa, CW, and SSE stellar
evolution modules.}
\end{figure}
The results shown in Figure 3(a), using the SeBa stellar evolution
module are in good agreement with the N-body and Fokker--Planck
simulations reported by \citet{TakahashiPortegiesZwart2000}. We find
similarly good agreement in most of the other cases studied. We note
in passing that the AMUSE runs are slightly faster than the
corresponding calculations performed using Starlab. Since the {\tt
ph4} internals are somewhat similar to those in {\tt kira}, and in
particular employ similar GPU acceleration, we attribute this to the
fact that {\tt ph4} spends less time checking for and handling binary
interactions. The grey-shaded areas in the figure show the entire
range of results for 55 models initialized from the same system
parameters, allowing us to measure the spread in the numerical
results. Most of this spread in fact arises from variations in the
initial stellar masses, rather than variations in their positions or
velocities---the mass of the most massive star has a large effect on
the lifetime of the system.
Figure 3(b) shows four runs carried out using identical initial
conditions but with four different stellar evolution modules---a
simple task using AMUSE, entailing changes in just two lines of the
driving script. We find that the choice of module---not an option
with kitchen-sink codes, and one not normally thought of as a critical
choice---can have a large impact on the lifetime of the system. In
this example, the AMUSE capacity for easy code comparison provides
valuable insights into the systematic errors inherent in our
calculations. Such a comparison is not easy to make using traditional
monolithic codes because of the difficulty in implementing even a
simple algorithmic change within those frameworks.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=4in, bb = 30 20 680 490,
clip = true]{McMillan_S_Fig4.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{AMUSE simulation of the collapse of an initially
homogeneous spherical system with a \citet{Kroupa2002} stellar
mass function. The half-mass radii of the indicated mass groups
are shown. The bottom four lines after the collapse represent the
top four mass groups, their half-mass radii decreasing with mass,
indicating strong mass segregation.}
\end{figure}
Figure 4 shows an AMUSE simulation that provides a stringent test of
how the framework handles binaries and close encounters. The initial
conditions consist of a cold homogeneous sphere of $N=10^4$ particles
with a \citet{Kroupa2002} mass distribution. The scientific interest
of this simulation lies in the fact that this system experiences mass
segregation on a dynamical time scale, as was previously noted by
\citet{Vesperini_etal2006,Vesperini_etal2009} and
\citet{Allison_etal2009}. The segregation is clearly evident in the
figure, which shows the time evolution of the half-mass radii of the
particle sets making up the bottom 10 percent, 10--20 percent, 20--30
percent, etc., of the cumulative mass distribution. No segregation is
evident before the ``bounce'' at $t\sim1.5$ initial dynamical times,
while immediately afterward the highest mass groups are clearly
ordered by radius.
\citet{Allison_etal2009} suggested that this unexpected result might
be due to enhanced relaxation around the high density bounce, but this
would only be possible if the system were still quite cold at this
time, and our simulations suggest this is not the case. Instead, it
appears that the system fragments as it collapses, as described by
\citet{Aarseth_etal1988}, and that the fragments mass segregate quite
early in the collapse. Significant segregation within the clumps is
already established by $t\sim1$, well before the bounce, and is
preserved when the clumps subsequently merge, as described by
\citet{McMillan_etal2007}.
Our simulations test the binary handling abilities of AMUSE because
the deep collapse---by a factor of $N^{1/3}$ or $N^{2/3}$, depending
on the details of the initial conditions---leads to many close
encounters and results in binary formation and interaction among the
most massive stars in the system. The late expansion of the low-mass
stars is driven by heating due to these binaries. In side-by-side
tests we find no statistically significant differences between AMUSE
and Starlab, in either the overall behavior of the system (e.g. Figure
4) or in the integration errors incurred.
We interpret these results as encouraging signs that AMUSE has crossed
the threshold where it now incorporates all of the key functionality
found in the leading kitchen-sink codes. Upcoming development of the
framework will focus on (1) improved handling at the python level of
interactions among community modules, including feedback between the
multiples, collisions, and stellar/binary evolution modules, and (2)
full integration of the new collisional dynamical modules with the
global gas dynamics and radiative transport subsystems.
\acknowledgments
This work was supported by NSF grant AST-0708299 in the U.S. and NWO
(grants \#643.200.503, \#639.073.803 and \#614.061.608), NOVA and the
LKBF in the Netherlands. Part of the work was done while the authors
visited the Center for Planetary Science (CPS) in Kobe, Japan, during
a visit that was funded by the HPCI Strategic Program of MEXT. We are
grateful for their hospitality.
|
\section*{Methods}
\noindent\textbf{Photon source:} Entangled photon pairs, spectrally degenerate at 808 nm, were generated in a Type 1 spontaneous parametric down conversion source, with a 404 nm CW laser was focused to a 40 $\mu$m waist in a pair of crossed $\text{BiB}_3\text{O}_6$ (Bismuth Triborate) non linear crystals \cite{kw-pra-60-773}. Photons were spectrally filtered with high transmission interference filters of FWHM 3nm, then collected into polarisation maintaining optical fibres (PMFs). PMFs would normally decohere the polarisation of photons that are not aligned with the slow or fast axis of the fibre, as is the case for photons that are entangled. Our fibres were cut at the midpoint and spliced together with a 90 degree twist such that the slow axis in the first length was aligned with the fast axis in the 2nd length. While this modified fibre imparts an unknown phase shift between the two polarisations, their coherence is preserved. The unknown unitary is pre-compensated with wave plates in the source. State tomography of the photon source, which drives the eCNOT gate, revealed a highly entangled state with fidelity $96.9\pm 0.2\%$ to the corresponding Bell state
\cite{FifthNote}.
\noindent\textbf{Optical Circuit:} The optical circuit of Fig. \ref{fgCirc}b was experimentally constructed using an architecture of calcite beam displacers (BD), which separate the ordinary and extraordinary polarisations and can be used to form very stable Jamin-Lebedeff interferometers---polarisation interferometers with parallel light-paths that provide interferometric stability. The PBSs and Extended PBSs in Fig \ref{fgCirc} were directly implemented with a single BD. The eCNOT gate \cite{Zhou+Ralph2010} requires two non polarising $50\%$ reflectivity beam splitters (BS in Fig \ref{fgCirc}) the unitary operation of which was constructed with four BDs and wave plates. The action of polarisers A1 and A2 was realised using beam stops after the first BD in the BSs. The operation of the circuit is as follows:
\emph{Stage 1 in Fig.~\ref{fgCirc}b}:
The experimental control and work registers are initialised within the eCNOT gate by respectively configuring the $A0$ and $B0$ wave plates to output the desired states as if each of their inputs were the computational $\ket{0}$: $A0$ is set to implement the Hadamard and $B0$ implements the Identity operation. The eCNOT gate is driven by pre-entanglement \cite{Zhou+Ralph2010} from the polarisation entangled SPDC source in the state $\ket{1_{H,U}}\ket{1_{H,L}} + \ket{1_{V,U}}\ket{1_{V,L}}$ (where $H/V$ denotes horizontally/vertically polarised light and U/L denotes upper/lower path) which is then converted to path entanglement with polarisation beam splitters (PBS) and polarisation flips (X). After combing the two double-rails on non-polarising beam splitters (BS) and post selecting on the cases where photons emerge in the two lower paths, the $2\times2$ transition matrices of the optical elements $\{A1, A2, B1, B2\}$ combine as $A1\otimes B1+ A2 \otimes B2$: choosing a vertical polariser for $A1$, a horizontal polariser for $A2$, the Identity operation for $B1$, and a polarisation flip for $B2$, implements the CNOT gate logic on the initialised states. In its general form, the eCNOT gate can perform any controlled unitary operation (by choosing appropriate optical elements for $A1, A2, B1,$ and $B2$), and the addition of a KLM-like teleportation scheme \cite{kn-nat-409-46} allows the gate to work with non separable states.
The polarisation modes within the control spatial mode correspond to the qubit computational states indicated by $C(0,1)$; at this point the polarisation modes within the work spatial mode correspond to the $\ket{0}$ and $\ket{2}$ qutrit states, indicated by $W(0,2)$.
\emph{Stage 2 in Fig.~\ref{fgCirc}b}: The control qubit is projected onto one of the computational states, dependent upon whether $I$ or $X$ is performed before the upper PBS. The lower PBS introduces the third mode for the work register so that the $\ket{0}$ and $\ket{1}$ states are polarisation encoded in the upper spatial mode of the work register (though at this stage the $\ket{1}$ state has zero probability amplitude, i.e. vacuum) while the lower spatial mode contains only one polarisation and corresponds to the $\ket{2}$ state.
\emph{Stage 3 in Fig.~\ref{fgCirc}b}: The pCNOT gate relies on photonic quantum interference tuned by the half wave plate $T$ which is set to $62.5^{\circ}$. Successful operation is heralded when one photon is present in the control modes and one photon is present in the work modes. Here, further balancing loss is introduced into the $W(2)$ mode. The output from $W(2)$ and the usual pCNOT work loss mode share the same spatial mode but different polarisations. The entangling capability of the pCNOT gate was tested with a Bell inequality violation (while in situ) recording a CHSH value of $2.67 \pm 0.01$ (violating the classical limit of 2 by $55$ standard deviations).
\emph{Stage 4 in Fig.~\ref{fgCirc}b}: The control qubit is assigned a phase according to the projector in the first iteration, allowing implementation of the semi-classical Fourier transform. The control qubit states are individually projected and provide the order finding results. At the final stage, the work qutrit plays no role in providing order finding information (other than to herald the control qubit) so individual computational states may be traced out in detection. The polarisations of the upper work spatial mode are not distinguished, but the remaining work mode is; these two cases provide a useful method to confirm correct circuit operation.
|
\section{Proof of Theorem~\ref{th:main}}
Let $K$ be a non-archimedean field as in the statement of Theorem~\ref{th:main}. First we construct a formal series $\Omega(z^{-1})\in K[\hspace{-1.5pt}[ z^{-1}]\hspace{-1.5pt}]$ with the appropriate properties. Note that this works for an arbitrary field; we do not use the valuation on $K$ here.
\begin{lemma}
Let $f(z)=z^d+\cdots+a_0\in K[z]$, and let $R=K[\hspace{-1.5pt}[ z^{-1}]\hspace{-1.5pt}]$, with maximal ideal $\mathfrak{m}=z^{-1}R$. Then there exists a series $\Omega\in \mathfrak{m}\setminus\mathfrak{m}^2$ such that
\[\Omega=\lim_{N\to\infty}\left(f^N(z)\right)^{-1/d^N}\]
in the $\mathfrak{m}$-adic topology, where roots are chosen such that \[(f^N(z))^{-1/d^N}=z^{-1}+O(z^{-2}).\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let
$\beta_N=f^N(z)/z^{d^N}$,
so that $\beta_N=1+O(z^{-1})\in R^*$. Since $1^{d^N}=1$, and since $R$ is Henselian, there exists a $\xi_N=1+O(z^{-1})\in R^*$ such that $\xi_N^{d^N}=\beta^N$. First, we claim that the sequence $\{\xi_N\}_{N\geq 0}$ converges $\mathfrak{m}$-adically. After possibly tensoring with $\overline{K}$, we will assume for simplicity that $K$ contains all $d^N$th roots of unity. Now, since $\xi_N\equiv \xi_{N+1}\equiv 1\MOD{\mathfrak{m}}$, we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\left|\xi_N-\xi_{N+1}\right|_\mathfrak{m}&=&\prod_{\zeta^{d^{N+1}}=1}\left|\xi_N-\zeta\xi_{N+1}\right|_\mathfrak{m}\\
&=&\left|\xi_N^{d^{N+1}}-\xi_{N+1}^{d^{N+1}}\right|_\mathfrak{m}\\
&=&\left|\beta_N^d-\beta_{N+1}\right|_\mathfrak{m}\\
&=&|z|_\mathfrak{m}^{-d^{N+1}}\left|(f^N(z))^d-f^{N+1}(z)\right|_\mathfrak{m}\\
&=&|z|_\mathfrak{m}^{-d^{N+1}}\left|a_{d-1}(f^N(z))^{d-1}+\cdots+a_0\right|_\mathfrak{m}\\
&=&|z|_\mathfrak{m}^{-d^{N+1}}|z|_\mathfrak{m}^{(d-1)d^{N}}=e^{-d^N}.
\end{eqnarray*}
A simple telescoping sum argument now shows that the sequence $\xi_N\in R$ is $\mathfrak{m}$-adically Cauchy, and so has a limit $\Xi=1+O(z^{-1})\in R^*$. Now, note that
\[\left(z^{-1}\xi_N^{-1}\right)^{-d^N}=f^N(z),\]
so that $z^{-1}\xi_N^{-1}=z^{-1}+O(z^{-2})$ is our specified choice of $d^N$th root,
and
\[z^{-1}\xi_N^{-1}\to z^{-1}\Xi^{-1};\]
we call the latter series $\Omega$. From the construction it is clear that \[\Omega=z^{-1}+O(z^{-2})\in\mathfrak{m}\setminus\mathfrak{m}^2,\] and that
\[\Omega=\lim_{N\to\infty}\left(f^N(z)\right)^{-1/d^N},\]
where the $d^N$th root is chosen with linear coefficient 1.
\end{proof}
Note that the series $\Omega$ automatically satisfies the functional equation
\[\Omega\circ f(z)=\Omega^d.\] It is also worth noting that, since $\Omega=z^{-1}+O(z^{-2})$, there is a formal power series $\Omega^{-1}=z^{-1}+O(z^{-2})$ such that \[\Omega\circ\Omega^{-1}=\Omega^{-1}\circ\Omega=z,\]
defined by the Lagrange inversion formula. It is not yet clear that these series have positive radius of convergence. In order to prove this, we will first give two characterizations of the quantity which turns out to be the radius of convergence.
\begin{lemma}
Let $f(z)=z^d+a_{d-1}z^{d-1}+\cdots+a_0\in K[z]$, and let \[C_f=\max_{0\leq i<d}\left\{1, |a_i|^{1/(d-i)}\right\}.\] Then
\[C_f^{-1}=\sup\left\{0<\delta\leq 1:|f(z)|=|z|^d\text{ for all }z\in D(\infty; \delta)\right\},\]
where $D(\infty; \delta)=\{z\in\overline{K}:|z|>\delta^{-1}\}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
It follows from the ultrametric inequality that $|f(z)|=|z|^d$ for all $z\in D(\infty; C_f^{-1})$,
since $|z^d|>|a_iz^i|$ for $|z|>C_f$ and $0\leq i<d$.
So if $B$ is the supremum defined above, we clearly have $C_f^{-1}\leq B\leq 1$. If $C_f=1$, then there is nothing to show, so suppose that $C_f^{-1}<1$, implying $|a_i|>1$ for some $i$. It suffices to show that there exists a $z$ with $|z|=C_{f}^{-1}$, but $|f(z)|\neq |z|^d$. If $i$ is the least index maximizing $|a_i|^{1/(d-i)}$, then the Newton polygon of $f(z)/z^d$ (as a polynomial in $z^{-1}$) contains a line segment joining $(0, 0)$ to $(d-i, v(a_i))$. Necessarily this polynomial has a root of absolute value $|a_i|^{1/(d-i)}=C_f^{-1}$. In other words, there exists a $z$ with $|z|=C_f\neq 0$ and $|f(z)|=0$. It follows at once that $B\leq C_f^{-1}$.
\end{proof}
Our main interest in the more complicated description of $C_f$, beyond the fact that it seems somewhat more fundamental than the simpler definition, is that it immediately implies that $C_{f^N}\leq C_f$ for all $N$, a fact which is somewhat awkward to prove directly.
\begin{lemma}
The series $\Omega$ converges pointwise on $D(\infty; C_{f}^{-1})$, and $\Omega^{-1}$ converges pointwise on $D(0; C_f^{-1}$).
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
In the case where $C_f=1$, this is not particularly difficult. In particular, if $\mathcal{O}\subseteq K$ is the ring of integral elements, then the condition $C_f=1$ implies $\beta_N=f^N(z)/z^{d^N}\in \mathcal{O}[z^{-1}]$ for all $N$. It follows that $\xi_N(z)=1+O(z^{-1})\in \mathcal{O}[\hspace{-1.5pt}[ z^{-1}]\hspace{-1.5pt}]$ (which is where we use the hypothesis that $\deg(f)$ is a unit in $K$), and so $\Omega\in \mathcal{O}[\hspace{-1.5pt}[ z^{-1}]\hspace{-1.5pt}]$. But elements of $\mathcal{O}[\hspace{-1.5pt}[ z^{-1}]\hspace{-1.5pt}]$ are convergent on $D(\infty; 1)$. It also follows from this, and the fact that $\Omega(z)=z^{-1}+O(z^{-2})$, that we have $|\Omega(z)|=|z|^{-1}$ for all $z\in D(\infty; 1)$.
In general, note that for any $\alpha\in\overline{K}$, the coefficient of $z^{i-d}$ in $f(\alpha z)/(\alpha z)^d$ is precisely $a_{i}\alpha^{i-d}$, which has modulus at most 1 if $|\alpha|= C_f$. Since the same is true for $f^N(\alpha z)/(\alpha z)^{d^N}$, because $C_f\geq C_{f^N}$, we see that $\xi_N(\alpha z)\in \overline{K}[\hspace{-1.5pt}[ z^{-1}]\hspace{-1.5pt}]$ has integral coefficients, and thus so too does \[z^{-1}\xi_N(\alpha z)^{-1}=\alpha\Omega(\alpha z)=z^{-1}+a_2\alpha z^{-2}+\cdots\] (here $w=z^{-1}$). An examination of the Lagrange inversion formula shows that if a power series with linear coefficient 1 has coefficients in a given ring, then so does its inverse, and since the inverse of $\alpha\Omega((\alpha^{-1} z)^{-1})$ is $\alpha\Omega^{-1}((\alpha^{-1} z)^{-1})$, the latter series also has integral coefficients. It follows that both of these series converge for $|w|<1$, and so the series converge for $|w|<|\alpha|^{-1}=C_f^{-1}$.
\end{proof}
It follows from the above that $\Omega(z)$ is an element of the Tate algebra of $D=D(\infty; \epsilon)$, for any $\epsilon<C_f^{-1}$, but we have not actually shown that $\Omega$ is the limit of $(f^N(z))^{-1/d^N}$ in the corresponding norm $\|\cdot\|_D$ (i.e., the uniform norm corresponding to this disk). If $\mathbb{C}_v\supseteq K$ is any complete algebraically closed field, let $\epsilon<\epsilon'<C_f^{-1}$, and let $\|\cdot\|_{D'}$ be the supremum norm on the Tate algebra of $D'=D(\infty; \epsilon')$. Since these norms are multiplicative, we have for any $g\in T_{D'}$ and $z\in D(\infty; \epsilon)$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
|g(z)|&=&\left|z^{\operatorname{ord}_\infty(g)}\right|\cdot\left|z^{-\operatorname{ord}_\infty(g)}g(z)\right|\\
&\leq& \left|z^{\operatorname{ord}_\infty(g)}\right|\cdot\left\|z^{-\operatorname{ord}_\infty(g)}g(z)\right\|_{D'}\\
&\leq&\left(\frac{|z|}{\epsilon'}\right)^{\operatorname{ord}_\infty(g)} \left\|g\right\|_{D'},
\end{eqnarray*}
and so
\[\|g\|_{D}\leq \left(\frac{\epsilon}{\epsilon'}\right)^{\operatorname{ord}_\infty(g)} \left\|g\right\|_{D'}\]
In particular, any sequence of functions $g_N\in T_{D'}$ such that $\|g_N\|_{D'}$ is bounded, and $\operatorname{ord}_\infty(g_N)\to \infty$ will converge
as a sequence of elements in $T_D$. Since $\epsilon<\epsilon'<C_f^{-1}$ were arbitrary, and since $(f^N(z))^{-1/d^N}\to \Omega$ in the $\mathfrak{m}$-adic topology, we have $(f^N(z))^{-1/d^N}\to \Omega$ in the Tate algebra $T_D$ for any proper subdisk $D\subseteq D(\infty; C_f^{-1})$, after noting that $\|(f^N(z))^{-1/d^N}\|_{D'}=\epsilon$.
We have now constructed the power series $\Omega$ and $\Omega^{-1}$, and shown that they converge on some disks of positive radii about $\infty$ and $0$, respectively. If $f$ has good reduction, then these radii are both 1.
To finish the proof of Theorem~\ref{th:main}, it suffices to observe that for any convergent series $\Sigma a_i z^i$ with $a_i\in K$, and any Galois extension $L/K$, we have $\left(\Sigma a_i z^i\right)^{\sigma}=\Sigma a_i(z^\sigma)^i$ for all $z\in L$ and $\sigma\in \operatorname{Gal}(L/K)$. This follows simply because $\sigma$ will fix the (unique) maximal ideal of $\mathcal{O}_L\subseteq L$, and hence will act continuously on $L$.
\section{Proofs of the other results}
With the proof of Theorem~\ref{th:main} complete, the other results become relatively straightforward.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{th:finite index}] Let $f(z)\in K[z]$ be a monic polynomial of degree indivisible by the residual characteristic of $f$, and suppose that $f$ has good reduction. We further suppose that $P\in K$ is not in the filled Julia set of $f$. Then by Theorem~\ref{th:main}, there is a biholomorphic Galois-equivarient mapping $\Omega:D(\infty; 1)\to D(0; 1)$ such that $\Omega(f(z))=(\Omega(z))^d$, for all $z$. Note that if $Q\in\overline{K}$ satisfies $f^N(Q)=P$, then $Q\in D(\infty; 1)$, and so the domain of $\Omega$ contains the entire preimage tree $T_{f, P}$. Thus, $\Omega$ induces a tree isomorphism $T_{f, P}\cong T_{z^d, \Omega(P)}$ which respects the action of $\operatorname{Gal}(\overline{K}/K)$. It follows that the image of the arboreal Galois representation $\rho_{f, P}$ is isomorphic to the image of the representation $\rho_{z^d, \Omega(P)}$. Since $\Omega(P)$ is not a unit in $K$, standard Kummer theory shows that this image is a finite index subgroup of a Kummer subgroup of $\operatorname{Aut}(T_{z^d, \Omega(P)})$.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Corollary~\ref{cor:big galois}] Suppose that $f(z)\in K[z]$ has good reduction at $\mathfrak{p}$, a place above a rational prime $p\nmid \deg(f)$, and that $P_0$ is not in the $\mathfrak{p}$-adic filled Julia set. It is clearly the case that, if $f(P_{n+1})=P_n$ for all $n$, we have $[K(P_{n+1}):K(P_n)]\leq d$, and so it suffices to establish a lower bound
\[[K(P_{n+1}):K(P_n)]\geq [K_\mathfrak{p}(P_{n+1}):K_\mathfrak{p}(P_n)]\geq d,\]
for $n$ sufficiently large.
But note that, for each $n$, $\Omega(P_{n+1})^d=\Omega(P_n)$. Also, we have that $|\Omega(P_0)|=|P_0|^{-1}\neq 1$, and so $\Omega(P_0)$ is not a unit. It follows that, for $n$ sufficiently large, the ramification index of the extension
\[K_\mathfrak{p}(P_{n+1})/K_\mathfrak{p}(P_n) = K_\mathfrak{p}(\Omega(P_{n+1}))/K_\mathfrak{p}(\Omega(P_{n}))\]
is $d$, giving the lower bound we require.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Corollary~\ref{cor:preim curve}]
Finally we prove the claims about preimage curves. Let $K=k(C)$ be the function field of a curve $C$ over an algebraically closed field $k$ of characteristic not dividing $d$, and let $f(z)\in K[z]$ have degree $d$, $P\in K$. Let $v$ be a place at which $f$ has good reduction, and such that $P$ is not in the filled $v$-adic Julia set, and $K_v$ be the completion of the local field at $v$. As above, for any chain $P_n\in \overline{K}$ with $P_0=P$, $f(Pa_{n+1})=\alpha_n$, we have $[K(P_n):K]\geq \epsilon d^{n}$, for some absolute $\epsilon>0$. In particular, the number of Galois orbits in $f^{-N}(P)$ remains bounded as $N\to \infty$. Each one of these Galois orbits corresponds to a component of $X^\mathrm{Pre}_{f, P}(N)$.
Note, also, that the argument provided in the proof of Corollary~\ref{cor:big galois} above shows that the ramification index of $v$ in the extension $[K(P_1):K]$ is at least $d/\gcd(v(P), d)$. In particular, we see that when $P$ has a pole of order prime to $d$ at $v$, $K(P_1)/K$ is an extension of degree $d$ in which $v$ is totally ramified. In other words, $X^{\mathrm{Pre}}_{f, P}(1)$ is an irreducible curve, and the map $X^{\mathrm{Pre}}_{f, P}(1)\to X^{\mathrm{Pre}}_{f, P}(0)=C$ ramifies completely at the place above $v$. If there are at least 5 such places, then $X^{\mathrm{Pre}}_{f, P}(1)$ admits a map of degree $d$ to another curve, with ramification divisor having degree at least $5d-5$. It follows that this curve has genus at least 2.
\end{proof}
|
\section{Introduction}
Long-term stellar activity study is a challenging research area so far as it needs the longest available data sets, and appropriate statistical methods to treat the problematic in its complexity.
\citet{philhart} first reported the long-term photometric variability of spotted binary stars, based on the archival photographic plate photometry combined with photoelectric photometric data. Their work produced more than 50 years of activity history for BY~Dra and CC~Eri. A similar result for V833~Tau was published by \citet{hart}, and is later confirmed by \citet{bon}. Star--spot activity is now known to occur on a range of solar--type and early K~giants stars. Some relevant works in the field are those of \citet{mess}, \citet{bon}, \citet*{olah1}, \citet{olahstrass}.
In the present analysis we used combined photographic, photoelectric photometry and CCD observations to study cyclic activity of the spotted subgiant star CF~Oct. The collected data, presented on Fig. 1, are quasi--randomly distributed with data gaps over time interval of about 45 years. We applied the Gregory-Loredo Bayesian method for time series with independent Gaussian noise, \citet{GL2}, in order to obtain Bayesian estimate for the known $\sim20$~d rotational modulation and to search for long-term periodic variability in time-scales up to about 15 years. The method and the IDL procedure, developed in the AIU Jena, that we used have been previously tested on the synthetic data-sets, modeled with known period and amplitude, observational errors and simulated data gaps. They have shown reliable results and accurate period estimation.
\section{CF Oct - active spotted giant star}
CF Oct (HD 196818, HIP 102803, ${\rm \alpha}=20^{h}49^{m}37^{s}.263$, ${\rm \delta}=-80^{\circ}08'01''.01$, J2000, $K0 IIIp$ given by \citet{houk}) is a bright, southern active giant star. Its variability was first detected by \citet{stroh} on the photographic plates from Bamberg Observatory Southern Sky Survey (BOSSS). In the GCVS \citep{sam} the star is described as a RS~CVn type variable with maximal brightness $V=8.27$~mag and relatively large photometric variations $\sim 0.3$~mag. Early archival observations from the BOSSS were recently digitized and analyzed by \citet{ib1}.
Photoelectric photometry for the star was performed and published by \citet{Innis1}, \citet{lloyd}, \citet{poll}, \citet*{innis2}. Rapid changes in the light curve in $2006$ was announced by \citet*{innis3}. The photometry studies reveal rotational modulation of $\sim{20}$~d, due to spotted activity. Spectroscopic studies by \citet{hear} and \citet{innis2} of CF Oct show strong Ca\,{\sc ii} emission and filled-in H$_{\alpha}$ line. \citet{innis2} reported for no significant radial velocity variations and hence concluded that the star is probably single. Based on the radial velocity data and the period of the rotational cycle they consider it is a subgiant rather than a giant as per Houk classification. CF~Oct is also reported to be a strong, flaring, microwave radio source by \citet{slee}, and appears at the ROSAT Bright survey catalogue \citep{fish} with 1.12 counts per second in the energy range of 0.1--2.4~keV.
\section{Observations}
For the present study we have used data from: the Bamberg Observatory Southern Sky Survey (BOSSS), published photoelectric photometry observations, the Hipparcos satellite time-series, and the All Sky Automated Survey (ASAS) data archive.
BOSSS \citep{tcvb} was taken in the period 1963 to 1976 and contains more than 22 000 plates that cover the whole southern sky with limiting magnitude in range $11$ to $14$~mag. This survey is unique because of the fact that in this time interval the first Palomar and Harvard Observatory Southern Sky Surveys were completed, but other southern observatories were not actively surveying the sky. CF~Oct was observed on 352 plates in the period 1964--1976. \citet{ib1} performed aperture photometry and phase dispersion minimization (PDM) light curve analysis. In \citet{ib1} we discussed the methods for photographic plate digitization, the plate photometry and the transformation from $B$ to $V$ magnitude of the star. Plate data (BAM) are collected in more then six seasons relatively well covered by observations, separated by significant intervals with a lack of observations.
Photoelectric photometry data (PHOT) came from following papers: \citet{Innis1}, \citet{lloyd}, \citet{poll}, \citet{innis2}. The dataset consists of 137 data points, that might be separated in 5 seasons of intense observations.
In this PHOT dataset the mean brightness of the star is at its historical minimum. It is not clear whether this is an observational selection effect. \citet{lloyd} applied systematic magnitude corrections in order to have agreement for the photometry from different seasons, although they noted this was purely an ad hoc approach. Changes of mean light level have been observed for other RS~CVn stars (\citet*{fro} for HK~Lac, \citet{poretti} for AY~Cet).
The Hipparcos and Tycho Catalogues \citet{esa}, available via the Centre de Données astronomiques de Strasbourg (CDS), provide high quality scientific data for the period November 1989--March 1993. For our research we have used the Hipparcos time series data, as they have relatively smaller errors and are close to the photometry from Tycho catalogues. The Hipparcos magnitudes of CF Oct were transformed to $V$ by the use of equations given by \citet{bess}.
The most recent photometry for our work is extracted from the ASAS, \citet{asas}, archive at the web-page http://www.astrouw.edu.pl/asas/. The ASAS project aims at photometric monitoring of the whole available sky, from two observing stations -- Las Campanas Observatory, Chile since 1997 and Haleakala, Maui since 2006. Both stations are equipped with two wide-field 200--mm/f/2.8 instruments, observing simultaneously in $V$ and $I$ band. The project's ultimate goal is detection and investigation of any kind of photometric variability. As CF Oct is a relatively bright star, so far the early ASAS photometry data are unusable due to saturated images. For this reason, after consulting with ASAS supporting team, for the analysis we included only the data free of saturation influence.
The dataset we have collected contains data for HJD of the observation, $V$ mag of the star, and corresponding errors. As far as it consists of four datasets taken from different sources it suffers from significant intervals with lack of data, and also by non-uniform data distribution. The resulting $V$ magnitude light curve with overploted errors is presented on Fig.~1, where the crosses present BAM data, asterisk - PHOT data, diamonds - HIP data and triangles - ASAS data. The data-set statistically is presented in Table~1, with following information: Dataset ; $N_{\rm p}$ - the Number of data points in the set; $T_{\rm s}$ - the time span of the set in days; HJD is in the beginning of the set; $V_{\rm min}$, $V_{\rm max}$ and $<V>$ - minimal, maximal and mean values of $V$ magnitudes respectively.
\begin{figure}
\psfig{file=fig1.eps,width=8.0cm}
\caption{
$V$ magnitude light curve of CF~Oct for the period 1964--2009 with overploted errors in gray colour.
}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{minipage}{140mm}
\caption{Statistical description of the data}
\begin{tabular}{@{}llrrrrlrlr@{}}
\hline
Dataset&$N_{\rm p}$ & $T_{\rm s}$& $HJD$ & $V_{\rm min}$ & $V_{\rm max}$& $<V>$ \\
\hline
BAM&352&4484&2438560&7.67&8.30&7.98 \\
PHOT&137&3212&2444071&7.93&8.41&8.16 \\
HIP&130&1176&2447873&7.74&7.98&7.90 \\
ASAS&705&3058 &2451961&7.73& 8.07&7.91\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{minipage}
\end{table}
\section{Bayesian Statistical methods in use}
We used Gregory-Loredo method(GL), \citet{GL2}, for time-series analysis in the presence of Gaussian errors. It employs Bayes's theorem for detection of a periodic signal with unknown shape and period and for estimation of the characteristics of the detected signal. First step of the Bayesian statistical methods is to determine the hypothesis space. In general, for observed stars we have three hypotheses - constant light, variable light, and a periodic signal. In the GL method periodic models are represented by a signal folded into a stepwise function, similar to a histogram, with \textbf{$m$} phase bins per period plus a noise contribution. With such a model we are able to approximate a light curve of any shape.
The stepwise model is then described by the following parameters: period \textbf{$P$}, phase of the minimal star brightness \textbf{$\phi$}, number of bins \textbf{$m$}, light curve shape \textbf{$r_i$} in the each bin and noise scale parameter \textbf{$b$}. The GL method uses Jeffreys prior distributions for \textbf{$b$} and \textbf{$P$}, to ensure fully compatibility of the posterior distribution functions of the period and the frequency (\textbf{$1/P$}) , and uniform prior distribution for the rest of the parameters. The prior range for the period and the light curve shape parameter are user selected according the available data and the prior information.
The constant model may be treated just as a special case of a periodic model with only one bin \textbf{$m = 1$} and it has only two parameters: the value of the constant signal and the noise scale parameter. In the stepwise representation the nonperiodic modulation model may be treated as another special case of periodic model, when the period is equal to the data time span, with wider range of the number of bins and it has \textbf{$m$} light-curve shape parameters, bin phase and the noise scale parameter.
The stepwise model is flexible enough to approximate light curve of practically any shape, and although it is well suited to describe ''spiky'' signals, \citet{GL2} points out that it can successfully detect smooth signals and accurately estimates their shape and parameters. The posterior mean values, the most probable values and the credible intervals of the parameters are then estimated by marginalization of the global likelihoods over the priori specified range of each parameter. In our particular case the posterior mean is a robust estimator for the rotational period the of CF~Oct. Bayesian posterior probability contains a term that penalizes complex models, hence we calculate the posterior probability by marginalizing over a range of models, corresponding to a prior range of \textbf{$m$} from 2 to 12. The noise scale parameter \textbf{$b$} in GL method is the relation of the variances of the observer's errors and model residuals, and it is an indication whether the model successfully describes the observational data. If the mode of the \textbf{$b\approx{1}$}, then the proposed model is accounting for everything that is not noise in the data. If the mode of the \textbf{$b<1$}, then the model does not account significant features in the data, or the initial observers error estimates are low. Values of the \textbf{$b>1$} is an indication for over-fitting as the model residuals are smaller than the observational errors. We have tested the method by using modeled datasets, with randomly distributed data-points and with data gaps. For independent verification of the detected signals we have also applied Lomb-Scargle method, together with the Bayesian generalization of the Lomb-Scargle periodogram by \citet{bret}.
In order to reduce the likelihood of introducing unknown systematic errors into the periodicity study of CF~Oct, due to the different observational methods and data reduction procedures employed, instead of analyzing $V$ magnitude variations, we have analyzed the variations of $<V>-V$, where $<V>$ is the mean value of $V$ magnitude for each data set, i.e. $<\textbf{V}>$=($<V_{\rm bam}>$,$<V_{\rm phot}>$,$<V_{\rm hip}>$,$<V_{\rm asas}>$). On a short time-scale the star is already known as a variable, so while we analysed the rotational modulation we concentrate on testing the hypothesis for detecting periodic variations, and on the period estimation. With the collected data we are able to study variability of CF~Oct in ranges from several days (this limit is set up by the average sampling frequency of our observations) to 15 years (1/3 of the covered observational time span). This is a rather large time span, and was examined in several parts by using a suitable number of frequencies in each section. The long-term variability study of the star was performed by estimating the odds ratios (the ratio of the probabilities of the model with respect to the constant model) of the nonperiodic and periodic modulation models, as well as by searching for periodic modulation.
\section{Detecting the rotational modulation}
As CF Oct has a well established rotational period near~$\sim20$~d, known from PDM and least-squares periodical analysis of photographic and photoelectric observations, we have applied the Gregory-Loredo method for its detection. This is relevant as already studied BAM and PHOT data sets show slightly different periods \citep{ib1} that might be due to the period estimation errors, phase shifting or more complex periodical modulation. All the data sets are rich enough and are suitable to be studied separately as well as all together. For the separate datasets and for all the combined data we have calculated the global posterior probability density functions for a class of models described by the following parameters : \textbf{$b$} noise scale in the priori range from $0.05$ to $2.0$, number of bins (\textbf{$m$}) in range from 2 to 12; the period ($P$) in a prior range from $19$ to $21$~d, covered with relevant number of frequencies. We have followed \citet{GL2} in the case of $\textbf{$b$}\neq{1}$ and estimated the projected probability density function of the noise scale parameter. In case of the PHOT and ASAS data we have used a model with additional error term, in order to avoid numerical difficulties because of the very low observational errors.
\begin{table*}
\centering
\begin{minipage}{90mm}
\caption{Derived parameters: number of bins, period and 68 per cent credible interval }
\begin{tabular}{@{}lllrrcc@{}}
\hline
Dataset & \textbf{$m_{\rm mode}$} & \textbf{$b_{\rm mode}$} & \textbf{$P_{\rm mode}$} & \textbf{$P_{\rm mean}$} &\textbf{$cre. int., (from-to)$} &\textbf{$P_{\rm bret}$} \\
&Value & (days) & (days) & (days) &(days) &(days)\\
\hline
BAM&3&0.95&20.04&20.04&20.035--20.045&20.04 \\
PHOT&2&0.80&20.17&20.16&20.145--20.175&20.16 \\
HIP&2&1.00&20.46&20.45&20.425--20.475&20.51 \\
ASAS&3&0.90&19.94&19.94&19.930--19.950&19.93 \\
\hline
ALL&3&0.28&20.16&20.14&20.120--20.950&20.11 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{minipage}
\end{table*}
The parameters of interest are estimated by marginalization of the global likelihood function (equation 7, \citet{GL2}) over the nuisance parameters in the priori range. Marginalization over the noise scale parameter is the most conservative way for estimation of the model parameters that treats anything in the data, not described by the model as a noise. By marginalization of the joint posterior likelihood function over the frequencies we have computed the probability of the number of bins, and thus the most probable \textbf{$m$} (\textbf{$m_{\rm mode}$} in Table 2). The number of bins parameter relates to the complexity of the light curve to the shape of the light-curve and probably is connected with the structure of the stellar spots (or the spot groups). The values of the \textbf{$m_{\rm mode}$} parameter, we obtained, tend to be small 2 or 3 with a rather narrow distribution, so that model with one more light curve bin is already penalized by the Occam's razor factor for involving unreasonable number of parameters.
\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\vbox{
\hbox{
\psfig{file=fig21.eps,width=7.5cm, height=4.5cm}
\hspace{0.25cm}
\psfig{file=fig7.eps,width=7.5cm, height=4.5cm}
}
\hbox{
\psfig{file=fig22.eps,width=7.5cm, height=4.5cm}
\hspace{0.25cm}
\psfig{file=fig8.eps,width=7.5cm, height=4.5cm}
}
\hbox{
\psfig{file=fig23.eps,width=7.5cm, height=4.5cm}
\hspace{0.25cm}
\psfig{file=fig9.eps,width=7.5cm, height=4.5cm}
}
\hbox{
\psfig{file=fig24.eps,width=7.5cm, height=4.5cm}
\hspace{0.25cm}
\psfig{file=fig10.eps,width=7.5cm, height=4.5cm}
}
\hbox{
\psfig{file=fig25.eps,width=7.5cm, height=4.5cm}
\hspace{0.25cm}
\psfig{file=fig11.eps,width=7.5cm, height=4.5cm}
}
}
\end{center}
\caption
{Marginal PDFs (see the text) of the period, plots show only the interesting part ({\it left panel}) and mean $V$ subtracted light curve , with common $HJD=2438560.4$ for the zero phase ({\it right panel}) for: from top to bottom - BAM, PHOT, HIP, ASAS and ALL the data.}
\label{Fig. 2}
\end{figure*}
The marginalization of the joint probability function over $m$ represents the information provided by the data for the period. The period that best describes the observed light curve may be estimated by determining the maximum of the marginal posterior probability dencity function, or by calculating the posterior weighted mean period. We have calculated the 68 per cent credible intervals for a given parameter following \citet{GL3} as the interval, that contains 68 per cent of the posterior Probability Density Function (PDF) and where the PDF is everywhere greater than the one outside the credible interval. The Bretthorst generalization of the Lomb-Scargle periodogram gives very close results and also confirms the period variations. Table 2 represents our results: the most probable \textbf{$m_{\rm mode}$}, the most probable noise scale parameter \textbf{$b_{\rm mode}$}, the maximal probable period (\textbf{$P_{\rm mode}$}), the weighted mean period \textbf{$P_{\rm mean}$}, the credible intervals for the period detection and the period derived by Bretthorst generalisation method \textbf{$P_{\rm bret}$}.
The posterior probabilities are normalized in order to obtain the PDFs and the later have an integral over the priori ranges equal to 1. For the separate datasets as well as for all the data together the expanded plots showing the interesting part of the marginal PDFs are given on the left panels of Fig.~2. The mean subtracted $V$ light curves, plotted with the most probable period for the datasets and for all the data, and with a common HJD for the zero phase for all the photometries, set at the beginning of observations at $HJD=2438560.4$ are presented in the right panels of Fig.~2. For the separate datasets \textbf{$b_{\rm mode}$} as well as the \textbf{$b_{\rm mean}$} are close to $1$, and shows that the periodic model is doing a good representation of the observational data. Our analysis confirms previous suggestions \citep{ib1} for period changes as well as for light curve phase shifting \citep{poll}. The value of the \textbf{$b_{\rm mode}=0.28$} for ALL the data indicates that the simple periodic model does not explain satisfying all the observational data and eventually refers for the presence of additional signal in the data. However, in the case of combined data we do see possible other source of "noise" (on the base of the estimated parameter \textbf{$b$}) and in principle larger credible interval that depends not only from spanned time, but also from the signal to noise ratio and from the amplitude of periodic variations. The mean and mode period obtained for photographic plate and photoelectric photometry data are close to the previous published ones. Scatter in the light curves from different datasets shows that the amplitude of brightness variations, light curve shape and phase of the minimal brightness change with the epoch of observation. This additionally complicates the estimation of the light curve shape which is beyond the goals of the presented research.
\section{Long-term variability of CF Oct}
As it is mentioned above, the GL method gives us opportunity for searching for long-term cycles with duration up to 6000 days. For the proposed study we selected time-scale from 600 to 6000 days that is rather different from the time-scale of the rotational modulation and allows to separately study the long-term variability of CF~Oct. The hypotheses for constant ($H_{\rm C}$), for nonperiodic ($H_{\rm NP}$) and for periodic signal ($H_{\rm P}$) are evaluated, and the odds ($h_{\rm i}/h_{\rm c}$) ratios are given in Table 3. The noise scale parameter for all the models takes into account the rotational modulation as an additional noise. For the nonperiodic model we use number of bins parameter \textbf{$m=40$}. The result shows that the periodic model can best represent the observational data and it is the most probable model. The variable model appears the second probable one and it is very reasonable as periodical models are a special case of variable ones. The noise scale parameters for the examined models give the additional information that the constant and variable models on a long-term scale do not explain significant structures in the data.
\begin{table*}
\centering
\begin{minipage}{140mm}
\caption{The hypotheses space, odds ratios and noise scale parameters}
\begin{tabular}{@{}lcc@{}}
\hline
Hypothesis&odds ratio $h_{\rm i}/h_{\rm 0}$&\textbf{$b_{\rm mode}$}\\
\hline
$H_{C}$ : Constant signal with randon Gaussian noise&$1$&0.21\\
$H_{NP}$ : Nonperiodic signal with unknown shape&$1.8\times10^{2}$&0.54\\
$H_{P}$ : Periodic signal with a priori unknown shape and period&$0.4\times10^{80}$&1.32\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{minipage}
\end{table*}
In order to search for a long-term periodicity we have computed the Bayesian PDF and estimated probabilities for period detection over the mean-subtracted magnitude ($<V>-V$, where $<V>$ is the mean value of $V$ for each data set, i.e. $<\textbf{V}>$=($<V_{\rm bam}>$,$<V_{\rm phot}>$,$<V_{\rm hip}>$,$<V_{\rm asas}>$) data on long-term time scales with a prior period range from 600 to 6000~d. Bayesian estimation of the probability for long-term periodic modulation over mean-subtracted magnitude data results in a marginal PDF (Fig. 3) with three individual peaks with local maxima at $3582$~d ($\sim~9.8$~yr), $2432.5$~d ($\sim 6.7$~yr) and $1173$~d ($\sim 3.2$~yr) and $FWHM$ of $184$~d, $70$~d and $21$~d respectively.
\begin{figure}
\psfig{file=fig41.eps,width=7.0cm}
\caption{Marginal PDF of the period for mean-subtracted $V$ magnitude data}
\label{Figure. 3}
\end{figure}
The phase shift of the minimal or maximal light suggested by \citet{poll} and \citet{ib1} has led us to the idea to study time-residuals. The time-residuals represent the difference between the observed and model predicted times of signal minima (or maxima) and are an analog of the $(O-C)$ terms in light curves of the binary stars. They are representing the observed phase shift in the light curve of CF~Oct and are probably connected with the spot migration over the stellar equator. We have computed the time-residuals by using stepwise (with \textbf{$m=10$} bins) light curves of the PHOT dataset as a reference for expected times of minimal brightness of the star. The differences between the expected or predicted by the PHOT light curve and actually observed times of minimum brightness for all the observed data span were calculated. The marginalized (over \textbf{$m$}) probabilities for detection of cyclic activity with period in the interval $600$ to $6000$~d are presented on Fig.~4. The marginal total probability of 0.46 for cycle with a period of $2603.0$~d ($\sim 7.1$~yr) with $FWHM$ of $54$~d is estimated. This cycle length is in a good agreement with the suggestions of \citet{poll}. A period of $2648$~d was detected with the Bretthorst generalization method and falls very close to the period determined by GL method. Fitting the time-residual data with a stepwise curve with period of $2603.0$~d is presented on Fig. 6.
The other two peaks of the marginal PDF with periods near $4100$ and $5500$~d and $FWHM$ of $432$ and $769$~d have relatively low probabilities both of $0.27$ and they give much more scatter of the stepwise fitting curve compared to the $2603.0$~d period. We suppose that the minor peaks are probably due to the data gaps and the quasi-random data distribution. Thus we consider that the period of $2603.0$~d is the most probable for the time-residual data.
\begin{figure}
\psfig{file=fig31.eps,width=7.0cm}
\caption{Marginal PDF of the period for time-residual data}
\label{Figure. 4}
\end{figure}
\section{Discussion}
The results from Bayesian detection of the rotational modulation for CF~Oct are in good agreement with previously published values. Using the Bayesian statistical method meant we were able to estimate the probabilities for rotational modulation over the priori selected range, based on the previous studies, and to determine the mode and mean periods derived from separate datasets as well as for all the observational data. The rather narrow credible intervals for period detection over the four separate datasets, state the range where the simple periodic model best describes the observations and thus we propose that the star probably exhibit variations in the rotational period. We have tested the hypotheses for constant, simple periodic and variable model for all the observed data and find out that the periodic model is still the most probable one. Obviously this model does not explain the changes in the rotational period, so more complicated analysis with expanded hypotheses space to account for both rotational and long-term activity of CF~Oct need to be performed. We were able also to estimate the mode period of $20.16$~d for all the collected data, but with relatively large credible interval. This is very close to the best period estimated over electrophotometric data by \citet{poll}. The estimated rotational period varies from $19.94$~d for ASAS data to $20.46$~d for HIP data. The most evident hypothesis for changes in the rotational period is differential rotation of the stellar surface, and latitude migration of surface spots. It is noteworthy to point out that rapid changes in the light curve of CF~Oct were observed by \citet{innis3} in 2006. ASAS data set does not have enough observations at the time of these changes that would give additional information. However for the ASAS observations after the reported changes near $HJD=2454040.0$ the amplitude of the variation is relatively small, about $0.2$~mag.
\citet{poll} suggested for activity cycle of $9\pm3$ years based on the changes of the amplitude of the spot-wave. The period for cyclic activity of $2603$~d estimated with GL method by the time-residual data is in an agreement with this prediction. This new found cycle is another indication for changes in the rotational period of the star.
Inspection of the stepwise light curve with period $2603$~d and (Fig. 6) overploted on the time-residual data shows, that characteristic features - minima and maxima of the light curve are well supported by the observations.
The derived period for cyclic activity of $2432.5$~d over the mean-subtracted magnitude data is close to the period derived from time-residual data, but the $FWHMs$ of these cycles does not overlap. Thus the hypothesis of the existence of the joint period for the magnitude and time-residual cycles in the presence of rotational modulation is very interesting and will be tested later by the use of the method used by \cite{GL2}. The estimated cycle of $3582~d$ (Fig. 5) by the use of magnitude data according the represented parameters is the most probable one, and also fits into the suggested cyclic activity by \citet{poll}.
The $\log_{10}(P_{\rm rot}/P_{\rm cyc})=-2.1$ index for CF Oct, for $P_{\rm cyc}=2603$~d, is in a good agreement with the values for active stars summarised by \citet{olah1}, nevertheless on fig. 13 from the mentioned paper CF~Oct would lie very close to the similar RS~CVn star HK~Lac and would be also close to the line of the main sequence stars of \citet{bal}. On the basis of other detections of long-term variations with two to three cycles for several stars reported by \citet{olah1}, and for the activity cycles analysis of \citet{fro} for HK~Lac, we also propose that the hypotheses for complex long-term variability with superposition of two or more cycles of CF~Oct are relevant and needs future evaluating by the means of Bayesian statistics.
\begin{figure}
\psfig{file=fig15.eps,width=8.5cm}
\caption{Stepwise, phase-shifted light curve for the cycle with period of $3582$~d plotted over the mean-subtracted $V$ magnitude data in gray colour. Symbols are the same as on Fig. 1.}
\label{Figure. 5}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\psfig{file=fig51.eps,width=8.5cm}
\caption{Stepwise time-residual fitting curve for the cycle with period of $2603~d$ overploted over the time-residual ($Trez$) data. }
\label{Figure. 6}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusions}
The main result of our work is that it clearly shows the evidence of a long-term activity cycle of the active giant star CF~Oct. Two cycles of $2603$~d and $3582$~d with $FWHMs$ of $53$ and $184$~d were detected by the use of two different statistical techniques. First one cycle of $2603$~d represent the changes of stellar magnitude, while the second one is related to the changes of the phase of minimal brightness of the star, so it means that there is no superposition of the two cycles.
We have given arguments that support previous suggestions for smooth period changes, due to differential rotation and possible spot migration, and derived the most probable periods for different intervals of the light history of CF~Oct. The estimated rotational period are: $20.04$~d for the interval 1964--76 from Bamberg observatory plate data, $20.16$~d for the interval 1979--88 from electrophotometry data, $20.45$~d for the interval 1989--93 from Hipparcos data and $19.94$~d for the interval 2000--09 from ASAS archive.
The Bayesian analysis indicates that the hypotheses for presence complex cyclic activity of CF~Oct is also relevant and it is a subject of future work to evaluate the proposition for observation of several long-period cycles over the joint analysis of magnitude and time-residual data.
This work demonstrates the value of the astronomical data archives and draws attention to preserving archival observations for future exploitation. With the extension of the observational time series by the photographic plate data we are able to study decadal variations of bright active stars.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
We are thankful to Prof. Ralph Neuh\"auser and the support of AIU-Jena for hosting the present statistical study; Dr.
B. Pilechki for the help and for providing us additional information regarding ASAS data;
Prof. U. Heber and AvH foundation for supporting our work for digitizing plates in use from BOSSS. This work is also performed with the support of Bulgarian NSF, grant DO 02-275.
|
\section{Introduction}
One problem of considerable interest has been to find a decimation value $d$ such that the cross-correlation between a $p$-ary $m$-sequence $\{s_{t}\}$ of period $p^{n}-1$ and its decimation $\{s_{dt}\}$ is low. When $\mathrm{gcd}(d,p^{n}-1)=1$, the decimated sequence $\{s_{dt}\}$ is also an $m$-sequence of period $p^{n}-1$. Basic results on the cross-correlation between two $m$-sequences can be found in [1-3].
When $\mathrm{gcd}(d,p^{n}-1)\neq1$, the sequence $\{s_{dt}\}$ has period $\frac{p^{n}-1}{\mathrm{gcd}(d,p^{n}-1)}$. For this case, there also are many good results which can be found in [4-7].
In \cite{7}, for an odd prime $p$, Choi, Lim, No, and Chung investigated into the cross-correlation of a $p$-ary $m$-sequence of period $p^{n}-1$ and its decimated sequence by $d=\frac{(p^{m}+1)^{2}}{2(p+1)}$, where $n=2m$ and $m$ is odd. They have shown that the magnitude of the cross-correlation values is upper bounded by $\frac{p+1}{2}p^{\frac{n}{2}}+1$.
Recently, for $n=2m$, $p\equiv3\ \mathrm{mod}\ 4$, Luo, Helleseth, and Kholosha \cite{8} determined the distribution of the cross-correlation values of a $p$-ary $m$-sequence $\{s_{t}\}$ of period $p^{n}-1$ and its decimated sequence $\{s_{dt}\}$ by $d=\frac{(p^{m}+1)^{2}}{2(p^{e}+1)}$, where $m$ is odd and $e|m$. They derived that the cross-correlation is six-valued.
It is not difficult to observe that the decimation value $d$ in \cite{8} is a generalization of that in \cite{7}, i.e., for $p\equiv3\ \mathrm{mod}\ 4$ the result in \cite{7} can be generalized to a more general form. In fact, it can also be generalized to the case of $p\equiv1\ \mathrm{mod}\ 4$. In this paper, for $p\equiv1\ \mathrm{mod}\ 4$, we will combine the machinery in \cite{10},\cite{8} and \cite{7} to study the cross-correlation between a $p$-ary $m$-sequence $\{s_{t}\}$ of period $p^{2m}-1$ and its decimated sequence $\{s_{dt}\}$ by the same $d$ as that in \cite{8}, that is, $d=\frac{(p^{m}+1)^{2}}{2(p^{e}+1)}$, $e|m$ and $m$ is odd. We show that the cross-correlation is also six-valued. And the distribution of the cross correlation values is determined.
\section{Preliminaries}
For an odd prime $p$,
let $\mathrm{F}_{p^{n}}$ denote the finite field with $p^{n}$ elements and $\mathrm{F}_{p^{n}}^{*}=\mathrm{F}_{p^{n}}\backslash\{0\}$.
The trace function $\mathrm{Tr}_{m}^{n}$ from the field $\mathrm{F}_{p^{n}}$ onto the subfield $\mathrm{F}_{p^{m}}$ is defined by
$$\mathrm{Tr}_{m}^{n}(x)=x+x^{p^{m}}+x^{p^{2m}}+\cdots+x^{p^{(h-1)m}},$$
where $h=n/m$.
We will use the following notations in the remaining part of this paper unless otherwise specified.
Let $p\equiv1\ \mathrm{mod}\ 4$, $n=2m$, $e|m$ and $d=\frac{(p^{m}+1)^{2}}{2(p^{e}+1)}$, where $m$ is an odd integer. Let $\alpha$ be a primitive element of $\mathrm{F}_{p^{n}}$. Then we have $\mathrm{gcd}(d,p^{n}-1)=\frac{p^{m}+1}{2}$ and $d(p^{m+e}+1)\equiv p^{m}+1\ (\mathrm{mod}\ p^{n}-1)$ (These also can refer to \cite{7} or \cite{8}). It should be pointed out that both $\frac{p^{m}+1}{2}$ and $d$ are odd when $p\equiv1\ \mathrm{mod}\ 4$.
A $p$-ary $m$-sequence $\{s_{t}\}$ is given by
$$s_{t}=\mathrm{Tr}_{1}^{n}(\alpha^{t}),$$
where $\mathrm{Tr}_{1}^{n}$ is the trace function from $\mathrm{F}_{p^{n}}$ onto $\mathrm{F}_{p}$.
The periodic cross correlation function $C_{d}(\tau)$ between$ \{s_{t}\}$ and $\{s_{dt}\}$ is defined by
$$C_{d}(\tau)=\sum\limits_{t=0}^{p^{n}-2}\omega^{s_{t+\tau}-s_{dt}},$$
where $0\leq \tau \leq p^{n}-2$ and $\omega$ is a primitive complex $p$th root of unity.
\begin{definition}(\cite{9})
A quadratic form $x_{1},x_{2},\ldots,x_{n}$ in $n$ indeterminates over $\mathrm{F}_{p}$ is a homogeneous polynomial in $F_{p}[x_{1},x_{2},\ldots,x_{n}]$ of degree 2, that is,
$$f(x_{1},x_{2},\ldots,x_{n})=\sum\limits_{i,j=1}^{n}a_{i,j}x_{i}x_{j}\ \ \mathrm{with}\ a_{i,j}=a_{j,i}\in \mathrm{F}_{p}.$$
\end{definition}
The $n\times n$ matrix $A$ whose $(i,j)$ entry is $a_{i,j}$ is called the coefficient matrix of $f$. From \cite{9}, we know that every quadratic form over $\mathrm{F}_{p}$ is equivalent to a diagonal quadratic form $a_{1}x_{1}^{2}+a_{2}x_{2}^{2}+\cdots+a_{r}x_{r}^{2}$ over $F_{p}$, where $r\leq n$ is called the rank of $f$. For any $b\in F_{p}$, the number of solutions of $f(x_{1},x_{2},\ldots,x_{n})=b$ is equal to the number of solutions of $a_{1}x_{1}^{2}+a_{2}x_{2}^{2}+\cdots+a_{r}x_{r}^{2}=b$. We denote $\triangle=a_{1}a_{2}\cdots a_{r}$, then $\triangle$ is called the determinant of $f$.
\begin{definition}(\cite{9})
The quadratic character of $\mathrm{F}_{p^{n}}$ is defined as
$$ \eta(x)=\left\{
\begin{array}{lll}
\ 1,\ \ \ \mathrm{if}\ x \mathrm{\ is\ a \ nonzero\ square\ in}\ \mathrm{GF}(p^{n})\\
-1,\ \ \mathrm{if}\ x \ \mathrm{is\ a\ nonsquare\ in}\ \mathrm{GF}(p^{n})\\
\ 0,\ \ \ \ \mathrm{if}\ x=0.
\end{array}
\right. $$
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}(\cite{9})
The canonical additive of $\mathrm{F}_{p^{n}}$ is defined as
$$\chi(x)=\sum\limits_{x\in \mathrm{F}_{p^{n}}}\omega^{Tr_{1}^{n}(x)}.$$
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}(\cite{9})
The Gaussian sum $G(\eta,\chi)$ of $\eta$ and $\chi$ is defined as
$$G(\eta,\chi)=\sum\limits_{x\in F_{p^{n}}^{\ast}}\eta(x)\chi(x).$$
\end{definition}
\section{The ranks of two quadratic forms}
In this section, we will give some results to prove our main theorem. First, using the similar method of \cite{7} or \cite{8}, we can get the following four lemmas.
\begin{lemma}
Let the symbols be defined as in section 2. Then the cross-correlation between $ \{s_{t}\}$ and $\{s_{dt}\}$ is given by
\begin{align}
C_{d}(\tau)=-1+C(-1,c)&=-1+\sum\limits_{x\in F_{p^{n}}}\chi(-x^{d}+cx)\nonumber\\
&=-1+\frac{1}{2}\left(E(-1,c)+E(-\alpha^{d},c\alpha)\right)\nonumber
\end{align}
where $c=\alpha^{\tau}$, and
$
E(a,b)=\sum\limits_{x\in \mathrm{F}_{p^{n}}}\chi(ax^{p^{m}+1}+bx^{p^{m+e}+1}).
$
Further, $q_{a,b}(x)=\mathrm{Tr}_{1}^{n}(ax^{p^{m}+1}+bx^{p^{m+e}+1})$
is a quadratic form over $\mathrm{F}_{p}$.\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ $\Box$
\end{lemma}
Let $r_{a,b}$ be the rank of the quadratic form $q_{a,b}(x)$. Then the following Lemma can be derived from Corollary 5 of \cite{7}.
\begin{lemma}
Let $p\equiv1\ \mathrm{mod}\ 4$. Let $\triangle$ is the determinant of $q_{a,b}(x)$, where $x\in \mathrm{F}_{p^{n}}$. Then we have
$$E(a,b)=\sum\limits_{x\in \mathrm{F}_{p}^{n}}\omega^{q_{a,b}(x)}=\pm p^{n-\frac{r_{a,b}}{2}},$$
where $\pm$ depends on $\eta(\triangle)$ and $\eta$ is the quadratic character of $F_{p}$.\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ $\Box$
\end{lemma}
By Lemmas 1 and 2, in order to compute $C_{d}(\tau)$, we need to find the values of $r_{-1,c}$ and $r_{-\alpha^{d},c\alpha}$ . The following Lemma which can be found in \cite{7} or \cite{4} gives us a method to compute them.
\begin{lemma}(\cite{7},\cite{4})
Let $f(x)\in \mathrm{F}_{p^{n}}[x]$ can be expressed as a quadratic form in $\mathrm{GF}(p)[x_1, x_2, \cdots x_n]$, where $x\in \mathrm{F}_{p^{n}}$. Furthermore, let
$$Y=\{y\in\mathrm{F}_{p^{n}}:f(x+y)=f(x)\ \mathrm{for}\ \mathrm{all}\ x\in \mathrm{F}_{p^{n}}\}.$$
Then rank($f$)=$n-\mathrm{Log}_{p}|Y|$.\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ $\Box$
\end{lemma}
Using Lemma 3 and the method of \cite{7} or \cite{8}, we can get the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}
Let the symbols be defined as before. Then the number of solutions of $q_{a,b}(x+y)=q_{a,b}(x)$ for all $x\in F_{p^{n}}$ is equal to the number of solutions of
\begin{align}
b^{p^{m+e}}y^{p^{2e}}+\left(a^{p^{m+e}}+a^{p^{e}}\right)y^{p^{e}}+by=0 \label{1}
\end{align}
in $\mathrm{F}_{p^{n}}$. Furthermore, Since Eq.(\ref{1}) is a $\mathrm{F}_{p^{e}}$-linearized polynomial, we know that the number of the solutions of it is $1$, $p^{e}$ or $p^{2e}$. Hence, $r_{a,b}=n$, $n-e$ or $n-2e$.\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ $\Box$
\end{lemma}
In fact, we can get further result about $E(-\alpha^{d},c\alpha)$. To this end, we need the following lemmas and corollary.
\begin{lemma}(Theorem 5.30 of \cite{9})
Let the symbols be defined as in section 2. Then
$$\sum\limits_{x\in F_{p^{n}}}\chi(ax^{2})=\eta(a)G(\eta,\chi),$$
where $a\in \mathrm{F}^{\ast}$.\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ $\Box$
\end{lemma}
\begin{lemma}(Theorem 5.16 of \cite{9})
Let the symbols be defined as in section 2. Then
$$
G(\eta,\chi)=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\ p^{m}\ \ \ \ \mathrm{if}\ \frac{p^{m}+1}{2}\ \mathrm{even},\\
-p^{m}\ \ \ \mathrm{if}\ \frac{p^{m}+1}{2}\ \mathrm{odd}.
\end{array}
\right.
$$
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ $\Box$
\end{lemma}
\begin{corollary}
Let the symbols be defined as in section 2. Then we have
$$\sum\limits_{x\in F_{p^{n}}}\chi(a x^{2})=-\eta(a)p^{m},$$
where $a\in \mathrm{F}^{\ast}$.
\end{corollary}
{\bf Proof:} Note that $\frac{p^{m}+1}{2}$ is odd when $p\equiv1\ \mathrm{mod}\ 4$. Combining Lemmas 5 and 6, the result follows. \ \ \ \ $\Box$
\begin{lemma}
Let the symbols be defined as before. Then\\
(1) $E(-\alpha^{d},c\alpha)=\eta(c)p^{m}$.\\
(2) $r_{-\alpha^{d},c\alpha}=n$.
\end{lemma}
{\bf Proof:} (1) Similar to the proof of Lemma 1 in \cite{8}, we can get
$$E(-\alpha^{d},c\alpha)=\sum\limits_{x\in F_{p^{n}}}\chi(c\alpha x^{2}).$$
Note that $\alpha$ is a nonsquare in $\mathrm{F}_{p^{n}}$. By Corollary 1, we can get
$$E(-\alpha^{d},c\alpha)=-\eta(c\alpha)p^{m}=(-1)\eta(\alpha)\eta(c)p^{m}=\eta(c)p^{m}.$$
(2) By lemma 2 and the above result, we can get that $r_{-\alpha^{d},c\alpha}=n$.\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ $\Box$
Combining Lemmas 1, 2, 4 and 7, we can get the following corollary.
\begin{corollary}
Let the symbols be defined as above. Then we have
$$E(-1,c)\in \{\pm p^{m},\ \pm p^{m+\frac{e}{2}},\ \pm p^{m+e}\},\ E(-\alpha^{d},c\alpha)\in\{\pm p^{m}\}$$
and
$$C(-1,c)\in \{0,\ \pm p^{m},\ \frac{1\pm p^{\frac{e}{2}}}{2}p^{m},\ \frac{-1\pm p^{\frac{e}{2}}}{2}p^{m},\ \frac{\pm(1- p^{e})}{2}p^{m},\ \frac{\pm(1 +p^{e})}{2}p^{m}\}.$$
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ $\Box$
\end{corollary}
In fact, we can prove $C(-1,c)\neq\frac{-1\pm p^{\frac{e}{2}}}{2}p^{m}$. Before proving it, we need the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}
( \cite{5} ) Let $g_{\upsilon}(z)=z^{p^{e}+1}-\upsilon z+\upsilon$, where $\upsilon\in F_{p^{n}}^{\ast}$. Then the following results hold.\\
(1) The Equation $g_{\upsilon}(z)=0$ has either 0, 1, 2, or $p^{e}+1$ roots in $F_{p^{n}}$.\\
(2) If $g_{\upsilon}(z)=0$ has only one root in $F_{p^{n}}$, then $c$ is a square element in $F_{p^{n}}$;\\
(3) Let $N_{1}$ denote the number of $\upsilon\in F_{p^{n}}^{\ast}$ such that $g_{\upsilon}(z)=0$ has only one root in $F_{p^{n}}$. Then
$N_{1}=p^{n-e}.$\\
(4) If $g_{\upsilon}(z)=0$ has only one root $z_{0}$ in $F_{p^{n}}$, then $z_{0}$ satisfies $(z_{0}-1)^{\frac{p^{n}-1}{p^{e}-1}}=1,$
i.e., $z_{0}-1$ is a $(p^{e}-1)$th power in $F_{p^{n}}.$\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ $\Box$
\end{lemma}
\begin{lemma}
Let the symbols be defined as before. Then the following two results hold.\\
(1) If $r_{-1,c}=n-e$, then $c$ is a square in $F_{p^{n}}^{\ast}$ and $E(-\alpha^{d},c\alpha)=p^{m}$. Consequently, we get $C(-1,c)\neq\frac{-1\pm p^{\frac{e}{2}}}{2}p^{m}$.\\
(2) Let $N_{e}$ be the number of $c^{'}$s such that $r_{-1,c}=n-e$, where $c\in F_{p^{n}}^{\ast}$. Then $N_{e}=p^{m-e}(p^{m}+1)$.
\end{lemma}
{\bf Proof:} (1) Let $f_{c}(x)=c^{p^{m+e}}x^{p^{2e}}-2x^{p^{e}}+cx$, $y=x^{p^{e}-1}$ and $z=\frac{2}{c}y$. By Lemma 4, for $r_{-1,c}=n-e$, we know that the equation $f_{c}(x)=0$ has $p^{e}-1$ nonzero solutions in $F_{p^{n}}^{\ast}$ and that any two such solutions $x_{1}$, $x_{2}$ satisfy $x_{1}^{p^{e}-1}=x_{2}^{p^{e}-1}$, i.e.,
$g_{c}(y)=c^{p^{m+e}}y^{p^{e}+1}-2y+c=0$ has only one solution $y_{0}$ and $y_{0}$ is a $(p^{e}-1)$th power in $F_{p^{n}}^{\ast}$. Further, $g_{c}(y)=0$ has only one solution in $F_{p^{n}}^{\ast}$ if and only if $g_{\upsilon}(z)=0$ has only one solution $z_{0}\in F_{p^{n}}^{\ast}$, where
$\upsilon=\frac{4}{c^{(p^{m}+1)p^{e}}}$. Note that $c=\alpha^{\tau}$ and that $\beta=\alpha^{p^{m}+1}$ is a primitive element in $F_{p^{m}}$. Then we have $c^{p^{m}+1}=\beta^{\tau}$ and $\upsilon=4\beta^{-\tau p^{e}}\in F_{p^{m}}^{\ast}$. By the same argument as that of Lemma 4 in \cite{8}, we can get that $g_{\upsilon}(z)=0$ has only one root in $F_{p^{n}}^{\ast}$ if and only if $g_{\upsilon}(z)=0$ has only one root in $F_{p^{m}}^{\ast}$. By Lemma 8 (2), when $g_{\upsilon}(z)=0$ has only one root in $F_{p^{m}}^{\ast}$ the element $\upsilon$ is a square in $F_{p^{m}}^{\ast}$, which implies that $\tau$ is even and that $c$ is a square in $F_{p^{n}}$.
(2) Since $\upsilon=\frac{4}{c^{(p^{m}+1)p^{e}}}=\left(\frac{2}{c^{p^{e}}}\right)^{p^{m}+1}\in F_{p^{m}}^{\ast}$, then $\upsilon$ runs through $p^{m}+1$ times all the elements in $F_{p^{m}}^{\ast}$ when $c$ runs through all the nonzero element in $F_{p^{2m}}^{\ast}$. By Lemma 8 (3), there are $p^{m-e}$ $\upsilon^{'}$s such that $g_{\upsilon}(z)=0$ has only one root in $F_{p^{m}}^{\ast}$ when $\upsilon$ runs through all the elements in $F_{p^{m}}^{\ast}$. Hence, there are $p^{m-e}(p^{m}+1)$ $c^{'}$s in $F_{p^{2m}}^{\ast}$ such that $g_{\upsilon}(z)=0$ has only one root in $F_{p^{m}}^{\ast}$. By the argument of (1), there also are $p^{m-e}(p^{m}+1)$ $c^{'}$s such that $g_{c}(y)=0$ has only one root in $F_{p^{n}}^{\ast}$. Let $c_{0}$ be any one of $p^{m-e}(p^{m}+1)$ $c^{'}$s and let $y_{0}\in F_{p^{2m}}^{\ast}$ be the only root of $g_{c_{0}}(y)=0$. Next, we will prove that $y_{0}$ must be a $(p^{e}-1)$th power in $F_{p^{2m}}^{\ast}$, i.e., $y_{0}^{\frac{p^{2m}-1}{p^{e}-1}}=1$. Let $z_{0}=\frac{2}{c_{0}}y_{0}\in F_{p^{m}}^{\ast}$. Then $z_{0}^{p^{e}+1}-\frac{4}{c_{0}^{(p^{m}+1)p^{e}}}z_{0}+\frac{4}{c_{0}^{(p^{m}+1)p^{e}}}=0$, i.e., $z_{0}-1=\frac{c_{0}^{(p^{m}+1)p^{e}}z_{0}^{p^{e}+1}}{4}$. By Lemma 8 (4), $(z_{0}-1)^{\frac{p^{m}-1}{p^{e}-1}}=\left(\frac{c_{0}^{(p^{m}+1)p^{e}}z_{0}^{p^{e}+1}}{4}\right)^{\frac{p^{m}-1}{p^{e}-1}}=\left(\frac{c_{0}^{p^{m}+1}z_{0}^{2}}{4} \right)^{\frac{p^{m}-1}{p^{e}-1}}=\left(\frac{c_{0}^{p^{m}+1}(\frac{2}{c_{0}}y_{0})^{2}}{4} \right)^{\frac{p^{m}-1}{p^{e}-1}}=\left(c_{0}^{p^{m}-1}y_{0}^{2}\right)^{\frac{p^{m}-1}{p^{e}-1}}=1$, which implies that there exists an element $\theta\in \mathrm{F}_{p^{m}}$ such that $c_{0}^{p^{m}-1}y_{0}^{2}=\theta^{p^{e}-1}$, i.e., $y_{0}^{\frac{p^{n}-1}{p^{e}-1}}=\left[\frac{\theta^{p^{e}-1}}{c_{0}^{p^{m}-1}}\right]^{\frac{p^{n}-1}{2(p^{e}-1)}}=\frac{\theta^{(p^{m}-1)\cdot\frac{p^{m}+1}{2}}}{c_{0}^{\frac{p^{m}-1}{p^{e}-1} \frac{p^{n}-1}{2}}}=\frac{1}{\left[c_{0}^{\frac{p^{n}-1}{2}}\right]^{\frac{p^{m}-1}{p^{e}-1}}}=1$. By the result of (1), we know that $c_{0}$ is a square in $F_{p^{n}}$, then $c_{0}^{\frac{p^{n}-1}{2}}=1$. Hence, we have $y_{0}^{\frac{p^{n}-1}{p^{e}-1}}=1$, i.e., $y_{0}$ is a $(p^{e}-1)$th power in $F_{p^{n}}$. The result follows.\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ $\Box$
In the next section, we will find the equations which are satisfied by $E(-1,c)$ and $C(-1,c)$ in order to determine the distribution of $C(-1,c)$ or $C_{d}(\tau)$.
\section{The distribution of $C_{d}(\tau)$}
First, using the method of \cite{10},we can get the following Lemma.
\begin{lemma}
Let the symbols be defined as above. We have the following results:\\
(1) $\sum\limits_{c\in F_{p^{2m}}}E(-1,c)=p^{2m}$; $E(-1,0)=-p^{m}$;\\
(2) $\sum\limits_{c\in F_{p^{2m}}}\left[E(-1,c)\right]^{2}=(2p^{2m}-1)p^{2m}$;\\
(3) $\sum\limits_{c\in F_{p^{2m}}}C(-1,c)=p^{2m}$; $C(-1,0)=\frac{1}{2}(p^{m}-1)p^{m}$;\\
(4) $\sum\limits_{c\in F_{p^{2m}}}\left[C(-1,c)\right]^{2}=p^{4m}$.\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ $\Box$
\end{lemma}
\begin{corollary}
Let $N_{i}=|\{c\in \mathrm{F}_{p^{n}}^{\ast}|r_{-1,c}=n-i\}|$, where $i=0,e,2e$. Then we have
\begin{align}
&N_{0}=\frac{(p^{m+2e}-p^{m+e}-p^{m}-p^{2e}+2)(p^{m}+1)}{p^{2e}-1},\nonumber\\
&N_{e}=p^{m-e}(p^{m}+1),\nonumber\\
&N_{2e}=\frac{(p^{m-e}-1)(p^{m}+1)}{p^{2e}-1}.\nonumber
\end{align}
\end{corollary}
{\bf Proof:} By Lemma 9 (2), we know that $N_{e}=p^{m-e}(p^{m}+1)$. Note that $N_{0}+N_{e}+N_{2e}=p^{2m}-1.$ Further, by Lemma 10 (2), we have
$$N_{0}+N_{e}p^{e}+N_{2e}p^{2e}=2(p^{2m}-1).$$
Straightforward calculation gives the result.\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ $\Box$
Combining the machinery in \cite{10}, \cite{8} and \cite{7}, we have the following results.
\begin{lemma}
Let the symbols be defined as above. Then\\
(1)$\sum\limits_{c\in F_{p^{2m}}}\left[E(-1,c)\right]^{3}=(-p^{2m}+p^{m+e}+p^{e})p^{3m}.$\\
(2)$\sum\limits_{c\in F_{p^{2m}}}\left[C(-1,c)\right]^{3}=\frac{1}{8}p^{3m}(p^{3m}-p^{2m}+p^{m+e}+6p^{m}+p^{e}).$
\end{lemma}
\begin{corollary}
Let
$N_{i,\epsilon}=|\{c\in \mathrm{F}_{p^{n}}^{\ast}|E(-1,c)=\epsilon p^{m+\frac{i}{2}}\}|,$
where $i=0,e,2e$ and $\epsilon=\pm1$. Then we have
\begin{align}
&N_{0,1}=\frac{(p^{m+e}-1)(p^{m}+1)}{2(p^{e}+1)},\ \ N_{0,-1}=\frac{(p^{m+e}-2p^{m}-2p^{e}+3)(p^{m}+1)}{2(p^{e}-1)},\nonumber\\
&N_{e,1}=N_{e,-1}=\frac{1}{2}p^{m-e}(p^{m}+1),\nonumber\\
&N_{2e,1}=0,\ N_{2e,-1}=\frac{(p^{m-e}-1)(p^{m}+1)}{p^{2e}-1}.\nonumber
\end{align}
\end{corollary}
{\bf Proof:} Using Corollary 3, Lemma 10 (1) and Lemma 11 (1), we know that
\begin{align}
&N_{0,1}+N_{0,-1}=N_{0}=\frac{(p^{m+2e}-p^{m+e}-p^{m}-p^{2e}+2)(p^{m}+1)}{p^{2e}-1},\nonumber\\
&N_{e,1}+N_{e,-1}=N_{e}=p^{m-e}(p^{m}+1),\nonumber\\
&N_{2e,1}+N_{2e,-1}=N_{2e}=\frac{(p^{m-e}-1)(p^{m}+1)}{p^{2e}-1}.\nonumber\\
&(N_{0,1}-N_{0,-1})+p^{\frac{e}{2}}(N_{e,1}-N_{e,-1})+p^{e}(N_{2e,1}-N_{2e,-1})=p^{m}+1,\label{16}\\
&(N_{0,1}-N_{0,-1})+p^{\frac{3e}{2}}(N_{e,1}-N_{e,-1})+p^{3e}(N_{2e,1}-N_{2e,-1})=(p^{m}+1)(-p^{m}+p^{e}+1).\label{17}
\end{align}
Note that both $p^{\frac{e}{2}}$ and $p^{\frac{3e}{2}}$ are irrational numbers. Eqs. (\ref{16}) and (\ref{17}) imply that $N_{e,1}=N_{e,-1}$.
Straightforward calculation gives the result.\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ $\Box$
\begin{theorem}
Let $n=2m$, $e|m$, where $m$ is odd. Let $p\equiv1\ \mathrm{mod}\ 4$ and $d=\frac{(p^{m}-1)^{2}}{2(p^{e}+1)}$. Then we get the distribution of the cross correlation $C_{d}(\tau)$ in the following.
\begin{align}
&-1\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \mathrm{occurs} \ \ \ \ \ \frac{(p^{m+e}-2p^{m}-2p^{e}+3)(p^{m}+1)}{2(p^{e}-1)}\ \ \mathrm{times}\nonumber\\
&p^{m}-1\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \mathrm{occurs}\ \ \ \ \ \frac{(p^{e}-1)(p^{m}+1)^{2}}{4(p^{e}+1)}\ \ \mathrm{times}\nonumber\\
&-p^{m}-1\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \mathrm{occurs} \ \ \ \ \ \ \frac{p^{2m}-1}{4}\ \ \mathrm{times}\nonumber\\
&\frac{1\pm p^{\frac{e}{2}}}{2}p^{m}-1\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \mathrm{occurs}\ \ \ \ \ \frac{1}{2}p^{m-e}(p^{m}+1)\ \ \mathrm{times}\nonumber\\
&\frac{1-p^{e}}{2}p^{m}-1\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \mathrm{occurs}\ \ \ \ \ \frac{(p^{m-e}-1)(p^{m}+1)}{p^{2e}-1}\ \ \mathrm{times}\nonumber
\end{align}
\end{theorem}
Proof: For convenience, we denote
\begin{align}
N_{i,\epsilon_{1},\epsilon_{2}}=|\{c\in F_{p^{2m}}^{\ast}|E(-1,c)=\epsilon_{1}p^{m+\frac{i}{2}}\ \mathrm{and}\ E(-\alpha^{d},c\alpha)=\epsilon_{2}p^{m}\}|,\nonumber
\end{align}
where $i\in\{0,e,2e\}$, $\epsilon_{1}=\pm1$, and $\epsilon_{2}=\pm1.$
By Lemma 9 (1), we know that
\begin{align}
N_{e,1,-1}=N_{e,-1,-1}=0.\label{42.1}
\end{align}
On the other hand, by Corollary 4, we know that
$$N_{e,1}=N_{e,1,1}+N_{e,1,-1}=N_{e,-1}=N_{e,-1,1}+N_{e,-1,-1}=\frac{1}{2}p^{m-e}(p^{m}+1),$$
then we can get
\begin{align}
N_{e,1,1}=N_{e,-1,1}=\frac{1}{2}p^{m-e}(p^{m}+1).\label{42.2}
\end{align}
Again, by Corollary 4, we can get
\begin{align}
N_{0,1,1}+N_{0,1,-1}&=N_{0,1}=\frac{(p^{m+e}-1)(p^{m}+1)}{2(p^{e}+1)},\label{43}\\
N_{0,-1,1}+N_{0,-1,-1}&=N_{0,-1}=\frac{(p^{m+e}-2p^{m}-2p^{e}+3)(p^{m}+1)}{2(p^{e}-1)},\label{44}\\
N_{2e,1,1}+N_{2e,1,-1}&=N_{2e,1}=0,\label{45}\\
N_{2e,-1,1}+N_{2e,-1,-1}&=N_{2e,-1}=\frac{(p^{m-e}-1)(p^{m}+1)}{p^{2e}-1}\label{46}
\end{align}
Further, by Lemma 10 (3),(4) and Lemma 11 (2), we can get
\begin{align}
(N_{0,1,1}-N_{0,-1,-1})+\frac{1-p^{e}}{2}N_{2e,-1,1}&-\frac{1+p^{e}}{2}N_{2e,-1,-1}\nonumber\\
&=\frac{1}{2}(-p^{m-e}+1)(p^{m}+1),\label{47}\\
(N_{0,1,1}+N_{0,-1,-1})+(\frac{1-p^{e}}{2})^{2}N_{2e,-1,1}&+(\frac{1+p^{e}}{2})^{2}N_{2e,-1,-1}\nonumber\\
&=\frac{1}{4}(2p^{m}-p^{m-e}-1)(p^{m}+1)\label{48}\\
(N_{0,1,1}-N_{0,-1,-1})+(\frac{1-p^{e}}{2})^{3}N_{2e,-1,1}&-(\frac{1+p^{e}}{2})^{3}N_{2e,-1,-1}\nonumber\\
&=\frac{1}{8}(2p^{m}+p^{e}+1)(p^{m}+1).\label{49}
\end{align}
Combining Eqs. (4.40-4.48), we can get the result.\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ $\Box$
\begin{remark}
For $p=5$ and $e=1$ in Theorem 1, the magnitude of the cross-correlation is upper bounded by $2\sqrt{p^{n}}+1$. This is meaningful in CDMA communication systems.
\end{remark}
|
Subsets and Splits